HOWY

My girlfriend has an old ford escort not sure which version but one of the later ones its done about 80,000 miles runs ok and is due for its MOT. A small dealer has said its due for a timing belt change approx £130 however he is saying that it might end up costing another £600 to fix as their may be damage.
Surely if the timing belt hasn't broken there shouldn't be any damage and what would this likely be. It's certainly not worth spending £600 on a car of this age.
What do you reckon is it a case of tring to con a woman who doesn't understand cars?

john_s

iTrader: (1)

Could be... I'd ask what damage there is that need £600's worth of repairs.

John.

Shark Man

Basically what he is saying if the belt isn't changed and it breaks it'll cost £600 in new valves and cylinder head work to fix it - that's providing it suffers typical damage and a valve doesn't snap off a completely wrecking the engine (it can happen, but not too often) - in which case your talking thousands.

So, £160 now or £600+ later when it breaks?

Check your the service book for when the cambelt is due which I think is around 80K or 5 years on the latest shape Escort (60K on older models) - whichever is sooner. Either way if it has never been changed - it should have been changed at least once by now.

Dracoro

The belt may not appear damaged but could be stretched which could affect the timing. However, unless it's running badly I'm don't see how the service guy would know without taking the engine apart.

Ask them what has been damaged and that you'll want to see the evidence first. You'll also want the fixed bits back afterwards. Probably scare off the scammers. If he's OK with the above then at least you know the cars near the end. Given the age, run it to the ground, don't just scrap it if it's not dead. After all, it'll still be OK for the MOT, the state of the engine is not an MOT requirement as long as it passes relevant emissions tests.

turboman786

Why not get a 2nd opinion from a garage that you trust?

john_s

iTrader: (1)

Having re-read the post, I think Shark Man's take on the situation could be correct.

John.