Renault Clio RS 182
Like many of us on here now, I use my 182 sparingly. 3 years and just under 3000 miles ago I took the engine/transmission out of the car and replaced just about everything. Among the many items I replaced were all the belts. I used brand new genuine Renault ones. Now the change interval for the timing belt is the sooner of 5 years or 72,000 miles.
I fully get the mileage limit. The belt will have been under load, experienced the effects of wear, friction etc... and will become fragile. But like many of us on here, I won't have done a tenth of that mileage in the 5 years. So my question is why would I still need to change it ?
I've read that the belts perish with age. But given that the belt doesn't have a use by date on it, and is quite likely to have been manufactured years before it was sold, the elapsed time to failure is surely indeterminate ?
A second thought is to do with the fact the belt is under slight tension when fitted to the car and is not when it's sitting in a box. However, although rubber is used in the manufacture of the belt, the tensile strength is borne by kevlar bands which will only deteriorate if subjected to repeated load. So it can't be that.
A third thought I had is to do with the fact that when in the car the belt is exposed to climatic variations - cold, hot etc.. but again, there isn't anything on the packaging to say it must be stored between a certain temperature interval prior to use so in essence could have lived a life of temperature extremes in a warehouse prior to sale.
If it were a trivial job to do, then of course I'd do it as a matter of course... and I am aware that it's not worth the risk of failure... but I would like to properly understand why we will alll be undertaking this godforsaken pain every five years with these cars that will have done little to no mileage in between. Maybe somebody more learned than me can explain.
I fully get the mileage limit. The belt will have been under load, experienced the effects of wear, friction etc... and will become fragile. But like many of us on here, I won't have done a tenth of that mileage in the 5 years. So my question is why would I still need to change it ?
I've read that the belts perish with age. But given that the belt doesn't have a use by date on it, and is quite likely to have been manufactured years before it was sold, the elapsed time to failure is surely indeterminate ?
A second thought is to do with the fact the belt is under slight tension when fitted to the car and is not when it's sitting in a box. However, although rubber is used in the manufacture of the belt, the tensile strength is borne by kevlar bands which will only deteriorate if subjected to repeated load. So it can't be that.
A third thought I had is to do with the fact that when in the car the belt is exposed to climatic variations - cold, hot etc.. but again, there isn't anything on the packaging to say it must be stored between a certain temperature interval prior to use so in essence could have lived a life of temperature extremes in a warehouse prior to sale.
If it were a trivial job to do, then of course I'd do it as a matter of course... and I am aware that it's not worth the risk of failure... but I would like to properly understand why we will alll be undertaking this godforsaken pain every five years with these cars that will have done little to no mileage in between. Maybe somebody more learned than me can explain.
, but when I got my Clio (13 years/50k miles) there was no evidence of the belts ever being changed so it was one of the first jobs. The belts had Renault markings but were not particularly cracked. However I would not feel happy revving any engine to the limit with an old belt way beyond age spec, so would change it. Otherwise I would be tempted to inspect and review, which is the policy I used on the Clio's predecessor, an old Civic.
