Subject	(Shrug) (n/m)
Posted by	Technomancer on July 08, 2009 at 12:41 PM
	This message has been viewed 19 times.
In Reply To	I see no indication that it's a misprint. posted by Bernie (NoVA) on July 07, 2009 at 01:43 PM
Message
Follow Ups	Any truth about the newer timing belts lasting to 90K? (n/m) - darkmann 22:23:52 07/06/09 Nissan has changed part numbers & suppliers several times - Bernie (NoVA) 22:59:50 07/06/09 I had heard that 105K was a misprint on the NAs - utslick68 (East TN) 05:55:19 07/07/09 It is a commonly held belief that it is a misprint - Technomancer 10:46:55 07/07/09 I see no indication that it's a misprint. - Bernie (NoVA) 13:43:35 07/07/09 (Shrug) (n/m) - Technomancer 12:41:22 07/08/09 and belt tensioner.... (n/m) - AntiHero 09:09:51 07/07/09 The 96 manual lists 60k for the NA (n/m) - 96300NAZ 09:27:36 07/07/09 Not the copy I have. - Bernie (NoVA) 13:41:57 07/07/09 My apologies Bernie - 96300NAZ 20:37:42 07/07/09 No hard feelings :-) (n/m) - Bernie (NoVA) 23:17:32 07/07/09 Thanks. I was just curious. Mine's coming due and - darkmann 12:10:13 07/07/09 Why take a chance? Motors aren't cheap. (n/m) - spotz 22:59:58 07/06/09 I wouldn't worry about the belt alone lasting that long. (n/m) - AbsolutZ 07:09:16 07/07/09
Post a Followup	You cannot reply to this message because you are not logged in.