Yup. I agree.
Originally Posted by Remmy700P
Here's a simple analysis that I posted over three years ago:
I expect to keep my '00 Truck about a quarter million miles, which will take me another 14 years. I will change the timing belt twice during that time. If I lengthen the change interval, I'll still change it twice. I would derive no benefit by lengthening the interval. It wouldn't save me a dime, and it would increase the risk of catastrophic failure. The only beneficiary would be whoever buys it from me, as they would get more use of the last belt I'll put in than I would.I stand by that analysis.
Now, wanna hear a story where the opposte scheme held sway?
Way back in the stone age (actually, the summer of '72, which was the summer after my freshman year at university), my future wife spent the summer living with her parents. She worked in the same government building her father worked in.
One day, he made a mid-day business trip such that she drove home from work without him. She drove his vehicle, which was a Chevy Nova that he had bought wrecked and abused, repaired, and had repainted. On the way home, the upper radiator hose blew, spectacularly so.
This left her quite stranded in a rather unsafe part of town, about eight miles from home. These were the days before cell phones, so she had to walk a bit, find a phone booth (remember phone booths?), and call him. He was home, having been dropped off there after his business trip.
She told him the radiator hose blew. His response was, "Yeah, the new one is in the back seat."
She told me about it, and I ate his arse out 'til he needed a Ty-Wrap to keep from crapping his pants. I asked him if he would ever replace that radiator hose a second time before selling the vehicle. He answered, "No." I then pointed out that what he did by waiting until it blew was put his daughter at risk while minimizing the net benefit that he would derive from replacing that hose.
He apologized to her and never pulled a stupid stunt like that again.