Timing belts

As far as I know, the 97 and 98 engines are identical. So it's
probably just a marketing move to better match competitors like
Honda's 105K mile intervals that they had for ages.

The older cars still are on the 60K schedule. But if owners drive only
12K miles a year instead of 15K, then IMO they should change at 60K
miles. Even those who drive 15K miles will benefit at 60K with the 4-
cyl, because without an automatic tensioner the belt stretches and
becomes loose. But it probably won't make a difference to most
owners.


On Jan 28, 11:30 pm, "Pszemol" wrote:
>
> Has the engine changed in 1998?
> Or just the schedule was changed/revised?
>
> Does it affect model years 1998 and newer?
> Or does it update schedules for older model years, too?

WMB wrote:
> I changed my 96 4 cyl at 60K and again at 120K. At 120K it was cracked
> pretty bad and the idlers were both making noise.
> If it breaks while you are on the highway, a piston could come up and hit a
> valve....then you got major problems.
>
>

How much time elapsed? I changed a badly cracked belt in an 85 Corolla,
but the car was about 15 years old at the time. Only 60K on the clock.