Timing belt - mileage vs time
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Timing belt - mileage vs time
SoCalMike says...
> jim beam wrote:
>> without any form of visible deterioration. i say, do a
>> visual inspection. if it apears to be in bad shape,
>> cracking, fraying, teeth worn or deformed, yes, replace
>> regardless of mileage. but if it's not, and you /know/
>> for sure mileage is within spec, i'd stick with earl's
>> advice.
> id be curious to know how many 80s/90s vintage civics
> *ever* get their timing belt replaced. its something 99%
> of people dont even think about. im sure some live their
> whole lives with one belt, then it gets replaced when
> the water pump starts spewing coolant.
Yes in fact, Earl said that the water pump is what usually
goes out at somewhere around 90-100k miles, at which point
they do the belt too.
He said he sees a lot of early-80's models with their
original belt, and presumably the original water pump. But I
would still guess that most of them get replaced at some
point, either because the water pump goes out or because the
dealer hounds you about it at each oil change.
I was frankly surprised at how confident Earl was about his
advice. Of course it isn't his car or his risk, but even so
I would have expected him to hedge a little, or do one of
those disclaimers about no guarantees, and so forth. But he
just said "You don't need to do this," and there were no
qualifiers. I mean, I had my checkbook with me. It would
have been $595.
Well, I may check with some other places locally just to see
what they say, but having gotten the answer I wanted... :-)
I just want to point out that in my owner's manual, there is
only one column that says 90,000 miles, and that column also
says 6 years. There is no 90k/8yrs or 90k/4yrs. All of the
columns assume 15k miles per year. But it's clear that some
things are really mileage based, like brake pads, while
others (I don't know - maybe antifreeze, or maybe even
engine oil) have a significant time component. But you
aren't going to get your valves adjusted based on time even
though the 30k/2yr major service includes it.
So it's not completely unreasonable to suggest that just
because that column says 90k miles or 6 yrs it shouldn't
necessarily be taken literally. The question is how
important time is for big honking belts like these. It's
too bad we don't have statistics that would tell us.
> jim beam wrote:
>> without any form of visible deterioration. i say, do a
>> visual inspection. if it apears to be in bad shape,
>> cracking, fraying, teeth worn or deformed, yes, replace
>> regardless of mileage. but if it's not, and you /know/
>> for sure mileage is within spec, i'd stick with earl's
>> advice.
> id be curious to know how many 80s/90s vintage civics
> *ever* get their timing belt replaced. its something 99%
> of people dont even think about. im sure some live their
> whole lives with one belt, then it gets replaced when
> the water pump starts spewing coolant.
Yes in fact, Earl said that the water pump is what usually
goes out at somewhere around 90-100k miles, at which point
they do the belt too.
He said he sees a lot of early-80's models with their
original belt, and presumably the original water pump. But I
would still guess that most of them get replaced at some
point, either because the water pump goes out or because the
dealer hounds you about it at each oil change.
I was frankly surprised at how confident Earl was about his
advice. Of course it isn't his car or his risk, but even so
I would have expected him to hedge a little, or do one of
those disclaimers about no guarantees, and so forth. But he
just said "You don't need to do this," and there were no
qualifiers. I mean, I had my checkbook with me. It would
have been $595.
Well, I may check with some other places locally just to see
what they say, but having gotten the answer I wanted... :-)
I just want to point out that in my owner's manual, there is
only one column that says 90,000 miles, and that column also
says 6 years. There is no 90k/8yrs or 90k/4yrs. All of the
columns assume 15k miles per year. But it's clear that some
things are really mileage based, like brake pads, while
others (I don't know - maybe antifreeze, or maybe even
engine oil) have a significant time component. But you
aren't going to get your valves adjusted based on time even
though the 30k/2yr major service includes it.
So it's not completely unreasonable to suggest that just
because that column says 90k miles or 6 yrs it shouldn't
necessarily be taken literally. The question is how
important time is for big honking belts like these. It's
too bad we don't have statistics that would tell us.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Timing belt - mileage vs time
"Peabody" <waybackKILLSPAM44@yahoo.com> wrote
> SoCalMike says...
>
>
> > jim beam wrote:
>
> >> without any form of visible deterioration. i say, do a
> >> visual inspection. if it apears to be in bad shape,
> >> cracking, fraying, teeth worn or deformed, yes, replace
> >> regardless of mileage. but if it's not, and you /know/
> >> for sure mileage is within spec, i'd stick with earl's
> >> advice.
>
> > id be curious to know how many 80s/90s vintage civics
> > *ever* get their timing belt replaced. its something 99%
> > of people dont even think about. im sure some live their
> > whole lives with one belt, then it gets replaced when
> > the water pump starts spewing coolant.
>
> Yes in fact, Earl said that the water pump is what usually
> goes out at somewhere around 90-100k miles, at which point
> they do the belt too.
If that's the case, it makes sense to be pre-emptive and just do the belt
per the maintenance schedule, at the same time replacing the water pump.
That is, in fact, what any good shop will do, since the labor for each
overlaps greatly.
But I realize you're focused on the time interval at the moment, since this
is what you've exceeded.
> He said he sees a lot of early-80's models with their
> original belt, and presumably the original water pump. But I
> would still guess that most of them get replaced at some
> point, either because the water pump goes out or because the
> dealer hounds you about it at each oil change.
>
> I was frankly surprised at how confident Earl was about his
> advice. Of course it isn't his car or his risk, but even so
> I would have expected him to hedge a little, or do one of
> those disclaimers about no guarantees, and so forth. But he
> just said "You don't need to do this," and there were no
> qualifiers. I mean, I had my checkbook with me. It would
> have been $595.
>
> Well, I may check with some other places locally just to see
> what they say, but having gotten the answer I wanted... :-)
>
> I just want to point out that in my owner's manual, there is
> only one column that says 90,000 miles, and that column also
> says 6 years. There is no 90k/8yrs or 90k/4yrs.
What does the / mark mean to you here?
My 91 Civic's manual explicitly notes that the interval is 90k miles or six
years, "whichever comes first."
> All of the
> columns assume 15k miles per year. But it's clear that some
> things are really mileage based, like brake pads,
Brake pads are not at all strictly mileage based. Nor does the manual say
they are. What it does say is _inspect_ the brake pads after certain mileage
and time intervals.
Brake pad wear very much depends on individual driver habits and where the
car is driven.
> while
> others (I don't know - maybe antifreeze, or maybe even
> engine oil) have a significant time component. But you
> aren't going to get your valves adjusted based on time even
> though the 30k/2yr major service includes it.
The valve clearances are supposed to be checked every15k/2 years, whichever
comes first, on my 91 Civic. It's likely the check will indicate they need
no adjustment, though. I've never had the valves adjusted on my car. I
checked the clearances a year ago.
> So it's not completely unreasonable to suggest that just
> because that column says 90k miles or 6 yrs it shouldn't
> necessarily be taken literally. The question is how
> important time is for big honking belts like these. It's
> too bad we don't have statistics that would tell us.
What you have is an engineering design which is also supported by many
anecdotal reports of broken timing belts destroying engines shortly after
the time and/or mileage interval is exceeded.
It's a cost vs. risk analysis. Save $600 now but risk destroying your engine
from a broken timing belt. These do happen on Hondas of your year.
So, are you driving a clunker that you're ready to abandon and replace with
a newer car? If so, then it may make sense to drive it into the ground and
roll the dice on NOT replacing the belt. If OTOH it's your principal
transportation and you don't have several thousand or more dollars lying
around to buy a new car with, then I think you should definitely replace the
timing belt. Now.
> SoCalMike says...
>
>
> > jim beam wrote:
>
> >> without any form of visible deterioration. i say, do a
> >> visual inspection. if it apears to be in bad shape,
> >> cracking, fraying, teeth worn or deformed, yes, replace
> >> regardless of mileage. but if it's not, and you /know/
> >> for sure mileage is within spec, i'd stick with earl's
> >> advice.
>
> > id be curious to know how many 80s/90s vintage civics
> > *ever* get their timing belt replaced. its something 99%
> > of people dont even think about. im sure some live their
> > whole lives with one belt, then it gets replaced when
> > the water pump starts spewing coolant.
>
> Yes in fact, Earl said that the water pump is what usually
> goes out at somewhere around 90-100k miles, at which point
> they do the belt too.
If that's the case, it makes sense to be pre-emptive and just do the belt
per the maintenance schedule, at the same time replacing the water pump.
That is, in fact, what any good shop will do, since the labor for each
overlaps greatly.
But I realize you're focused on the time interval at the moment, since this
is what you've exceeded.
> He said he sees a lot of early-80's models with their
> original belt, and presumably the original water pump. But I
> would still guess that most of them get replaced at some
> point, either because the water pump goes out or because the
> dealer hounds you about it at each oil change.
>
> I was frankly surprised at how confident Earl was about his
> advice. Of course it isn't his car or his risk, but even so
> I would have expected him to hedge a little, or do one of
> those disclaimers about no guarantees, and so forth. But he
> just said "You don't need to do this," and there were no
> qualifiers. I mean, I had my checkbook with me. It would
> have been $595.
>
> Well, I may check with some other places locally just to see
> what they say, but having gotten the answer I wanted... :-)
>
> I just want to point out that in my owner's manual, there is
> only one column that says 90,000 miles, and that column also
> says 6 years. There is no 90k/8yrs or 90k/4yrs.
What does the / mark mean to you here?
My 91 Civic's manual explicitly notes that the interval is 90k miles or six
years, "whichever comes first."
> All of the
> columns assume 15k miles per year. But it's clear that some
> things are really mileage based, like brake pads,
Brake pads are not at all strictly mileage based. Nor does the manual say
they are. What it does say is _inspect_ the brake pads after certain mileage
and time intervals.
Brake pad wear very much depends on individual driver habits and where the
car is driven.
> while
> others (I don't know - maybe antifreeze, or maybe even
> engine oil) have a significant time component. But you
> aren't going to get your valves adjusted based on time even
> though the 30k/2yr major service includes it.
The valve clearances are supposed to be checked every15k/2 years, whichever
comes first, on my 91 Civic. It's likely the check will indicate they need
no adjustment, though. I've never had the valves adjusted on my car. I
checked the clearances a year ago.
> So it's not completely unreasonable to suggest that just
> because that column says 90k miles or 6 yrs it shouldn't
> necessarily be taken literally. The question is how
> important time is for big honking belts like these. It's
> too bad we don't have statistics that would tell us.
What you have is an engineering design which is also supported by many
anecdotal reports of broken timing belts destroying engines shortly after
the time and/or mileage interval is exceeded.
It's a cost vs. risk analysis. Save $600 now but risk destroying your engine
from a broken timing belt. These do happen on Hondas of your year.
So, are you driving a clunker that you're ready to abandon and replace with
a newer car? If so, then it may make sense to drive it into the ground and
roll the dice on NOT replacing the belt. If OTOH it's your principal
transportation and you don't have several thousand or more dollars lying
around to buy a new car with, then I think you should definitely replace the
timing belt. Now.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Timing belt - mileage vs time
Elle wrote:
> Brake pad wear very much depends on individual driver habits and where the
> car is driven.
That's for sure. I do a fair amount of long distance driving late at
night, when I hardly ever apply the brakes, thereby racking up a lot of
mileage without braking in comparison to the small amount of city
driving I do.
> Brake pad wear very much depends on individual driver habits and where the
> car is driven.
That's for sure. I do a fair amount of long distance driving late at
night, when I hardly ever apply the brakes, thereby racking up a lot of
mileage without braking in comparison to the small amount of city
driving I do.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Timing belt - mileage vs time
Elle says...
> What does the / mark mean to you here?
> My 91 Civic's manual explicitly notes that the interval
> is 90k miles or six years, "whichever comes first."
The question is what does it mean to Honda. And it clearly
says whichever comes first.
At the risk of being cynical, I view a lot of this as being
dealer revenue enhancement. You may disagree, but I think
that for a car like mine which averages less than 5000 miles
per year, following these guides literally would just mean
wasting a lot of money.
> Brake pads are not at all strictly mileage based. Nor
> does the manual say they are. What it does say is
> _inspect_ the brake pads after certain mileage and time
> intervals.
> Brake pad wear very much depends on individual driver
> habits and where the car is driven.
Perhaps, but pad wear clearly does not depend on time at
all. If the car sits idle for a month, the brake pads don't
wear down even a little bit during that period. Well, if
you don't count the relativistic effects and quantum
uncertainty.
> The valve clearances are supposed to be checked
> every15k/2 years, whichever comes first, on my 91 Civic.
> It's likely the check will indicate they need no
> adjustment, though. I've never had the valves adjusted
> on my car. I checked the clearances a year ago.
Mine says 15k/1yr. I see no point in even checking the
clearance before 15k miles. I would have to pay someone to
do that, and I think that's silly. I acknowledge that
there's a question about the timing belt, but stuff like
valve clearance, spark plugs and brake pads are just not
related to time, and I'm not going to follow the manual
literally on such items.
> What you have is an engineering design which is also
> supported by many anecdotal reports of broken timing
> belts destroying engines shortly after the time and/or
> mileage interval is exceeded.
Anecdotal reports with respect to miles, but I haven't seen
much with respect to time alone.
> It's a cost vs. risk analysis. Save $600 now but risk
> destroying your engine from a broken timing belt. These
> do happen on Hondas of your year.
They do happen, but I haven't heard of any breaking at
49,000 miles.
But you're right. It's cost vs risk, but that depends on
what you think the risk really is. I still don't have a
clear picture of what that is, and I don't think that
picture exists in statistical form, unfortunately.
> So, are you driving a clunker that you're ready to
> abandon and replace with a newer car? If so, then it may
> make sense to drive it into the ground and roll the dice
> on NOT replacing the belt. If OTOH it's your principal
> transportation and you don't have several thousand or
> more dollars lying around to buy a new car with, then I
> think you should definitely replace the timing belt.
> Now.
Perhaps so. But I have high deductibles on all my
insurance coverage, and I don't buy extended warranties on
anything. In the long run I make money that way. If you
protect yourself against every conceivable risk, you end up
spending all your money doing that.
I'll check with some other shops and see what they say. The
problem of course is getting a straighforward answer from
someone. That's what impressed me about Earl.
> What does the / mark mean to you here?
> My 91 Civic's manual explicitly notes that the interval
> is 90k miles or six years, "whichever comes first."
The question is what does it mean to Honda. And it clearly
says whichever comes first.
At the risk of being cynical, I view a lot of this as being
dealer revenue enhancement. You may disagree, but I think
that for a car like mine which averages less than 5000 miles
per year, following these guides literally would just mean
wasting a lot of money.
> Brake pads are not at all strictly mileage based. Nor
> does the manual say they are. What it does say is
> _inspect_ the brake pads after certain mileage and time
> intervals.
> Brake pad wear very much depends on individual driver
> habits and where the car is driven.
Perhaps, but pad wear clearly does not depend on time at
all. If the car sits idle for a month, the brake pads don't
wear down even a little bit during that period. Well, if
you don't count the relativistic effects and quantum
uncertainty.
> The valve clearances are supposed to be checked
> every15k/2 years, whichever comes first, on my 91 Civic.
> It's likely the check will indicate they need no
> adjustment, though. I've never had the valves adjusted
> on my car. I checked the clearances a year ago.
Mine says 15k/1yr. I see no point in even checking the
clearance before 15k miles. I would have to pay someone to
do that, and I think that's silly. I acknowledge that
there's a question about the timing belt, but stuff like
valve clearance, spark plugs and brake pads are just not
related to time, and I'm not going to follow the manual
literally on such items.
> What you have is an engineering design which is also
> supported by many anecdotal reports of broken timing
> belts destroying engines shortly after the time and/or
> mileage interval is exceeded.
Anecdotal reports with respect to miles, but I haven't seen
much with respect to time alone.
> It's a cost vs. risk analysis. Save $600 now but risk
> destroying your engine from a broken timing belt. These
> do happen on Hondas of your year.
They do happen, but I haven't heard of any breaking at
49,000 miles.
But you're right. It's cost vs risk, but that depends on
what you think the risk really is. I still don't have a
clear picture of what that is, and I don't think that
picture exists in statistical form, unfortunately.
> So, are you driving a clunker that you're ready to
> abandon and replace with a newer car? If so, then it may
> make sense to drive it into the ground and roll the dice
> on NOT replacing the belt. If OTOH it's your principal
> transportation and you don't have several thousand or
> more dollars lying around to buy a new car with, then I
> think you should definitely replace the timing belt.
> Now.
Perhaps so. But I have high deductibles on all my
insurance coverage, and I don't buy extended warranties on
anything. In the long run I make money that way. If you
protect yourself against every conceivable risk, you end up
spending all your money doing that.
I'll check with some other shops and see what they say. The
problem of course is getting a straighforward answer from
someone. That's what impressed me about Earl.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Timing belt - mileage vs time
"Peabody" <waybackKILLSPAM44@yahoo.com> wrote
> Elle says...
>
> > What does the / mark mean to you here?
>
> > My 91 Civic's manual explicitly notes that the interval
> > is 90k miles or six years, "whichever comes first."
>
> The question is what does it mean to Honda. And it clearly
> says whichever comes first.
>
> At the risk of being cynical, I view a lot of this as being
> dealer revenue enhancement. You may disagree, but I think
> that for a car like mine which averages less than 5000 miles
> per year, following these guides literally would just mean
> wasting a lot of money.
Being thrifty myself, I can understand your concern. But I think one has to
consider for whom the guidelines are written. Honda should be conservative,
as it can't be sure to what kind of driving people are subjecting their
cars.
You might note the manual says not to replace the oil until 7500 miles or
six months have passed. There is discussion on the net of why the six month
interval is there. Honda could probably easily get away with saying 3000
miles/6 months, because that's the mantra at places like Jiffy Lube and
one's local dealer. Now 3000 miles is a profit-driven figure.
> > Brake pads are not at all strictly mileage based. Nor
> > does the manual say they are. What it does say is
> > _inspect_ the brake pads after certain mileage and time
> > intervals.
>
> > Brake pad wear very much depends on individual driver
> > habits and where the car is driven.
>
> Perhaps, but pad wear clearly does not depend on time at
> all.
Dude, the manual is not saying to go replace the brake pads every six
months. It's saying to go inspect them. It's a guideline. It strikes me as
perfectly reasonable, since the manual has to assume all kind of extreme
driving conditions.
What interval, in years or miles, would you would recommend for the brake
pads?
Bear in mind that someone's safety is quite arguably at stake here.
> If the car sits idle for a month, the brake pads don't
> wear down even a little bit during that period. Well, if
> you don't count the relativistic effects and quantum
> uncertainty.
Don't go there, dude. You're not ready.
> > The valve clearances are supposed to be checked
> > every15k/2 years, whichever comes first, on my 91 Civic.
> > It's likely the check will indicate they need no
> > adjustment, though. I've never had the valves adjusted
> > on my car. I checked the clearances a year ago.
>
> Mine says 15k/1yr. I see no point in even checking the
> clearance before 15k miles. I would have to pay someone to
> do that, and I think that's silly. I acknowledge that
> there's a question about the timing belt, but stuff like
> valve clearance, spark plugs and brake pads are just not
> related to time, and I'm not going to follow the manual
> literally on such items.
You might note that the manual says to replace the oil every 7500 miles or
six months, whichever comes first.
> > What you have is an engineering design which is also
> > supported by many anecdotal reports of broken timing
> > belts destroying engines shortly after the time and/or
> > mileage interval is exceeded.
>
> Anecdotal reports with respect to miles, but I haven't seen
> much with respect to time alone.
>
> > It's a cost vs. risk analysis. Save $600 now but risk
> > destroying your engine from a broken timing belt. These
> > do happen on Hondas of your year.
>
> They do happen, but I haven't heard of any breaking at
> 49,000 miles.
Do you understand why the two constraints--time and mileage--are not both
required to be met here?
> But you're right. It's cost vs risk, but that depends on
> what you think the risk really is. I still don't have a
> clear picture of what that is, and I don't think that
> picture exists in statistical form, unfortunately.
I personally have no doubt the engineering design does incorporate
statistics on likelihood of breakage. Speaking as a licensed professional
engineer.
snip
> I'll check with some other shops and see what they say. The
> problem of course is getting a straighforward answer from
> someone. That's what impressed me about Earl.
Well, you don't really know if it's straightforward or just someone
pretending to know more than the others, do you?
Of course, you shouldn't do what you're uncomfortable with. If you trust
Earl, then it's not for me to say otherwise. Just saying I suspect with a
little googling you will find reports of timing belts going at less than 11
years. If you want to risk it and can afford to do so, then your
decision-making is rational. But I absolutely object to your claim that
Honda is wrong to put a guideline of 90k miles/6 years down for the Civic.
> Elle says...
>
> > What does the / mark mean to you here?
>
> > My 91 Civic's manual explicitly notes that the interval
> > is 90k miles or six years, "whichever comes first."
>
> The question is what does it mean to Honda. And it clearly
> says whichever comes first.
>
> At the risk of being cynical, I view a lot of this as being
> dealer revenue enhancement. You may disagree, but I think
> that for a car like mine which averages less than 5000 miles
> per year, following these guides literally would just mean
> wasting a lot of money.
Being thrifty myself, I can understand your concern. But I think one has to
consider for whom the guidelines are written. Honda should be conservative,
as it can't be sure to what kind of driving people are subjecting their
cars.
You might note the manual says not to replace the oil until 7500 miles or
six months have passed. There is discussion on the net of why the six month
interval is there. Honda could probably easily get away with saying 3000
miles/6 months, because that's the mantra at places like Jiffy Lube and
one's local dealer. Now 3000 miles is a profit-driven figure.
> > Brake pads are not at all strictly mileage based. Nor
> > does the manual say they are. What it does say is
> > _inspect_ the brake pads after certain mileage and time
> > intervals.
>
> > Brake pad wear very much depends on individual driver
> > habits and where the car is driven.
>
> Perhaps, but pad wear clearly does not depend on time at
> all.
Dude, the manual is not saying to go replace the brake pads every six
months. It's saying to go inspect them. It's a guideline. It strikes me as
perfectly reasonable, since the manual has to assume all kind of extreme
driving conditions.
What interval, in years or miles, would you would recommend for the brake
pads?
Bear in mind that someone's safety is quite arguably at stake here.
> If the car sits idle for a month, the brake pads don't
> wear down even a little bit during that period. Well, if
> you don't count the relativistic effects and quantum
> uncertainty.
Don't go there, dude. You're not ready.
> > The valve clearances are supposed to be checked
> > every15k/2 years, whichever comes first, on my 91 Civic.
> > It's likely the check will indicate they need no
> > adjustment, though. I've never had the valves adjusted
> > on my car. I checked the clearances a year ago.
>
> Mine says 15k/1yr. I see no point in even checking the
> clearance before 15k miles. I would have to pay someone to
> do that, and I think that's silly. I acknowledge that
> there's a question about the timing belt, but stuff like
> valve clearance, spark plugs and brake pads are just not
> related to time, and I'm not going to follow the manual
> literally on such items.
You might note that the manual says to replace the oil every 7500 miles or
six months, whichever comes first.
> > What you have is an engineering design which is also
> > supported by many anecdotal reports of broken timing
> > belts destroying engines shortly after the time and/or
> > mileage interval is exceeded.
>
> Anecdotal reports with respect to miles, but I haven't seen
> much with respect to time alone.
>
> > It's a cost vs. risk analysis. Save $600 now but risk
> > destroying your engine from a broken timing belt. These
> > do happen on Hondas of your year.
>
> They do happen, but I haven't heard of any breaking at
> 49,000 miles.
Do you understand why the two constraints--time and mileage--are not both
required to be met here?
> But you're right. It's cost vs risk, but that depends on
> what you think the risk really is. I still don't have a
> clear picture of what that is, and I don't think that
> picture exists in statistical form, unfortunately.
I personally have no doubt the engineering design does incorporate
statistics on likelihood of breakage. Speaking as a licensed professional
engineer.
snip
> I'll check with some other shops and see what they say. The
> problem of course is getting a straighforward answer from
> someone. That's what impressed me about Earl.
Well, you don't really know if it's straightforward or just someone
pretending to know more than the others, do you?
Of course, you shouldn't do what you're uncomfortable with. If you trust
Earl, then it's not for me to say otherwise. Just saying I suspect with a
little googling you will find reports of timing belts going at less than 11
years. If you want to risk it and can afford to do so, then your
decision-making is rational. But I absolutely object to your claim that
Honda is wrong to put a guideline of 90k miles/6 years down for the Civic.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Timing belt - mileage vs time
Elle wrote:
> "Peabody" <waybackKILLSPAM44@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>>Elle says...
>>
>> > What does the / mark mean to you here?
>>
>> > My 91 Civic's manual explicitly notes that the interval
>> > is 90k miles or six years, "whichever comes first."
>>
>>The question is what does it mean to Honda. And it clearly
>>says whichever comes first.
>>
>>At the risk of being cynical, I view a lot of this as being
>>dealer revenue enhancement. You may disagree, but I think
>>that for a car like mine which averages less than 5000 miles
>>per year, following these guides literally would just mean
>>wasting a lot of money.
>
>
> Being thrifty myself, I can understand your concern. But I think one has to
> consider for whom the guidelines are written. Honda should be conservative,
> as it can't be sure to what kind of driving people are subjecting their
> cars.
>
> You might note the manual says not to replace the oil until 7500 miles or
> six months have passed. There is discussion on the net of why the six month
> interval is there. Honda could probably easily get away with saying 3000
> miles/6 months, because that's the mantra at places like Jiffy Lube and
> one's local dealer. Now 3000 miles is a profit-driven figure.
>
>
>> > Brake pads are not at all strictly mileage based. Nor
>> > does the manual say they are. What it does say is
>> > _inspect_ the brake pads after certain mileage and time
>> > intervals.
>>
>> > Brake pad wear very much depends on individual driver
>> > habits and where the car is driven.
>>
>>Perhaps, but pad wear clearly does not depend on time at
>>all.
>
>
> Dude, the manual is not saying to go replace the brake pads every six
> months. It's saying to go inspect them. It's a guideline. It strikes me as
> perfectly reasonable, since the manual has to assume all kind of extreme
> driving conditions.
>
> What interval, in years or miles, would you would recommend for the brake
> pads?
>
> Bear in mind that someone's safety is quite arguably at stake here.
>
>
>>If the car sits idle for a month, the brake pads don't
>>wear down even a little bit during that period. Well, if
>>you don't count the relativistic effects and quantum
>>uncertainty.
>
>
> Don't go there, dude. You're not ready.
>
>
>> > The valve clearances are supposed to be checked
>> > every15k/2 years, whichever comes first, on my 91 Civic.
>> > It's likely the check will indicate they need no
>> > adjustment, though. I've never had the valves adjusted
>> > on my car. I checked the clearances a year ago.
>>
>>Mine says 15k/1yr. I see no point in even checking the
>>clearance before 15k miles. I would have to pay someone to
>>do that, and I think that's silly. I acknowledge that
>>there's a question about the timing belt, but stuff like
>>valve clearance, spark plugs and brake pads are just not
>>related to time, and I'm not going to follow the manual
>>literally on such items.
>
>
> You might note that the manual says to replace the oil every 7500 miles or
> six months, whichever comes first.
>
>
>> > What you have is an engineering design which is also
>> > supported by many anecdotal reports of broken timing
>> > belts destroying engines shortly after the time and/or
>> > mileage interval is exceeded.
>>
>>Anecdotal reports with respect to miles, but I haven't seen
>>much with respect to time alone.
>>
>> > It's a cost vs. risk analysis. Save $600 now but risk
>> > destroying your engine from a broken timing belt. These
>> > do happen on Hondas of your year.
>>
>>They do happen, but I haven't heard of any breaking at
>>49,000 miles.
>
>
> Do you understand why the two constraints--time and mileage--are not both
> required to be met here?
>
>
>>But you're right. It's cost vs risk, but that depends on
>>what you think the risk really is. I still don't have a
>>clear picture of what that is, and I don't think that
>>picture exists in statistical form, unfortunately.
>
>
> I personally have no doubt the engineering design does incorporate
> statistics on likelihood of breakage. Speaking as a licensed professional
> engineer.
>
> snip
>
>>I'll check with some other shops and see what they say. The
>>problem of course is getting a straighforward answer from
>>someone. That's what impressed me about Earl.
>
>
> Well, you don't really know if it's straightforward or just someone
> pretending to know more than the others, do you?
>
> Of course, you shouldn't do what you're uncomfortable with. If you trust
> Earl, then it's not for me to say otherwise. Just saying I suspect with a
> little googling you will find reports of timing belts going at less than 11
> years. If you want to risk it and can afford to do so, then your
> decision-making is rational. But I absolutely object to your claim that
> Honda is wrong to put a guideline of 90k miles/6 years down for the Civic.
>
>
elle, at the time the 94 manual was written, belts weren't as good as
they are today - hence modern belts have 100-120k mile intervals. if
it's a modern belt of premium brand and operated in not too extreme an
environment, there's no real reason why a change interval couldn't be
extended. while sudden failure is possible, my experience is that belts
that break are usually in pretty bad condition on visual inspection and
most of the time, they make noise in use, particularly when the motor is
revved high. good condition belts are all but silent and generally
don't break. if you want to be prudent, sure, change at the service
interval. if you want to be thrifty, visually inspect. if you want to
be chancy, listen for the most distinctive belt whine.
> "Peabody" <waybackKILLSPAM44@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>>Elle says...
>>
>> > What does the / mark mean to you here?
>>
>> > My 91 Civic's manual explicitly notes that the interval
>> > is 90k miles or six years, "whichever comes first."
>>
>>The question is what does it mean to Honda. And it clearly
>>says whichever comes first.
>>
>>At the risk of being cynical, I view a lot of this as being
>>dealer revenue enhancement. You may disagree, but I think
>>that for a car like mine which averages less than 5000 miles
>>per year, following these guides literally would just mean
>>wasting a lot of money.
>
>
> Being thrifty myself, I can understand your concern. But I think one has to
> consider for whom the guidelines are written. Honda should be conservative,
> as it can't be sure to what kind of driving people are subjecting their
> cars.
>
> You might note the manual says not to replace the oil until 7500 miles or
> six months have passed. There is discussion on the net of why the six month
> interval is there. Honda could probably easily get away with saying 3000
> miles/6 months, because that's the mantra at places like Jiffy Lube and
> one's local dealer. Now 3000 miles is a profit-driven figure.
>
>
>> > Brake pads are not at all strictly mileage based. Nor
>> > does the manual say they are. What it does say is
>> > _inspect_ the brake pads after certain mileage and time
>> > intervals.
>>
>> > Brake pad wear very much depends on individual driver
>> > habits and where the car is driven.
>>
>>Perhaps, but pad wear clearly does not depend on time at
>>all.
>
>
> Dude, the manual is not saying to go replace the brake pads every six
> months. It's saying to go inspect them. It's a guideline. It strikes me as
> perfectly reasonable, since the manual has to assume all kind of extreme
> driving conditions.
>
> What interval, in years or miles, would you would recommend for the brake
> pads?
>
> Bear in mind that someone's safety is quite arguably at stake here.
>
>
>>If the car sits idle for a month, the brake pads don't
>>wear down even a little bit during that period. Well, if
>>you don't count the relativistic effects and quantum
>>uncertainty.
>
>
> Don't go there, dude. You're not ready.
>
>
>> > The valve clearances are supposed to be checked
>> > every15k/2 years, whichever comes first, on my 91 Civic.
>> > It's likely the check will indicate they need no
>> > adjustment, though. I've never had the valves adjusted
>> > on my car. I checked the clearances a year ago.
>>
>>Mine says 15k/1yr. I see no point in even checking the
>>clearance before 15k miles. I would have to pay someone to
>>do that, and I think that's silly. I acknowledge that
>>there's a question about the timing belt, but stuff like
>>valve clearance, spark plugs and brake pads are just not
>>related to time, and I'm not going to follow the manual
>>literally on such items.
>
>
> You might note that the manual says to replace the oil every 7500 miles or
> six months, whichever comes first.
>
>
>> > What you have is an engineering design which is also
>> > supported by many anecdotal reports of broken timing
>> > belts destroying engines shortly after the time and/or
>> > mileage interval is exceeded.
>>
>>Anecdotal reports with respect to miles, but I haven't seen
>>much with respect to time alone.
>>
>> > It's a cost vs. risk analysis. Save $600 now but risk
>> > destroying your engine from a broken timing belt. These
>> > do happen on Hondas of your year.
>>
>>They do happen, but I haven't heard of any breaking at
>>49,000 miles.
>
>
> Do you understand why the two constraints--time and mileage--are not both
> required to be met here?
>
>
>>But you're right. It's cost vs risk, but that depends on
>>what you think the risk really is. I still don't have a
>>clear picture of what that is, and I don't think that
>>picture exists in statistical form, unfortunately.
>
>
> I personally have no doubt the engineering design does incorporate
> statistics on likelihood of breakage. Speaking as a licensed professional
> engineer.
>
> snip
>
>>I'll check with some other shops and see what they say. The
>>problem of course is getting a straighforward answer from
>>someone. That's what impressed me about Earl.
>
>
> Well, you don't really know if it's straightforward or just someone
> pretending to know more than the others, do you?
>
> Of course, you shouldn't do what you're uncomfortable with. If you trust
> Earl, then it's not for me to say otherwise. Just saying I suspect with a
> little googling you will find reports of timing belts going at less than 11
> years. If you want to risk it and can afford to do so, then your
> decision-making is rational. But I absolutely object to your claim that
> Honda is wrong to put a guideline of 90k miles/6 years down for the Civic.
>
>
elle, at the time the 94 manual was written, belts weren't as good as
they are today - hence modern belts have 100-120k mile intervals. if
it's a modern belt of premium brand and operated in not too extreme an
environment, there's no real reason why a change interval couldn't be
extended. while sudden failure is possible, my experience is that belts
that break are usually in pretty bad condition on visual inspection and
most of the time, they make noise in use, particularly when the motor is
revved high. good condition belts are all but silent and generally
don't break. if you want to be prudent, sure, change at the service
interval. if you want to be thrifty, visually inspect. if you want to
be chancy, listen for the most distinctive belt whine.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Timing belt - mileage vs time
Elle says...
> Dude, the manual is not saying to go replace the brake
> pads every six months. It's saying to go inspect them.
> It's a guideline. It strikes me as perfectly reasonable,
> since the manual has to assume all kind of extreme
> driving conditions.
> What interval, in years or miles, would you would
> recommend for the brake pads?
> Bear in mind that someone's safety is quite arguably at
> stake here.
Well, I first inspected mine at about 32,000 miles when the
dealership "inspected" mine and told me they needed to be
replaced. They did this with a straight face. I took the
wheels off and looked, and it was obvious I was being
bullshitted, and I complained to the service manager. The
second time was last week. At 49,300 miles, I thought it
probably wasn't too early to check them again. Still a good
bit of pad thickness left. I'll check them again in a few
years, but you know, that's what those little warning tabs
are for. When they start to chatter, you still have pad
left, but not much, and it's time to get that brake job.
>> They do happen, but I haven't heard of any breaking at
>> 49,000 miles.
> Do you understand why the two constraints--time and
> mileage--are not both required to be met here?
Oh sure. But saying that if either is met you have to
replace the belt - that just may not be true.
> I personally have no doubt the engineering design does
> incorporate statistics on likelihood of breakage.
> Speaking as a licensed professional engineer.
I agree, although I only play a licensed professional
engineer on TV. I have less confidence that the statistical
analysis has much to do with what's in the owner's
manual, except in the most general way.
> If you want to risk it and can afford to do so, then
> your decision-making is rational. But I absolutely
> object to your claim that Honda is wrong to put a
> guideline of 90k miles/6 years down for the Civic.
I don't care what they put in the manual. I just don't want
to be bound by assumptions on which the manual is based that
don't apply to me.
> Dude, the manual is not saying to go replace the brake
> pads every six months. It's saying to go inspect them.
> It's a guideline. It strikes me as perfectly reasonable,
> since the manual has to assume all kind of extreme
> driving conditions.
> What interval, in years or miles, would you would
> recommend for the brake pads?
> Bear in mind that someone's safety is quite arguably at
> stake here.
Well, I first inspected mine at about 32,000 miles when the
dealership "inspected" mine and told me they needed to be
replaced. They did this with a straight face. I took the
wheels off and looked, and it was obvious I was being
bullshitted, and I complained to the service manager. The
second time was last week. At 49,300 miles, I thought it
probably wasn't too early to check them again. Still a good
bit of pad thickness left. I'll check them again in a few
years, but you know, that's what those little warning tabs
are for. When they start to chatter, you still have pad
left, but not much, and it's time to get that brake job.
>> They do happen, but I haven't heard of any breaking at
>> 49,000 miles.
> Do you understand why the two constraints--time and
> mileage--are not both required to be met here?
Oh sure. But saying that if either is met you have to
replace the belt - that just may not be true.
> I personally have no doubt the engineering design does
> incorporate statistics on likelihood of breakage.
> Speaking as a licensed professional engineer.
I agree, although I only play a licensed professional
engineer on TV. I have less confidence that the statistical
analysis has much to do with what's in the owner's
manual, except in the most general way.
> If you want to risk it and can afford to do so, then
> your decision-making is rational. But I absolutely
> object to your claim that Honda is wrong to put a
> guideline of 90k miles/6 years down for the Civic.
I don't care what they put in the manual. I just don't want
to be bound by assumptions on which the manual is based that
don't apply to me.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Timing belt - mileage vs time
Peabody wrote:
[re: brake pads]
> Well, I first inspected mine at about 32,000 miles when the
> dealership "inspected" mine and told me they needed to be
> replaced. They did this with a straight face. I took the
> wheels off and looked, and it was obvious I was being
> bullshitted, and I complained to the service manager.
Unh-hunh. I took my Civic in to the local dealer for a pre-purchase
assessment, upon which they found about $3000 worth of work they could
do. One item was to replace the front rotors, which were "rusted", and
pads, to the tune of $400. Yeah, right. When I got a look at them I
found that they were perfectly solid and displayed no more than a
reasonably normal amount of rust. No thumping during braking at any
speed. They also said the clutch slave cylinder was leaking, which it
did not appear to be on visual inspection when I replaced it last week.
Don't expect I'll be going back there for any work beyond a seatbelt
problem.
Anyway, I was honest with the seller and let her know that the dealer
was largely full of shit and that many of the real problems they found
were regular maintenance items. Did bargain her down another $200,
though, splitting a couple of the real things. All in all, it was a good
deal.
[re: brake pads]
> Well, I first inspected mine at about 32,000 miles when the
> dealership "inspected" mine and told me they needed to be
> replaced. They did this with a straight face. I took the
> wheels off and looked, and it was obvious I was being
> bullshitted, and I complained to the service manager.
Unh-hunh. I took my Civic in to the local dealer for a pre-purchase
assessment, upon which they found about $3000 worth of work they could
do. One item was to replace the front rotors, which were "rusted", and
pads, to the tune of $400. Yeah, right. When I got a look at them I
found that they were perfectly solid and displayed no more than a
reasonably normal amount of rust. No thumping during braking at any
speed. They also said the clutch slave cylinder was leaking, which it
did not appear to be on visual inspection when I replaced it last week.
Don't expect I'll be going back there for any work beyond a seatbelt
problem.
Anyway, I was honest with the seller and let her know that the dealer
was largely full of shit and that many of the real problems they found
were regular maintenance items. Did bargain her down another $200,
though, splitting a couple of the real things. All in all, it was a good
deal.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Timing belt - mileage vs time
"Peabody" <waybackKILLSPAM44@yahoo.com> wrote
E wrote
> Well, I first inspected mine at about 32,000 miles when the
> dealership "inspected" mine and told me they needed to be
> replaced. They did this with a straight face. I took the
> wheels off and looked, and it was obvious I was being
> bullshitted, and I complained to the service manager. The
> second time was last week. At 49,300 miles, I thought it
> probably wasn't too early to check them again.
My 91 Civic's first brake pads wore to the warning tabs after 43k miles.
E wrote
> Well, I first inspected mine at about 32,000 miles when the
> dealership "inspected" mine and told me they needed to be
> replaced. They did this with a straight face. I took the
> wheels off and looked, and it was obvious I was being
> bullshitted, and I complained to the service manager. The
> second time was last week. At 49,300 miles, I thought it
> probably wasn't too early to check them again.
My 91 Civic's first brake pads wore to the warning tabs after 43k miles.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Timing belt - mileage vs time
"Peabody" <waybackKILLSPAM44@yahoo.com> wrote
E wrote
> > What interval, in years or miles, would you would
> > recommend for the brake pads?
>
> > Bear in mind that someone's safety is quite arguably at
> > stake here.
>
> Well, I first inspected mine at about 32,000 miles when the
> dealership "inspected" mine and told me they needed to be
> replaced. They did this with a straight face. I took the
> wheels off and looked, and it was obvious I was being
> bullshitted, and I complained to the service manager. The
> second time was last week. At 49,300 miles, I thought it
> probably wasn't too early to check them again. Still a good
> bit of pad thickness left. I'll check them again in a few
> years, but you know, that's what those little warning tabs
> are for. When they start to chatter, you still have pad
> left, but not much, and it's time to get that brake job.
(It should be a squeal, not chatter.)
So again: What interval do you think should be listed in the owner's manual?
If you don't have enough information to respond to this, what information do
you think would be helpful?
snip
> I don't care what they put in the manual. I just don't want
> to be bound by assumptions on which the manual is based that
> don't apply to me.
I see. I'm glad you know which assumptions those are.
E wrote
> > What interval, in years or miles, would you would
> > recommend for the brake pads?
>
> > Bear in mind that someone's safety is quite arguably at
> > stake here.
>
> Well, I first inspected mine at about 32,000 miles when the
> dealership "inspected" mine and told me they needed to be
> replaced. They did this with a straight face. I took the
> wheels off and looked, and it was obvious I was being
> bullshitted, and I complained to the service manager. The
> second time was last week. At 49,300 miles, I thought it
> probably wasn't too early to check them again. Still a good
> bit of pad thickness left. I'll check them again in a few
> years, but you know, that's what those little warning tabs
> are for. When they start to chatter, you still have pad
> left, but not much, and it's time to get that brake job.
(It should be a squeal, not chatter.)
So again: What interval do you think should be listed in the owner's manual?
If you don't have enough information to respond to this, what information do
you think would be helpful?
snip
> I don't care what they put in the manual. I just don't want
> to be bound by assumptions on which the manual is based that
> don't apply to me.
I see. I'm glad you know which assumptions those are.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Timing belt - mileage vs time
"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
snip, something others shoud learn.
> > But I absolutely object to your claim that
> > Honda is wrong to put a guideline of 90k miles/6 years down for the
Civic.
> >
> >
> elle, at the time the 94 manual was written, belts weren't as good as
> they are today -
I was referring above to my 91 Civic's interval, as well as Civics of years
around 1991.
snip, something others shoud learn.
> > But I absolutely object to your claim that
> > Honda is wrong to put a guideline of 90k miles/6 years down for the
Civic.
> >
> >
> elle, at the time the 94 manual was written, belts weren't as good as
> they are today -
I was referring above to my 91 Civic's interval, as well as Civics of years
around 1991.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Timing belt - mileage vs time
Peabody <waybackKILLSPAM44@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:WFjBe.30055$4o.25003@fed1read06:
>
> Well, I first inspected mine at about 32,000 miles when the
> dealership "inspected" mine and told me they needed to be
> replaced. They did this with a straight face. I took the
> wheels off and looked,
Did you look at both inside *and* outside pads, on both sides?
> I'll check them again in a few
> years, but you know, that's what those little warning tabs
> are for.
Those warning tabs are only on the inside pad. If the inside pad seizes,
extra load will be forced on the outer pad, and it will wear twice as fast.
You won't know until you get the grinding noise that tells you your rotors
are already damaged.
If you leave your brakes a "few years", you'd better hope you live in an
area that gets no snow.
--
TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
news:WFjBe.30055$4o.25003@fed1read06:
>
> Well, I first inspected mine at about 32,000 miles when the
> dealership "inspected" mine and told me they needed to be
> replaced. They did this with a straight face. I took the
> wheels off and looked,
Did you look at both inside *and* outside pads, on both sides?
> I'll check them again in a few
> years, but you know, that's what those little warning tabs
> are for.
Those warning tabs are only on the inside pad. If the inside pad seizes,
extra load will be forced on the outer pad, and it will wear twice as fast.
You won't know until you get the grinding noise that tells you your rotors
are already damaged.
If you leave your brakes a "few years", you'd better hope you live in an
area that gets no snow.
--
TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Timing belt - mileage vs time
In article <rVgBe.30047$4o.13555@fed1read06>,
Peabody <waybackKILLSPAM44@yahoo.com> wrote:
>At the risk of being cynical, I view a lot of this as being
>dealer revenue enhancement. You may disagree, but I think
>that for a car like mine which averages less than 5000 miles
>per year, following these guides literally would just mean
>wasting a lot of money.
However, low mileage is often severe service (e.g. city driving,
short cold start trips).
> > Brake pad wear very much depends on individual driver
> > habits and where the car is driven.
>
>Perhaps, but pad wear clearly does not depend on time at
>all. If the car sits idle for a month, the brake pads don't
>wear down even a little bit during that period.
However, if the low mileage car is a city car, it is likely to
wear out its brake pads before a high milage highway car does.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
Peabody <waybackKILLSPAM44@yahoo.com> wrote:
>At the risk of being cynical, I view a lot of this as being
>dealer revenue enhancement. You may disagree, but I think
>that for a car like mine which averages less than 5000 miles
>per year, following these guides literally would just mean
>wasting a lot of money.
However, low mileage is often severe service (e.g. city driving,
short cold start trips).
> > Brake pad wear very much depends on individual driver
> > habits and where the car is driven.
>
>Perhaps, but pad wear clearly does not depend on time at
>all. If the car sits idle for a month, the brake pads don't
>wear down even a little bit during that period.
However, if the low mileage car is a city car, it is likely to
wear out its brake pads before a high milage highway car does.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Timing belt - mileage vs time
Elle wrote:
> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
> snip, something others shoud learn.
>
>>>But I absolutely object to your claim that
>>>Honda is wrong to put a guideline of 90k miles/6 years down for the
>
> Civic.
>
>>>
>>elle, at the time the 94 manual was written, belts weren't as good as
>>they are today -
>
>
> I was referring above to my 91 Civic's interval, as well as Civics of years
> around 1991.
>
it's the same interval as the 94 isn't it? post 96 is the extended
interval.
> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
> snip, something others shoud learn.
>
>>>But I absolutely object to your claim that
>>>Honda is wrong to put a guideline of 90k miles/6 years down for the
>
> Civic.
>
>>>
>>elle, at the time the 94 manual was written, belts weren't as good as
>>they are today -
>
>
> I was referring above to my 91 Civic's interval, as well as Civics of years
> around 1991.
>
it's the same interval as the 94 isn't it? post 96 is the extended
interval.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Timing belt - mileage vs time
Well, last year i bought a 1987 civic w/31,000 original miles. Paid $1200 for it and my goal is to get 5 years out of the car.
12,000 miles a year driven only to work on the highway. In 5 years it will have close to 90-100,000 miles on it. If it makes it
that far,and i think it will, i will treat it to a new belt. Then i will continue to drive it until the rust gets too bad. I'd
like to buy a new Cr-v so i might not go through with my plan. No great loss if the belt breaks and trashes the engine as i have
other vehicles to drive but i have faith in it.
> id be curious to know how many 80s/90s vintage civics *ever* get their
> timing belt replaced. its something 99% of people dont even think about.
> im sure some live their whole lives with one belt, then it gets replaced
> when the water pump starts spewing coolant.
12,000 miles a year driven only to work on the highway. In 5 years it will have close to 90-100,000 miles on it. If it makes it
that far,and i think it will, i will treat it to a new belt. Then i will continue to drive it until the rust gets too bad. I'd
like to buy a new Cr-v so i might not go through with my plan. No great loss if the belt breaks and trashes the engine as i have
other vehicles to drive but i have faith in it.
> id be curious to know how many 80s/90s vintage civics *ever* get their
> timing belt replaced. its something 99% of people dont even think about.
> im sure some live their whole lives with one belt, then it gets replaced
> when the water pump starts spewing coolant.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Timing belt - mileage vs time
"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
> Elle wrote:
> > "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
> > snip, something others shoud learn.
> >
> >>>But I absolutely object to your claim that
> >>>Honda is wrong to put a guideline of 90k miles/6 years down for the
> >
> > Civic.
> >
> >>>
> >>elle, at the time the 94 manual was written, belts weren't as good as
> >>they are today -
> >
> >
> > I was referring above to my 91 Civic's interval, as well as Civics of
years
> > around 1991.
> >
> it's the same interval as the 94 isn't it?
According to my Chilton's covering 1984-1995 Civics, Yes.
I think we're having a miscommunication. At the top, I meant I object to
anyone's claim that it's flat-out wrong for Honda to put a guideline of
90k/6 years for the 91 Civic (and other Civic years near it that also
specify 90k/6 years).
Of interest though is that there is a footnote next to the timing belt
interval spec for the 1992-1995 Civics, whereas there is not for the
1988-1991 Civics. The footnote states: "This service is recommended only."
> post 96 is the extended
> interval.
People can google or look at their owner's manual. I realize the interval is
higher for certain newer Hondas. We're splitting hairs.
Somewhat related is that the recommended interval tends to be different in
Canada, most likely because of the more severe weather. As you know...
I don't want to try to twist the original poster's arm. (Like that can be
done on Usenet.) I mean, he knows the risk he's taking at this point. That's
what is important. He may very well roll the dice and win.
> Elle wrote:
> > "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
> > snip, something others shoud learn.
> >
> >>>But I absolutely object to your claim that
> >>>Honda is wrong to put a guideline of 90k miles/6 years down for the
> >
> > Civic.
> >
> >>>
> >>elle, at the time the 94 manual was written, belts weren't as good as
> >>they are today -
> >
> >
> > I was referring above to my 91 Civic's interval, as well as Civics of
years
> > around 1991.
> >
> it's the same interval as the 94 isn't it?
According to my Chilton's covering 1984-1995 Civics, Yes.
I think we're having a miscommunication. At the top, I meant I object to
anyone's claim that it's flat-out wrong for Honda to put a guideline of
90k/6 years for the 91 Civic (and other Civic years near it that also
specify 90k/6 years).
Of interest though is that there is a footnote next to the timing belt
interval spec for the 1992-1995 Civics, whereas there is not for the
1988-1991 Civics. The footnote states: "This service is recommended only."
> post 96 is the extended
> interval.
People can google or look at their owner's manual. I realize the interval is
higher for certain newer Hondas. We're splitting hairs.
Somewhat related is that the recommended interval tends to be different in
Canada, most likely because of the more severe weather. As you know...
I don't want to try to twist the original poster's arm. (Like that can be
done on Usenet.) I mean, he knows the risk he's taking at this point. That's
what is important. He may very well roll the dice and win.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Timing belt - mileage vs time
Peabody wrote:
>
> SoCalMike says...
>
> > jim beam wrote:
>
> >> without any form of visible deterioration. i say, do a
> >> visual inspection. if it apears to be in bad shape,
> >> cracking, fraying, teeth worn or deformed, yes, replace
> >> regardless of mileage. but if it's not, and you /know/
> >> for sure mileage is within spec, i'd stick with earl's
> >> advice.
>
> > id be curious to know how many 80s/90s vintage civics
> > *ever* get their timing belt replaced. its something 99%
> > of people dont even think about. im sure some live their
> > whole lives with one belt, then it gets replaced when
> > the water pump starts spewing coolant.
>
> Yes in fact, Earl said that the water pump is what usually
> goes out at somewhere around 90-100k miles, at which point
> they do the belt too.
>
> He said he sees a lot of early-80's models with their
> original belt, and presumably the original water pump. But I
> would still guess that most of them get replaced at some
> point, either because the water pump goes out or because the
> dealer hounds you about it at each oil change.
>
> I was frankly surprised at how confident Earl was about his
> advice. Of course it isn't his car or his risk, but even so
> I would have expected him to hedge a little, or do one of
> those disclaimers about no guarantees, and so forth. But he
> just said "You don't need to do this," and there were no
> qualifiers. I mean, I had my checkbook with me. It would
> have been $595.
>
> Well, I may check with some other places locally just to see
> what they say, but having gotten the answer I wanted... :-)
>
> I just want to point out that in my owner's manual, there is
> only one column that says 90,000 miles, and that column also
> says 6 years. There is no 90k/8yrs or 90k/4yrs. All of the
> columns assume 15k miles per year. But it's clear that some
> things are really mileage based, like brake pads, while
> others (I don't know - maybe antifreeze, or maybe even
> engine oil) have a significant time component. But you
> aren't going to get your valves adjusted based on time even
> though the 30k/2yr major service includes it.
>
> So it's not completely unreasonable to suggest that just
> because that column says 90k miles or 6 yrs it shouldn't
> necessarily be taken literally. The question is how
> important time is for big honking belts like these. It's
> too bad we don't have statistics that would tell us.
But if you DO decide to keep a car that long, its cheap insurance
to get the belt/pump thing done.
My 1996 Civic Coupe only has 62K on it, and every time I look
at a new car, I remember that my Baby runs great, always starts,
gets 33 MPG @ 80 MPH and 21 in NYC and the AC is still chilly!
The $400 bucks it cost just bought me another ten years....hehehe.
--------------------
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...now-usat_x.htm
"Other top officials, including Cheney and Rumsfeld, said the war would
last
"weeks, not months.""
http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/ar...05/052705w.php
"More than two years into a war that was supposed to be quick and easy,
and
the justification for which has spun from removing a dictator to
eliminating
weapons of mass destruction to fighting terrorism and, finally, to
planting
democracy that would then spread across the Middle East, Iraq is in chaos."
RayGun sends his lackey to kiss Saddam's ass.
http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/weapons.html#wms
http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html
WHY IRAQ?: http://www.angelfire.com/creep/gwbush/remindus.html
http://www.quantumphilosophy.net/fil...yan_Medium.mov
http://www.toostupidtobepresident.co...ickenhawks.htm
"Bubba got a BJ, BU$H screwed us all!" - Slim
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Timing belt - mileage vs time
"slim" <pickin's@nyc.rr.com> wrote
E wrote
> > My 91 Civic's first brake pads wore to the warning tabs after 43k miles.
>
> The Scumbags at Paragon Honda in LIC told me at 12K that "they had to"
> replace my pads to keep my warranty intact.
Outrageous. The bustards.
Thank god for the internet to convey info like this to the mere mortals (or
just the young among us) who are so easily duped. Happens to everyone.
E wrote
> > My 91 Civic's first brake pads wore to the warning tabs after 43k miles.
>
> The Scumbags at Paragon Honda in LIC told me at 12K that "they had to"
> replace my pads to keep my warranty intact.
Outrageous. The bustards.
Thank god for the internet to convey info like this to the mere mortals (or
just the young among us) who are so easily duped. Happens to everyone.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Timing belt - mileage vs time
slim wrote:
> My 1996 Civic Coupe only has 62K on it, and every time I look
> at a new car, I remember that my Baby runs great, always starts,
> gets 33 MPG @ 80 MPH and 21 in NYC and the AC is still chilly!
yeah. my 98 CX hatch has 49k, and the only thing thats ever gone wrong
was an O2 sensor, which i replaced myself. part of me wants a new car,
but i really really like the one i have.
> My 1996 Civic Coupe only has 62K on it, and every time I look
> at a new car, I remember that my Baby runs great, always starts,
> gets 33 MPG @ 80 MPH and 21 in NYC and the AC is still chilly!
yeah. my 98 CX hatch has 49k, and the only thing thats ever gone wrong
was an O2 sensor, which i replaced myself. part of me wants a new car,
but i really really like the one i have.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Timing belt - mileage vs time
slim wrote:
>
> Elle wrote:
>
>>"Peabody" <waybackKILLSPAM44@yahoo.com> wrote
>>E wrote
>>
>>>Well, I first inspected mine at about 32,000 miles when the
>>>dealership "inspected" mine and told me they needed to be
>>>replaced. They did this with a straight face. I took the
>>>wheels off and looked, and it was obvious I was being
>>>bullshitted, and I complained to the service manager. The
>>>second time was last week. At 49,300 miles, I thought it
>>>probably wasn't too early to check them again.
>>
>>My 91 Civic's first brake pads wore to the warning tabs after 43k miles.
>
>
> The Scumbags at Paragon Honda in LIC told me at 12K that "they had to"
> replace my pads to keep my warranty intact.
I hope you reported them to Honda.
>
> Elle wrote:
>
>>"Peabody" <waybackKILLSPAM44@yahoo.com> wrote
>>E wrote
>>
>>>Well, I first inspected mine at about 32,000 miles when the
>>>dealership "inspected" mine and told me they needed to be
>>>replaced. They did this with a straight face. I took the
>>>wheels off and looked, and it was obvious I was being
>>>bullshitted, and I complained to the service manager. The
>>>second time was last week. At 49,300 miles, I thought it
>>>probably wasn't too early to check them again.
>>
>>My 91 Civic's first brake pads wore to the warning tabs after 43k miles.
>
>
> The Scumbags at Paragon Honda in LIC told me at 12K that "they had to"
> replace my pads to keep my warranty intact.
I hope you reported them to Honda.