Honda Car Forum

Hi,

I recently took a test drive for a new Corolla and the dealer told me
it does not require any tuneups for next 12 years or 160000km. All you
need is regular oil changes (every 6 months or 8000km)

Instead of timing belt, it has timing chain that automatically adjust
itself with time so no replacements are required. He was not sure about
water pump.

Just wondering, if he was lying? Are there any other costs like
radiator fluid chages etc? (I think its a question for Toyota group)

Now I am curious does Civic also comes with these features?

Thanks,

yahmed wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I recently took a test drive for a new Corolla and the dealer told me
> it does not require any tuneups for next 12 years or 160000km. All you
> need is regular oil changes (every 6 months or 8000km)
>
> Instead of timing belt, it has timing chain that automatically adjust
> itself with time so no replacements are required. He was not sure about
> water pump.
>
> Just wondering, if he was lying? Are there any other costs like
> radiator fluid chages etc? (I think its a question for Toyota group)
>
> Now I am curious does Civic also comes with these features?
>
> Thanks,

Look, NO car is maintenance free. All cars, including Honda and Toyota,
require regular maintenance including fluid changes and replacement of
normal wear-and-tear items (e.g. brake pads). The difference is that Hondas
and Toyotas experience less problems with non-routine items than other
manufacturers, the big 3 in particular.

The Civic may cost a little more to maintain in the long run than the
Corolla solely because of having to replace the timing belt on the Civic,
but otherwise, the maintenance on both is about the same.

I have mine repainted every thirty years even if it doesn't need it.

yahmed wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I recently took a test drive for a new Corolla and the dealer told me
> it does not require any tuneups for next 12 years or 160000km. All you
> need is regular oil changes (every 6 months or 8000km)
>
> Instead of timing belt, it has timing chain that automatically adjust
> itself with time so no replacements are required. He was not sure about
> water pump.
>
> Just wondering, if he was lying? Are there any other costs like
> radiator fluid chages etc? (I think its a question for Toyota group)
>
> Now I am curious does Civic also comes with these features?
>
> Thanks,
>
yes, the honda has the same "tuneup" schedule of 100,000 miles, but a
longer oil change interval of 12,000 miles, iirc. check the owners
manual. i expect all other operating factors to be similar.

timing chains have a small advantage on reliability, but are much
inferior in terms of timing drift caused by wear.

In article <1116013866.885890.35010@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups. com>,
"yahmed" <ahmedyassir@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I recently took a test drive for a new Corolla and the dealer told me
> it does not require any tuneups for next 12 years or 160000km. All you
> need is regular oil changes (every 6 months or 8000km)
>
> Instead of timing belt, it has timing chain that automatically adjust
> itself with time so no replacements are required. He was not sure about
> water pump.
>
> Just wondering, if he was lying? Are there any other costs like
> radiator fluid chages etc? (I think its a question for Toyota group)
>
> Now I am curious does Civic also comes with these features?
>
> Thanks,

New car dealer want to sell as many new cars as possible. It should not
shock you or anyone else that car companies try to make customers believe
that their vehicles will last forever without ever needing any major
service. Most of the people in this newsgroup know that we need to service
our vehicles if we want to make them run 200,000 miles.

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.

In article <1116013866.885890.35010@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups. com>,
"yahmed" <ahmedyassir@gmail.com> wrote:

> Instead of timing belt, it has timing chain that automatically adjust
> itself with time so no replacements are required.

Don't believe that. Timing chains do require replacement as well.

Ask him what happens if the timing chain breaks. Does the engine trash
itself, or not? I think Toyota's are the non-interference type which
don't trash themselves. At any rate, that's the important question. It
doesn't matter if it's a belt or a chain. There's still chance for
breaking, and there's still a requirement to change (although a chain
*should* go much farther in theory).

In article <elmop-2F4998.20313513052005@text.usenetserver.com>, "Elmo P.
Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

> In article <1116013866.885890.35010@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups. com>,
> "yahmed" <ahmedyassir@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Instead of timing belt, it has timing chain that automatically adjust
> > itself with time so no replacements are required.
>
> Don't believe that. Timing chains do require replacement as well.
>
> Ask him what happens if the timing chain breaks. Does the engine trash
> itself, or not? I think Toyota's are the non-interference type which
> don't trash themselves. At any rate, that's the important question. It
> doesn't matter if it's a belt or a chain. There's still chance for
> breaking, and there's still a requirement to change (although a chain
> *should* go much farther in theory).

Great post. It's my opinion that a broken timing belt would in most cases
do less damage to an engine than a broken chain. However, if you change
the timing belt or timing chain about every 50,000 to 60,000 miles--it's
very likely that the owner of the car would never have to worry about the
consequences of a broken chain or belt.

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.

In article <jason-1405051024490001@pm4-broad-50.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > Ask him what happens if the timing chain breaks. Does the engine trash
> > itself, or not? I think Toyota's are the non-interference type which
> > don't trash themselves. At any rate, that's the important question. It
> > doesn't matter if it's a belt or a chain. There's still chance for
> > breaking, and there's still a requirement to change (although a chain
> > *should* go much farther in theory).
>
> Great post. It's my opinion that a broken timing belt would in most cases
> do less damage to an engine than a broken chain.

That depends on whether the engine is an interference design or a
non-interference design.

It's not just the physical belt or chain whipping around in there; it's
the pistons and valves you have to worry about.

With Honda, the valves go down inside the combustion chamber. If the
timing belt or chain breaks, the valves stay down there when the piston
comes back up to top--and all hell breaks loose when they meet. That's
called "interference".

If the engine is designed, however, such that the valves don't go down
inside the combustion chamber, but rather stay outside the combustion
chamber, it doesn't matter what happens when the belt or chain breaks.
The engine quits running, but a simple belt/chain replacement fixes the
problem. No trashed engine to worry about.

As far as the earlier comment regarding timing chains stretching, that
happened to my brother's 92 Infiniti Q45. He had to replace both timing
chains, at some unholy cost ($2700 comes to mind). It wasn't that they
broke, but rather that they had stretched far enough out of spec.

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <jason-1405051024490001@pm4-broad-50.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
> jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
>
>>>Ask him what happens if the timing chain breaks. Does the engine trash
>>>itself, or not? I think Toyota's are the non-interference type which
>>>don't trash themselves. At any rate, that's the important question. It
>>>doesn't matter if it's a belt or a chain. There's still chance for
>>>breaking, and there's still a requirement to change (although a chain
>>>*should* go much farther in theory).
>>
>>Great post. It's my opinion that a broken timing belt would in most cases
>>do less damage to an engine than a broken chain.
>
>
> That depends on whether the engine is an interference design or a
> non-interference design.
>
> It's not just the physical belt or chain whipping around in there; it's
> the pistons and valves you have to worry about.
>
> With Honda, the valves go down inside the combustion chamber. If the
> timing belt or chain breaks, the valves stay down there when the piston
> comes back up to top--and all hell breaks loose when they meet. That's
> called "interference".
>
> If the engine is designed, however, such that the valves don't go down
> inside the combustion chamber, but rather stay outside the combustion
> chamber, it doesn't matter what happens when the belt or chain breaks.
> The engine quits running, but a simple belt/chain replacement fixes the
> problem. No trashed engine to worry about.

but you don't have the performance to worry about either - as a general
rule at any rate. in principle, a higher compression ratio and more
aggressive valve timing/higher lift cams both contribute to better
performance, but require "interference". so it's a trade-off. other
factors such as combustion chamber design, port/valve design, can help
produce a high compression non-interference engine, but what's good for
non-interference tends to be less good for chamber design, i.e.
efficiency, emissions, detonation tendency, etc. did i mention that
it's a trade-off?

>
> As far as the earlier comment regarding timing chains stretching, that
> happened to my brother's 92 Infiniti Q45. He had to replace both timing
> chains, at some unholy cost ($2700 comes to mind). It wasn't that they
> broke, but rather that they had stretched far enough out of spec.

belts are good. people whine about cost of preventive maintenance, but
that's a function of dealer gouging, not design principle. it doesn't
take 4 hours to change a belt on a civic, regardless of what it says on
the invoice.

In article <dI-dnV2sket57BvfRVn-sQ@speakeasy.net>,
jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote:

> belts are good. people whine about cost of preventive maintenance, but
> that's a function of dealer gouging, not design principle.

You can't deny that there's a bunch of labor involved in getting to the
timing belt. That some dealers gouge is not in question, but even the
best dealers have to charge quite a bit for that bit of preventive
maintenance.

> it doesn't
> take 4 hours to change a belt on a civic, regardless of what it says on
> the invoice.

It doesn't take you, but I've seen techs for whom it takes quite a bit
longer.