"lamont" <lamont@microsoft.com> wrote:

> while its true that the belt is supposed to have its belt changed most
> people i know never change it. just because it says 60k doesnt mean its
> going to break at 60k. i have an accord with 220,000 miles on it and never
> had the belt replaced i will be doing that in a few months however....the
> timing belt can last past 60k miles and having one break on you that soon is
> so rare i dont think you need to worry about it.... if you get to california
> you might want to sell the car there. you might not be able to pass
> california emissions tests with an out of state car so you might have to
> sell it... why waste money on a belt if you are goihng to sell it?

I agree, i think the whole "replaced the timing belt" is mainly a scam
to make money for mechanics. I posted this elsewhere but my old honda of
235,000 never needed one, and my newer one of 167,000 surely will be
fine by going over the recommended amount. a civic with only 60K? god,
no reason to do it that soon, maybe double or triple that mileage but
not 60K or 100K... my honest feeling is the fear factor of pistons
slaming into heads is an easy scare tactic for the uneducated and a
quick way to make $500...

with millions of honda's on the road, i've never heard of ANYONE having
a problem with a timing belt no matter how many miles driven without
replacement. i'm sure it happens, but 98% of the people following the
recommended guidelines are throwing money away.

 

"lamont" <lamont@microsoft.com> wrote:

> while its true that the belt is supposed to have its belt changed most
> people i know never change it. just because it says 60k doesnt mean its
> going to break at 60k. i have an accord with 220,000 miles on it and never
> had the belt replaced i will be doing that in a few months however....the
> timing belt can last past 60k miles and having one break on you that soon is
> so rare i dont think you need to worry about it.... if you get to california
> you might want to sell the car there. you might not be able to pass
> california emissions tests with an out of state car so you might have to
> sell it... why waste money on a belt if you are goihng to sell it?

I agree, i think the whole "replaced the timing belt" is mainly a scam
to make money for mechanics. I posted this elsewhere but my old honda of
235,000 never needed one, and my newer one of 167,000 surely will be
fine by going over the recommended amount. a civic with only 60K? god,
no reason to do it that soon, maybe double or triple that mileage but
not 60K or 100K... my honest feeling is the fear factor of pistons
slaming into heads is an easy scare tactic for the uneducated and a
quick way to make $500...

with millions of honda's on the road, i've never heard of ANYONE having
a problem with a timing belt no matter how many miles driven without
replacement. i'm sure it happens, but 98% of the people following the
recommended guidelines are throwing money away.

 

In article <media-267A00.00362312082004@news.uswest.net>,
media@Swiftvets.com says...
> with millions of honda's on the road, i've never heard of ANYONE having
> a problem with a timing belt no matter how many miles driven without
> replacement. i'm sure it happens, but 98% of the people following the
> recommended guidelines are throwing money away.
>
I've signed up on a couple of web forums (as well as subscribing to this
NG) since I've been looking for either a VTEC Prelude, or an Alfa 145.
Prelude VTEC people have warned about listing for a whiring/slapping
sound when the tensioner drift a little, the belts move and rub.

The alfa boards and NGs are rife with tales of Alfas 75k belt change
actually being dealt with between 35-50k whenever the car comes in under
warrenty for other work as they have been failing.

I'm currently a Saab driver, and while I'm lucky that mine uses a chain
to run the cams on the i4 16V, later model owners with european GM based
V6 engines regularly complain of belt failures. This also a known
problem amongst other euro GM brands like Vauxhall and Opel with their
V6 models. Fiat are also known to stupidly regular on it's belt
failures.

I know not all brands of car, and not all brands of belts are the same,
but a belt is a weak link in the engine, but as long as looked after
correctly shouldn't cause an problems, if it does go though, you are
looking at a world of hurt to the wallet.
--
The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

 

In article <media-267A00.00362312082004@news.uswest.net>,
media@Swiftvets.com says...
> with millions of honda's on the road, i've never heard of ANYONE having
> a problem with a timing belt no matter how many miles driven without
> replacement. i'm sure it happens, but 98% of the people following the
> recommended guidelines are throwing money away.
>
I've signed up on a couple of web forums (as well as subscribing to this
NG) since I've been looking for either a VTEC Prelude, or an Alfa 145.
Prelude VTEC people have warned about listing for a whiring/slapping
sound when the tensioner drift a little, the belts move and rub.

The alfa boards and NGs are rife with tales of Alfas 75k belt change
actually being dealt with between 35-50k whenever the car comes in under
warrenty for other work as they have been failing.

I'm currently a Saab driver, and while I'm lucky that mine uses a chain
to run the cams on the i4 16V, later model owners with european GM based
V6 engines regularly complain of belt failures. This also a known
problem amongst other euro GM brands like Vauxhall and Opel with their
V6 models. Fiat are also known to stupidly regular on it's belt
failures.

I know not all brands of car, and not all brands of belts are the same,
but a belt is a weak link in the engine, but as long as looked after
correctly shouldn't cause an problems, if it does go though, you are
looking at a world of hurt to the wallet.
--
The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

 

On 8/10/04 7:25 AM, in article ENudnb1lfuAzI4XcRVn-hw@giganews.com,
"Mitleid" <no@dice.net> wrote:

> Hello all,
> I know very little of cars, so I figured I'd get some input from anyone
> in this newsgroup.
> I have a 97 Honda Civic EX that I bought new. It's seen it's share of
> battles and the body isn't the most flawless one you'll see, but for the
> most part it runs pretty smoothly. It's just getting to 68,000 miles.
> I recently took it into the dealer for a regular maintenence, and they
> suggested that I replace the timing belt. I told them to pass, as I was
> initially planning on selling the car as I'm moving out to California.
> Well, as fate would have it it looks like I'll need to be taking the car
> with me after all. Furthermore I'll be driving it all the way (Ohio to
> California).
> So, my question is twofold: first, what EXACTLY does the timing belt
> do? I have a rough idea of how it works with the engine, but I'm fuzzy
> on exactly what it means performance and weare/tear wise. Which leads me
> into my next question: at almost 70,000 miles, would it be a good idea
> (both for efficiency and lifespan of the car) to replace the timing belt
> before I take it on such a long drive? I've seen/heard of people putting
> off a timing belt replacement for quite some time, so I was just unsure
> as to how imperative it is to get it fixed. Thanks in advance.

Check the maintenance schedule in the owner's manual. I believe you will
find the belt on a '97 doesn't need to be changed until 90,000 miles.

 

On 8/10/04 7:25 AM, in article ENudnb1lfuAzI4XcRVn-hw@giganews.com,
"Mitleid" <no@dice.net> wrote:

> Hello all,
> I know very little of cars, so I figured I'd get some input from anyone
> in this newsgroup.
> I have a 97 Honda Civic EX that I bought new. It's seen it's share of
> battles and the body isn't the most flawless one you'll see, but for the
> most part it runs pretty smoothly. It's just getting to 68,000 miles.
> I recently took it into the dealer for a regular maintenence, and they
> suggested that I replace the timing belt. I told them to pass, as I was
> initially planning on selling the car as I'm moving out to California.
> Well, as fate would have it it looks like I'll need to be taking the car
> with me after all. Furthermore I'll be driving it all the way (Ohio to
> California).
> So, my question is twofold: first, what EXACTLY does the timing belt
> do? I have a rough idea of how it works with the engine, but I'm fuzzy
> on exactly what it means performance and weare/tear wise. Which leads me
> into my next question: at almost 70,000 miles, would it be a good idea
> (both for efficiency and lifespan of the car) to replace the timing belt
> before I take it on such a long drive? I've seen/heard of people putting
> off a timing belt replacement for quite some time, so I was just unsure
> as to how imperative it is to get it fixed. Thanks in advance.

Check the maintenance schedule in the owner's manual. I believe you will
find the belt on a '97 doesn't need to be changed until 90,000 miles.

 

"James Doe" <media@Swiftvets.com> wrote
> "lamont" <lamont@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > while its true that the belt is supposed to have its belt changed most
> > people i know never change it. just because it says 60k doesnt mean its
> > going to break at 60k. i have an accord with 220,000 miles on it and never
> > had the belt replaced i will be doing that in a few months however....the
> > timing belt can last past 60k miles and having one break on you that soon is
> > so rare i dont think you need to worry about it.... if you get to california
> > you might want to sell the car there. you might not be able to pass
> > california emissions tests with an out of state car so you might have to
> > sell it... why waste money on a belt if you are goihng to sell it?
>
> I agree, i think the whole "replaced the timing belt" is mainly a scam
> to make money for mechanics. I posted this elsewhere but my old honda of
> 235,000 never needed one, and my newer one of 167,000 surely will be
> fine by going over the recommended amount. a civic with only 60K? god,
> no reason to do it that soon, maybe double or triple that mileage but
> not 60K or 100K... my honest feeling is the fear factor of pistons
> slaming into heads is an easy scare tactic for the uneducated and a
> quick way to make $500...
>
> with millions of honda's on the road, i've never heard of ANYONE having
> a problem with a timing belt no matter how many miles driven without
> replacement. i'm sure it happens, but 98% of the people following the
> recommended guidelines are throwing money away.

I'm curious about these claims (of yours, Lamont's and others). I am trying to
keep an open mind. Last week I met a guy with a 1993 Toyota Tercel who had
changed the belt exactly once in 235k miles. The 1993 Tercel service manual
apparently says to change the TB every 60k miles.

I did google the alt.autos.honda and rec.autos.maker.honda newsgroups for {"my
timing belt broke"}

Lotta hits. I haven't read them all, but it seems like timing belts do not last
forever.

See for example a comment by poster "Io" on 04/01/1999: "*Twice* in the 190
thousand miles of my 89 Civic Si, I have broken the belt. My fault, I pushed the
milage. Both times no valves were damaged."

Just to throw this into the pot for anyone thinking about increasing the time
and mileage between TB changes...

Aside:
Lamont, goshdarnit, as others have said, post to the original thread.
Subsequently, the archives will be easier to follow, and a lot of people do use
the archives (see above!). Plus, folks don't necessarily know to what post you
are responding. You've got input that's useful, from what I've seen, so how
about it putting it where it will definitely be read by all who need it?

 

"James Doe" <media@Swiftvets.com> wrote
> "lamont" <lamont@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > while its true that the belt is supposed to have its belt changed most
> > people i know never change it. just because it says 60k doesnt mean its
> > going to break at 60k. i have an accord with 220,000 miles on it and never
> > had the belt replaced i will be doing that in a few months however....the
> > timing belt can last past 60k miles and having one break on you that soon is
> > so rare i dont think you need to worry about it.... if you get to california
> > you might want to sell the car there. you might not be able to pass
> > california emissions tests with an out of state car so you might have to
> > sell it... why waste money on a belt if you are goihng to sell it?
>
> I agree, i think the whole "replaced the timing belt" is mainly a scam
> to make money for mechanics. I posted this elsewhere but my old honda of
> 235,000 never needed one, and my newer one of 167,000 surely will be
> fine by going over the recommended amount. a civic with only 60K? god,
> no reason to do it that soon, maybe double or triple that mileage but
> not 60K or 100K... my honest feeling is the fear factor of pistons
> slaming into heads is an easy scare tactic for the uneducated and a
> quick way to make $500...
>
> with millions of honda's on the road, i've never heard of ANYONE having
> a problem with a timing belt no matter how many miles driven without
> replacement. i'm sure it happens, but 98% of the people following the
> recommended guidelines are throwing money away.

I'm curious about these claims (of yours, Lamont's and others). I am trying to
keep an open mind. Last week I met a guy with a 1993 Toyota Tercel who had
changed the belt exactly once in 235k miles. The 1993 Tercel service manual
apparently says to change the TB every 60k miles.

I did google the alt.autos.honda and rec.autos.maker.honda newsgroups for {"my
timing belt broke"}

Lotta hits. I haven't read them all, but it seems like timing belts do not last
forever.

See for example a comment by poster "Io" on 04/01/1999: "*Twice* in the 190
thousand miles of my 89 Civic Si, I have broken the belt. My fault, I pushed the
milage. Both times no valves were damaged."

Just to throw this into the pot for anyone thinking about increasing the time
and mileage between TB changes...

Aside:
Lamont, goshdarnit, as others have said, post to the original thread.
Subsequently, the archives will be easier to follow, and a lot of people do use
the archives (see above!). Plus, folks don't necessarily know to what post you
are responding. You've got input that's useful, from what I've seen, so how
about it putting it where it will definitely be read by all who need it?

 

In article <TfMSc.19011$cK.3454@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
"Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote:

> "James Doe" <media@Swiftvets.com> wrote
> > "lamont" <lamont@microsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> > > while its true that the belt is supposed to have its belt changed most
> > > people i know never change it. just because it says 60k doesnt mean its
> > > going to break at 60k. i have an accord with 220,000 miles on it and never
> > > had the belt replaced i will be doing that in a few months however....the
> > > timing belt can last past 60k miles and having one break on you that
soon is
> > > so rare i dont think you need to worry about it.... if you get to
california
> > > you might want to sell the car there. you might not be able to pass
> > > california emissions tests with an out of state car so you might have to
> > > sell it... why waste money on a belt if you are goihng to sell it?
> >
> > I agree, i think the whole "replaced the timing belt" is mainly a scam
> > to make money for mechanics. I posted this elsewhere but my old honda of
> > 235,000 never needed one, and my newer one of 167,000 surely will be
> > fine by going over the recommended amount. a civic with only 60K? god,
> > no reason to do it that soon, maybe double or triple that mileage but
> > not 60K or 100K... my honest feeling is the fear factor of pistons
> > slaming into heads is an easy scare tactic for the uneducated and a
> > quick way to make $500...
> >
> > with millions of honda's on the road, i've never heard of ANYONE having
> > a problem with a timing belt no matter how many miles driven without
> > replacement. i'm sure it happens, but 98% of the people following the
> > recommended guidelines are throwing money away.
>
> I'm curious about these claims (of yours, Lamont's and others). I am trying to
> keep an open mind. Last week I met a guy with a 1993 Toyota Tercel who had
> changed the belt exactly once in 235k miles. The 1993 Tercel service manual
> apparently says to change the TB every 60k miles.
>
> I did google the alt.autos.honda and rec.autos.maker.honda newsgroups for {"my
> timing belt broke"}
>
> Lotta hits. I haven't read them all, but it seems like timing belts do
not last
> forever.
>
> See for example a comment by poster "Io" on 04/01/1999: "*Twice* in the 190
> thousand miles of my 89 Civic Si, I have broken the belt. My fault, I
pushed the
> milage. Both times no valves were damaged."
>
> Just to throw this into the pot for anyone thinking about increasing the time
> and mileage between TB changes...
>
> Aside:
> Lamont, goshdarnit, as others have said, post to the original thread.
> Subsequently, the archives will be easier to follow, and a lot of people
do use
> the archives (see above!). Plus, folks don't necessarily know to what post you
> are responding. You've got input that's useful, from what I've seen, so how
> about it putting it where it will definitely be read by all who need it?

Excellent post--I agree with you. Why take a chance on such things. I once
heard an old man bragging that he owned a pickup truck that had over
200,000 miles on it and that he never changed the oil on it during those
200,000 miles. As he drove away in his truck--lots of black smoke was
coming out the the muffler. We all had a great laughting session about the
old man's story. It's my guess that the old man was lying to us and knew
that we would always remember his story. It worked. I change my oil every
3000 miles.

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.

 

In article <TfMSc.19011$cK.3454@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
"Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote:

> "James Doe" <media@Swiftvets.com> wrote
> > "lamont" <lamont@microsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> > > while its true that the belt is supposed to have its belt changed most
> > > people i know never change it. just because it says 60k doesnt mean its
> > > going to break at 60k. i have an accord with 220,000 miles on it and never
> > > had the belt replaced i will be doing that in a few months however....the
> > > timing belt can last past 60k miles and having one break on you that
soon is
> > > so rare i dont think you need to worry about it.... if you get to
california
> > > you might want to sell the car there. you might not be able to pass
> > > california emissions tests with an out of state car so you might have to
> > > sell it... why waste money on a belt if you are goihng to sell it?
> >
> > I agree, i think the whole "replaced the timing belt" is mainly a scam
> > to make money for mechanics. I posted this elsewhere but my old honda of
> > 235,000 never needed one, and my newer one of 167,000 surely will be
> > fine by going over the recommended amount. a civic with only 60K? god,
> > no reason to do it that soon, maybe double or triple that mileage but
> > not 60K or 100K... my honest feeling is the fear factor of pistons
> > slaming into heads is an easy scare tactic for the uneducated and a
> > quick way to make $500...
> >
> > with millions of honda's on the road, i've never heard of ANYONE having
> > a problem with a timing belt no matter how many miles driven without
> > replacement. i'm sure it happens, but 98% of the people following the
> > recommended guidelines are throwing money away.
>
> I'm curious about these claims (of yours, Lamont's and others). I am trying to
> keep an open mind. Last week I met a guy with a 1993 Toyota Tercel who had
> changed the belt exactly once in 235k miles. The 1993 Tercel service manual
> apparently says to change the TB every 60k miles.
>
> I did google the alt.autos.honda and rec.autos.maker.honda newsgroups for {"my
> timing belt broke"}
>
> Lotta hits. I haven't read them all, but it seems like timing belts do
not last
> forever.
>
> See for example a comment by poster "Io" on 04/01/1999: "*Twice* in the 190
> thousand miles of my 89 Civic Si, I have broken the belt. My fault, I
pushed the
> milage. Both times no valves were damaged."
>
> Just to throw this into the pot for anyone thinking about increasing the time
> and mileage between TB changes...
>
> Aside:
> Lamont, goshdarnit, as others have said, post to the original thread.
> Subsequently, the archives will be easier to follow, and a lot of people
do use
> the archives (see above!). Plus, folks don't necessarily know to what post you
> are responding. You've got input that's useful, from what I've seen, so how
> about it putting it where it will definitely be read by all who need it?

Excellent post--I agree with you. Why take a chance on such things. I once
heard an old man bragging that he owned a pickup truck that had over
200,000 miles on it and that he never changed the oil on it during those
200,000 miles. As he drove away in his truck--lots of black smoke was
coming out the the muffler. We all had a great laughting session about the
old man's story. It's my guess that the old man was lying to us and knew
that we would always remember his story. It worked. I change my oil every
3000 miles.

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.

 

"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote
snip for conciseness discussion of why one should/should not change the TB
> Why take a chance on such things. I once
> heard an old man bragging that he owned a pickup truck that had over
> 200,000 miles on it and that he never changed the oil on it during those
> 200,000 miles. As he drove away in his truck--lots of black smoke was
> coming out the the muffler. We all had a great laughting session about the
> old man's story. It's my guess that the old man was lying to us and knew
> that we would always remember his story. It worked. I change my oil every
> 3000 miles.

Ha. Clever old man. :-)

What kills me is that just a little while ago today one "Dave Garrett" posted to
rec.autos.makers.honda that his timing belt broke:

"Yesterday the timing belt broke on my '90 CRX Si. I'd replaced it
previously at 60K, and was planning to do so again soon, as I just
passed 115K about a month ago."

Ouch. ;-)

 

"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote
snip for conciseness discussion of why one should/should not change the TB
> Why take a chance on such things. I once
> heard an old man bragging that he owned a pickup truck that had over
> 200,000 miles on it and that he never changed the oil on it during those
> 200,000 miles. As he drove away in his truck--lots of black smoke was
> coming out the the muffler. We all had a great laughting session about the
> old man's story. It's my guess that the old man was lying to us and knew
> that we would always remember his story. It worked. I change my oil every
> 3000 miles.

Ha. Clever old man. :-)

What kills me is that just a little while ago today one "Dave Garrett" posted to
rec.autos.makers.honda that his timing belt broke:

"Yesterday the timing belt broke on my '90 CRX Si. I'd replaced it
previously at 60K, and was planning to do so again soon, as I just
passed 115K about a month ago."

Ouch. ;-)

 

In article <411AEB7A.9A1305E2@spam.now> Eric <say.no@spam.now> writes:

>lamont wrote:

>> while its true that the belt is supposed to have its belt changed most
>> people i know never change it. just because it says 60k doesnt mean its
>> going to break at 60k. i have an accord with 220,000 miles on it and never
>> had the belt replaced i will be doing that in a few months however

>The recommended interval for changing the timing belt is 6 years or 90,000
>miles. This interval is based on an average rate of failure.

True, but the "average rate of failure" or MTBF (Mean Time Before Failure)
is actually more like 2½ times the recommended replacement interval. Even
this number is a factory "hypothetical" failure rate based upon results of
accelerated tests in the test lab in an OZONE chamber with high
concentrations of OZONE and Ultraviolet light (both known to cause rubber
products to prematurely age and break down).

The "recommended" replacement interval for the timing belt, like the
recommended oil change interval is designed to err on the very
conservative side of the actual life expectancy curve. These recommended
service intervals are also designed to embellish the receivables of the
dealer service departments. If you want to follow these recommendations,
that's fine, but don't expect that your car is going to break down
suddenly if you fudge.

Example, the "recommended" oil change interval on the Lexus LS400 is 7,500
miles in normal service and 5,000 miles in heavy service. What does Lexus
know about their engines and the wear they incur that no one else knows?
Lexus also says 90,000 on the timing belt. Is there something particularly
special about Lexus engines or timing belts? I rather doubt it.


--
Hooked On Ebonics, Lesson 10: Use the word "Stain" in a sentence.
STAIN: My mudder-in-law stopped by da udder day an I axed her
do you plan stain for dinner?

 

In article <411AEB7A.9A1305E2@spam.now> Eric <say.no@spam.now> writes:

>lamont wrote:

>> while its true that the belt is supposed to have its belt changed most
>> people i know never change it. just because it says 60k doesnt mean its
>> going to break at 60k. i have an accord with 220,000 miles on it and never
>> had the belt replaced i will be doing that in a few months however

>The recommended interval for changing the timing belt is 6 years or 90,000
>miles. This interval is based on an average rate of failure.

True, but the "average rate of failure" or MTBF (Mean Time Before Failure)
is actually more like 2½ times the recommended replacement interval. Even
this number is a factory "hypothetical" failure rate based upon results of
accelerated tests in the test lab in an OZONE chamber with high
concentrations of OZONE and Ultraviolet light (both known to cause rubber
products to prematurely age and break down).

The "recommended" replacement interval for the timing belt, like the
recommended oil change interval is designed to err on the very
conservative side of the actual life expectancy curve. These recommended
service intervals are also designed to embellish the receivables of the
dealer service departments. If you want to follow these recommendations,
that's fine, but don't expect that your car is going to break down
suddenly if you fudge.

Example, the "recommended" oil change interval on the Lexus LS400 is 7,500
miles in normal service and 5,000 miles in heavy service. What does Lexus
know about their engines and the wear they incur that no one else knows?
Lexus also says 90,000 on the timing belt. Is there something particularly
special about Lexus engines or timing belts? I rather doubt it.


--
Hooked On Ebonics, Lesson 10: Use the word "Stain" in a sentence.
STAIN: My mudder-in-law stopped by da udder day an I axed her
do you plan stain for dinner?

 

In article <media-267A00.00362312082004@news.uswest.net>,
James Doe <media@Swiftvets.com> wrote:

> I agree, i think the whole "replaced the timing belt" is mainly a scam
> to make money for mechanics. I posted this elsewhere but my old honda of
> 235,000 never needed one, and my newer one of 167,000 surely will be
> fine by going over the recommended amount. a civic with only 60K? god,
> no reason to do it that soon, maybe double or triple that mileage but
> not 60K or 100K... my honest feeling is the fear factor of pistons
> slaming into heads is an easy scare tactic for the uneducated and a
> quick way to make $500...

Yeah. And don't wear seat belts, either. Have you ever been in an
accident? No? Then why wear one? And besides, I heard from a friend
of a friend that his dentist's cousin's girlfriend heard in school that
somebody was in an accident once, and slid over to the passenger
side--and avoided being impaled by the steering wheel! Imagine if he'd
been wearing a seat belt and couldn't slide out of the way--he'd have
the steering wheel right through his chest!

And another thing: car insurance. Why? It's just a waste. I've never
needed it, I've never caused an accident, so why pay for insurance
you'll never use? What a waste of money.