Timing belt - mileage vs time
 

Peabody wrote:
> For what it may be worth:
>
> I have a 94 Accord (soon to be 11 years old) with only 49,000 miles
> on it. Today I went to see Earl, who for the last 15 years has run
> a local repair shop specializing in Hondas and Acuras, and who is
> highly respected for the quality of his work and his expertise.
>
> Earl said the timing belt is almost exclusively a mileage item, and
> he would not recommend replacing mine until I reach 90k miles,
> pretty much no matter how long that takes. He said failures at
> fewer miles are extremely rare, and he routinely sees low-mileage
> early 80's Accords which still have their original timing belts.
>
> Earl had the opportunity to relieve me of several hundred dollars,
> since I went in to schedule the belt replacement, but he pretty
> firmly turned me down. So, I assume he at least believes what he's
> saying, even if he may not be right.
>
>

id likely believe him,... ive got 49k on my 98 CX, and am in no
particular hurry to replace the belt. i doubt ill wait til 108k, but 90
sounds reasonable if i still ahve the car. part has to do with the
weather the car is driven in, how its stored, etc. i park in a garage.

FWIW, i change all my fluids every 3 years, and they always come out
looking almost as clean as the new stuff.

In article <4ZBAe.55676$iU.49281@lakeread05>, waybackKILLSPAM44
@yahoo.com says...

> I have a 94 Accord (soon to be 11 years old) with only 49,000 miles
> on it. Today I went to see Earl, who for the last 15 years has run
> a local repair shop specializing in Hondas and Acuras, and who is
> highly respected for the quality of his work and his expertise.
>
> Earl said the timing belt is almost exclusively a mileage item, and
> he would not recommend replacing mine until I reach 90k miles,
> pretty much no matter how long that takes. He said failures at
> fewer miles are extremely rare, and he routinely sees low-mileage
> early 80's Accords which still have their original timing belts.
>
> Earl had the opportunity to relieve me of several hundred dollars,
> since I went in to schedule the belt replacement, but he pretty
> firmly turned me down. So, I assume he at least believes what he's
> saying, even if he may not be right.

My experience has been different. I replaced the t-belt on my '90 CRX Si
at 60K miles. Last year, at around 115K miles, it occurred to me that it
was nearing time to replace it again, and resolved to do so as it got
closer to the 120K mile mark. Shortly thereafter, it failed while I was
on the freeway. Fortunately, I was able to coast into the breakdown lane
safely, and even more fortunately, the valvetrain wasn't damaged.

It had been seven years since it was replaced at 60K (my daily commute
is short, hence the relatively low mileage on the car for its age), and
the snapped belt had dry-rotted badly enough to where it was easy to
strip teeth off it with my bare hands. Now, I live in an area with high
humidity, very hot summers, and mild winters, so you might consider that
to be the "extreme conditions" Honda typically stipulates a different
maintenance schedule for. But when I told my mechanic how long it had
been since the 60K replacement, he said he would be reluctant to trust a
t-belt for much more than 5 years regardless of mileage. Perhaps the
newer belts are constructed differently, as the maintenance interval for
most of them has gone up in recent years.

As always, YMMV. Especially when it comes to t-belts. :-)

Dave

SoCalMike wrote:

> id likely believe him,... ive got 49k on my 98 CX, and am in no
> particular hurry to replace the belt. i doubt ill wait til 108k, but 90
> sounds reasonable if i still ahve the car. part has to do with the
> weather the car is driven in, how its stored, etc. i park in a garage.

That's what I was thinking. Perhaps changing the belt based on time is
recommended for so-called "severe" conditions such as winter weather.

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> SoCalMike > wrote:
>
>> id likely believe him,... ive got 49k on my 98 CX, and am in no
>> particular hurry to replace the belt.
>
> Ah. Because you don't WANT to replace the belt, you've chosen to
> believe someone who confirms what you want to do.
>
> Got it.

So at 7k a year, he'll wait until nearly 13 years on the original belt.
Yikes.

You figure you'll change it by 2011, do you, Mike?

Peabody wrote:
> For what it may be worth:
>
> I have a 94 Accord (soon to be 11 years old) with only 49,000 miles
> on it. Today I went to see Earl, who for the last 15 years has run
> a local repair shop specializing in Hondas and Acuras, and who is
> highly respected for the quality of his work and his expertise.
>
> Earl said the timing belt is almost exclusively a mileage item, and
> he would not recommend replacing mine until I reach 90k miles,
> pretty much no matter how long that takes. He said failures at
> fewer miles are extremely rare, and he routinely sees low-mileage
> early 80's Accords which still have their original timing belts.
>
> Earl had the opportunity to relieve me of several hundred dollars,
> since I went in to schedule the belt replacement, but he pretty
> firmly turned me down. So, I assume he at least believes what he's
> saying, even if he may not be right.


----------------------

Earl is honest, but mis-informed. Please read this:

http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/faq.html#interference

'Curly'

High milage in my opinion is not the only killer of timing belts. Heat /
below freezing temps. and starting the engine put a lot more stress on the
belt than driving on long trips. You also have a tensioner pulley that may
have the grease drying out. And the biggest issue is that Honda's are not
free-wheeling engines. Normally, when the belt breaks, pistons and valves
collide. Will Earl stand by you with assistance if your belt breaks
before its scheduled milage interval? And will he put it in writing?
Honda is now recommending a time as well as milage interval. Good luck on
your decision.

The belt might not snap, but your water pump might seize and cause the belt
to snap!
And remember, heat and environment make rubber brittle, especially after 11
years.

When I changed my belt at 90K on my car, the water pump was almost shot, it
was slowly leaking and the bearings were making a loud noise. Without taking
the belt out, I wouldn't have known.

My car is also a 94.


"Peabody" > wrote in message
news:4ZBAe.55676$iU.49281@lakeread05...
> For what it may be worth:
>
> I have a 94 Accord (soon to be 11 years old) with only 49,000 miles
> on it. Today I went to see Earl, who for the last 15 years has run
> a local repair shop specializing in Hondas and Acuras, and who is
> highly respected for the quality of his work and his expertise.
>
> Earl said the timing belt is almost exclusively a mileage item, and
> he would not recommend replacing mine until I reach 90k miles,
> pretty much no matter how long that takes. He said failures at
> fewer miles are extremely rare, and he routinely sees low-mileage
> early 80's Accords which still have their original timing belts.
>
> Earl had the opportunity to relieve me of several hundred dollars,
> since I went in to schedule the belt replacement, but he pretty
> firmly turned me down. So, I assume he at least believes what he's
> saying, even if he may not be right.
>
>

Honda always recommended a time with their timing belt change. I believe
it's 5 years.

"duckbill" > wrote in message
lkaboutautos.com...
> High milage in my opinion is not the only killer of timing belts. Heat /
> below freezing temps. and starting the engine put a lot more stress on the
> belt than driving on long trips. You also have a tensioner pulley that
> may
> have the grease drying out. And the biggest issue is that Honda's are not
> free-wheeling engines. Normally, when the belt breaks, pistons and valves
> collide. Will Earl stand by you with assistance if your belt breaks
> before its scheduled milage interval? And will he put it in writing?
> Honda is now recommending a time as well as milage interval. Good luck on
> your decision.
>

Peabody > wrote in
news:4ZBAe.55676$iU.49281@lakeread05:

> For what it may be worth:
>
> I have a 94 Accord (soon to be 11 years old) with only 49,000 miles
> on it. Today I went to see Earl, who for the last 15 years has run
> a local repair shop specializing in Hondas and Acuras, and who is
> highly respected for the quality of his work and his expertise.
>
> Earl said the timing belt is almost exclusively a mileage item, and
> he would not recommend replacing mine until I reach 90k miles,
> pretty much no matter how long that takes. He said failures at
> fewer miles are extremely rare, and he routinely sees low-mileage
> early 80's Accords which still have their original timing belts.
>
> Earl had the opportunity to relieve me of several hundred dollars,
> since I went in to schedule the belt replacement, but he pretty
> firmly turned me down. So, I assume he at least believes what he's
> saying, even if he may not be right.
>
>


Timing belt replacement: $200 or so.
Engine work if the belt breaks: can be $2,000.

Yes, it's true. Honda is conservative with their timing belt intervals. But
then again, Hondas are interference engines. Your chances are about even
for serious damage if the belt breaks.

To me, $200 is worth the peace of mind.

--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

"TeGGeR®" > wrote in message
...
> Peabody > wrote in
> news:4ZBAe.55676$iU.49281@lakeread05:
>
>> For what it may be worth:
>>
>> I have a 94 Accord (soon to be 11 years old) with only 49,000 miles
>> on it. Today I went to see Earl, who for the last 15 years has run
>> a local repair shop specializing in Hondas and Acuras, and who is
>> highly respected for the quality of his work and his expertise.
>>
>> Earl said the timing belt is almost exclusively a mileage item, and
>> he would not recommend replacing mine until I reach 90k miles,
>> pretty much no matter how long that takes. He said failures at
>> fewer miles are extremely rare, and he routinely sees low-mileage
>> early 80's Accords which still have their original timing belts.
>>
>> Earl had the opportunity to relieve me of several hundred dollars,
>> since I went in to schedule the belt replacement, but he pretty
>> firmly turned me down. So, I assume he at least believes what he's
>> saying, even if he may not be right.
>>
>>
>
>
> Timing belt replacement: $200 or so.
> Engine work if the belt breaks: can be $2,000.
>
> Yes, it's true. Honda is conservative with their timing belt intervals.
> But
> then again, Hondas are interference engines. Your chances are about even
> for serious damage if the belt breaks.
>
> To me, $200 is worth the peace of mind.

$200! You know a good place man! Any such places around DFW?

RAT