"Peabody" > wrote
> SoCalMike says...
>
>
> > jim beam wrote:
>
> >> without any form of visible deterioration. i say, do a
> >> visual inspection. if it apears to be in bad shape,
> >> cracking, fraying, teeth worn or deformed, yes, replace
> >> regardless of mileage. but if it's not, and you /know/
> >> for sure mileage is within spec, i'd stick with earl's
> >> advice.
>
> > id be curious to know how many 80s/90s vintage civics
> > *ever* get their timing belt replaced. its something 99%
> > of people dont even think about. im sure some live their
> > whole lives with one belt, then it gets replaced when
> > the water pump starts spewing coolant.
>
> Yes in fact, Earl said that the water pump is what usually
> goes out at somewhere around 90-100k miles, at which point
> they do the belt too.

If that's the case, it makes sense to be pre-emptive and just do the belt
per the maintenance schedule, at the same time replacing the water pump.
That is, in fact, what any good shop will do, since the labor for each
overlaps greatly.

But I realize you're focused on the time interval at the moment, since this
is what you've exceeded.

> He said he sees a lot of early-80's models with their
> original belt, and presumably the original water pump. But I
> would still guess that most of them get replaced at some
> point, either because the water pump goes out or because the
> dealer hounds you about it at each oil change.
>
> I was frankly surprised at how confident Earl was about his
> advice. Of course it isn't his car or his risk, but even so
> I would have expected him to hedge a little, or do one of
> those disclaimers about no guarantees, and so forth. But he
> just said "You don't need to do this," and there were no
> qualifiers. I mean, I had my checkbook with me. It would
> have been $595.
>
> Well, I may check with some other places locally just to see
> what they say, but having gotten the answer I wanted... :-)
>
> I just want to point out that in my owner's manual, there is
> only one column that says 90,000 miles, and that column also
> says 6 years. There is no 90k/8yrs or 90k/4yrs.

What does the / mark mean to you here?

My 91 Civic's manual explicitly notes that the interval is 90k miles or six
years, "whichever comes first."

> All of the
> columns assume 15k miles per year. But it's clear that some
> things are really mileage based, like brake pads,

Brake pads are not at all strictly mileage based. Nor does the manual say
they are. What it does say is _inspect_ the brake pads after certain mileage
and time intervals.

Brake pad wear very much depends on individual driver habits and where the
car is driven.

> while
> others (I don't know - maybe antifreeze, or maybe even
> engine oil) have a significant time component. But you
> aren't going to get your valves adjusted based on time even
> though the 30k/2yr major service includes it.

The valve clearances are supposed to be checked every15k/2 years, whichever
comes first, on my 91 Civic. It's likely the check will indicate they need
no adjustment, though. I've never had the valves adjusted on my car. I
checked the clearances a year ago.

> So it's not completely unreasonable to suggest that just
> because that column says 90k miles or 6 yrs it shouldn't
> necessarily be taken literally. The question is how
> important time is for big honking belts like these. It's
> too bad we don't have statistics that would tell us.

What you have is an engineering design which is also supported by many
anecdotal reports of broken timing belts destroying engines shortly after
the time and/or mileage interval is exceeded.

It's a cost vs. risk analysis. Save $600 now but risk destroying your engine
from a broken timing belt. These do happen on Hondas of your year.

So, are you driving a clunker that you're ready to abandon and replace with
a newer car? If so, then it may make sense to drive it into the ground and
roll the dice on NOT replacing the belt. If OTOH it's your principal
transportation and you don't have several thousand or more dollars lying
around to buy a new car with, then I think you should definitely replace the
timing belt. Now.