Timing Belt Change (10500 miles vs 7 years)

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 you

The timing belt is made of rubber and a fiber core. Running the engine will
wear out the rubber and stress the fiber core, but just by sitting in your
driveway the rubber dries out over time. That is why they want you to
replace the belt after seven years. In practice you have a several years to
go before it breaks, but you don't really want it to break.

I would replace the belt at seven years.

Earle

"RVS" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> 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 you
>

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.


--
jonnyald
------------------------------------------------------------------------
jonnyald's Profile: http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbul...?userid=507279
View this thread: http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbul...d.php?t=700336

http://www.automotiveforums.com

just change it... its real easy to do yourself...


--
Greenblurr93
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greenblurr93's Profile: http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbul...?userid=198434
View this thread: http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbul...d.php?t=700336

http://www.automotiveforums.com

On May 2, 12:20 pm, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" > wrote:
> In article om>,
>
> RVS > wrote:
> > 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.
>
> OK, so what part of "the manual says 105000/7 years (whichever is
> earlier)" is unclear to you?
>
> Cheap *******. 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?

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.

Did not know frustrated, old farts like you will get so worked up. I
apologize that that because of your sorry,miserable life you feel the
need to use vulgar language when talking to others .

RVS > wrote in
oups.com:


>
> 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.

You will notice further that the manual does not say
84 months AND 105K miles,
it says
84 months OR 105K.
Whichever comes first. And something did come first for you: the time
factor.

Your engine is what is known as an "interference" design. This means
that should the belt skip or break, there is a great chance of the
valves hitting the pistons. If that happens, your repair bill goes from
$400 to almost $2,000.

At your current pace, the belt will be ten years old before you rack up
another 30K miles. This is bad bad bad.

While it is possible the belt may well last another 30K and three more
years, it is extremely unwise to push the life of this belt because of the
potential consequences.

Of course, it's not my money, but yours. If you want to risk a $2,000
repair bill in order to delay the expenditure of $400, be my guest.

And hey, do you think you'll still have the car in another seven years?
No?
Then what does it matter if you spend the $400 now or later? Either way it
needs to get done, and either way it will be the car's last belt change.



--
Tegger

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

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.

Replace it. It is 105,000 or 7 years, whichever comes first.

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" > wrote:
>> In article om>,
>>
>> RVS > 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.

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" > wrote in message
...
....
> Cheap *******. 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