jdr01930
Guest
|
Posted:
Sun Dec 19, 2004 9:29 pm Post subject:
Timing Belt interval - 94 pathfinder |
|
|
I'm trying to confirm the timing belt interval for my 1994 Pathfinder XE
(4WD, Auto trans). The manual that came with car says 105,000 mile
interval, dealer recommends 60,000 miles. I thought I saw a thread on
nissan timing belts from this era a while back, but can't find it, so
apologies if this is redundant.
My original belt was replaced at 66,000 miles, March 2001 (the dealer put
a sticker near the battery with this info - nice!). Currently I have
121,000 miles on the car, therefore 55,000 on current timing belt.
If I follow the dealers advice, it will need replacement in spring of
2005. I was all set to play it safe and replace at 126,000 miles when I
thought I was going to get many more years from this car. However, it's
very likely I'll only get 2 more years due to frame rot (discussed in
topic called "Rust on frame around wheel wells - 94 Pathfinder").
So - given the car's prognosis and possible 2 year life expectancy, I'm
adding up cost of ownership to hang onto it.
Already got new breaks, new battery, etc before rot was discovered, car
runs/rides beatifully.
1994 seems to be an ambiguous/transitional year. I've done lots of
research and have found conflicting info. For example - one article said
1993.5 and prior, 60,000 miles. 1995 and above was 105,000. 1994 seems to
be lost in transition!!!!
Would this interval be determined more by the belt itself, or engine
design? I don't think the engine itself was redesigned between 93-94.
Would the belt the nissan dealer installed in 2001 be a "105000 mile"
belt? (kinda like when they replaced my lousy manifold studs with
different part # that should last longer)
In 2 years, I'd likely have 75k-80k miles on the existing timing belt if I
don't change it. It the belt likely to handle it?
Thanks - John
|
|
Truck
Guest
|
Posted:
Mon Dec 20, 2004 2:00 am Post subject:
Re: Timing Belt interval - 94 pathfinder |
|
|
Only too happy to help. :-) For the areas that are bad and the
damage that is done, that sounds like a very good price.
For the timing belt, yes the 94-95's service manual `says' that they
can go 105,000 miles. There was a design change of the cam and crank
gears in relation to how the tooth on the belt was shaped or something
along that line that supposedly led to increased life of the belt.
Therein lies the dilemma. :-)
The belt is still made of the same materials as previous model years
and is still VERY susceptible to failure due to age rather than
mileage.
Remember the old thing of every 4 years/40,000 miles replacing your
belts/hoses/etc.? Then they went to 3 years/30,000 miles on some
vehicles due to ozone deterioration and other issues causing coolant
hoses to rot from the inside out (not to mention increased underhood
temperatures, lack of airflow in cramped quarters, etc.). Well the
same thing applies to the timing belt.
That said, I changed the timing belt, timing belt tensioner, water
pump (you're already there...), thermostat, all coolant hoses, drive
belts, etc. when I bought my '95 XE used with 81,000 miles on it.
When I removed that upper timing belt cover, I couldn't believe the
amount of slack that was in that belt! By all rights? It should've
slipped under a good load and stripped some teeth off the belt and
destroyed some valves. So long story short, it was definitely an
investment in the future of my engine. :-)
Since I worked for Nissan and had been doing these for going on 4
years straight, it was a piece of cake. :-) To do everything
(including the full tune-up and bleeding the coolant) took me a full
Saturday but I'm SUPER picky about my vehicle and could easily have
saved an hour or 2 by not cleaning everything (t-belt covers, radiator
housing, took the radiator down to the car wash and blasted the junk
out of the fins, etc.) and shining it up while I had it off. I wanted
that new vehicle visual appeal. :-) A tip if you do it yourself,
while the radiator is out, use your compressed air and blast out the
fins of the condensor as well (blast from the radiator side so you're
in effect pushing the garbage back out the same direction it went in),
you'll never have a better chance.
Good luck, and that Pathfinder will last you for YEARS after you're
done. :-)
Wil
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 11:29:50 -0500, "jdr01930"
<jdr01930@nopsam.adelphia.net> wrote:
| Quote: | I'm trying to confirm the timing belt interval for my 1994 Pathfinder XE
(4WD, Auto trans). The manual that came with car says 105,000 mile
interval, dealer recommends 60,000 miles. I thought I saw a thread on
nissan timing belts from this era a while back, but can't find it, so
apologies if this is redundant.
My original belt was replaced at 66,000 miles, March 2001 (the dealer put
a sticker near the battery with this info - nice!). Currently I have
121,000 miles on the car, therefore 55,000 on current timing belt.
If I follow the dealers advice, it will need replacement in spring of
2005. I was all set to play it safe and replace at 126,000 miles when I
thought I was going to get many more years from this car. However, it's
very likely I'll only get 2 more years due to frame rot (discussed in
topic called "Rust on frame around wheel wells - 94 Pathfinder").
So - given the car's prognosis and possible 2 year life expectancy, I'm
adding up cost of ownership to hang onto it.
Already got new breaks, new battery, etc before rot was discovered, car
runs/rides beatifully.
1994 seems to be an ambiguous/transitional year. I've done lots of
research and have found conflicting info. For example - one article said
1993.5 and prior, 60,000 miles. 1995 and above was 105,000. 1994 seems to
be lost in transition!!!!
Would this interval be determined more by the belt itself, or engine
design? I don't think the engine itself was redesigned between 93-94.
Would the belt the nissan dealer installed in 2001 be a "105000 mile"
belt? (kinda like when they replaced my lousy manifold studs with
different part # that should last longer)
In 2 years, I'd likely have 75k-80k miles on the existing timing belt if I
don't change it. It the belt likely to handle it?
Thanks - John
|
|
|