to change a Honda Accord 1988 model timing belt

Whats the easiest procedure to change a Honda Accord 1988 model timing
belt. Don't tell me take it to a dealer....They're horribly expensive
and dont give good value for money.

 

youre going to need a service manual regardless. the easiest procedure
is going to be what the book says.

 

www.autozone.com 's free repair guides have instructions specific to your
1988 Accord for changing the timing belt.

These other sites also discuss the changing of Honda timing belts and have
step by step instructions:

http://www.cadvision.com/blanchas/54pontiac/honda.html

http://timingbelt.soben.com/

http://www.honda.co.uk/owner/workshopmanuals2.html

The biggest hurdle is probably going to be breaking free the crankshaft
pulley bolt. Take a morning or day to figure out how to do it, then break it
free, using the guides above and getting input from here. Subsequently
schedule a day to do the whole timing belt job.

 

For that reason this page exists:
http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/faq.html#crankbolt

 

I don't reference this particular sub-site of your FAQ because I think the
part of it on the tools one can buy or fabricate is not well done. It's
mostly poor writing, and I think it doesn't get across the tool situation
very well at all.

I would be happy to redo it for you, but I don't want to step on your toes.

I note this because when I was researching how to break free my 91 Civic's
pulley bolt last year, I found a number of posts talked about the hex pipe
homemade tool. But that isn't the type of setup my 91 Civic's pulley bolt
has. Ultimately the thread got it straight that my Civic has the pulley with
holes in it. Eric guided me to fabrication of an excellent tool for it,
slightly modified because my Civic had the power steering pulley lip with
which to contend, too.

I did a lot of other research on this, finding tools commercially available
and also at Ebay. (So far I prefer the tool that I ended up making for
around ten bucks, with Eric's guidance.)

 

By all means, if it's not well written, please redo it. The whole site
depends on multiple inputs.

Corrections of ANY kind NEVER, EVER step on my toes. The last thing I want
is errors on the site. Errors cost credibility. Ego is not worth it if it
leads to errors. I research this stuff as best I can, but sometimes I need
to rely on a best-guess. I then count on others to alert me if errors get
posted. You'd be amazed how few people actually let me know when they find
mistakes.

I once had one TSB link that led to the wrong TSB. According to my logs,
that TSB was viewed some 50 times, and only ONE person notified me that the
TSB referenced was not the one it should have led to. I thanked him and
changed it immediately.

Much of some portions of the site was written by others. Some is
attributed, some (by request) is not. The igniter pages are prime examples:
My helper there refuses to be publicly identified.

There have been submissions from others that have been impossible to
substantiate. These I have not put up, erring on the side of caution and
credibility.

Perfectly true. Some of them don't have that hex. Again, I don't know
unless someone tells me. How to get those loose? I don't know unless
someone tells me, or unless I read it in the groups.

I'm not a machine, and I will miss stuff as I read through the group's
messages. I was away for three weeks back in the summer. I have no idea
what I missed then.

Please elaborate.

By the way, I wish you'd got pics of your spark plug tube seal replacement.
I'm going to add your text to a new section on that, but I'll have to rely
on diagrams instead of photographs. It's a question that comes up often
enough to warrant addition to the FAQ.

You may not believe this, but I have no ego whatsoever when it comes to
this site. I was asked by John Ings to take it on before he died, and it's
become sort of a part-time job for me as I keep my promise to John.

I am a home mechanic, and not a professional, a fact that has not ever been
any kind of secret. I have repeatedly and freely acknowledged (and
solicited) the input of other's experiences, and have posted them as
needed. What is not mine is openly attributed to those who have submitted
it.

You have publicly objected to several parts of my site, but have so far
offered no corrections. A number of others have both objected AND offered
(even with diagrams and photos) corrections, ALL of which I have posted as
updates.

An example: The igniter test that required a dwell meter. John Ings wrote
that part. He had incorrectly attributed the test procedure to someone
named "Oak". You pointed this out as a criticism of the site, but offered
no correction at all, even after I requested that you do so. I asked you to
tell me who had actually written that quote, and received no reply. I then
did some digging myself, and discovered the quote actually came from "Rob
Relf". I then corrected that page, as you'll notice if you go there.
http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/startproblems.html
(3/4 of the way down)

The Unofficial Honda FAQ is supposed to be CORRECT, PERIOD. It is NOT
supposed to be a forum for my own opinions. Some pages are my opinions,
based on fact as far as I can determine, and I stand ready to correct that
which can be shown to be wrong.

You find mistakes? TELL ME. I NEED submissions. I only have one car myself.
Any other experiences I have come from working on others' cars, or from
submissions I receive from others. I have NO ego and a very thick skin.
I've been on Usenet for quite a few years and am very used to criticism
and MORE than eager to fix mistakes.

 

It's not errors (at least not in this instance), IMO, just lack of clarity.

The sub-site does note this, just not all that clearly, IMO.

My intent, believe it or not, was not to shoot down your site or you. I hope
you bear in mind all the praise people routinely and understandably heap
upon the "Unofficial FAQ" site. I think I'm the only one who has some
hesitancy to refer people to it. Obviously, I'm a rookie in most of these
areas, compared to Curly, SoCalMike, Jim, Eric, NE Ohio Bob, several others
I regret I can't name off the top of my head, and of course yourself. So
arguably my opinion should count even less.

My standards for communicating technical material are high. In addition,
because of what I think is a very different background, I think I
communicate in a way that a lot of old hands (mostly men, by coincidence)
find different.

I agree that the spark plug tube oil leak problem etc. should be an FAQ,
touching upon both the easy upper seal and the more involved lower seal.

IMO, Majestic's (or slhonda.com's) diagram of the lower seals, combined with
the instructions for removing the rocker arm/shaft assembly, with maybe a
bit of tweaking from my notes and/or your notes, treat the subject quite
well.

I am halfway to buying a digital camera because I want to show off my
Eric-patented, Elle-modified crankshaft pulley holder and bolt removal tool.

You're right that one who criticizes should certainly offer to correct the
problem him/erself. Also, I realize it's no easy task to maintain such a
site.

By way of some sort of explanation, and FWIW: We had quite a row over the
PCV valve issue some years ago. I remain at a loss over it. I am not happy
with what your site says about it. I don't want to repeat this row. Hence my
silence on this point. I appreciate what you say about not wanting to inject
ego, but if you are really convinced the PCV valve FAQ discussion is fair to
the subject, then you're entitled to your opinion and so should stick by
what's at the site.

That's a lot of work, and again, I hope you remember all the people who
compliment your efforts as incredibly useful.

First, I thought you could groups.google and easily find out who had written
the test procedure.

Two, hate me, but there was another person involved in the igniter
discussions here at the newsgroup who sent me a private email that was do
distasteful I wanted no affiliation with anything he did. I mentioned this
in the past. I think he's involved with this part of your site. Plus, I
don't have anything in particular to offer the ignitor section, anyway,
without one helluva lot of effort. Electronics is my weak point, besides. To
me, ignitors break. There's a test or two out there to confirm they're
broken. Once confirmed, slap another in there. OTOH, having my own
engineering subject area passions (e.g. thermodynamics and mechanics of
materials), I can understand how someone would love dissecting the operation
of the ignitor and comparing it to the old fashioned way ("points").

Well done.

Aside from the helpful technical info, I got a kick out of NE Ohio Bob's
camshaft table photos. (Been wanting to mention that for a while!) ;-)

I'll put together a site on the crankshaft pulley bolt, temporarily post it
(like for the next year or so), and you can use it as you like. I'll try to
make it blend with what you have already at your site, so you can copy and
paste as easily as possible.

Seems like the two Usenet Honda auto newsgroups have a rather amazing
reputation among auto newsgroups for helping people with their cars. You
should take a lot of credit for that.

 

For the archives, since it hasn't been said enough:

If one does break the pulley bolt free using a pulley holding tool, spend
the money for two, 3/4-inch, roughly ten inch long extensions and a 3/4-inch
drive breaker bar. This is as opposed to using 1/2 inch drives. (You'll
destroy 3/8-inch drives, applying over 300 ft-lbs of torque, typically, to
break that pulley bolt free.)

Just wanted to get this into the archives, since it's only been mentioned
once I think. Credit to Jim Beam for urging this.

Using 3/4-inch diameter yada instead of 1/2-inch diameter yada reduces the
angular windup (angular deflection of the extensions) from something like 45
degrees, theoretically, to about 9 degrees. I have confirmed the roughly 45
degrees of windup with my 91 Civic's crankshaft pulley bolt, assuming about
300 ft-lbs of torque. Forty-five degrees of windup in a piece of steel is a
lot of stored energy, ready to whip back at the operator, if s/he isn't very
careful. I lay out pillows for this job, and after being hit in the leg once
accidentally when loosening/tightening the bolt, I take that windup
seriously.

Anyone knowing a good source for 3/4-inch drives, do post. I found I think a
3/4-inch breaker bar the other day at Pep Boys, but not extensions to go
with it. I haven't gone intensively looking for these, though.

 

Elle wrote:

i'm sure i'll regret such a dumb question, but wtf has gender got to do
with it??????????

 

I now think I remember a discussion of just this a long time ago before I
took over the site. Somebody had posted a verbal decscription of the tool,
which I had trouble following.

That's over and done. Time to move on.

I don't hate anyone. Though I do have a higher opinion of people who offer
help as well as criticism.

I don't know who you're referring to, so a statement like this is unfair.
No one has ever sent me "distasteful" email.

If you set up your own site on that, I'll link to it in the FAQ.

So should many others, including you.

 

The Pdf

http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/igniter-operation/igniter-on-car-test.pdf

located here

http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/igniter-operation/off-car-testing.html

contains and display errors. This is what I see.

http://img452.imageshack.us/img452/2397/incartest5ry.gif

I've seen an original PDF like this before but can't say I have since I can't make out
exactly what make/model/year the error pdf is from.

 

I think this may have to do with you browser's PDF plugin. The image works
fine on the two computers amd 3 browsers I've just tried it on.

It's a scan of a page from the '91 Integra factory shop manual.

 

Here is my nauseously detailed discussion of crankshaft pulleys and holder
tools and oil in spark plug tubes.

http://home.earthlink.net/~honda.lioness/index.html

Pithy suggested changes are welcome.

 

I'll check it out later, thanks for putting that up.

 

I'd recompressed the file to 136KB (originally 336KB) and reconvert
it to PDF 4 which should work on old or new PDF viewers. Certain
old pdf viewers have speed.) If you like you can download the 91
Integra igniter input test PDF here

http://zupload.com/file.php?filepath=29622

or here. Should work on most PDF viewers.

http://zupload.com/download.php?file=getfile&filepath=29622

Notice that this is an "igniter input test." This test won't test the life
of the igniter. Best to label the link as "igniter input test" but
not "igniter test."

 

I /thought/ that was the "on car" test. Is there another on-test that will
check for functionality similarly to the off-car test?

Or should I just label the PDF as being a /limited/ on-car test that tests
input only, and state that for proper testing the igniter must be removed
from the car?

 

you can do the dwell meter test for the igniter on the car. for mine, i
just figured taking it out allowed me to clean everything up and
generally poke about.

 

There are no official "on car test" PDF that I can find, not one from Toyota or Honda.

Yes, however an on car is also possible, but is not the safest approach
considering the various sensitive electronics nearby.

 

....and don't forget the quality grade conducting grease. :~)

If you're referring to a dwell meter test like this link

http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/startproblems.html#bad

then it isn't accurate for testing the igniter.
Quote: "Crank the engine: No dwell, bad igniter..."
should be, "Crank the engine: No dwell, likely a bad igniter."

 

Have you ever thought of setting the site up using a "Wiki" back-end?
Might make ongoing maintenance easier, and add better support for
searching and indexing and such.