Timing belt replacement '99 3.0 Mitsubishi

(Sorry if this is been hashed over many times in the past...)

Is there a recommended interval for the timing belt replacement on a
'99 3.0 Mitsubishi Voyager?

The owner's manual doesn't appear to make a concrete statement about
it, and searches of the 'net have not yielded a definitive answer.

 

120,000 Miles at 96 months
a.. Change the engine oil.
b.. Replace the engine oil filter.
c.. Replace the engine air cleaner element (filter)
d.. Replace the ignition cables 2.4 liter and 3.0 liter engines.
e.. Check and replace the PCV valve , if necessary.*
f.. Replace the spark plugs 2.4 liter and 3.0 liter engines.
g.. Inspect the generator belt and power steering pump belt tension,
replace belt if necessary on 2.4 liter engines.
h.. Inspect the serpentine drive belt on 3.3 liter and 3.8 liter engines.
Not required if replaced at 75,000, 90,000 or 105,000 miles.
i.. Replace the engine timing belt on 2.4 liter engine only.
j.. Check and replace, if necessary, the engine timing belt on 3.0 liter
engines. This maintenance is not required if belt was replaced at 90,000
miles (144 000 km)
k.. Inspect the tie rod ends and boot seals.
l.. Drain and refill the transmission fluid.

 

Nope, small inspection cover comes off in five minutes allowing you to
visually inspect belt condition and tension.

Mine (95 Caravan 3.0Ltr) went at 126K, but there are no guarentees when it
comes to a belt. Could just as easily gone at 60K which by the way is the
first sheduled inspection/maintenance point for the belt according to my
manual.

 

it's a 100 k item and i have seen them go 150 k and still usable
keep in mind it drives the water pump and you should replace that and
the cross over tube and orings esp. if you live in the rustbelt

 

And be VERY sure to torque the crankshaft nut(bolt actually) to spec.
Good idea to put a dab of low strength locktite on it too. Not unheard
of to have the bottom pulley walk off - and it chews up the nose of
the crank something awfull.

 

For future reference:
http://www.gates.com/downloads/download_common.cfm?file=TBR05.pdf&folder=brochure
(sluggish downloading lately)

If the Gates guide is right, and the 3.0 listed is the Mitsubishi, then
it's 60k miles. The '99 Voyager is listed under Dodge.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')

 

My 1998 Chrysler sebring Conv. FSM states it should be changed at 120,000
miles

Gates states it is 60,000. I wonder why?

 

Hmmm... maybe to sell more timing belts, you think?

Considering the minivan doesn't get more than about 5K miles a year on
it, I probably get rid of the Vger before I have to worry about the
timing belt replacement.

Thanks everyone for your contribution to this thread. Much
appreciated!

 

It could be an error, **OR** it could have been found that the original
recommendations were found to be overly optimistic - that has happened
before (some Subarus being one example - initial recommendations were
something like 65 or 70k IIRC, but had to be revised to something under
60k). I'm wondering if there is a TSB to change the recommended change
interval on your Sebring. Not saying that is the case, but it very well
could be. At times there has been tremendous political/marketing/legal
pressure on the manufacturer to increase the change interval, perhaps
when it really wasn't warranted by reality (i.e., the capability of the
belt to reliably go the distance).

Some questions: Why can a California car have a much longer change
interval than a non-California car on the same engine? Was it strictly
due to an artificial legal requirement from the state of California?
When you buy a belt for a CA car, is it a different belt than they'd
sell you for a non-CA? If not, are the two belts interchangeable? If
so, why isn't the better belt used and list all variants of the same
engine/vehicle at the same change interval? If there's only one belt
for both applications and the difference in change interval is strictly
legal/artificial, what does that say about the system?

I have trouble believing that there are two different belts that are
non-interchangeable (but I guess it's possible).

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')

 

120k out of the book

 

CARB requirements versus EPA requirements.

 

I guess I don't understand about man-made requirements vs. reality. I
mean, either a given belt on a given engine statistically is good for a
certain mileage or it isn't. No one has answered the other questions,
such as, are we talking about two different belts, one being a CA belt
and designed to last much longer (in which case why doesn't everyone
simply use the CA belt), or is it all a big stupid joke (i.e., arbitrary
numbers all based on the use of one belt design)?

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')

 

Unless, as I pointed out in another post, that has been overridden based
on experience as has sometimes occurred. And maybe it hasn't - but the
book isn't always the final answer.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')

 

And neither from an aftermarket company promoting a sale earlier the the OEM
manufacturer. OEM dealers like to service and make money also, but I find it
funny that the intervals are a lot longer on the OEM point! Actually double
the mileage! Who is right?

 

The belts are the same, one doesn't last longer than the other
because they're the same part number.

The EPA has their specified requirements for federal emissions
certification, California has their specified requirements for
CARB certification.

Think of it like this; both EPA and CARB are concerned at which
point the timing belt degrades to the point where it can
adversely effect the tailpipe emissions. That's it.
It has nothing to do with -when- the belt might fail and leave
you in tennis shoe mode.

 

Finally! Thank you! 8^)

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')

 

OHH! Wait a minute. You're saying that CA has looser emissions
standards than the EPA??? I thought a California car met *tighter*
standards. If that is true, then the CA belt change interval should be
*shorter*, not longer. What'd I miss?

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')

 

And that is the $64K question. Anyone out there have a Mitsubishi 3.0
V6 break a belt before 120K, or change theirs at 60K?

There is no question that changing a part before it's needed would
most likely be good preventive maintenance. However, belt & seals &
water pump would probably make this a $500+ expense, which I am trying
to avoid for now...

 

I wasn't actually saying that, but in some cases and if you look
at the California standards historically, yes, California has
looser standards than the federal standards. It was quite common
for the California standard for CO to be more lax than the
federal standard, while the NOx standard in California was
tighter. But, as far as the timing belt is concerned, a 120K
mile interval would be a tougher -performance- standard than a
60K or a 90K interval would be.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Depends on which pollutant and
which model year and whether it is OBD2 or not.

Not necessarily, there is the tailpipe standard and then there is
the performance (durability) standard.