If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
>Nightdude
>The belt might not snap, but your water pump >might seize and cause the belt to snap! >And remember, heat and environment make >rubber brittle, especially after 11 years. I agree with what this Nightdude says. Unless you have garaged your car at room temperature, you need to replace the belt because the extreme heat under the hood and cold makes the rubber brittle. Not just the timing belt but also alternator, powersteering and water pump belts, including the water pump, even if it is not broken -- because it costs same amount of money to replace a H2O pump as replacing a timing belt. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Rattus The RAT wrote: > "TeGGeR=AE" > wrote in message > > Timing belt replacement: $200 or so. > > Engine work if the belt breaks: can be $2,000. > > > > Yes, it's true. Honda is conservative with their timing belt intervals. > > But > > then again, Hondas are interference engines. Your chances are about even > > for serious damage if the belt breaks. > > > > To me, $200 is worth the peace of mind. > > $200! You know a good place man! Any such places around DFW? $200? I paid maybe $300 on my 1987 Accord, had the dealer do it free on my present 1990 Accord at 46,000 (car was 8 years old then), and am expecting $600 to have the belts and water pump done on the same car now at 143,000. But if it comes in under, even better. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Pete from Boston" > wrote in
ups.com: > > Rattus The RAT wrote: >> "TeGGeR®" > wrote in message >> > Timing belt replacement: $200 or so. >> > Engine work if the belt breaks: can be $2,000. >> > >> > Yes, it's true. Honda is conservative with their timing belt >> > intervals. But >> > then again, Hondas are interference engines. Your chances are about >> > even for serious damage if the belt breaks. >> > >> > To me, $200 is worth the peace of mind. >> >> $200! You know a good place man! Any such places around DFW? > > $200? I paid maybe $300 on my 1987 Accord, had the dealer do it free > on my present 1990 Accord at 46,000 (car was 8 years old then), and am > expecting $600 to have the belts and water pump done on the same car > now at 143,000. But if it comes in under, even better. > > OK, OK, OK. Everybody keeps telling me I keep quoting high, so this time I quoted low. However, notice my weasel clause: "...OR SO". So I'm covered. -- TeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"TeGGeR®" > wrote in message ... > "Pete from Boston" > wrote in > ups.com: > >> >> Rattus The RAT wrote: >>> "TeGGeR®" > wrote in message >>> > Timing belt replacement: $200 or so. >>> > Engine work if the belt breaks: can be $2,000. >>> > >>> > Yes, it's true. Honda is conservative with their timing belt >>> > intervals. But >>> > then again, Hondas are interference engines. Your chances are about >>> > even for serious damage if the belt breaks. >>> > >>> > To me, $200 is worth the peace of mind. >>> >>> $200! You know a good place man! Any such places around DFW? >> >> $200? I paid maybe $300 on my 1987 Accord, had the dealer do it free >> on my present 1990 Accord at 46,000 (car was 8 years old then), and am >> expecting $600 to have the belts and water pump done on the same car >> now at 143,000. But if it comes in under, even better. >> >> > > > OK, OK, OK. Everybody keeps telling me I keep quoting high, so this time I > quoted low. > > However, notice my weasel clause: "...OR SO". So I'm covered. When i got mine done last year I called maybe 10 places and cheapest quote i got was around 495 OR SO! |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
My family has an '88 Accord with 45k miles. The belt has never been changed.
I probably won't get to it till next year. ----------------- Alex |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
SoCalMike wrote:
> 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. from the junk yard viewpoint, i'd say pretty much never. at the bottom end of the market, does it make sense to spend $300 on a $500 car? people just keep running those cars until they break. and you'll not see many junk yard clunkers with broken belts. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Elle wrote:
> Brake pad wear very much depends on individual driver habits and where the > car is driven. That's for sure. I do a fair amount of long distance driving late at night, when I hardly ever apply the brakes, thereby racking up a lot of mileage without braking in comparison to the small amount of city driving I do. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Timing belt / water pump | mpet500 | Honda | 15 | March 16th 05 04:18 PM |
1992 Camry Timing Belt | [email protected] | Technology | 4 | March 8th 05 03:11 PM |
90 civic timing belt = blown valves? | [email protected] | Honda | 6 | February 19th 05 12:24 AM |
replacing timing belt | Sven Agardh | VW water cooled | 17 | January 15th 05 12:08 AM |
Honda Passport - Timing Belt | ajpdla | Honda | 3 | December 12th 04 03:12 AM |