E Meyer wrote:
> 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.
>
I was planning on getting the timing belt changed as soon as I could and
I believe I will just have them drop a water pump in there too while
they are at it.

I am really impressed with how good this little Civic runs for its age!
Even more impressive is the gas mileage I get out of it.