We have a 2015 Skoda Fabia III with the 80 bhp 1.2l 4-cylinder engine. It's just had a routine cambelt change (together with a service, MOT etc.) at our Skoda main dealer. When I booked the car in I was told that they may need to replace the water pump as it's driven by the cambelt, but on collecting the car, I was told that they didn't need to "because the water pump is at the opposite end of the engine to the cambelt".  Which is correct?

16 minutes ago, JohnGarth said:

We have a 2015 Skoda Fabia III with the 80 bhp 1.2l 4-cylinder engine. It's just had a routine cambelt change (together with a service, MOT etc.) at our Skoda main dealer. When I booked the car in I was told that they may need to replace the water pump as it's driven by the cambelt, but on collecting the car, I was told that they didn't need to "because the water pump is at the opposite end of the engine to the cambelt".  Which is correct?

 

I'm going to assume that's the 1.2 TSI 90PS (89bhp) .

 

In most engines the pump is driven by the cambelt and is usually changed (even if not faulty) when doing the cambelt.

However, the Water Pump in these engines is indeed at the oposite end of the engine to the cambelt, it's driven by the exhaust side camshaft and is hidden underneath where the two intake/charge pipes go.

 

It is that black plastic piece on the top right in this picture;

 

And here's the pump itself;

Many thanks for explaining that.

 

Re cambelt failure - I can never understand why all engines are not designed so that if the cambelt breaks, the valves don't meet the pistons, i.e. non-interference engines. I know that some are non-interference, so why not all?

Just now, JohnGarth said:

Many thanks for explaining that.

 

Re cambelt failure - I can never understand why all engines are not designed so that if the cambelt breaks, the valves don't meet the pistons, i.e. non-interference engines. I know that some are non-interference, so why not all?

 

It depends mostly on compression ratio and cylinder capacity.

 

In two cylinders of the same capacity, but one with a 10:1 compression ratio, and another with 20:1 compression ratio, the piston will have half the distance to the head at top dead center. It's more dificult to design around this.

In two cylinders of the same compression ratio, the smaller capacity one will have a smaller distance between the head and piston at top dead center, that combined with the lack of surface area on the head, the valves usually open further to flow better, and again, that makes them closer still.

Can't go chopping bits out of the piston, that effectively increases the size of the cylinder and you lose compression ratio, and economy, power, and torque as a result of that. You also want the air/fuel mix to burn effectively and completely, having too many odd pockets from cutouts everywhere will hinder that.

 

With the trend towards lower capacity, high boost engines, much like our little 1.2's, they need to flow as much air as possible to get all that boost in so it runs efficiently and makes good power, that means high lift valves that, again, are gonna come closer, to the already close from being a small capacity cylinder, piston.

 

It's easier, more cost effective in terms of RnD, and results in a better running engine (from a better combustion chamber shape) to just say "change the cambelt every now and then" (they can also blame it on the customer if they don't replace it and it fails), rather than spending lots of RnD on making a wierd shaped piston and cylinder head with a semi decent combustion pattern, and waiting till the cambelt breaks before changing it (which would annoy the customer, breaking down ending up stranded somewhere).

 

My thoughts at least.

 

On a side note, my friend has been complaining their car's "f*cked" and asking if he should scrap it. Anyway, i test drove it, immediately discovered that there's practically no brakes, the steering wheel is at a 45 degree angle to go forward, the gearbox is really jumpy, and the alternator isn't charging the battery, the exhaust sounded like it's falling off too.

£100 for a full set of brake discs and pads (all 4 corners) plus some brake fluid, £85 for engine oil, gearbox oil, and the filters for each, a £40 steering alignment, £18 for a new backbox and gasket, and £75 for a new alternator later, and it's as good as it's going to get for now.

It's nackered both front wheel bearings and front tyres as a result of the bad alignment before, so that's still to do, but it should pass the MOT with both those as advisaries. I have a feeling in a month or so i'll be doing those wheel bearings too... can't see him bothering, annoys me so much how neglected the poor thing was, i'll probably even have to go take the car to a tyre place for him lol. sigh.

Thing is, had he kept up with routine maintenance, the car wouldn't have gotten in such bad shape, and the wheel bearings and tyres would probably still be alright.

Some people don't have any feelings for their cars.

1 hour ago, TerFar said:

Some people don't have any feelings for their cars.

My wife has too many feeling for her car... Sadly it's all hate.

Edited 11 June, 20205 yr by abaxas

On 10/06/2020 at 15:54, JohnGarth said:

We have a 2015 Skoda Fabia III with the 80 bhp 1.2l 4-cylinder engine. It's just had a routine cambelt change (together with a service, MOT etc.) at our Skoda main dealer. When I booked the car in I was told that they may need to replace the water pump as it's driven by the cambelt, but on collecting the car, I was told that they didn't need to "because the water pump is at the opposite end of the engine to the cambelt".  Which is correct?

I have just had my 2015  cambelt replaced at 5 year service with only 30k on the clock😞 probably could have gone another year but did not want to take the risk.  Water pump is separate 

For info, our Fabia which had the new cambelt has 13,700 miles registered after 5 years as it's a second car to our brilliant 2015 Skoda Octavia Scout. Clearly belts and other similar items can deteriorate due to age rather than wear. We've had to replace the original tyres on the Fabia this year as they were cracking, but they had loads of tread left. Similar story with the Octavia tyres last year. Also I've replaced the Fabia's original battery as it was failing to hold it's charge, but this could also be due to the low mileage and little use.

 

On my 1998 Honda VFR 800, the camshafts are gear-driven so the gears are unlikely to ever wear out, and also gives the engine it's distinctive whine when in the higher reaches of the rev counter.  Honda VFR's from 2002 (VTEC model) have chain-driven camshafts. Great bike!

Frankly, the OHC drive belt and water pump is a total con. If you go to the manufacturer's website (not VAG, but the cam belt manufacturer), they advertise their belts for 120,000km or 7 years. VAG reduced this to various different mileages/times over the last couple of decades using the original excuse that the belt tensioners wore and advised changing the water pump at the same time because it was exposed and just a few minutes extra time.

 

Now that the water pump is separate and the tensioners have been redesigned, what is the excuse for changing them all so frequently? Just money for the garage and VAG. At least with electric cars it is all much simpler!

19 minutes ago, TerFar said:

Frankly, the OHC drive belt and water pump is a total con. If you go to the manufacturer's website (not VAG, but the cam belt manufacturer), they advertise their belts for 120,000km or 7 years. VAG reduced this to various different mileages/times over the last couple of decades using the original excuse that the belt tensioners wore and advised changing the water pump at the same time because it was exposed and just a few minutes extra time.

 

Now that the water pump is separate and the tensioners have been redesigned, what is the excuse for changing them all so frequently? Just money for the garage and VAG. At least with electric cars it is all much simpler!

My dealer recommend 5 years or 100,000 miles (160,000 km), whichever's first.

 

The belts deteriorate more with lack of use than from constant use. Rubber requires exercise to last a long time. Being sat for long periods it hardens and cracks, increasing chance of a failure.

 

Same with tyres, a car sitting barely doing anything can see tyres cracking around the 3-4 year mark, perhaps even earlier, where a frequently used car can be on the same tyres for 5-6 or maybe even more years. Though the general recommendation is still to replace after 6 years with tyres.

No doubt inactivity is not good for many parts on a car. We drive around 7,000 miles a year. I have no intention of changing the cam belt as early a 5 years. I don't usually keep cars too long, so I don't expect to change it at all.

I also need a cam belt change this year as the car is now 5 years old. Also have the 1.2 90BHP engine - so I don't need to change the water pump? Thats a bonus.