Timing Belt Change (10500 miles vs 7 years)

Hi,

My Honda civic sedan is now 7 years old, but has only 75000 miles on
it. The manual says i need to change the timing belt at 105000/7 years
(whichever is earlier). I still have 30,000 miles to go, however the
number of years are done.

Should i be replacing the timing belt even though i am 30,000 miles
short, or should i wait for a few more miles.

Thank you

 

The timing belt is made of rubber and a fiber core. Running the engine will
wear out the rubber and stress the fiber core, but just by sitting in your
driveway the rubber dries out over time. That is why they want you to
replace the belt after seven years. In practice you have a several years to
go before it breaks, but you don't really want it to break.

I would replace the belt at seven years.

Earle

 

signs of crackin, just replace the belt.

 

just change it... its real easy to do yourself...

 

OK, so what part of "the manual says 105000/7 years (whichever is
earlier)" is unclear to you?

Cheap bastard. You're looking for an excuse not to maintain your
car--and worse, you come to a freaking newsgroup.

How's that Usenet-sourced marital advice doing for you?

 

The manual is pretty clear, however i am sure the guy writing it did
not think of cases where the car had 30000 miles lesser than the life
of the belt. Also most of the postings in here could be clarified by
reading the manual or going to a dealer, so i am assuming everybody
who is here is to her to save a few bucks.
Plus i was interested in checking with other knowledgable people on
this forum.

Did not know frustrated, old farts like you will get so worked up. I
apologize that that because of your sorry,miserable life you feel the
need to use vulgar language when talking to others .

 

He absolutely did. That is why there is a TIME factor in there.

You will notice further that the manual does not say
84 months AND 105K miles,
it says
84 months OR 105K.
Whichever comes first. And something did come first for you: the time
factor.

Your engine is what is known as an "interference" design. This means
that should the belt skip or break, there is a great chance of the
valves hitting the pistons. If that happens, your repair bill goes from
$400 to almost $2,000.

At your current pace, the belt will be ten years old before you rack up
another 30K miles. This is bad bad bad.

While it is possible the belt may well last another 30K and three more
years, it is extremely unwise to push the life of this belt because of the
potential consequences.

Of course, it's not my money, but yours. If you want to risk a $2,000
repair bill in order to delay the expenditure of $400, be my guest.

And hey, do you think you'll still have the car in another seven years?
No?
Then what does it matter if you spend the $400 now or later? Either way it
needs to get done, and either way it will be the car's last belt change.

 

The manual is pretty clear, however i am sure the guy writing it did
not think of cases where the car had 30000 miles lesser than the life
of the belt. Also most of the postings in here could be clarified by
reading the manual or going to a dealer, so i am assuming everybody
who is here is to her to save a few bucks.
Plus i was interested in checking with other knowledgable people on
this forum.

Did not know frustrated, old farts like you will get so worked up. I
apologize that that because of your sorry,miserable life you feel the
need to use vulgar language when talking to others .[/QUOTE]

"Cheap bastard" isn't vulgar language.

"Cheap bastard" is a description.

 

He absolutely did. That is why there is a TIME factor in there.[/QUOTE]

Again, RVS is being a cheap bastard and is looking for someone to give
him permission to be a cheap bastard. That way it' "not his fault" if
something happens. "But they said it was OK!!!!"

 

Replace it. It is 105,000 or 7 years, whichever comes first.

 

Bad idea. If it is showing signs of cracking, it is already too far gone,
but it may be close to a break even if you see no visible signs. A visual
test is not a very good one.

The cost of belt replacement is far lower than the cost of engine
replacement.

 

Yes, he did. That's why he said 7 years or 105k, whichever is earlier.

 

Yes, he did. That's why he said 7 years or 105k, whichever is earlier.[/QUOTE]

The manual is pretty clear, except to cheap bastards--for whom nothing
regarding spending money is "clear".

 

....

ROTF--LMAO

Earle

 

The manual is pretty clear, except to cheap bastards--for whom nothing
regarding spending money is "clear".
[/QUOTE]
This guy is getting off pretty easy. How long did the first timing belts
last, 25,000 miles or something like that? When they sold the first Vegas
and Pintos, people and mechanics too didn't have a clue.

Cheers,

Earle

 

Again, RVS is being a cheap bastard and is looking for someone to give
him permission to be a cheap bastard. That way it' "not his fault" if
something happens. "But they said it was OK!!!!"
[/QUOTE]



RVS obviously has not read the message elsewhere in this group from
"Lance Dowdy".

I reprint an excerpt below:

Subject: '91 Honda Accord rough acceleration, erratic speedometer
From:
Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.honda

"I have read a lot of info online, but still have questions. Hope
someone can help - please.
"Background: One year ago lost the Timing belt while driving and messed
up 12 of the 18 valve. Car only had 58k miles (wife's grandma's car)
so decided to fork over $1900 for repair. After the repair it ran
great, better than new, I mean surprisingly smooth and fast. That was
a year ago...."

 

RVS says...

I had the same question about my 94 Accord, for which the
manual says 90k/6yrs. There's no column in the manual for
90k/7yrs, or 90k/12yrs. The only column that has 90k miles
also has 6 years. And that appears to be true of everything
in there - it's 15k miles per year. But, you know, some
things are really mileage things, like brakes, whereas other
things might have a significant time component, like oil or
coolant.

For what it's worth, and I offer this with no guarantee at
all, here's what I was told:

I took my 94 Accord in to a local Honda/Acura shop (not a
dealer, but highly respected for quality work) when it was
10 years old, and had 46k miles on it. Remember that the
manual says 90k/6yrs. I placed my checkbook on the desk,
and told the shop owner that I thought I should get the
timing belt replaced.

Even though my checkbook was clearly visible to him, he said
that the timing belt is pretty much exclusively a mileage
thing, and I don't need to get it changed. When I asked how
long I should go before getting it changed, he said "90,000
miles".

Now of course, he doesn't guarantee that advice, but he and
his guys have worked on Honda products for decades, and know
more than I do.

I'm all the way up to 58k miles now, and the car is
approaching 13 years old. Based on time, I should have
changed the belt twice by now.

But here's the other side. If at some point you are going
to sell the car, you're going to have to get the belt
replaced first, or allow for the cost of doing that in the
selling price. So, if you plan on selling in the next few
years, you'll have to get it changed once anyway. Why not
do it now, and eliminate any worry. In my case, as of today
I have avoided two belt changes. But if you plan on selling
within, say, four years from now, I think you probably
should go ahead and get it done now. If you plan on keeping
it till it dies, then you're gonna have to decide what's
reasonable, and I don't know of any statistical data that
would tell you what actually determines the life of the belt.

I do, however, agree with you that the manual is based on an
assumed 15k miles per year, and the column the item appears
in does NOT tell you whether mileage or time is the real
determining factor, if that is not the rate at which you
put miles on the car. The problem is, I don't know how you
find the real answer.

 

All mechanics believe that they know more than the engineers who designed
the vehicle.

You wait until the engine stops running and you coast to the side of the
road as if the clutch were depressed or you had put the car in neutral.
Then you add a note to your Owner's Manual, "timing belt lasts xx years, yy
months". The down side is that the repair will be more expensive now,
because of all the bent valves in your engine.

Earle

 

And the Honda engineers who said "90K miles or 6 years, whichever comes
first" know EVEN MORE about the situation than your grizzled old tech
does.

You rolled the dice and won. Does that mean you will tell everyone that
what you did is a perfect system, not a roll of the dice?

Yes, it does. He was perfectly clear: his manual says 105K miles or 7
years, whichever comes first. It says that EXPLICITLY.

He can listen to the Honda engineers, or he can listen to you tell third
party stories from some guy who claims that he knows what he's talking
about (he probably just didn't want to take on the work, frankly).

Well, one could start with READING.

But apparently actual *comprehension* is beyond so many people in the
world today, as evidenced by you and RVS.

Either that, or the gene that makes you a cheap bastard is the same gene
that leaves you unable to comprehend plain language.

 

Uh..... what kind of engineer would design an engine that would
self-destruct if a rubber belt broke?