Trident

Am now wondering what all the fuss was about.

To backtrack, I have been reading this newsgroup off and on for the last few
years. I've seen many posts here warning of the importance of changing your
Honda Accord's timing belt at 75,000 miles or 7 years (or whatever the
interval is) or dire consequences will occur.

Long story short, I delayed replacing it for well beyond this replacement
interval but finally replaced both the timing belt and water pump on my 1994
Honda Accord with 98,000 miles on it. I am the original owner and the
timing belt had never been replaced before.

I told the shop to keep the old parts so I could see what they looked like,
expecting their condition to be terrible based on posts I have read here.

When I picked up the vehicle, they had placed the old timing belt and water
pump in a plastic bag for me. The timing belt was a small all-rubber belt
with teeth on it which went all the way around. I carefully inspected this
13 year old timing belt and it looked almost brand new! No cuts, nicks,
gouges, discoloration or any other noticeable wear! It looked fine, like it
didn't really need to be replaced. Not at all what I expected it to look
like.

I'm not saying I wish I didn't have it replaced. It gives me peace of mind
to have done so and if you guys say it's important, well you know alot more
about this stuff than I do. Just saying it didn't look at all like it
needed to be replaced.

Is stretching of the belt over time, which I probably would not be able to
notice, the issue affecting an old timing belt?

Anyway, just not what I expected to see.