That car has a non-interference motor.


On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:27:09 GMT, Paul Elliot <pelliot@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

>BigBadBob wrote:
>> Personally, I wouldn't go more than 90k miles before changing the belt. As
>> much work as it is to change the timing belt (and all the other crap that
>> really should be changed while your down that far), it would be much more
>> troublesome (and costly) to replace the engine in the event that the timing
>> belt broke.
>>
>> -BBB
>>
>> "E. Meyer" <e52.meyer0SPAM@ieee.org> wrote in message
>> news:BD2C79D2.90499%e52.meyer0SPAM@ieee.org...
>>
>>>On 7/27/04 9:00 PM, in article
>>>AMDNc.32074$ps5.10831302@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.ne t, "no22"
>>><no22@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Anyone tell me when the appropriate time for a timing belt change should
>>>>be
>>>>for my 98 Intregra GS-R?
>>>>
>>>>The manual states 60,000.
>>>
>>>This would be in the severe schedule? I think you will find if you look
>>>in
>>>the normal schedule it will say 90,000 or maybe even 105,000.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Other Honda owners say 90,000.
>>>>Some mechanics say somewhere between 60k and 90k.
>>>>
>>>>Recommendations??
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>You are getting a lot of opinions because the answer from the manufacturer
>>>has been changing. In 1990, they all needed to be done at 60,000. The
>>>new
>>>ones are now up to 105,000 or more.
>>>
>>>Look at the description of what constitutes severe service in your manual.
>>>If you meet it, change the belt at 60,000. If you don't, then wait until
>>>the mileage & years listed for normal service.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>The reason that the interval is changing is that there are now
>"long-life" timing belts available that are stronger than the originals.
>I would NOT try to extend the interval on the original belt, it is NOT
>the extended life version. It is FAR cheaper to replace the belt than to
>repair the damage caused by a broken one!
>
>Paul E