Preventative part replacement?

I purchased a used 1987 car. Is it better to replace items like starter, alternator, etc before they fail?

Part of the problem is that you don't know if the previous owner has already replaced the parts.

The NAPA man said don't replace them. Because he has had people replace parts like that and with weeks the new part fails. So new parts is not a cure all

My thinking is that its easier to replace these items when its warm and you can buy the parts and put them on yourself. Waiting on them to fail would result in stranded on road, tow truck, paying some shop to much money to replace a simple part.

Reply to
J J
Loading thread data ...

Depends. I would certainly check the items that you can. And I would replace hoses and belts and fluids to say the least.

That sure doesn't bode well for NAPA parts.

Depends. If it's a manual transmission car, you don't really need a starter because you can pushstart in a pinch. If you have a good solid battery you can go a long way when your alternator has died.

I would, however, find out what parts tend to fail early on the car you are driving so you can keep an eye on them. If you know your particular water pump tends to leak, check the water pump for leaks every time you change your oil.

--scott

Reply to
Scott Dorsey

Yikes. If you've got that kind of money... you can probably afford a new car that doesn't need all new parts.

What works for me is: Check the fluids and tire pressures weekly or every fill up. Change the oil every three months. While you're doing the above two things, take a few minutes and eyeball things like rad hoses and belts. Crawl under the car and look at stuff. Check for worn steering parts, etc.. Make a maintenance schedule and stick to it. After a while, you'll know what needs to be done "soon" before it fails on your car.

A lot of people I know replace their batteries every 5 years on a PM type basis because it seems batteries "just die" now.

Some parts in some cars just last forever. Wife's 90 Beretta - 240,000km. Alternator #3. Water pump #2. Original starter, radiator, fuel injectors. Transmission #2, both axles have been replaced, but the wheel bearings are original. Even the digital dash is going strong after 17 years, but the door panels and seatbelts are crapped out. Starts in -30 (Manitoba) without being plugged in. This thing may be a turd, but it's a reliable turd. IIRC the rear drums have never been turned... and only two sets of rear shoes?

I'd be curious as to who has the oldest "daily driver" with original parts... who's got a 20 year old radiator out there?

My buddy's 86 Celebrity finally died at 300,000km with the original rad and starter on it... rust and a spun bearing on the 2.8...

Ray

Reply to
news

Indeed, belts, hoses, all fluids changed. As far as pumps, electrical, shocks, tires, etc., up to you. I think if they are working well, use them, replacing is money used for no real reason other than personal peace of mind, but generally, you can tell when a starter is ready to go, or an alternator/battery, etc. Those usually give fair warning they are going.

Granted a 20 year old ride is long in the tooth, component-wise, but because it's that old, just use it as is. After all, you likely didn't pay very much for it, and unless you plan long drives, just run it. consider it a disposable.

Reply to
Knifeblade_03

Reminds me of a friend of mine who came into an absolutely mint 15 year old Buick with under 40,000 miles. Looked perfect and ran perfect. No leaks, everything worked, mileage was right, no problems at all. You couldn't tell any difference cosmetically or mechanically from the day it came off the showroom floor.

The local government announced the start of emissions testing and another acquaintance advised this guy, sight unseen, that there was no way a car that old would ever pass the inspection. He panics, and rather than get a test inspection to see if anything is out of order, he takes it to the local Buick dealer and instructs them to do a complete engine overhaul at a cost of several thousand dollars "just to be sure there are no problems".

After this preventative work, the car now wouldn't run at all and poured oil all over everything whenever the engine could be coaxed to life. Repeated trips back to the dealer fixed nothing. The car was trashed. He finally gave up in frustration and junked it. Really sad, especially since given its condition, it almost certainly would have passed the emissions test with flying colors.

The old adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies here.

That being said, you still want to check everything to make sure it all works. Especially check the rubber parts like belts, hoses, seals, etc., to make sure they are not hardened and crumbling from age. It is reasonable to replace the belts and hoses just as a matter of course on a car this old. You didn't mention what make/model of car this is, but if it has a timing belt, that is one thing you do want to preventatively replace immediately.

He's right.

Why did you buy a car that old if you are worried about potentially being stranded on the side of the road? I think you will save a lot of money and aggravation if you just fix what's broken on the car and add the roadside assistance option to your insurance policy.

Reply to
E Meyer

About the only parts I would ever replace strictly for "preventative" reasons are things like belts, hoses, timing belts, AND a timing-belt-driven water pump (because you're already 90% of the way in there when you do the timing belt itself). Never a starter or alternator that is functioning normally.

Parts that have been working for years rarely up and fail with no warning. Its NEW parts that sometimes suffer "infant mortality" and quit with no warning at all. Wait for the warning signs, then replace AS SOON AS warning signs appear. People get in trouble by ignoring the warning signs of impending failure.

Reply to
Steve

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.