Honda Car Forum

jonnyald wrote:

>
> RVS Wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> My Honda civic sedan is now 7 years old, but has only 75000 miles on
>> it. The manual says i need to change the timing belt at 105000/7 years
>> (whichever is earlier). I still have 30,000 miles to go, however the
>> number of years are done.
>>
>> Should i be replacing the timing belt even though i am 30,000 miles
>> short, or should i wait for a few more miles.
>>
> Thank youat the very least take off the cambelt cover and inspect the
> belt. any
> signs of crackin, just replace the belt.

Bad idea. If it is showing signs of cracking, it is already too far gone,
but it may be close to a break even if you see no visible signs. A visual
test is not a very good one.

The cost of belt replacement is far lower than the cost of engine
replacement.

RVS wrote:

> On May 2, 12:20 pm, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <e...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>> In article <1178118720.191050.69...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.c om>,
>>
>> RVS <rahulvsam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Should i be replacing the timing belt even though i am 30,000 miles
>> > short, or should i wait for a few more miles.
>>
>> OK, so what part of "the manual says 105000/7 years (whichever is
>> earlier)" is unclear to you?
>
> The manual is pretty clear, however i am sure the guy writing it did
> not think of cases where the car had 30000 miles lesser than the life
> of the belt.

Yes, he did. That's why he said 7 years or 105k, whichever is earlier.

In article <f1amh3$pok$4@aioe.org>,
Joe LaVigne <jlavigne@hits-buffalo.com> wrote:

> > The manual is pretty clear, however i am sure the guy writing it did
> > not think of cases where the car had 30000 miles lesser than the life
> > of the belt.
>
> Yes, he did. That's why he said 7 years or 105k, whichever is earlier.

The manual is pretty clear, except to cheap bastards--for whom nothing
regarding spending money is "clear".

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-37ABB7.12201202052007@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
....
> Cheap bastard. You're looking for an excuse not to maintain your
> car--and worse, you come to a freaking newsgroup.
>
> How's that Usenet-sourced marital advice doing for you?
>
ROTF--LMAO

Earle

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-7F534B.16401902052007@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
> In article <f1amh3$pok$4@aioe.org>,
> Joe LaVigne <jlavigne@hits-buffalo.com> wrote:
>
> > > The manual is pretty clear, however i am sure the guy writing it did
> > > not think of cases where the car had 30000 miles lesser than the life
> > > of the belt.
> >
> > Yes, he did. That's why he said 7 years or 105k, whichever is earlier.
>
> The manual is pretty clear, except to cheap bastards--for whom nothing
> regarding spending money is "clear".
>
This guy is getting off pretty easy. How long did the first timing belts
last, 25,000 miles or something like that? When they sold the first Vegas
and Pintos, people and mechanics too didn't have a clue.

Cheers,

Earle

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in news:elmop-
DFD71B.14354302052007@nntp1.usenetserver.com:

> In article <Xns992483052221Ftegger@207.14.116.130>,
> Tegger <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote:
>
>> > The manual is pretty clear, however i am sure the guy writing it did
>> > not think of cases where the car had 30000 miles lesser than the life
>> > of the belt.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> He absolutely did. That is why there is a TIME factor in there.
>
> Again, RVS is being a cheap bastard and is looking for someone to give
> him permission to be a cheap bastard. That way it' "not his fault" if
> something happens. "But they said it was OK!!!!"
>



RVS obviously has not read the message elsewhere in this group from
"Lance Dowdy".

I reprint an excerpt below:

Subject: '91 Honda Accord rough acceleration, erratic speedometer
From: lance_dowdy@autogas.com
Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.honda

"I have read a lot of info online, but still have questions. Hope
someone can help - please.
"Background: One year ago lost the Timing belt while driving and messed
up 12 of the 18 valve. Car only had 58k miles (wife's grandma's car)
so decided to fork over $1900 for repair. After the repair it ran
great, better than new, I mean surprisingly smooth and fast. That was
a year ago...."


--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

RVS says...

> The manual is pretty clear, however i am sure the guy
> writing it did not think of cases where the car had
> 30000 miles lesser than the life of the belt. Also most
> of the postings in here could be clarified by reading
> the manual or going to a dealer, so i am assuming
> everybody who is here is to her to save a few bucks.
> Plus i was interested in checking with other
> knowledgable people on this forum.

I had the same question about my 94 Accord, for which the
manual says 90k/6yrs. There's no column in the manual for
90k/7yrs, or 90k/12yrs. The only column that has 90k miles
also has 6 years. And that appears to be true of everything
in there - it's 15k miles per year. But, you know, some
things are really mileage things, like brakes, whereas other
things might have a significant time component, like oil or
coolant.

For what it's worth, and I offer this with no guarantee at
all, here's what I was told:

I took my 94 Accord in to a local Honda/Acura shop (not a
dealer, but highly respected for quality work) when it was
10 years old, and had 46k miles on it. Remember that the
manual says 90k/6yrs. I placed my checkbook on the desk,
and told the shop owner that I thought I should get the
timing belt replaced.

Even though my checkbook was clearly visible to him, he said
that the timing belt is pretty much exclusively a mileage
thing, and I don't need to get it changed. When I asked how
long I should go before getting it changed, he said "90,000
miles".

Now of course, he doesn't guarantee that advice, but he and
his guys have worked on Honda products for decades, and know
more than I do.

I'm all the way up to 58k miles now, and the car is
approaching 13 years old. Based on time, I should have
changed the belt twice by now.

But here's the other side. If at some point you are going
to sell the car, you're going to have to get the belt
replaced first, or allow for the cost of doing that in the
selling price. So, if you plan on selling in the next few
years, you'll have to get it changed once anyway. Why not
do it now, and eliminate any worry. In my case, as of today
I have avoided two belt changes. But if you plan on selling
within, say, four years from now, I think you probably
should go ahead and get it done now. If you plan on keeping
it till it dies, then you're gonna have to decide what's
reasonable, and I don't know of any statistical data that
would tell you what actually determines the life of the belt.

I do, however, agree with you that the manual is based on an
assumed 15k miles per year, and the column the item appears
in does NOT tell you whether mileage or time is the real
determining factor, if that is not the rate at which you
put miles on the car. The problem is, I don't know how you
find the real answer.

"Peabody" <waybackNO784SPAM44@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:zpo_h.108681$cJ1.57203@newsfe13.lga...
> RVS says...
>
> > The manual is pretty clear, however i am sure the guy
> > writing it did not think of cases where the car had
> > 30000 miles lesser than the life of the belt. Also most
> > of the postings in here could be clarified by reading
> > the manual or going to a dealer, so i am assuming
> > everybody who is here is to her to save a few bucks.
> > Plus i was interested in checking with other
> > knowledgable people on this forum.
>
> I had the same question about my 94 Accord, for which the
> manual says 90k/6yrs. There's no column in the manual for
> 90k/7yrs, or 90k/12yrs. The only column that has 90k miles
> also has 6 years. And that appears to be true of everything
> in there - it's 15k miles per year. But, you know, some
> things are really mileage things, like brakes, whereas other
> things might have a significant time component, like oil or
> coolant.
>
> For what it's worth, and I offer this with no guarantee at
> all, here's what I was told:
>
> I took my 94 Accord in to a local Honda/Acura shop (not a
> dealer, but highly respected for quality work) when it was
> 10 years old, and had 46k miles on it. Remember that the
> manual says 90k/6yrs. I placed my checkbook on the desk,
> and told the shop owner that I thought I should get the
> timing belt replaced.
>
> Even though my checkbook was clearly visible to him, he said
> that the timing belt is pretty much exclusively a mileage
> thing, and I don't need to get it changed. When I asked how
> long I should go before getting it changed, he said "90,000
> miles".
>
> Now of course, he doesn't guarantee that advice, but he and
> his guys have worked on Honda products for decades, and know
> more than I do.

All mechanics believe that they know more than the engineers who designed
the vehicle.

>
> I'm all the way up to 58k miles now, and the car is
> approaching 13 years old. Based on time, I should have
> changed the belt twice by now.
>
> But here's the other side. If at some point you are going
> to sell the car, you're going to have to get the belt
> replaced first, or allow for the cost of doing that in the
> selling price. So, if you plan on selling in the next few

Why?

> years, you'll have to get it changed once anyway. Why not
> do it now, and eliminate any worry. In my case, as of today
> I have avoided two belt changes. But if you plan on selling
> within, say, four years from now, I think you probably
> should go ahead and get it done now. If you plan on keeping
> it till it dies, then you're gonna have to decide what's
> reasonable, and I don't know of any statistical data that
> would tell you what actually determines the life of the belt.
>
> I do, however, agree with you that the manual is based on an
> assumed 15k miles per year, and the column the item appears
> in does NOT tell you whether mileage or time is the real
> determining factor, if that is not the rate at which you
> put miles on the car. The problem is, I don't know how you
> find the real answer.
>
You wait until the engine stops running and you coast to the side of the
road as if the clutch were depressed or you had put the car in neutral.
Then you add a note to your Owner's Manual, "timing belt lasts xx years, yy
months". The down side is that the repair will be more expensive now,
because of all the bent valves in your engine.

Earle

In article <zpo_h.108681$cJ1.57203@newsfe13.lga>,
Peabody <waybackNO784SPAM44@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Now of course, he doesn't guarantee that advice, but he and
> his guys have worked on Honda products for decades, and know
> more than I do.

And the Honda engineers who said "90K miles or 6 years, whichever comes
first" know EVEN MORE about the situation than your grizzled old tech
does.


> I'm all the way up to 58k miles now, and the car is
> approaching 13 years old. Based on time, I should have
> changed the belt twice by now.

You rolled the dice and won. Does that mean you will tell everyone that
what you did is a perfect system, not a roll of the dice?



> I do, however, agree with you that the manual is based on an
> assumed 15k miles per year, and the column the item appears
> in does NOT tell you whether mileage or time is the real
> determining factor,

Yes, it does. He was perfectly clear: his manual says 105K miles or 7
years, whichever comes first. It says that EXPLICITLY.

He can listen to the Honda engineers, or he can listen to you tell third
party stories from some guy who claims that he knows what he's talking
about (he probably just didn't want to take on the work, frankly).



> The problem is, I don't know how you
> find the real answer.

Well, one could start with READING.

But apparently actual *comprehension* is beyond so many people in the
world today, as evidenced by you and RVS.

Either that, or the gene that makes you a cheap bastard is the same gene
that leaves you unable to comprehend plain language.

Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in article
<elmop-C75B5C.14282603052007@nntp1.usenetserver.com>...
> In article <zpo_h.108681$cJ1.57203@newsfe13.lga>,
> Peabody <waybackNO784SPAM44@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Now of course, he doesn't guarantee that advice, but he and
> > his guys have worked on Honda products for decades, and know
> > more than I do.
>
> And the Honda engineers who said "90K miles or 6 years, whichever comes
> first" know EVEN MORE about the situation than your grizzled old tech
> does.
>
>
> > I'm all the way up to 58k miles now, and the car is
> > approaching 13 years old. Based on time, I should have
> > changed the belt twice by now.
>
> You rolled the dice and won. Does that mean you will tell everyone that
> what you did is a perfect system, not a roll of the dice?
>
>
>
> > I do, however, agree with you that the manual is based on an
> > assumed 15k miles per year, and the column the item appears
> > in does NOT tell you whether mileage or time is the real
> > determining factor,
>
> Yes, it does. He was perfectly clear: his manual says 105K miles or 7
> years, whichever comes first. It says that EXPLICITLY.
>
> He can listen to the Honda engineers, or he can listen to you tell third
> party stories from some guy who claims that he knows what he's talking
> about (he probably just didn't want to take on the work, frankly).
>
>
>
> > The problem is, I don't know how you
> > find the real answer.
>
> Well, one could start with READING.
>
> But apparently actual *comprehension* is beyond so many people in the
> world today, as evidenced by you and RVS.
>
> Either that, or the gene that makes you a cheap bastard is the same gene
> that leaves you unable to comprehend plain language.
>
>

Uh..... what kind of engineer would design an engine that would
self-destruct if a rubber belt broke?