Change Water Pump when changing belts?

[john_ertw]

I'm going to be having the timing belt changed along with the alternator belt and p/s belt on my 85 Jetta. I've heard that it's a good idea to change the water pump at the same time, but this will nearly double the cost of the maintanence.

I'm wondering if it's really necessary or recommended to change the water pump when changing the belts and why.

I have two theories why it was suggested (I know it's cheaper to do when changing the belts than on its own):
1) The water pump will not last much longer than a belt.
2) taking off the old belt and putting on a new belt may mess something up with the pump?

[ June 07, 2004, 10:12 PM: Message edited by: john_ertw ]

 

[Chris142]

If the pump goes bad in the near future you will have to remove all the belts to remove the pump. Basically you will pay to have the job done 2 times when you could have saved quite a bit if you replaced the pump while the engine was apart.

 

[john_ertw]

I realize I will save quite a bit in labour if I do it now, but is it something that is generally replaced when changing the belts? Is there any reason to believe it will fail in the near future when it has not had any problems yet? I'm just trying to understand if there is any reason to believe it will fail soon after changing the belts.

Side note: car only has about 100,000km (62,500 miles) and I don't know the last time (if ever) that the water pump was changed. I know it wasn't changed within the last 8 years for sure.

 

[tom slick]

there are certain engines that it is recommended that the water pump is changed with new belts, especially timing belts because (as already mentioned) the belt change itself is difficult. water pumps can last well over double the mileage you have on your engine but it could also fail tomorrow. it is "peace of mind" issue as well as a "while you're there" issue. you could chance it, and it could last for three more belt changes but you just don't know how long it will last.
if it is as old as you think it is i'd have it replaced "while they are in there" and not while you are out on the freeway.

 

[Steve S]

I would change the water pump using the highest quality parts available oem? also I would change the timing belt and any other idler pulleys. Pricy, but proper and recommended by the experienced . Cutting corners always comes back to bite me.

[ June 08, 2004, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: Steve S ]

 

[Matt_S]

My opinion is that the water pump should always be changed with the timing belt, whether the manufacturer or mechanic recommends it or not. I've heard of too many cases of timing belts failing because the water pump leaked, corroding the belt. Getting a new pump with your belt is the best way to prevent that. Add that to the fact that there is very little additional cost (which is 99% parts, 1% labor) and it should be a given.

 

[john_ertw]

The whole reason I bring this up is a combination of cost and the particular car we are talking about. The car is almost 20 years old and runs ok. There are no other foreseen repairs necessary.

The pricing I got is this:

Parts and labour to change the timing belt & pulley, alternator belt, and p/s belt is $174

For the water pump (including its housing which the mechanic recommended), P+L is $181 ($141 for the part)

These prices are all Canadian. Our main goal is to have the car last 1 more year (minimum). If there are any major repairs after that, we'll get a new car (since I'll be 25 and my insurance will drop by a good amount).

Matt_S: On this vehicle (I'm not sure if it's the same on most), the water pump is on a separate belt than the timing belt. It is on the outer most belt, so if I only had the water pump changed it shouldn't add more than 10 or 15 minutes to the job if the person knows what they are doing. Also the timing belt has a cover on it (actually a bottom cover and a top cover), so we can't see it's actual condition (all I know is that one of the other belts is all cracked up... and I'm assuming a worst case senerio for the timing belt).

 

[Kestas]

With THAT information, you shouldn't have to replace the (good) water pump at the same time with the timing belt. The logic doesn't apply in your case. It does apply to most other FWD engines.

 

[john_ertw]

UPDATE: I'm only going to change the belts. I called the VW Stealership (who is actually saving me money this time) and the parts guy told me that on older VW's you only change the water pump if it's going (leaking or making noise). He confirmed that no money is saved in labour by doing it at the same time (ok, well maybe 10 minutes).

After I got off the phone with him, I called this place called Frisco Auto parts here in Toronto who sells only VW & Audi OEM parts at great prices (some of the parts are half of what the dealer wants and they are OEM)!

 

[427Z06]

john_ertw, I had a '85 Golf which has the same setup as your Jetta. The waterpump is independent of the timing belt and can be replaced separately with very little additional labor involved. Replaced both on my Golf at different times. And the only reason I had to replace the waterpump, was because one of the studs that holds the thermostat housing corroded and snapped off. The pump was actually still good at 150K miles.

[ June 08, 2004, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: 427Z06 ]

 

[john_ertw]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 427Z06:
john_ertw, I had a '85 Golf which has the same setup as your Jetta. The waterpump is independent of the timing belt and can be replaced separately with very little additional labor involved. Replaced both on my Golf at different times. And the only reason I had to replace the waterpump, was because one of the studs that holds the thermostat housing corroded and snapped off. The pump was actually still good at 150K miles.

---

Excellent. This is the type of thing I wanted to hear. It will let me sleep easier with a little more money in my pocket.

 

[Matt_S]

That's good information, John. I didn't know that about VW's of that vintage. One more little tidbit that I can tuck into my back pocket.

 

[rpn453]

quote:

---

Originally posted by john_ertw:
I have two theories why it was suggested (I know it's cheaper to do when changing the belts than on its own):
1) The water pump will not last much longer than a belt.
2) taking off the old belt and putting on a new belt may mess something up with the pump?

---

I have one theory why it was suggested: so that they can make more money! I wouldn't bother.