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.

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.

Re: Driving cross country in a 97 Civic; should I replace the timingbelt?
 

AGS wrote:

> 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.

Also driving down the highway at a fairly steady speed puts very little
stress on something like a timing belt.

Re: Driving cross country in a 97 Civic; should I replace the timingbelt?
 

AGS wrote:

> 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.

Also driving down the highway at a fairly steady speed puts very little
stress on something like a timing belt.

Re: Driving cross country in a 97 Civic; should I replacethetiming belt?
 

So because damage will be done if the belt should break, the OP should
replace it 15,000 miles early, whether it needs it or not? Gee - why don't
you just change it at every other oil change and be really safe....


On 9/16/04 9:02 PM, in article 414a1a54_8@corp.newsgroups.com, "RMoore"
<rmoore@hroads.net> wrote:

> CHANGE THE BELT!!!
> On an engine you have intake and exhaust valves. The are located in what is
> called the "head", which is on top of the "block". The intake and exhaust
> valves open and close in "time" with the piston going up and down in the
> block. If a valve is open when the piston reaches the top of the block you
> now have an engine that needs major repair. It will more than likely not
> run anymore. If it does run at all it will bring tears to your ears. So I
> say to you CHANGE THE BELT!!!
> On some Hondas they have to remove the water pump to get to the timing belt
> and they may recommend changing it at that time. Yes, tell them to change
> the water pump at the same time. Of course it only applies if they have to
> remove yours to get to the timing belt.
> E. Meyer <e52.meyer0SPAM@ieee.org> wrote in message
> news:BD40D7F1.93A6C%e52.meyer0SPAM@ieee.org...
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Re: Driving cross country in a 97 Civic; should I replacethetiming belt?
 

So because damage will be done if the belt should break, the OP should
replace it 15,000 miles early, whether it needs it or not? Gee - why don't
you just change it at every other oil change and be really safe....


On 9/16/04 9:02 PM, in article 414a1a54_8@corp.newsgroups.com, "RMoore"
<rmoore@hroads.net> wrote:

> CHANGE THE BELT!!!
> On an engine you have intake and exhaust valves. The are located in what is
> called the "head", which is on top of the "block". The intake and exhaust
> valves open and close in "time" with the piston going up and down in the
> block. If a valve is open when the piston reaches the top of the block you
> now have an engine that needs major repair. It will more than likely not
> run anymore. If it does run at all it will bring tears to your ears. So I
> say to you CHANGE THE BELT!!!
> On some Hondas they have to remove the water pump to get to the timing belt
> and they may recommend changing it at that time. Yes, tell them to change
> the water pump at the same time. Of course it only applies if they have to
> remove yours to get to the timing belt.
> E. Meyer <e52.meyer0SPAM@ieee.org> wrote in message
> news:BD40D7F1.93A6C%e52.meyer0SPAM@ieee.org...
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----