Originally Posted by
pezgoon
I had gotten a 1993 volvo 850, it had 73k miles on it and its timing belt was done in 2003 at 50k miles, I replaced the timing belt for the piece of mind but that was a 13 year old belt and when I took it off it literally looked like it had just been put in, there was no even the slightest sign of age no matter how hard I bent it or anything I could do to it showed its age so that's why on this one its like "do I really need to change it" ya know. So I guess I'll take a look at it and see what shape its in, IDK its a very tough decision lol
Also the carfax showed that it was driven pretty regularly every year, about 3-5k a year (each year was different) with one being as high as 9k I think
I feel the same same way about the rest of the components thats why i was going to do just the belt at first but then when I saw the DIY and how much has to come off, I had no plans to do that twice lol so I figured I'd do it all at once (and do the GFB DV+ while I have awesome access to it)
Volvos are super reliable when it comes to Timing Belt and Water Pump maintenance. Most dealers and enthusiasts usually recommend replacing the belt at average 120K while skipping the Water Pump for the second round, or right around 140-150K. But I'd do them all at once to prevent waste of time and costs. Now I'm not suggesting this for our monster-weight Audi B7 but if your car has a good history maintenance and are stock/non-mod, if the belt checked out fine you should be good for a little while. But get it done soon, perhaps under 50K.
I have a 2008 (built date July 2007) with 57K and will be replacing all the timing belt/components and water pump just because it develops the infamous rubbing during cold starts, but quickly dissipates in a minute or two. If good karma is with me then I shall get it replaced no later than 60K mainly due to age. Other than that I take really good care of my car, it is 100% stock and runs pretty much like new.
Speaking of Carfax: I never believe in such b.s. and it is mainly designed as a selling tool. Many cars I've seen including owning some myself in the past has had minor to moderate accidents but Carfax reported them as 'clean'. The way Carfax works; if you report anything to your insurance company, then it records to DMV, in turn, Carfax retrieves them as 'accidents' because they do not categorize the said claims. I had a case with my other car's rear bumper got 'bumped and scratched' by someone but unfortunately they were uninsured (typical L.A.) so my insurance company ended up taking care of me at no fault for the minor nicks and scratches, well, Carfax retrieves and reported it as 'accident'. In the past I've looked at MANY so-called clean cars with Carfax's unreliable data where most had obvious signs of prior damages due to repaints and replacements, missing vins on doors, panels, trunks etc. and were poorly repaired. If all parties agreed aside with work sourced under-the-table, perhaps by a shop they know then most likely the vehicles are accident/free as stated from Carfax. It is all b.s!
Note: also, you can record your own maintenance info with Carfax however way you want.
. Actual work repair order/receipts are the ONLY thing I go by and so should everyone else!
Bookmarks