Timing Belt Change (10500 miles vs 7 years)

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Joe LaVigne > wrote:
>
> > > The manual is pretty clear, however i am sure the guy writing it did
> > > not think of cases where the car had 30000 miles lesser than the life
> > > of the belt.
> >
> > Yes, he did. That's why he said 7 years or 105k, whichever is earlier.
>
> The manual is pretty clear, except to cheap *******s--for whom nothing
> regarding spending money is "clear".
>
This guy is getting off pretty easy. How long did the first timing belts
last, 25,000 miles or something like that? When they sold the first Vegas
and Pintos, people and mechanics too didn't have a clue.

Cheers,

Earle

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" > wrote in news:elmop-
:

> In article >,
> Tegger > wrote:
>
>> > The manual is pretty clear, however i am sure the guy writing it did
>> > not think of cases where the car had 30000 miles lesser than the life
>> > of the belt.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> He absolutely did. That is why there is a TIME factor in there.
>
> Again, RVS is being a cheap ******* and is looking for someone to give
> him permission to be a cheap *******. That way it' "not his fault" if
> something happens. "But they said it was OK!!!!"
>



RVS obviously has not read the message elsewhere in this group from
"Lance Dowdy".

I reprint an excerpt below:

Subject: '91 Honda Accord rough acceleration, erratic speedometer
From:
Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.honda

"I have read a lot of info online, but still have questions. Hope
someone can help - please.
"Background: One year ago lost the Timing belt while driving and messed
up 12 of the 18 valve. Car only had 58k miles (wife's grandma's car)
so decided to fork over $1900 for repair. After the repair it ran
great, better than new, I mean surprisingly smooth and fast. That was
a year ago...."


--
Tegger

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

"Peabody" > wrote in message
...
> RVS says...
>
> > The manual is pretty clear, however i am sure the guy
> > writing it did not think of cases where the car had
> > 30000 miles lesser than the life of the belt. Also most
> > of the postings in here could be clarified by reading
> > the manual or going to a dealer, so i am assuming
> > everybody who is here is to her to save a few bucks.
> > Plus i was interested in checking with other
> > knowledgable people on this forum.
>
> I had the same question about my 94 Accord, for which the
> manual says 90k/6yrs. There's no column in the manual for
> 90k/7yrs, or 90k/12yrs. The only column that has 90k miles
> also has 6 years. And that appears to be true of everything
> in there - it's 15k miles per year. But, you know, some
> things are really mileage things, like brakes, whereas other
> things might have a significant time component, like oil or
> coolant.
>
> For what it's worth, and I offer this with no guarantee at
> all, here's what I was told:
>
> I took my 94 Accord in to a local Honda/Acura shop (not a
> dealer, but highly respected for quality work) when it was
> 10 years old, and had 46k miles on it. Remember that the
> manual says 90k/6yrs. I placed my checkbook on the desk,
> and told the shop owner that I thought I should get the
> timing belt replaced.
>
> Even though my checkbook was clearly visible to him, he said
> that the timing belt is pretty much exclusively a mileage
> thing, and I don't need to get it changed. When I asked how
> long I should go before getting it changed, he said "90,000
> miles".
>
> Now of course, he doesn't guarantee that advice, but he and
> his guys have worked on Honda products for decades, and know
> more than I do.

All mechanics believe that they know more than the engineers who designed
the vehicle.

>
> I'm all the way up to 58k miles now, and the car is
> approaching 13 years old. Based on time, I should have
> changed the belt twice by now.
>
> But here's the other side. If at some point you are going
> to sell the car, you're going to have to get the belt
> replaced first, or allow for the cost of doing that in the
> selling price. So, if you plan on selling in the next few

Why?

> years, you'll have to get it changed once anyway. Why not
> do it now, and eliminate any worry. In my case, as of today
> I have avoided two belt changes. But if you plan on selling
> within, say, four years from now, I think you probably
> should go ahead and get it done now. If you plan on keeping
> it till it dies, then you're gonna have to decide what's
> reasonable, and I don't know of any statistical data that
> would tell you what actually determines the life of the belt.
>
> I do, however, agree with you that the manual is based on an
> assumed 15k miles per year, and the column the item appears
> in does NOT tell you whether mileage or time is the real
> determining factor, if that is not the rate at which you
> put miles on the car. The problem is, I don't know how you
> find the real answer.
>
You wait until the engine stops running and you coast to the side of the
road as if the clutch were depressed or you had put the car in neutral.
Then you add a note to your Owner's Manual, "timing belt lasts xx years, yy
months". The down side is that the repair will be more expensive now,
because of all the bent valves in your engine.

Earle

Elmo P. Shagnasty > wrote in article
>...
> In article >,
> Peabody > wrote:
>
> > Now of course, he doesn't guarantee that advice, but he and
> > his guys have worked on Honda products for decades, and know
> > more than I do.
>
> And the Honda engineers who said "90K miles or 6 years, whichever comes
> first" know EVEN MORE about the situation than your grizzled old tech
> does.
>
>
> > I'm all the way up to 58k miles now, and the car is
> > approaching 13 years old. Based on time, I should have
> > changed the belt twice by now.
>
> You rolled the dice and won. Does that mean you will tell everyone that
> what you did is a perfect system, not a roll of the dice?
>
>
>
> > I do, however, agree with you that the manual is based on an
> > assumed 15k miles per year, and the column the item appears
> > in does NOT tell you whether mileage or time is the real
> > determining factor,
>
> Yes, it does. He was perfectly clear: his manual says 105K miles or 7
> years, whichever comes first. It says that EXPLICITLY.
>
> He can listen to the Honda engineers, or he can listen to you tell third
> party stories from some guy who claims that he knows what he's talking
> about (he probably just didn't want to take on the work, frankly).
>
>
>
> > The problem is, I don't know how you
> > find the real answer.
>
> Well, one could start with READING.
>
> But apparently actual *comprehension* is beyond so many people in the
> world today, as evidenced by you and RVS.
>
> Either that, or the gene that makes you a cheap ******* is the same gene
> that leaves you unable to comprehend plain language.
>
>

Uh..... what kind of engineer would design an engine that would
self-destruct if a rubber belt broke?

I seriously dont get it! If someone doesnt have enough money to throw out a
few hundred bucks why would you call him a ******* or a miser...
The guy asked a serious question and wanted to know about other ppl's
opinion about the belt if you are so bent upon calling him a ******* why
dont you foot his bill for the belt change :P

W

"Joe LaVigne" > wrote in message
...
> RVS wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> My Honda civic sedan is now 7 years old, but has only 75000 miles on
>> it. The manual says i need to change the timing belt at 105000/7 years
>> (whichever is earlier). I still have 30,000 miles to go, however the
>> number of years are done.
>>
>> Should i be replacing the timing belt even though i am 30,000 miles
>> short, or should i wait for a few more miles.
>
> Replace it. It is 105,000 or 7 years, whichever comes first.
>

In article et.>,
"TomC" > wrote:

> > And the Honda engineers who said "90K miles or 6 years, whichever comes
> > first" know EVEN MORE about the situation than your grizzled old tech
> > does.
> >
> >
> > > I'm all the way up to 58k miles now, and the car is
> > > approaching 13 years old. Based on time, I should have
> > > changed the belt twice by now.
> >
> > You rolled the dice and won. Does that mean you will tell everyone that
> > what you did is a perfect system, not a roll of the dice?
> >
I have two friends who had the timing belt suddenly fail at 130 and 140
Kkms pm the Chrysler 2.5L engine of the 80s.
Fortunately this engine was non interference so only the belt had to be
replaced.
Another friend with an earlier Civic was not so lucky when his timing
belt broke. His interference engine was destroyed.

TomC wrote:
> Elmo P. Shagnasty > wrote in article
> >...
>> In article >,
>> Peabody > wrote:
>>
>>> Now of course, he doesn't guarantee that advice, but he and
>>> his guys have worked on Honda products for decades, and know
>>> more than I do.
>> And the Honda engineers who said "90K miles or 6 years, whichever comes
>> first" know EVEN MORE about the situation than your grizzled old tech
>> does.
>>
>>
>>> I'm all the way up to 58k miles now, and the car is
>>> approaching 13 years old. Based on time, I should have
>>> changed the belt twice by now.
>> You rolled the dice and won. Does that mean you will tell everyone that
>> what you did is a perfect system, not a roll of the dice?
>>
>>
>>
>>> I do, however, agree with you that the manual is based on an
>>> assumed 15k miles per year, and the column the item appears
>>> in does NOT tell you whether mileage or time is the real
>>> determining factor,
>> Yes, it does. He was perfectly clear: his manual says 105K miles or 7
>> years, whichever comes first. It says that EXPLICITLY.
>>
>> He can listen to the Honda engineers, or he can listen to you tell third
>> party stories from some guy who claims that he knows what he's talking
>> about (he probably just didn't want to take on the work, frankly).
>>
>>
>>
>>> The problem is, I don't know how you
>>> find the real answer.
>> Well, one could start with READING.
>>
>> But apparently actual *comprehension* is beyond so many people in the
>> world today, as evidenced by you and RVS.
>>
>> Either that, or the gene that makes you a cheap ******* is the same gene
>> that leaves you unable to comprehend plain language.
>>
>>
>
> Uh..... what kind of engineer would design an engine that would
> self-destruct if a rubber belt broke?
>
/not/ the same "engineer" that is happy selling inefficient unreliable
garbage that they can't be bothered to make work properly and is made in
detroit.

"interference" is the result of aggressive valve timing and high
compression - which both lead to high output and high fuel efficiency.
if you want to have a low compression low revving motor that is not fuel
efficient, you too can have a non-interference engine.

w wrote:

> I seriously dont get it! If someone doesnt have enough money to throw out
> a few hundred bucks why would you call him a ******* or a miser...
> The guy asked a serious question and wanted to know about other ppl's
> opinion about the belt if you are so bent upon calling him a ******* why
> dont you foot his bill for the belt change :P
>

If he can't afford the maintenance, he should take the bus. A car is a
luxury.

And if he decides to be a cheapskate and skip the maintenance, he shouldn't
bother to come crying here when his timing belt snaps and his engine is
turned into a big ****ing paperweight.

Since you are condoning his miserly ways, perhaps you'll be willing to foot
the bill for a new motor for him...

On May 4, 10:57 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" > wrote:
> In article >, "w" >
> wrote:
>
> > I seriously dont get it! If someone doesnt have enough money to throw out a
> > few hundred bucks why would you call him a ******* or a miser...
>
> He's at best penny-wise and pound-foolish. He wants not to spend a few
> hundred dollars today so that he may end up spending a few thousand
> dollars down the road.
>
> As the Car Talk guys say, it's the cheapest man who spends the most.

Whether i spend money or not ... whether i take a bus or not is my
decision, If people always followed the manual or went to the dealer
for everything, they would not have to come to this forum and listen
to some of the asses on this site. It my car to destroy, may it be a
few hundred now or a few thousand later. I came here to see if
somebody had any contrary experiences. To those who gave me an honest
opinion (most of who advised me to go get the work done now), i
appreciate the advice and will follow it. To those who don't have a
life and have about a dozen replies to a question from a guy they
consider not worth answering, get a life. As for the marital advice
from groups here, may be Elmo's wife can say how thats working out.

Have had enough of these useless forums.

"RVS" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On May 4, 10:57 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" > wrote:
> > In article >, "w" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I seriously dont get it! If someone doesnt have enough money to throw
out a
> > > few hundred bucks why would you call him a ******* or a miser...
> >
> > He's at best penny-wise and pound-foolish. He wants not to spend a few
> > hundred dollars today so that he may end up spending a few thousand
> > dollars down the road.
> >
> > As the Car Talk guys say, it's the cheapest man who spends the most.
>
> Whether i spend money or not ... whether i take a bus or not is my
> decision, If people always followed the manual or went to the dealer
> for everything, they would not have to come to this forum and listen
> to some of the asses on this site. It my car to destroy, may it be a
> few hundred now or a few thousand later. I came here to see if
> somebody had any contrary experiences. To those who gave me an honest
> opinion (most of who advised me to go get the work done now), i
> appreciate the advice and will follow it. To those who don't have a
> life and have about a dozen replies to a question from a guy they
> consider not worth answering, get a life. As for the marital advice
> from groups here, may be Elmo's wife can say how thats working out.
>
> Have had enough of these useless forums.
>
Y tú mamá también.

Saludos,

Earle