dbl-htch

iTrader: (1)

I've been looking at used Civics and Integras in the $4-5k range lately, and I realize that anything with around 100k would require a timing belt change pretty much immediately. I found a very nice '98 Civic EX with only 71k miles and my first thought was "great, no timing belt to worry about for a while". I quickly realized upon doing a little research that Honda recommends changing the timing belt, etc. at 105k miles or 7 years, whichever comes first. The car does (rather surprisingly, at least for being on a dealer's lot) have some maintenance papers/receipts from the previous owner, which I'll take a closer look at tomorrow. My question is this: if I can't find any definitive proof of a timing belt service, should I definitely plan on doing it right away? Thanks for any help...
I guess what I'm asking is just how critical is the age of the timing belt compared to the miles?

andyfee

if its bugging you then change it.

andyfee

better piece of mind after doing so

Deetz

i would say after about 7-8 years to be on the safe side

Perkul8r

I bought my 94 civic dx from a guy that had had the timing belt change some time ago. The car now has 187800 miles on it and runs great. I think he said it was changed within the last year. So if it was changed before that i am not sure. But its really up to you. If you really feel uncomfortable with the years or mileage than have it changed.

fungus mungus

A timing belt changed now < timing belt changed and wrecked valvetrain repair later.

fm

90Rexx

Honda reccomends 5 years or 60,000 miles. for the older engines.... i think theres some that can go to 105 but 5/60 sounds good to me

fungus mungus

The dealer will always recommend a change at 60K, but if you read the manual, Honda says the timing belt should be changed at 80-100K depending on the state you're in. In CA the belt is good for 100K.

fm

98civdx

id change it, just to be on the safe side

Vindicator9000

If it was me, I'd personally change it at 100K. Since a broken timing belt *wrecks* a Honda engine, the Honda maintenance schedule is very very conservative, and recommends changing them *waaaaaay* before they tend to go bad. Therefore, I personally tend to change them a bit after schedule dictates.

I've never had a timing belt break on me. I drove my Civic to 140K before I changed it the first time. My 96 Accord was totaled with 105K on it, and the original timing belt. My 99 CRV has 102K on it, original timing belt. I just swapped the engine on a 00 CRV with 250K, and the original timing belt was in great shape.

So, you don't have to change it exactly when the schedule says you should. Due to the potential consequences, it's a good idea to change it then or somewhat soon after, but you really don't *have* to.... usually. However, everyone can be unlucky, and don't blame me if it breaks lol.

NOFX

I'd change it asap.

1996 to 2000 Civic Maintenance Schedule

roadsqueegy95

id change it just to have peice of mine, when i rebuilt my em1 with 80ish thousand miles, it looked brand new still, but i still changed it, better to spend the money now on just a timing belt, then later plus valve train parts!

tw1tch

If you live in a climate that goes from very hot to very cold, that is a lot harder on the belt. As well as people who take a lot of short trips, which is pretty much everyone. I'd get it done by 75k max. I had mine done on my si at 75k. I am just gonna let this one ride it out. By the time it'd need to be changed again around 175k miles, I will just let it go til it breaks or the motor blows and replace it. By then a k20 will be very affordable.

MidAtlantian

Hi,
When I looked for guidance in this, I did not find the responses very helpful. I had a 2002 Honda Civic with 50k miles, and with the original timing belt. People relied on the manufacturer's advice and cautioned against not following it. But no one seemed to speak from experience, although no one wrote of their belt breaking either. My local Honda dealer was more honest than most, I would guess. They had never heard of a belt breaking from age, and thought I was OK to 90k. I have just changed my belt - 2 years later - at 70K. Apparent;ly there is supposed to be Kevlar in their bests, so that they are mechanically unusually stable. I live in England, so the climate is quite mild. It is almost never hot, and only occasionally gets below freezing where I am, so it is true that the conditions are not demanding.

MidAtlantian

chrysler kid

To respond to the original question, 9 years or 90k miles is what my owners manual states.

I did a timing belt last week on a 99dx with 168k that was still on the original belt. Long story short if the car is your only means of transportation you should do it at the recommended intervals

chrysler kid

To respond to the original question, 9 years or 90k miles is what my owners manual states.

I did a timing belt last week on a 99dx with 168k that was still on the original belt. Long story short if the car is your only means of transportation you should do it at the recommended intervals

deschlong

iTrader: (8)

I did a timing belt change recently on a car that had 350,000km or ~217,000mi on the clock and went 23 years on the original belt. This was long past its use-by date, and essentially playing with fire. Not recommended.