Timing belt - mileage vs time

Well Peabody, I'd say if Mr.Earl will pay for the collateral damage, to
the engine, if the timing belt does break before 90k. Then I'd say
let-R-run and see who's right.
Thermal (heat) cycles and proper tension also factor in on the equation
of "when to replace the t/belt."

For the record, I replaced the T/Belt on my '90 Integra 3 years ago; it
only had 68k miles. The belt didn't look particularly distressed; but
at 12 years old the car is hardly worth what it would take to
rehabilitate the engine/head if the T/Belt did break...

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.

--
Tp,

-------- __o
----- -\<. -------- __o
--- ( )/ ( ) ---- -\<.
-------------------- ( )/ ( )
-----------------------------------------

No Lawsuit Ever Fixed A Moron...