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.
>
>
i've spent a whole lot of time in junk yards over the years [a great
place to see a lot of failures] and gotta say, it's pretty unusual to
see a [honda] timing belt that's in such bad condition that i'd be
concerned about failure just through age. theoretically, yes, belts
crack, belt fibers fatigue and teeth fall off, but this is seldom
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.