Clutch replacement-Is 2 years too short?



The clutch on my boyfriend’s 92 Plymouth Sundance 5-speed died two years ago. He had it replaced and had the transmission serviced. The car recently began to lose acceleration after clutching and shifting with no problem. He has to floor the accelerator to get the car to move. Upon a brief test drive at the mechanic, it was declared that his clutch was dead. Isn’t this a short time for a clutch? His first clutch laster from 1992-2005, so his skills are evidently fairly good. Do you think that the previous mechanic should repair it? Thanks!


When your boyfriend floors the accelerator to move the car, is the engine screaming? If the car doesn’t move even with the accelerator pressed, and the engine isn’t revving abnormally high, that sounds more like a problem with the brakes sticking.

Two years seems far too short for a clutch friction disc to wear out. Your boyfriend either rides the clutch, drives exceptionally spiritedly, or your clutch was defective or not properly installed.



Yes, two years is too short, I average over 10 years. In over 40 years of driving I have replaced only two clutches, both on cars I bought used.

Most modern (latter than 1960) clutches fail not due to the clutch, but due to the driver.

That said some do fail due to defects.


I suggest you bf learns how to drive a clutch properly. I’ve seen many people who THINK they know how to drive a clutch and they really don’t have a clue. A clutch on a car should last well over 100k miles. Trucks maybe a little less. I average about 150k miles before I need to replace a clutch.


If the mechanic replaced only the clutch plate and not the pressure plate, the the clutch could easily go out in two years or less.


Keith called it. Even driving pretty aggressively on the street, the clutch should last longer than 2 years. I drive my MR2 like a nut, and I even put it on the track from time to time, and the clutch is still fine after I replaced it 3.5 years ago when I bought it.