I have a 626 with about 67,000 miles on the car. About a year ago I had it into a shop to have spark plugs replaced and I was asking the guy if a timing belt blow on my Mazda would cause further damage. He said that it wouldn't and that if it was his car, he would just wait until it goes to have it replaced. Is that true?? I've heard about interference engines and I'm not sure what that means, but I've read that a blown Mazda timing belt will cause a lot of problems. Which is correct? How do I know if my car has an interference engine? Should I be safe and have it replaced soon or just wait until it goes like my shop guy suggested? Thanks.

 

This is the STUPIDEST G^$ D*&#$@ THING I'VE EVER HEARD!

The above comment is NO WAY directed to the author of this post.

Anyways, I would definetly have your timing belt replaced. An interference engine is one that when a timing belt breaks the pistons clash with the valves. I cannot say for sure if this car is or not.

It could not hurt to get it changed. It all comes down to a good question...how much is peace of mind worth?

I would NEVER go to a guy that gives recommendations like that, sounds like he is not too familiar with working on cars or has limited experience and dosen't want or have the knowledge to work on yours.

 

bkey - thanks for your reply. I think the reason he suggested what he did is that he looked my car up online and thought that it was the type of timing belt that wouldn't cause further damage to the car if it broke, so he figured that it would be fine to keep driving it until it goes. I actually was impressed that he suggested that because as a woman who knows nothing about cars, I can easily be screwed by shops or dealerships and never know it. He could have easily told me that I definitely should get it replaced by 60k and I would believe it. The reason for my post is because I did a little research and it seems like most Mazdas have the type of belt that would cause further damage to the car if it broke.

Further question: how do I find out for certain if my car has an interference engine or not? Thanks.

 

I just considered the comment from above similar to saying you only need to refuel when you run out of gas and the car stalls or only add oil when the engine seizes up. When timing belts break they give no warning when they will go. It can cause you to break down at the worst time, like when it is freezing cold for example. I believe in preventative maintenance. If you have your owners manual there should be a schedule for maintenance. I replace mine at 60K.

I cannot tell you where to look on the interference engine question. It would be best to presume yours is and get it done at the recommended time. Don't take an expensive chance. But if you do like to gamble, I'll see ya in Vegas!

[sm=happybounce.gif]

 

thanks for your advice!

 

I agree with you, bkey that preventive maintenance is a good thing, but the world is changing and becoming more disposable, and each person must find the right balance.

The continue with the gasoline analogy, one can go overboard with preventive maint by stopping at every gas station just to top off the tank, to make sure they have the freshest gas, and there is no empty space in the tank where condensation may form. The flip side, if gas gets really expensive, and your car is carbureted (so it starts OK after starving it of fuel), then perhaps you want to go as many miles as possible before filling, even if the risk is coasting to the side of the road 5 miles shy of the gas station.

We all agree both those scenarios are ridiculous, but we have to find the right balance between them.

I'll describe my real world timing belt scenario. in 2002, I began a job with a long commute (90 miles one way), so I wanted extremely inexpensive transportation that got great mileage. I decided purchasing a Kia new was the best choice...$11,000, a 10 year/100k warranty, 33mpg. If I do nothing to this car except oil change, brakes, tires, and everything else is covered for 100k under warranty, then it cost me $.11 per mile to run and I can crumple it up and throw it away at 100k. If, for instance, I changed the transmission fluid at 60k, and flush the coolant every 30k, run Mobil1 to prevent piston ring wear, yadda, yadda, yadda,...I might've spent another $2k or $3k on PM type items, all to have a great car at 100k that will fetch me about $1500 on trade in.

What actually happened is this. I ran the car without any need to utilize the warranty. I did oil changes every 4k, did brakes and rotors when they wore out, replaced tires at about 45k and 90k. Did pretty much nothing else. Rolled past 100k in just over 3 years. at 113,736, the car coasted to the side of the road with a broken timing belt. I was prepared to remove the license plates and walk away, but I decided to investigate options on fixing it or trading it. Trailered it home, put it in the garage. Changed the timing belt, but sure enough, interference engine, broke all the valves. Went to Kia to investigate trade-in value for a 3 year old car with a blown motor...nothing, nada, no value whatsoever, not even owner-loyalty points.

Didn't want to do a valve job. It seemed like it would cost around $500...even the head gasket was over $100. Found a local junkyard that had a rollover Kia with 30k on the motor. They wouldn't sell me just the head, so I bought the whole motor for $400. Borrowed an engine hoist and swapped the motor over a weekend. Ran the car without any problems another 5k miles, until I got the itch to upgrade the look. Traded it for $1500 and got my '06 Mazda 6 this past december.

Totalled all my costs, not counting fuel or oil changes, and the Kia cost me less than $.09 per mile, and got 33.2mpg over the life of the car.

My only point of this long-winded rambling is that in today's disposable world, I don't think the decision between PM'ing and letting-it-go is so clear cut as it used to be.

Don"t get me wrong, I'm a fan of PM'ing, this Kia was a personal experiment for going the other way (and it ended up making a pretty strong argument).

 

I agree with that idea of seeing how far you can push it. It depends if you plan on keeping the car for a long time and drive a lot. There are many factors. I used to work on cars for a living (primarily GM) and can appreciate someone who knows their way around a wrench. That engine replacement job could have ran approx $2000+ at a shop. Considering the different oil change schedules if you switch to synthetic oils, it will actually cost less in the long run...already covered this subject in another topic. I know someone that has a 85 Cadillac with the dreaded 4100 engine. If you are familiar with this engine/trans combo, you are lucky to reach 100K. He took this car from new and went with Amsoil synthetic and now has 400,000+ Miles on the original powertrain. This was not supposed to happen! I do not prefer to test the limits of my car, although I could fix any part on it. And I own an engine crane...I do not want to use it unless I have to.