|
Driving cross country in a 97 Civic; should I replace the timingbelt?
Hello all,
I know very little of cars, so I figured I'd get some input from anyone in this newsgroup. I have a 97 Honda Civic EX that I bought new. It's seen it's share of battles and the body isn't the most flawless one you'll see, but for the most part it runs pretty smoothly. It's just getting to 68,000 miles. I recently took it into the dealer for a regular maintenence, and they suggested that I replace the timing belt. I told them to pass, as I was initially planning on selling the car as I'm moving out to California. Well, as fate would have it it looks like I'll need to be taking the car with me after all. Furthermore I'll be driving it all the way (Ohio to California). So, my question is twofold: first, what EXACTLY does the timing belt do? I have a rough idea of how it works with the engine, but I'm fuzzy on exactly what it means performance and weare/tear wise. Which leads me into my next question: at almost 70,000 miles, would it be a good idea (both for efficiency and lifespan of the car) to replace the timing belt before I take it on such a long drive? I've seen/heard of people putting off a timing belt replacement for quite some time, so I was just unsure as to how imperative it is to get it fixed. Thanks in advance. |
Re: Driving cross country in a 97 Civic; should I replace the timing belt?
The timing belt synchronizes the valves with the pistons. I am not a
mechanic but it controls when the valves open and close to allow fuel to go into the pistons and let the fumes out (I am sure somebody has a better explanation). Do it, check your manual for recommendation interval. Don't do it at the dealer. Find a local Honda shop and it will be a lot less money, but be sure is a Honda shop so they know what needs to be done. What I did is buy the parts online (spend ~$100 including water pump) and my mechanic did it for ~$200. Be sure to use Honda parts only including the coolant. Do a google search for "timing belt". "Mitleid" <no@dice.net> wrote in message news:ENudnb1lfuAzI4XcRVn-hw@giganews.com... : Hello all, : I know very little of cars, so I figured I'd get some input from anyone : in this newsgroup. : I have a 97 Honda Civic EX that I bought new. It's seen it's share of : battles and the body isn't the most flawless one you'll see, but for the : most part it runs pretty smoothly. It's just getting to 68,000 miles. : I recently took it into the dealer for a regular maintenence, and they : suggested that I replace the timing belt. I told them to pass, as I was : initially planning on selling the car as I'm moving out to California. : Well, as fate would have it it looks like I'll need to be taking the car : with me after all. Furthermore I'll be driving it all the way (Ohio to : California). : So, my question is twofold: first, what EXACTLY does the timing belt : do? I have a rough idea of how it works with the engine, but I'm fuzzy : on exactly what it means performance and weare/tear wise. Which leads me : into my next question: at almost 70,000 miles, would it be a good idea : (both for efficiency and lifespan of the car) to replace the timing belt : before I take it on such a long drive? I've seen/heard of people putting : off a timing belt replacement for quite some time, so I was just unsure : as to how imperative it is to get it fixed. Thanks in advance. |
Re: Driving cross country in a 97 Civic; should I replace the timing belt?
The timing belt synchronizes the valves with the pistons. I am not a
mechanic but it controls when the valves open and close to allow fuel to go into the pistons and let the fumes out (I am sure somebody has a better explanation). Do it, check your manual for recommendation interval. Don't do it at the dealer. Find a local Honda shop and it will be a lot less money, but be sure is a Honda shop so they know what needs to be done. What I did is buy the parts online (spend ~$100 including water pump) and my mechanic did it for ~$200. Be sure to use Honda parts only including the coolant. Do a google search for "timing belt". "Mitleid" <no@dice.net> wrote in message news:ENudnb1lfuAzI4XcRVn-hw@giganews.com... : Hello all, : I know very little of cars, so I figured I'd get some input from anyone : in this newsgroup. : I have a 97 Honda Civic EX that I bought new. It's seen it's share of : battles and the body isn't the most flawless one you'll see, but for the : most part it runs pretty smoothly. It's just getting to 68,000 miles. : I recently took it into the dealer for a regular maintenence, and they : suggested that I replace the timing belt. I told them to pass, as I was : initially planning on selling the car as I'm moving out to California. : Well, as fate would have it it looks like I'll need to be taking the car : with me after all. Furthermore I'll be driving it all the way (Ohio to : California). : So, my question is twofold: first, what EXACTLY does the timing belt : do? I have a rough idea of how it works with the engine, but I'm fuzzy : on exactly what it means performance and weare/tear wise. Which leads me : into my next question: at almost 70,000 miles, would it be a good idea : (both for efficiency and lifespan of the car) to replace the timing belt : before I take it on such a long drive? I've seen/heard of people putting : off a timing belt replacement for quite some time, so I was just unsure : as to how imperative it is to get it fixed. Thanks in advance. |
Re: Driving cross country in a 97 Civic; should I replace the timingbelt?
Thanks, Bob.
That was my general understanding of the timing belt, as well. I actually wasn't planning on going to the dealer for any repairs; they charge an arm and a leg and I'm sure I could get it done for a LOT less somewhere else. I hadn't even thought of finding a Honda shop, though. Do you happen to have any recommendations about the best way to go about finding one in my area? Thanks again. Bob S. wrote: > The timing belt synchronizes the valves with the pistons. I am not a > mechanic but it controls when the valves open and close to allow fuel to go > into the pistons and let the fumes out (I am sure somebody has a better > explanation). > Do it, check your manual for recommendation interval. > Don't do it at the dealer. Find a local Honda shop and it will be a lot less > money, but be sure is a Honda shop so they know what needs to be done. > What I did is buy the parts online (spend ~$100 including water pump) and my > mechanic did it for ~$200. Be sure to use Honda parts only including the > coolant. > Do a google search for "timing belt". > > "Mitleid" <no@dice.net> wrote in message > news:ENudnb1lfuAzI4XcRVn-hw@giganews.com... > : Hello all, > : I know very little of cars, so I figured I'd get some input from anyone > : in this newsgroup. > : I have a 97 Honda Civic EX that I bought new. It's seen it's share of > : battles and the body isn't the most flawless one you'll see, but for the > : most part it runs pretty smoothly. It's just getting to 68,000 miles. > : I recently took it into the dealer for a regular maintenence, and they > : suggested that I replace the timing belt. I told them to pass, as I was > : initially planning on selling the car as I'm moving out to California. > : Well, as fate would have it it looks like I'll need to be taking the car > : with me after all. Furthermore I'll be driving it all the way (Ohio to > : California). > : So, my question is twofold: first, what EXACTLY does the timing belt > : do? I have a rough idea of how it works with the engine, but I'm fuzzy > : on exactly what it means performance and weare/tear wise. Which leads me > : into my next question: at almost 70,000 miles, would it be a good idea > : (both for efficiency and lifespan of the car) to replace the timing belt > : before I take it on such a long drive? I've seen/heard of people putting > : off a timing belt replacement for quite some time, so I was just unsure > : as to how imperative it is to get it fixed. Thanks in advance. > > |
Re: Driving cross country in a 97 Civic; should I replace the timingbelt?
Thanks, Bob.
That was my general understanding of the timing belt, as well. I actually wasn't planning on going to the dealer for any repairs; they charge an arm and a leg and I'm sure I could get it done for a LOT less somewhere else. I hadn't even thought of finding a Honda shop, though. Do you happen to have any recommendations about the best way to go about finding one in my area? Thanks again. Bob S. wrote: > The timing belt synchronizes the valves with the pistons. I am not a > mechanic but it controls when the valves open and close to allow fuel to go > into the pistons and let the fumes out (I am sure somebody has a better > explanation). > Do it, check your manual for recommendation interval. > Don't do it at the dealer. Find a local Honda shop and it will be a lot less > money, but be sure is a Honda shop so they know what needs to be done. > What I did is buy the parts online (spend ~$100 including water pump) and my > mechanic did it for ~$200. Be sure to use Honda parts only including the > coolant. > Do a google search for "timing belt". > > "Mitleid" <no@dice.net> wrote in message > news:ENudnb1lfuAzI4XcRVn-hw@giganews.com... > : Hello all, > : I know very little of cars, so I figured I'd get some input from anyone > : in this newsgroup. > : I have a 97 Honda Civic EX that I bought new. It's seen it's share of > : battles and the body isn't the most flawless one you'll see, but for the > : most part it runs pretty smoothly. It's just getting to 68,000 miles. > : I recently took it into the dealer for a regular maintenence, and they > : suggested that I replace the timing belt. I told them to pass, as I was > : initially planning on selling the car as I'm moving out to California. > : Well, as fate would have it it looks like I'll need to be taking the car > : with me after all. Furthermore I'll be driving it all the way (Ohio to > : California). > : So, my question is twofold: first, what EXACTLY does the timing belt > : do? I have a rough idea of how it works with the engine, but I'm fuzzy > : on exactly what it means performance and weare/tear wise. Which leads me > : into my next question: at almost 70,000 miles, would it be a good idea > : (both for efficiency and lifespan of the car) to replace the timing belt > : before I take it on such a long drive? I've seen/heard of people putting > : off a timing belt replacement for quite some time, so I was just unsure > : as to how imperative it is to get it fixed. Thanks in advance. > > |
Re: Driving cross country in a 97 Civic; should I replace the timing belt?
www.gates.com (search for "interference," as in 'interference engine'; click on
first hit; then view the first PDF file) says the TB interval for your 97 Honda Civic is 105,000 miles. Normally there's a time limit, too. For many (or all) 1990s Hondas, this is six years. Some models may go up to 7 years, but I can't remember for sure. Either way, your car is due for a new timing belt. Note that it is an interference engine, so if the timing belt fails (because you didn't replace it at the recommended interval), the chances of doing several thousand dollars worth of damage to the engine are high. Definitely replace it before your big trip. The pistons drive the crankshaft. At one end (the car's left) of the crankshaft is a (sprocket) pulley at about the height of your car's left front wheel's center. Over this sprocket pulley loops one end of the timing belt. The other (upper) end of the timing belt loops over the camshaft sprocket pulley. So the pistons drive the crankshaft which drives the timing belt which drives the camshaft. The camshaft (right underneath the valve cover, which has the oil fill cap which you've probably seen) controls exhaust and intake valve openings. The valves must open and close according to the piston position. The timing belt ensures they are synchronized ("timed") correctly. On interference engines, the valves are actually in the path of the piston's motion. If the valves get out of synch. with the pistons, they will be damaged. http://www.cartalk.com/content/mechx/find.html may have some suggestions for independent Honda mechanics in your area. Post your city, and others may very well post here with specific suggestions. (They have in the past.) Alternatively, check your yellow pages for Automobiles-Repairs or similar. Look for foreign/import auto repair shops. Call them up and ask about their Honda experience. Some independent shops are completely focused on Honda. Those are the ones I first roll the dice on. "Mitleid" <no@dice.net> wrote > Hello all, > I know very little of cars, so I figured I'd get some input from anyone > in this newsgroup. > I have a 97 Honda Civic EX that I bought new. It's seen it's share of > battles and the body isn't the most flawless one you'll see, but for the > most part it runs pretty smoothly. It's just getting to 68,000 miles. > I recently took it into the dealer for a regular maintenence, and they > suggested that I replace the timing belt. I told them to pass, as I was > initially planning on selling the car as I'm moving out to California. > Well, as fate would have it it looks like I'll need to be taking the car > with me after all. Furthermore I'll be driving it all the way (Ohio to > California). > So, my question is twofold: first, what EXACTLY does the timing belt > do? I have a rough idea of how it works with the engine, but I'm fuzzy > on exactly what it means performance and weare/tear wise. Which leads me > into my next question: at almost 70,000 miles, would it be a good idea > (both for efficiency and lifespan of the car) to replace the timing belt > before I take it on such a long drive? I've seen/heard of people putting > off a timing belt replacement for quite some time, so I was just unsure > as to how imperative it is to get it fixed. Thanks in advance. |
Re: Driving cross country in a 97 Civic; should I replace the timing belt?
www.gates.com (search for "interference," as in 'interference engine'; click on
first hit; then view the first PDF file) says the TB interval for your 97 Honda Civic is 105,000 miles. Normally there's a time limit, too. For many (or all) 1990s Hondas, this is six years. Some models may go up to 7 years, but I can't remember for sure. Either way, your car is due for a new timing belt. Note that it is an interference engine, so if the timing belt fails (because you didn't replace it at the recommended interval), the chances of doing several thousand dollars worth of damage to the engine are high. Definitely replace it before your big trip. The pistons drive the crankshaft. At one end (the car's left) of the crankshaft is a (sprocket) pulley at about the height of your car's left front wheel's center. Over this sprocket pulley loops one end of the timing belt. The other (upper) end of the timing belt loops over the camshaft sprocket pulley. So the pistons drive the crankshaft which drives the timing belt which drives the camshaft. The camshaft (right underneath the valve cover, which has the oil fill cap which you've probably seen) controls exhaust and intake valve openings. The valves must open and close according to the piston position. The timing belt ensures they are synchronized ("timed") correctly. On interference engines, the valves are actually in the path of the piston's motion. If the valves get out of synch. with the pistons, they will be damaged. http://www.cartalk.com/content/mechx/find.html may have some suggestions for independent Honda mechanics in your area. Post your city, and others may very well post here with specific suggestions. (They have in the past.) Alternatively, check your yellow pages for Automobiles-Repairs or similar. Look for foreign/import auto repair shops. Call them up and ask about their Honda experience. Some independent shops are completely focused on Honda. Those are the ones I first roll the dice on. "Mitleid" <no@dice.net> wrote > Hello all, > I know very little of cars, so I figured I'd get some input from anyone > in this newsgroup. > I have a 97 Honda Civic EX that I bought new. It's seen it's share of > battles and the body isn't the most flawless one you'll see, but for the > most part it runs pretty smoothly. It's just getting to 68,000 miles. > I recently took it into the dealer for a regular maintenence, and they > suggested that I replace the timing belt. I told them to pass, as I was > initially planning on selling the car as I'm moving out to California. > Well, as fate would have it it looks like I'll need to be taking the car > with me after all. Furthermore I'll be driving it all the way (Ohio to > California). > So, my question is twofold: first, what EXACTLY does the timing belt > do? I have a rough idea of how it works with the engine, but I'm fuzzy > on exactly what it means performance and weare/tear wise. Which leads me > into my next question: at almost 70,000 miles, would it be a good idea > (both for efficiency and lifespan of the car) to replace the timing belt > before I take it on such a long drive? I've seen/heard of people putting > off a timing belt replacement for quite some time, so I was just unsure > as to how imperative it is to get it fixed. Thanks in advance. |
dont change the belt! here's why.
while its true that the belt is supposed to have its belt changed most
people i know never change it. just because it says 60k doesnt mean its going to break at 60k. i have an accord with 220,000 miles on it and never had the belt replaced i will be doing that in a few months however....the timing belt can last past 60k miles and having one break on you that soon is so rare i dont think you need to worry about it.... if you get to california you might want to sell the car there. you might not be able to pass california emissions tests with an out of state car so you might have to sell it... why waste money on a belt if you are goihng to sell it? |
dont change the belt! here's why.
while its true that the belt is supposed to have its belt changed most
people i know never change it. just because it says 60k doesnt mean its going to break at 60k. i have an accord with 220,000 miles on it and never had the belt replaced i will be doing that in a few months however....the timing belt can last past 60k miles and having one break on you that soon is so rare i dont think you need to worry about it.... if you get to california you might want to sell the car there. you might not be able to pass california emissions tests with an out of state car so you might have to sell it... why waste money on a belt if you are goihng to sell it? |
Re: Driving cross country in a 97 Civic; should I replace the timing belt?
Hey,
If you plan on selling the car once you get to CA, or even if you don't plan on selling it, I wouldn't do the timing belt job right now. Given the amount of miles on your car and the age, how bad of shape could the belt be in? Probably none. When my Civic (2000) had around 70,000mi, I drove from the midwest, down to Virginia and back. No problems, no fear. Save the cash and put off the timing belt job for now. -AGS On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 08:25:31 -0400, Mitleid <no@dice.net> wrote: > Hello all, > I know very little of cars, so I figured I'd get some input from anyone > in this newsgroup. > I have a 97 Honda Civic EX that I bought new. It's seen it's share of > battles and the body isn't the most flawless one you'll see, but for the > most part it runs pretty smoothly. It's just getting to 68,000 miles. > I recently took it into the dealer for a regular maintenence, and they > suggested that I replace the timing belt. I told them to pass, as I was > initially planning on selling the car as I'm moving out to California. > Well, as fate would have it it looks like I'll need to be taking the car > with me after all. Furthermore I'll be driving it all the way (Ohio to > California). > So, my question is twofold: first, what EXACTLY does the timing belt > do? I have a rough idea of how it works with the engine, but I'm fuzzy > on exactly what it means performance and weare/tear wise. Which leads me > into my next question: at almost 70,000 miles, would it be a good idea > (both for efficiency and lifespan of the car) to replace the timing belt > before I take it on such a long drive? I've seen/heard of people putting > off a timing belt replacement for quite some time, so I was just unsure > as to how imperative it is to get it fixed. Thanks in advance. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ |
Re: Driving cross country in a 97 Civic; should I replace the timing belt?
Hey,
If you plan on selling the car once you get to CA, or even if you don't plan on selling it, I wouldn't do the timing belt job right now. Given the amount of miles on your car and the age, how bad of shape could the belt be in? Probably none. When my Civic (2000) had around 70,000mi, I drove from the midwest, down to Virginia and back. No problems, no fear. Save the cash and put off the timing belt job for now. -AGS On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 08:25:31 -0400, Mitleid <no@dice.net> wrote: > Hello all, > I know very little of cars, so I figured I'd get some input from anyone > in this newsgroup. > I have a 97 Honda Civic EX that I bought new. It's seen it's share of > battles and the body isn't the most flawless one you'll see, but for the > most part it runs pretty smoothly. It's just getting to 68,000 miles. > I recently took it into the dealer for a regular maintenence, and they > suggested that I replace the timing belt. I told them to pass, as I was > initially planning on selling the car as I'm moving out to California. > Well, as fate would have it it looks like I'll need to be taking the car > with me after all. Furthermore I'll be driving it all the way (Ohio to > California). > So, my question is twofold: first, what EXACTLY does the timing belt > do? I have a rough idea of how it works with the engine, but I'm fuzzy > on exactly what it means performance and weare/tear wise. Which leads me > into my next question: at almost 70,000 miles, would it be a good idea > (both for efficiency and lifespan of the car) to replace the timing belt > before I take it on such a long drive? I've seen/heard of people putting > off a timing belt replacement for quite some time, so I was just unsure > as to how imperative it is to get it fixed. Thanks in advance. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ |
Re: dont change the belt! here's why.
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 20:48:01 GMT, "lamont" <lamont@microsoft.com>
wrote: >while its true that the belt is supposed to have its belt changed most >people i know never change it. just because it says 60k doesnt mean its >going to break at 60k. i have an accord with 220,000 miles on it and never >had the belt replaced i will be doing that in a few months however....the >timing belt can last past 60k miles and having one break on you that soon is >so rare i dont think you need to worry about it.... if you get to california >you might want to sell the car there. you might not be able to pass >california emissions tests with an out of state car so you might have to >sell it... why waste money on a belt if you are goihng to sell it? .... You don't say. |
Re: dont change the belt! here's why.
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 20:48:01 GMT, "lamont" <lamont@microsoft.com>
wrote: >while its true that the belt is supposed to have its belt changed most >people i know never change it. just because it says 60k doesnt mean its >going to break at 60k. i have an accord with 220,000 miles on it and never >had the belt replaced i will be doing that in a few months however....the >timing belt can last past 60k miles and having one break on you that soon is >so rare i dont think you need to worry about it.... if you get to california >you might want to sell the car there. you might not be able to pass >california emissions tests with an out of state car so you might have to >sell it... why waste money on a belt if you are goihng to sell it? .... You don't say. |
Re: dont change the belt! here's why.
lamont wrote:
> > while its true that the belt is supposed to have its belt changed most > people i know never change it. just because it says 60k doesnt mean its > going to break at 60k. i have an accord with 220,000 miles on it and never > had the belt replaced i will be doing that in a few months however The recommended interval for changing the timing belt is 6 years or 90,000 miles. This interval is based on an average rate of failure. Some belts may fail earlier while others last longer. Exceed the interval at your own risk. If the belt breaks then the valves will get bent. It's not worth the risk. It's unlikely that a timing belt would last 220,000 miles. If you're not the original owner of this vehicle, then consider it likely that a prior owner had this work done. > if you get to california you might want to sell the car there. you might > not be able to pass california emissions tests with an out of state car > so you might have to sell it... why waste money on a belt if you are > goihng to sell it? What is the basis for this claim? As long as the car is running within the factory specs then it should pass california emissions. A more logical reason for the original poster to wait to replace the timing belt might be that they wish to wait until they get situated in their new area. That way, if there was a problem with the work then they would still be dealing with a local shop and not one 2-3000 miles away. Incidentally, I changed my '88 Civic's belt at 8 years and 75,000 miles. Eric |
Re: dont change the belt! here's why.
lamont wrote:
> > while its true that the belt is supposed to have its belt changed most > people i know never change it. just because it says 60k doesnt mean its > going to break at 60k. i have an accord with 220,000 miles on it and never > had the belt replaced i will be doing that in a few months however The recommended interval for changing the timing belt is 6 years or 90,000 miles. This interval is based on an average rate of failure. Some belts may fail earlier while others last longer. Exceed the interval at your own risk. If the belt breaks then the valves will get bent. It's not worth the risk. It's unlikely that a timing belt would last 220,000 miles. If you're not the original owner of this vehicle, then consider it likely that a prior owner had this work done. > if you get to california you might want to sell the car there. you might > not be able to pass california emissions tests with an out of state car > so you might have to sell it... why waste money on a belt if you are > goihng to sell it? What is the basis for this claim? As long as the car is running within the factory specs then it should pass california emissions. A more logical reason for the original poster to wait to replace the timing belt might be that they wish to wait until they get situated in their new area. That way, if there was a problem with the work then they would still be dealing with a local shop and not one 2-3000 miles away. Incidentally, I changed my '88 Civic's belt at 8 years and 75,000 miles. Eric |
Re: dont change the belt! here's why.
"lamont" <lamont@microsoft.com> wrote:
> while its true that the belt is supposed to have its belt changed most > people i know never change it. just because it says 60k doesnt mean its > going to break at 60k. i have an accord with 220,000 miles on it and never > had the belt replaced i will be doing that in a few months however....the > timing belt can last past 60k miles and having one break on you that soon is > so rare i dont think you need to worry about it.... if you get to california > you might want to sell the car there. you might not be able to pass > california emissions tests with an out of state car so you might have to > sell it... why waste money on a belt if you are goihng to sell it? I agree, i think the whole "replaced the timing belt" is mainly a scam to make money for mechanics. I posted this elsewhere but my old honda of 235,000 never needed one, and my newer one of 167,000 surely will be fine by going over the recommended amount. a civic with only 60K? god, no reason to do it that soon, maybe double or triple that mileage but not 60K or 100K... my honest feeling is the fear factor of pistons slaming into heads is an easy scare tactic for the uneducated and a quick way to make $500... with millions of honda's on the road, i've never heard of ANYONE having a problem with a timing belt no matter how many miles driven without replacement. i'm sure it happens, but 98% of the people following the recommended guidelines are throwing money away. |
Re: dont change the belt! here's why.
"lamont" <lamont@microsoft.com> wrote:
> while its true that the belt is supposed to have its belt changed most > people i know never change it. just because it says 60k doesnt mean its > going to break at 60k. i have an accord with 220,000 miles on it and never > had the belt replaced i will be doing that in a few months however....the > timing belt can last past 60k miles and having one break on you that soon is > so rare i dont think you need to worry about it.... if you get to california > you might want to sell the car there. you might not be able to pass > california emissions tests with an out of state car so you might have to > sell it... why waste money on a belt if you are goihng to sell it? I agree, i think the whole "replaced the timing belt" is mainly a scam to make money for mechanics. I posted this elsewhere but my old honda of 235,000 never needed one, and my newer one of 167,000 surely will be fine by going over the recommended amount. a civic with only 60K? god, no reason to do it that soon, maybe double or triple that mileage but not 60K or 100K... my honest feeling is the fear factor of pistons slaming into heads is an easy scare tactic for the uneducated and a quick way to make $500... with millions of honda's on the road, i've never heard of ANYONE having a problem with a timing belt no matter how many miles driven without replacement. i'm sure it happens, but 98% of the people following the recommended guidelines are throwing money away. |
Re: dont change the belt! here's why.
In article <media-267A00.00362312082004@news.uswest.net>,
media@Swiftvets.com says... > with millions of honda's on the road, i've never heard of ANYONE having > a problem with a timing belt no matter how many miles driven without > replacement. i'm sure it happens, but 98% of the people following the > recommended guidelines are throwing money away. > I've signed up on a couple of web forums (as well as subscribing to this NG) since I've been looking for either a VTEC Prelude, or an Alfa 145. Prelude VTEC people have warned about listing for a whiring/slapping sound when the tensioner drift a little, the belts move and rub. The alfa boards and NGs are rife with tales of Alfas 75k belt change actually being dealt with between 35-50k whenever the car comes in under warrenty for other work as they have been failing. I'm currently a Saab driver, and while I'm lucky that mine uses a chain to run the cams on the i4 16V, later model owners with european GM based V6 engines regularly complain of belt failures. This also a known problem amongst other euro GM brands like Vauxhall and Opel with their V6 models. Fiat are also known to stupidly regular on it's belt failures. I know not all brands of car, and not all brands of belts are the same, but a belt is a weak link in the engine, but as long as looked after correctly shouldn't cause an problems, if it does go though, you are looking at a world of hurt to the wallet. -- The poster formerly known as Skodapilot. http://www.bouncing-czechs.com |
Re: dont change the belt! here's why.
In article <media-267A00.00362312082004@news.uswest.net>,
media@Swiftvets.com says... > with millions of honda's on the road, i've never heard of ANYONE having > a problem with a timing belt no matter how many miles driven without > replacement. i'm sure it happens, but 98% of the people following the > recommended guidelines are throwing money away. > I've signed up on a couple of web forums (as well as subscribing to this NG) since I've been looking for either a VTEC Prelude, or an Alfa 145. Prelude VTEC people have warned about listing for a whiring/slapping sound when the tensioner drift a little, the belts move and rub. The alfa boards and NGs are rife with tales of Alfas 75k belt change actually being dealt with between 35-50k whenever the car comes in under warrenty for other work as they have been failing. I'm currently a Saab driver, and while I'm lucky that mine uses a chain to run the cams on the i4 16V, later model owners with european GM based V6 engines regularly complain of belt failures. This also a known problem amongst other euro GM brands like Vauxhall and Opel with their V6 models. Fiat are also known to stupidly regular on it's belt failures. I know not all brands of car, and not all brands of belts are the same, but a belt is a weak link in the engine, but as long as looked after correctly shouldn't cause an problems, if it does go though, you are looking at a world of hurt to the wallet. -- The poster formerly known as Skodapilot. http://www.bouncing-czechs.com |
Re: Driving cross country in a 97 Civic; should I replace thetiming belt?
On 8/10/04 7:25 AM, in article ENudnb1lfuAzI4XcRVn-hw@giganews.com,
"Mitleid" <no@dice.net> wrote: > Hello all, > I know very little of cars, so I figured I'd get some input from anyone > in this newsgroup. > I have a 97 Honda Civic EX that I bought new. It's seen it's share of > battles and the body isn't the most flawless one you'll see, but for the > most part it runs pretty smoothly. It's just getting to 68,000 miles. > I recently took it into the dealer for a regular maintenence, and they > suggested that I replace the timing belt. I told them to pass, as I was > initially planning on selling the car as I'm moving out to California. > Well, as fate would have it it looks like I'll need to be taking the car > with me after all. Furthermore I'll be driving it all the way (Ohio to > California). > So, my question is twofold: first, what EXACTLY does the timing belt > do? I have a rough idea of how it works with the engine, but I'm fuzzy > on exactly what it means performance and weare/tear wise. Which leads me > into my next question: at almost 70,000 miles, would it be a good idea > (both for efficiency and lifespan of the car) to replace the timing belt > before I take it on such a long drive? I've seen/heard of people putting > off a timing belt replacement for quite some time, so I was just unsure > as to how imperative it is to get it fixed. Thanks in advance. Check the maintenance schedule in the owner's manual. I believe you will find the belt on a '97 doesn't need to be changed until 90,000 miles. |
Re: Driving cross country in a 97 Civic; should I replace thetiming belt?
On 8/10/04 7:25 AM, in article ENudnb1lfuAzI4XcRVn-hw@giganews.com,
"Mitleid" <no@dice.net> wrote: > Hello all, > I know very little of cars, so I figured I'd get some input from anyone > in this newsgroup. > I have a 97 Honda Civic EX that I bought new. It's seen it's share of > battles and the body isn't the most flawless one you'll see, but for the > most part it runs pretty smoothly. It's just getting to 68,000 miles. > I recently took it into the dealer for a regular maintenence, and they > suggested that I replace the timing belt. I told them to pass, as I was > initially planning on selling the car as I'm moving out to California. > Well, as fate would have it it looks like I'll need to be taking the car > with me after all. Furthermore I'll be driving it all the way (Ohio to > California). > So, my question is twofold: first, what EXACTLY does the timing belt > do? I have a rough idea of how it works with the engine, but I'm fuzzy > on exactly what it means performance and weare/tear wise. Which leads me > into my next question: at almost 70,000 miles, would it be a good idea > (both for efficiency and lifespan of the car) to replace the timing belt > before I take it on such a long drive? I've seen/heard of people putting > off a timing belt replacement for quite some time, so I was just unsure > as to how imperative it is to get it fixed. Thanks in advance. Check the maintenance schedule in the owner's manual. I believe you will find the belt on a '97 doesn't need to be changed until 90,000 miles. |
Re: dont change the belt! here's why.
"James Doe" <media@Swiftvets.com> wrote
> "lamont" <lamont@microsoft.com> wrote: > > > while its true that the belt is supposed to have its belt changed most > > people i know never change it. just because it says 60k doesnt mean its > > going to break at 60k. i have an accord with 220,000 miles on it and never > > had the belt replaced i will be doing that in a few months however....the > > timing belt can last past 60k miles and having one break on you that soon is > > so rare i dont think you need to worry about it.... if you get to california > > you might want to sell the car there. you might not be able to pass > > california emissions tests with an out of state car so you might have to > > sell it... why waste money on a belt if you are goihng to sell it? > > I agree, i think the whole "replaced the timing belt" is mainly a scam > to make money for mechanics. I posted this elsewhere but my old honda of > 235,000 never needed one, and my newer one of 167,000 surely will be > fine by going over the recommended amount. a civic with only 60K? god, > no reason to do it that soon, maybe double or triple that mileage but > not 60K or 100K... my honest feeling is the fear factor of pistons > slaming into heads is an easy scare tactic for the uneducated and a > quick way to make $500... > > with millions of honda's on the road, i've never heard of ANYONE having > a problem with a timing belt no matter how many miles driven without > replacement. i'm sure it happens, but 98% of the people following the > recommended guidelines are throwing money away. I'm curious about these claims (of yours, Lamont's and others). I am trying to keep an open mind. Last week I met a guy with a 1993 Toyota Tercel who had changed the belt exactly once in 235k miles. The 1993 Tercel service manual apparently says to change the TB every 60k miles. I did google the alt.autos.honda and rec.autos.maker.honda newsgroups for {"my timing belt broke"} Lotta hits. I haven't read them all, but it seems like timing belts do not last forever. See for example a comment by poster "Io" on 04/01/1999: "*Twice* in the 190 thousand miles of my 89 Civic Si, I have broken the belt. My fault, I pushed the milage. Both times no valves were damaged." Just to throw this into the pot for anyone thinking about increasing the time and mileage between TB changes... Aside: Lamont, goshdarnit, as others have said, post to the original thread. Subsequently, the archives will be easier to follow, and a lot of people do use the archives (see above!). Plus, folks don't necessarily know to what post you are responding. You've got input that's useful, from what I've seen, so how about it putting it where it will definitely be read by all who need it? |
Re: dont change the belt! here's why.
"James Doe" <media@Swiftvets.com> wrote
> "lamont" <lamont@microsoft.com> wrote: > > > while its true that the belt is supposed to have its belt changed most > > people i know never change it. just because it says 60k doesnt mean its > > going to break at 60k. i have an accord with 220,000 miles on it and never > > had the belt replaced i will be doing that in a few months however....the > > timing belt can last past 60k miles and having one break on you that soon is > > so rare i dont think you need to worry about it.... if you get to california > > you might want to sell the car there. you might not be able to pass > > california emissions tests with an out of state car so you might have to > > sell it... why waste money on a belt if you are goihng to sell it? > > I agree, i think the whole "replaced the timing belt" is mainly a scam > to make money for mechanics. I posted this elsewhere but my old honda of > 235,000 never needed one, and my newer one of 167,000 surely will be > fine by going over the recommended amount. a civic with only 60K? god, > no reason to do it that soon, maybe double or triple that mileage but > not 60K or 100K... my honest feeling is the fear factor of pistons > slaming into heads is an easy scare tactic for the uneducated and a > quick way to make $500... > > with millions of honda's on the road, i've never heard of ANYONE having > a problem with a timing belt no matter how many miles driven without > replacement. i'm sure it happens, but 98% of the people following the > recommended guidelines are throwing money away. I'm curious about these claims (of yours, Lamont's and others). I am trying to keep an open mind. Last week I met a guy with a 1993 Toyota Tercel who had changed the belt exactly once in 235k miles. The 1993 Tercel service manual apparently says to change the TB every 60k miles. I did google the alt.autos.honda and rec.autos.maker.honda newsgroups for {"my timing belt broke"} Lotta hits. I haven't read them all, but it seems like timing belts do not last forever. See for example a comment by poster "Io" on 04/01/1999: "*Twice* in the 190 thousand miles of my 89 Civic Si, I have broken the belt. My fault, I pushed the milage. Both times no valves were damaged." Just to throw this into the pot for anyone thinking about increasing the time and mileage between TB changes... Aside: Lamont, goshdarnit, as others have said, post to the original thread. Subsequently, the archives will be easier to follow, and a lot of people do use the archives (see above!). Plus, folks don't necessarily know to what post you are responding. You've got input that's useful, from what I've seen, so how about it putting it where it will definitely be read by all who need it? |
Re: dont change the belt! here's why.
In article <TfMSc.19011$cK.3454@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
"Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote: > "James Doe" <media@Swiftvets.com> wrote > > "lamont" <lamont@microsoft.com> wrote: > > > > > while its true that the belt is supposed to have its belt changed most > > > people i know never change it. just because it says 60k doesnt mean its > > > going to break at 60k. i have an accord with 220,000 miles on it and never > > > had the belt replaced i will be doing that in a few months however....the > > > timing belt can last past 60k miles and having one break on you that soon is > > > so rare i dont think you need to worry about it.... if you get to california > > > you might want to sell the car there. you might not be able to pass > > > california emissions tests with an out of state car so you might have to > > > sell it... why waste money on a belt if you are goihng to sell it? > > > > I agree, i think the whole "replaced the timing belt" is mainly a scam > > to make money for mechanics. I posted this elsewhere but my old honda of > > 235,000 never needed one, and my newer one of 167,000 surely will be > > fine by going over the recommended amount. a civic with only 60K? god, > > no reason to do it that soon, maybe double or triple that mileage but > > not 60K or 100K... my honest feeling is the fear factor of pistons > > slaming into heads is an easy scare tactic for the uneducated and a > > quick way to make $500... > > > > with millions of honda's on the road, i've never heard of ANYONE having > > a problem with a timing belt no matter how many miles driven without > > replacement. i'm sure it happens, but 98% of the people following the > > recommended guidelines are throwing money away. > > I'm curious about these claims (of yours, Lamont's and others). I am trying to > keep an open mind. Last week I met a guy with a 1993 Toyota Tercel who had > changed the belt exactly once in 235k miles. The 1993 Tercel service manual > apparently says to change the TB every 60k miles. > > I did google the alt.autos.honda and rec.autos.maker.honda newsgroups for {"my > timing belt broke"} > > Lotta hits. I haven't read them all, but it seems like timing belts do not last > forever. > > See for example a comment by poster "Io" on 04/01/1999: "*Twice* in the 190 > thousand miles of my 89 Civic Si, I have broken the belt. My fault, I pushed the > milage. Both times no valves were damaged." > > Just to throw this into the pot for anyone thinking about increasing the time > and mileage between TB changes... > > Aside: > Lamont, goshdarnit, as others have said, post to the original thread. > Subsequently, the archives will be easier to follow, and a lot of people do use > the archives (see above!). Plus, folks don't necessarily know to what post you > are responding. You've got input that's useful, from what I've seen, so how > about it putting it where it will definitely be read by all who need it? Excellent post--I agree with you. Why take a chance on such things. I once heard an old man bragging that he owned a pickup truck that had over 200,000 miles on it and that he never changed the oil on it during those 200,000 miles. As he drove away in his truck--lots of black smoke was coming out the the muffler. We all had a great laughting session about the old man's story. It's my guess that the old man was lying to us and knew that we would always remember his story. It worked. I change my oil every 3000 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. |
Re: dont change the belt! here's why.
In article <TfMSc.19011$cK.3454@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
"Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote: > "James Doe" <media@Swiftvets.com> wrote > > "lamont" <lamont@microsoft.com> wrote: > > > > > while its true that the belt is supposed to have its belt changed most > > > people i know never change it. just because it says 60k doesnt mean its > > > going to break at 60k. i have an accord with 220,000 miles on it and never > > > had the belt replaced i will be doing that in a few months however....the > > > timing belt can last past 60k miles and having one break on you that soon is > > > so rare i dont think you need to worry about it.... if you get to california > > > you might want to sell the car there. you might not be able to pass > > > california emissions tests with an out of state car so you might have to > > > sell it... why waste money on a belt if you are goihng to sell it? > > > > I agree, i think the whole "replaced the timing belt" is mainly a scam > > to make money for mechanics. I posted this elsewhere but my old honda of > > 235,000 never needed one, and my newer one of 167,000 surely will be > > fine by going over the recommended amount. a civic with only 60K? god, > > no reason to do it that soon, maybe double or triple that mileage but > > not 60K or 100K... my honest feeling is the fear factor of pistons > > slaming into heads is an easy scare tactic for the uneducated and a > > quick way to make $500... > > > > with millions of honda's on the road, i've never heard of ANYONE having > > a problem with a timing belt no matter how many miles driven without > > replacement. i'm sure it happens, but 98% of the people following the > > recommended guidelines are throwing money away. > > I'm curious about these claims (of yours, Lamont's and others). I am trying to > keep an open mind. Last week I met a guy with a 1993 Toyota Tercel who had > changed the belt exactly once in 235k miles. The 1993 Tercel service manual > apparently says to change the TB every 60k miles. > > I did google the alt.autos.honda and rec.autos.maker.honda newsgroups for {"my > timing belt broke"} > > Lotta hits. I haven't read them all, but it seems like timing belts do not last > forever. > > See for example a comment by poster "Io" on 04/01/1999: "*Twice* in the 190 > thousand miles of my 89 Civic Si, I have broken the belt. My fault, I pushed the > milage. Both times no valves were damaged." > > Just to throw this into the pot for anyone thinking about increasing the time > and mileage between TB changes... > > Aside: > Lamont, goshdarnit, as others have said, post to the original thread. > Subsequently, the archives will be easier to follow, and a lot of people do use > the archives (see above!). Plus, folks don't necessarily know to what post you > are responding. You've got input that's useful, from what I've seen, so how > about it putting it where it will definitely be read by all who need it? Excellent post--I agree with you. Why take a chance on such things. I once heard an old man bragging that he owned a pickup truck that had over 200,000 miles on it and that he never changed the oil on it during those 200,000 miles. As he drove away in his truck--lots of black smoke was coming out the the muffler. We all had a great laughting session about the old man's story. It's my guess that the old man was lying to us and knew that we would always remember his story. It worked. I change my oil every 3000 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. |
Re: dont change the belt! here's why.
"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote
snip for conciseness discussion of why one should/should not change the TB > Why take a chance on such things. I once > heard an old man bragging that he owned a pickup truck that had over > 200,000 miles on it and that he never changed the oil on it during those > 200,000 miles. As he drove away in his truck--lots of black smoke was > coming out the the muffler. We all had a great laughting session about the > old man's story. It's my guess that the old man was lying to us and knew > that we would always remember his story. It worked. I change my oil every > 3000 miles. Ha. Clever old man. :-) What kills me is that just a little while ago today one "Dave Garrett" posted to rec.autos.makers.honda that his timing belt broke: "Yesterday the timing belt broke on my '90 CRX Si. I'd replaced it previously at 60K, and was planning to do so again soon, as I just passed 115K about a month ago." Ouch. ;-) |
Re: dont change the belt! here's why.
"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote
snip for conciseness discussion of why one should/should not change the TB > Why take a chance on such things. I once > heard an old man bragging that he owned a pickup truck that had over > 200,000 miles on it and that he never changed the oil on it during those > 200,000 miles. As he drove away in his truck--lots of black smoke was > coming out the the muffler. We all had a great laughting session about the > old man's story. It's my guess that the old man was lying to us and knew > that we would always remember his story. It worked. I change my oil every > 3000 miles. Ha. Clever old man. :-) What kills me is that just a little while ago today one "Dave Garrett" posted to rec.autos.makers.honda that his timing belt broke: "Yesterday the timing belt broke on my '90 CRX Si. I'd replaced it previously at 60K, and was planning to do so again soon, as I just passed 115K about a month ago." Ouch. ;-) |
Re: dont change the belt! here's why.
In article <411AEB7A.9A1305E2@spam.now> Eric <say.no@spam.now> writes:
>lamont wrote: >> while its true that the belt is supposed to have its belt changed most >> people i know never change it. just because it says 60k doesnt mean its >> going to break at 60k. i have an accord with 220,000 miles on it and never >> had the belt replaced i will be doing that in a few months however >The recommended interval for changing the timing belt is 6 years or 90,000 >miles. This interval is based on an average rate of failure. True, but the "average rate of failure" or MTBF (Mean Time Before Failure) is actually more like 2½ times the recommended replacement interval. Even this number is a factory "hypothetical" failure rate based upon results of accelerated tests in the test lab in an OZONE chamber with high concentrations of OZONE and Ultraviolet light (both known to cause rubber products to prematurely age and break down). The "recommended" replacement interval for the timing belt, like the recommended oil change interval is designed to err on the very conservative side of the actual life expectancy curve. These recommended service intervals are also designed to embellish the receivables of the dealer service departments. If you want to follow these recommendations, that's fine, but don't expect that your car is going to break down suddenly if you fudge. Example, the "recommended" oil change interval on the Lexus LS400 is 7,500 miles in normal service and 5,000 miles in heavy service. What does Lexus know about their engines and the wear they incur that no one else knows? Lexus also says 90,000 on the timing belt. Is there something particularly special about Lexus engines or timing belts? I rather doubt it. -- Hooked On Ebonics, Lesson 10: Use the word "Stain" in a sentence. STAIN: My mudder-in-law stopped by da udder day an I axed her do you plan stain for dinner? |
Re: dont change the belt! here's why.
In article <411AEB7A.9A1305E2@spam.now> Eric <say.no@spam.now> writes:
>lamont wrote: >> while its true that the belt is supposed to have its belt changed most >> people i know never change it. just because it says 60k doesnt mean its >> going to break at 60k. i have an accord with 220,000 miles on it and never >> had the belt replaced i will be doing that in a few months however >The recommended interval for changing the timing belt is 6 years or 90,000 >miles. This interval is based on an average rate of failure. True, but the "average rate of failure" or MTBF (Mean Time Before Failure) is actually more like 2½ times the recommended replacement interval. Even this number is a factory "hypothetical" failure rate based upon results of accelerated tests in the test lab in an OZONE chamber with high concentrations of OZONE and Ultraviolet light (both known to cause rubber products to prematurely age and break down). The "recommended" replacement interval for the timing belt, like the recommended oil change interval is designed to err on the very conservative side of the actual life expectancy curve. These recommended service intervals are also designed to embellish the receivables of the dealer service departments. If you want to follow these recommendations, that's fine, but don't expect that your car is going to break down suddenly if you fudge. Example, the "recommended" oil change interval on the Lexus LS400 is 7,500 miles in normal service and 5,000 miles in heavy service. What does Lexus know about their engines and the wear they incur that no one else knows? Lexus also says 90,000 on the timing belt. Is there something particularly special about Lexus engines or timing belts? I rather doubt it. -- Hooked On Ebonics, Lesson 10: Use the word "Stain" in a sentence. STAIN: My mudder-in-law stopped by da udder day an I axed her do you plan stain for dinner? |
Re: dont change the belt! here's why.
In article <media-267A00.00362312082004@news.uswest.net>,
James Doe <media@Swiftvets.com> wrote: > I agree, i think the whole "replaced the timing belt" is mainly a scam > to make money for mechanics. I posted this elsewhere but my old honda of > 235,000 never needed one, and my newer one of 167,000 surely will be > fine by going over the recommended amount. a civic with only 60K? god, > no reason to do it that soon, maybe double or triple that mileage but > not 60K or 100K... my honest feeling is the fear factor of pistons > slaming into heads is an easy scare tactic for the uneducated and a > quick way to make $500... Yeah. And don't wear seat belts, either. Have you ever been in an accident? No? Then why wear one? And besides, I heard from a friend of a friend that his dentist's cousin's girlfriend heard in school that somebody was in an accident once, and slid over to the passenger side--and avoided being impaled by the steering wheel! Imagine if he'd been wearing a seat belt and couldn't slide out of the way--he'd have the steering wheel right through his chest! And another thing: car insurance. Why? It's just a waste. I've never needed it, I've never caused an accident, so why pay for insurance you'll never use? What a waste of money. |
Re: dont change the belt! here's why.
In article <media-267A00.00362312082004@news.uswest.net>,
James Doe <media@Swiftvets.com> wrote: > I agree, i think the whole "replaced the timing belt" is mainly a scam > to make money for mechanics. I posted this elsewhere but my old honda of > 235,000 never needed one, and my newer one of 167,000 surely will be > fine by going over the recommended amount. a civic with only 60K? god, > no reason to do it that soon, maybe double or triple that mileage but > not 60K or 100K... my honest feeling is the fear factor of pistons > slaming into heads is an easy scare tactic for the uneducated and a > quick way to make $500... Yeah. And don't wear seat belts, either. Have you ever been in an accident? No? Then why wear one? And besides, I heard from a friend of a friend that his dentist's cousin's girlfriend heard in school that somebody was in an accident once, and slid over to the passenger side--and avoided being impaled by the steering wheel! Imagine if he'd been wearing a seat belt and couldn't slide out of the way--he'd have the steering wheel right through his chest! And another thing: car insurance. Why? It's just a waste. I've never needed it, I've never caused an accident, so why pay for insurance you'll never use? What a waste of money. |
Re: dont change the belt! here's why.
In article <Jason-1208041315180001@pm1-broad-111.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Excellent post--I agree with you. Why take a chance on such things. I once > heard an old man bragging that he owned a pickup truck that had over > 200,000 miles on it and that he never changed the oil on it during those > 200,000 miles. As he drove away in his truck--lots of black smoke was > coming out the the muffler. Hey, adding oil now and then is cheaper than those damn oil changes. |
Re: dont change the belt! here's why.
In article <Jason-1208041315180001@pm1-broad-111.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Excellent post--I agree with you. Why take a chance on such things. I once > heard an old man bragging that he owned a pickup truck that had over > 200,000 miles on it and that he never changed the oil on it during those > 200,000 miles. As he drove away in his truck--lots of black smoke was > coming out the the muffler. Hey, adding oil now and then is cheaper than those damn oil changes. |
Re: dont change the belt! here's why.
On 8/12/2004 5:50 PM Bubba spake these words of knowledge:
> In article <411AEB7A.9A1305E2@spam.now> Eric <say.no@spam.now> writes: > >>lamont wrote: > >>> while its true that the belt is supposed to have its belt changed most >>> people i know never change it. just because it says 60k doesnt mean its >>> going to break at 60k. i have an accord with 220,000 miles on it and never >>> had the belt replaced i will be doing that in a few months however > >>The recommended interval for changing the timing belt is 6 years or 90,000 >>miles. This interval is based on an average rate of failure. > > True, but the "average rate of failure" or MTBF (Mean Time Before Failure) > is actually more like 2½ times the recommended replacement interval. Even > this number is a factory "hypothetical" failure rate based upon results of > accelerated tests in the test lab in an OZONE chamber with high > concentrations of OZONE and Ultraviolet light (both known to cause rubber > products to prematurely age and break down). > > The "recommended" replacement interval for the timing belt, like the > recommended oil change interval is designed to err on the very > conservative side of the actual life expectancy curve. These recommended > service intervals are also designed to embellish the receivables of the > dealer service departments. If you want to follow these recommendations, > that's fine, but don't expect that your car is going to break down > suddenly if you fudge. While I do not suggest that anyone enhance the wallets of the bastards who charge hundreds of dollars to 'inspect' a car - the dealers - the point of the relatively low mileage interval is that it takes *very* few early breaks - particularly with an interference engine - to warrant a recommendation for change earlier, rather than later. If one out of 5,000 breaks before 120,000 miles, that would be a shitload of Accords, and a *very* good reason for an earlier change. It's a worst-case scenario, and sometimes that isn't enough. Witness a report in this NG concerning a man who changed his at 60K miles, then had *that* belt fail at 105K miles. It happens. > Example, the "recommended" oil change interval on the Lexus LS400 is 7,500 > miles in normal service and 5,000 miles in heavy service. What does Lexus > know about their engines and the wear they incur that no one else knows? > Lexus also says 90,000 on the timing belt. Is there something particularly > special about Lexus engines or timing belts? I rather doubt it. These are the same oil change intervals recommended by Honda for my 03 Accord. What do you mean by 'no one else knows'? The timing belt is recommended for change at 105,000 miles on my Odyssey; I don't recall the specific mileage recommendation on my Accord. While Toyota makes a very good engine, you are correct that they are not particularly special. RFT!!! Dave Kelsen -- "The world owes you nothing. It was here first." -- Mark Twain |
Re: dont change the belt! here's why.
On 8/12/2004 5:50 PM Bubba spake these words of knowledge:
> In article <411AEB7A.9A1305E2@spam.now> Eric <say.no@spam.now> writes: > >>lamont wrote: > >>> while its true that the belt is supposed to have its belt changed most >>> people i know never change it. just because it says 60k doesnt mean its >>> going to break at 60k. i have an accord with 220,000 miles on it and never >>> had the belt replaced i will be doing that in a few months however > >>The recommended interval for changing the timing belt is 6 years or 90,000 >>miles. This interval is based on an average rate of failure. > > True, but the "average rate of failure" or MTBF (Mean Time Before Failure) > is actually more like 2½ times the recommended replacement interval. Even > this number is a factory "hypothetical" failure rate based upon results of > accelerated tests in the test lab in an OZONE chamber with high > concentrations of OZONE and Ultraviolet light (both known to cause rubber > products to prematurely age and break down). > > The "recommended" replacement interval for the timing belt, like the > recommended oil change interval is designed to err on the very > conservative side of the actual life expectancy curve. These recommended > service intervals are also designed to embellish the receivables of the > dealer service departments. If you want to follow these recommendations, > that's fine, but don't expect that your car is going to break down > suddenly if you fudge. While I do not suggest that anyone enhance the wallets of the bastards who charge hundreds of dollars to 'inspect' a car - the dealers - the point of the relatively low mileage interval is that it takes *very* few early breaks - particularly with an interference engine - to warrant a recommendation for change earlier, rather than later. If one out of 5,000 breaks before 120,000 miles, that would be a shitload of Accords, and a *very* good reason for an earlier change. It's a worst-case scenario, and sometimes that isn't enough. Witness a report in this NG concerning a man who changed his at 60K miles, then had *that* belt fail at 105K miles. It happens. > Example, the "recommended" oil change interval on the Lexus LS400 is 7,500 > miles in normal service and 5,000 miles in heavy service. What does Lexus > know about their engines and the wear they incur that no one else knows? > Lexus also says 90,000 on the timing belt. Is there something particularly > special about Lexus engines or timing belts? I rather doubt it. These are the same oil change intervals recommended by Honda for my 03 Accord. What do you mean by 'no one else knows'? The timing belt is recommended for change at 105,000 miles on my Odyssey; I don't recall the specific mileage recommendation on my Accord. While Toyota makes a very good engine, you are correct that they are not particularly special. RFT!!! Dave Kelsen -- "The world owes you nothing. It was here first." -- Mark Twain |
Re: dont change the belt! here's why.
In article <3K2Tc.33211$wM.20325@twister.tampabay.rr.com> Dave Kelsen
<invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: [snip] > Witness a report in this NG >concerning a man who changed his at 60K miles, then had *that* belt fail >at 105K miles. It happens. Yes, I saw that post. My own knee-jerk guess would be that the 2nd belt failed "early" possibly because it was either a cheap aftermarket belt (not "Genuine Honda") or that it was improperly installed... i.e., the mechanic accidentally got some oil or brake fluid on it or knicked it in the process of replacement. |
Re: dont change the belt! here's why.
In article <3K2Tc.33211$wM.20325@twister.tampabay.rr.com> Dave Kelsen
<invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: [snip] > Witness a report in this NG >concerning a man who changed his at 60K miles, then had *that* belt fail >at 105K miles. It happens. Yes, I saw that post. My own knee-jerk guess would be that the 2nd belt failed "early" possibly because it was either a cheap aftermarket belt (not "Genuine Honda") or that it was improperly installed... i.e., the mechanic accidentally got some oil or brake fluid on it or knicked it in the process of replacement. |
Re: dont change the belt! here's why.
In article <tnrnh01on0gbsbiriir47bjen4g3goi9qd@4ax.com>,
Bubba <wdg@[204.52.135.1]> wrote: > True, but the "average rate of failure" or MTBF (Mean Time Before Failure) > is actually more like 2½ times the recommended replacement interval. Even > this number is a factory "hypothetical" failure rate based upon results of > accelerated tests in the test lab in an OZONE chamber with high > concentrations of OZONE and Ultraviolet light (both known to cause rubber > products to prematurely age and break down). When do timing belts encounter UV light? J. |
Re: dont change the belt! here's why.
In article <tnrnh01on0gbsbiriir47bjen4g3goi9qd@4ax.com>,
Bubba <wdg@[204.52.135.1]> wrote: > True, but the "average rate of failure" or MTBF (Mean Time Before Failure) > is actually more like 2½ times the recommended replacement interval. Even > this number is a factory "hypothetical" failure rate based upon results of > accelerated tests in the test lab in an OZONE chamber with high > concentrations of OZONE and Ultraviolet light (both known to cause rubber > products to prematurely age and break down). When do timing belts encounter UV light? J. |
Re: dont change the belt! here's why.
In article <jhanson-714C7A.11415415082004@news.east.cox.net> "John A.
Hanson" <jhanson@suncom.net> writes: >> True, but the "average rate of failure" or MTBF (Mean Time Before Failure) >> is actually more like 2½ times the recommended replacement interval. Even >> this number is a factory "hypothetical" failure rate based upon results of >> accelerated tests in the test lab in an OZONE chamber with high >> concentrations of OZONE and Ultraviolet light (both known to cause rubber >> products to prematurely age and break down). >When do timing belts encounter UV light? Ordinarily they never would. It's simply a means for the test lab to accelerate the aging process when performing life expectancy tests. Failure in the lab environment is determined to have occurred only when the rubber starts to crack, and not when the belt actually breaks. By the way, these tests are continuously ongoing with representative samples taken from every shipment from the supplier. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:13 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands