On 11/18/07 2:03 PM, in article
g7GdnR-R7o4wB93anZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@giganews.com, "DJ NoMore"
<djnomore@somewhere.someplace.com> wrote:

> As some of you may know, I finally had my late wife's 1997 Civic EX
> Coupe titled over to me after it sat for about 10 months. My question
> is, besides the oil and gas which have already been changed out, should
> I replace the timing belt?
>
> The vehicle has 72,000 miles on it, but given the age of the car, I am
> thinking that I should have the timing belt and water pump changed out
> at the same time ASAP. IIRC, the manual says 90,000 miles for the
> timing belt, but, the fact that it is over ten years old has me slightly
> concerned.
>
> What is the general consensus of the Honda gurus?
>
> 1. Should I do the timing belt ASAP?
> 2. If so, should I just ask the dealer to change out the water pump too?

The fact that it sat for 10 months doesn't have any effect on the timing
belt, but you should have it changed. I believe for a '97 the prescribed
interval was 90,000 miles or 7 years. Check the book again for the calendar
interval. Its probably not critical to do it ASAP, but you should do it
soon.

As far as the water pump, its a lot cheaper to have it preemptively changed
while they already are in there than to come back later and do it if it
fails.