Timing belt - mileage vs time

"Peabody" > wrote
> Elle says...
>
> > 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."
>
> The question is what does it mean to Honda. And it clearly
> says whichever comes first.
>
> At the risk of being cynical, I view a lot of this as being
> dealer revenue enhancement. You may disagree, but I think
> that for a car like mine which averages less than 5000 miles
> per year, following these guides literally would just mean
> wasting a lot of money.

Being thrifty myself, I can understand your concern. But I think one has to
consider for whom the guidelines are written. Honda should be conservative,
as it can't be sure to what kind of driving people are subjecting their
cars.

You might note the manual says not to replace the oil until 7500 miles or
six months have passed. There is discussion on the net of why the six month
interval is there. Honda could probably easily get away with saying 3000
miles/6 months, because that's the mantra at places like Jiffy Lube and
one's local dealer. Now 3000 miles is a profit-driven figure.

> > 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.
>
> Perhaps, but pad wear clearly does not depend on time at
> all.

Dude, the manual is not saying to go replace the brake pads every six
months. It's saying to go inspect them. It's a guideline. It strikes me as
perfectly reasonable, since the manual has to assume all kind of extreme
driving conditions.

What interval, in years or miles, would you would recommend for the brake
pads?

Bear in mind that someone's safety is quite arguably at stake here.

> If the car sits idle for a month, the brake pads don't
> wear down even a little bit during that period. Well, if
> you don't count the relativistic effects and quantum
> uncertainty.

Don't go there, dude. You're not ready.

> > 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.
>
> Mine says 15k/1yr. I see no point in even checking the
> clearance before 15k miles. I would have to pay someone to
> do that, and I think that's silly. I acknowledge that
> there's a question about the timing belt, but stuff like
> valve clearance, spark plugs and brake pads are just not
> related to time, and I'm not going to follow the manual
> literally on such items.

You might note that the manual says to replace the oil every 7500 miles or
six months, whichever comes first.

> > 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.
>
> Anecdotal reports with respect to miles, but I haven't seen
> much with respect to time alone.
>
> > 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.
>
> They do happen, but I haven't heard of any breaking at
> 49,000 miles.

Do you understand why the two constraints--time and mileage--are not both
required to be met here?

> But you're right. It's cost vs risk, but that depends on
> what you think the risk really is. I still don't have a
> clear picture of what that is, and I don't think that
> picture exists in statistical form, unfortunately.

I personally have no doubt the engineering design does incorporate
statistics on likelihood of breakage. Speaking as a licensed professional
engineer.

snip
> I'll check with some other shops and see what they say. The
> problem of course is getting a straighforward answer from
> someone. That's what impressed me about Earl.

Well, you don't really know if it's straightforward or just someone
pretending to know more than the others, do you?

Of course, you shouldn't do what you're uncomfortable with. If you trust
Earl, then it's not for me to say otherwise. Just saying I suspect with a
little googling you will find reports of timing belts going at less than 11
years. If you want to risk it and can afford to do so, then your
decision-making is rational. But I absolutely object to your claim that
Honda is wrong to put a guideline of 90k miles/6 years down for the Civic.

Elle wrote:
> "Peabody" > wrote
>
>>Elle says...
>>
>> > 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."
>>
>>The question is what does it mean to Honda. And it clearly
>>says whichever comes first.
>>
>>At the risk of being cynical, I view a lot of this as being
>>dealer revenue enhancement. You may disagree, but I think
>>that for a car like mine which averages less than 5000 miles
>>per year, following these guides literally would just mean
>>wasting a lot of money.
>
>
> Being thrifty myself, I can understand your concern. But I think one has to
> consider for whom the guidelines are written. Honda should be conservative,
> as it can't be sure to what kind of driving people are subjecting their
> cars.
>
> You might note the manual says not to replace the oil until 7500 miles or
> six months have passed. There is discussion on the net of why the six month
> interval is there. Honda could probably easily get away with saying 3000
> miles/6 months, because that's the mantra at places like Jiffy Lube and
> one's local dealer. Now 3000 miles is a profit-driven figure.
>
>
>> > 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.
>>
>>Perhaps, but pad wear clearly does not depend on time at
>>all.
>
>
> Dude, the manual is not saying to go replace the brake pads every six
> months. It's saying to go inspect them. It's a guideline. It strikes me as
> perfectly reasonable, since the manual has to assume all kind of extreme
> driving conditions.
>
> What interval, in years or miles, would you would recommend for the brake
> pads?
>
> Bear in mind that someone's safety is quite arguably at stake here.
>
>
>>If the car sits idle for a month, the brake pads don't
>>wear down even a little bit during that period. Well, if
>>you don't count the relativistic effects and quantum
>>uncertainty.
>
>
> Don't go there, dude. You're not ready.
>
>
>> > 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.
>>
>>Mine says 15k/1yr. I see no point in even checking the
>>clearance before 15k miles. I would have to pay someone to
>>do that, and I think that's silly. I acknowledge that
>>there's a question about the timing belt, but stuff like
>>valve clearance, spark plugs and brake pads are just not
>>related to time, and I'm not going to follow the manual
>>literally on such items.
>
>
> You might note that the manual says to replace the oil every 7500 miles or
> six months, whichever comes first.
>
>
>> > 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.
>>
>>Anecdotal reports with respect to miles, but I haven't seen
>>much with respect to time alone.
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>>They do happen, but I haven't heard of any breaking at
>>49,000 miles.
>
>
> Do you understand why the two constraints--time and mileage--are not both
> required to be met here?
>
>
>>But you're right. It's cost vs risk, but that depends on
>>what you think the risk really is. I still don't have a
>>clear picture of what that is, and I don't think that
>>picture exists in statistical form, unfortunately.
>
>
> I personally have no doubt the engineering design does incorporate
> statistics on likelihood of breakage. Speaking as a licensed professional
> engineer.
>
> snip
>
>>I'll check with some other shops and see what they say. The
>>problem of course is getting a straighforward answer from
>>someone. That's what impressed me about Earl.
>
>
> Well, you don't really know if it's straightforward or just someone
> pretending to know more than the others, do you?
>
> Of course, you shouldn't do what you're uncomfortable with. If you trust
> Earl, then it's not for me to say otherwise. Just saying I suspect with a
> little googling you will find reports of timing belts going at less than 11
> years. If you want to risk it and can afford to do so, then your
> decision-making is rational. But I absolutely object to your claim that
> Honda is wrong to put a guideline of 90k miles/6 years down for the Civic.
>
>
elle, at the time the 94 manual was written, belts weren't as good as
they are today - hence modern belts have 100-120k mile intervals. if
it's a modern belt of premium brand and operated in not too extreme an
environment, there's no real reason why a change interval couldn't be
extended. while sudden failure is possible, my experience is that belts
that break are usually in pretty bad condition on visual inspection and
most of the time, they make noise in use, particularly when the motor is
revved high. good condition belts are all but silent and generally
don't break. if you want to be prudent, sure, change at the service
interval. if you want to be thrifty, visually inspect. if you want to
be chancy, listen for the most distinctive belt whine.

Peabody wrote:
[ brake pads]
> Well, I first inspected mine at about 32,000 miles when the
> dealership "inspected" mine and told me they needed to be
> replaced. They did this with a straight face. I took the
> wheels off and looked, and it was obvious I was being
> bull****ted, and I complained to the service manager.

Unh-hunh. I took my Civic in to the local dealer for a pre-purchase
assessment, upon which they found about $3000 worth of work they could
do. One item was to replace the front rotors, which were "rusted", and
pads, to the tune of $400. Yeah, right. When I got a look at them I
found that they were perfectly solid and displayed no more than a
reasonably normal amount of rust. No thumping during braking at any
speed. They also said the clutch slave cylinder was leaking, which it
did not appear to be on visual inspection when I replaced it last week.
Don't expect I'll be going back there for any work beyond a seatbelt
problem.

Anyway, I was honest with the seller and let her know that the dealer
was largely full of **** and that many of the real problems they found
were regular maintenance items. Did bargain her down another $200,
though, splitting a couple of the real things. All in all, it was a good
deal.

"jim beam" > wrote
snip, something others shoud learn.
> > But I absolutely object to your claim that
> > Honda is wrong to put a guideline of 90k miles/6 years down for the
Civic.
> >
> >
> elle, at the time the 94 manual was written, belts weren't as good as
> they are today -

I was referring above to my 91 Civic's interval, as well as Civics of years
around 1991.

"Peabody" > wrote
E wrote
> > What interval, in years or miles, would you would
> > recommend for the brake pads?
>
> > Bear in mind that someone's safety is quite arguably at
> > stake here.
>
> Well, I first inspected mine at about 32,000 miles when the
> dealership "inspected" mine and told me they needed to be
> replaced. They did this with a straight face. I took the
> wheels off and looked, and it was obvious I was being
> bull****ted, and I complained to the service manager. The
> second time was last week. At 49,300 miles, I thought it
> probably wasn't too early to check them again. Still a good
> bit of pad thickness left. I'll check them again in a few
> years, but you know, that's what those little warning tabs
> are for. When they start to chatter, you still have pad
> left, but not much, and it's time to get that brake job.

(It should be a squeal, not chatter.)

So again: What interval do you think should be listed in the owner's manual?
If you don't have enough information to respond to this, what information do
you think would be helpful?

snip
> I don't care what they put in the manual. I just don't want
> to be bound by assumptions on which the manual is based that
> don't apply to me.

I see. I'm glad you know which assumptions those are.

"Peabody" > wrote
E wrote
> Well, I first inspected mine at about 32,000 miles when the
> dealership "inspected" mine and told me they needed to be
> replaced. They did this with a straight face. I took the
> wheels off and looked, and it was obvious I was being
> bull****ted, and I complained to the service manager. The
> second time was last week. At 49,300 miles, I thought it
> probably wasn't too early to check them again.

My 91 Civic's first brake pads wore to the warning tabs after 43k miles.

Peabody > wrote in
news:WFjBe.30055$4o.25003@fed1read06:


>
> Well, I first inspected mine at about 32,000 miles when the
> dealership "inspected" mine and told me they needed to be
> replaced. They did this with a straight face. I took the
> wheels off and looked,


Did you look at both inside *and* outside pads, on both sides?


> I'll check them again in a few
> years, but you know, that's what those little warning tabs
> are for.


Those warning tabs are only on the inside pad. If the inside pad seizes,
extra load will be forced on the outer pad, and it will wear twice as fast.
You won't know until you get the grinding noise that tells you your rotors
are already damaged.

If you leave your brakes a "few years", you'd better hope you live in an
area that gets no snow.


--
TeGGeR®

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

In article <rVgBe.30047$4o.13555@fed1read06>,
Peabody > wrote:
>At the risk of being cynical, I view a lot of this as being
>dealer revenue enhancement. You may disagree, but I think
>that for a car like mine which averages less than 5000 miles
>per year, following these guides literally would just mean
>wasting a lot of money.

However, low mileage is often severe service (e.g. city driving,
short cold start trips).

> > Brake pad wear very much depends on individual driver
> > habits and where the car is driven.
>
>Perhaps, but pad wear clearly does not depend on time at
>all. If the car sits idle for a month, the brake pads don't
>wear down even a little bit during that period.

However, if the low mileage car is a city car, it is likely to
wear out its brake pads before a high milage highway car does.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

Well, last year i bought a 1987 civic w/31,000 original miles. Paid $1200 for it and my goal is to get 5 years out of the car.
12,000 miles a year driven only to work on the highway. In 5 years it will have close to 90-100,000 miles on it. If it makes it
that far,and i think it will, i will treat it to a new belt. Then i will continue to drive it until the rust gets too bad. I'd
like to buy a new Cr-v so i might not go through with my plan. No great loss if the belt breaks and trashes the engine as i have
other vehicles to drive but i have faith in it.


> 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.

Elle wrote:
> "jim beam" > wrote
> snip, something others shoud learn.
>
>>>But I absolutely object to your claim that
>>>Honda is wrong to put a guideline of 90k miles/6 years down for the
>
> Civic.
>
>>>
>>elle, at the time the 94 manual was written, belts weren't as good as
>>they are today -
>
>
> I was referring above to my 91 Civic's interval, as well as Civics of years
> around 1991.
>
it's the same interval as the 94 isn't it? post 96 is the extended
interval.