23rd Apr 2010, 09:37
I'm sorry, but you should have changed the timing belt by 60,000 miles. If you don't change it then, you should expect the engine to fail. A timing belt is made up of rubber and other compounds. Over time, it stretches, cracks and eventually, breaks. People never seem to think it's necessary to change your timing belt at the recommended interval, and then, they end up writing a review on this site, complaining of what a horrible car they bought and that it should be recalled immediately. If anyone can find a car that doesn't require basic maintenance, tell me. It's never gonna happen.
27th Apr 2010, 18:45
Had you read your owner's manual, you would have noticed that the timing belt need changing every 60K.
22nd May 2011, 00:04
There have been cars though that don't just DIE when the timing belt goes by destroying the engine. This is a very retarded mechanical design. It's a very cheap car. If you notice there are a lot of :( faces for the reviews because the car sucks, you don't have to make excuses for Kia.
Sure maintenance is one thing, but these cars are still awful. Look at the reviews on say a Volvo 240 1993, 1992, whatever, and you will see belts can even go rip out, and once they are replaced, BRUUUM! You have a moving mechanical wonder of a car again. That's a good car, and hence you see a lot of :) smiley faces. It's really not that complicated.
The Kia Rio and Sephia suck, period. The only car they made that is OK is the Kia Optima; those are barely decent.
6th Oct 2012, 20:31
There are "interference" and "non interference" engines. Interference engines WILL destroy the engine when the timing belt breaks, because the pistons will hit the valves. The Kia Rio is an interference engine. The Suzuki Forenza is an example of a non interference engine. The advantage of the interference design is higher compression, which translates into better MPG. Most cars today have opted for the interference design for that reason.