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

Hello all,
I know very little of cars, so I figured I'd get some input from anyone
in this newsgroup.
I have a 97 Honda Civic EX that I bought new. It's seen it's share of
battles and the body isn't the most flawless one you'll see, but for the
most part it runs pretty smoothly. It's just getting to 68,000 miles.
I recently took it into the dealer for a regular maintenence, and they
suggested that I replace the timing belt. I told them to pass, as I was
initially planning on selling the car as I'm moving out to California.
Well, as fate would have it it looks like I'll need to be taking the car
with me after all. Furthermore I'll be driving it all the way (Ohio to
California).
So, my question is twofold: first, what EXACTLY does the timing belt
do? I have a rough idea of how it works with the engine, but I'm fuzzy
on exactly what it means performance and weare/tear wise. Which leads me
into my next question: at almost 70,000 miles, would it be a good idea
(both for efficiency and lifespan of the car) to replace the timing belt
before I take it on such a long drive? I've seen/heard of people putting
off a timing belt replacement for quite some time, so I was just unsure
as to how imperative it is to get it fixed. Thanks in advance.

 

The timing belt synchronizes the valves with the pistons. I am not a
mechanic but it controls when the valves open and close to allow fuel to go
into the pistons and let the fumes out (I am sure somebody has a better
explanation).
Do it, check your manual for recommendation interval.
Don't do it at the dealer. Find a local Honda shop and it will be a lot less
money, but be sure is a Honda shop so they know what needs to be done.
What I did is buy the parts online (spend ~$100 including water pump) and my
mechanic did it for ~$200. Be sure to use Honda parts only including the
coolant.
Do a google search for "timing belt".

: 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.

 

Thanks, Bob.

That was my general understanding of the timing belt, as well.

I actually wasn't planning on going to the dealer for any repairs; they
charge an arm and a leg and I'm sure I could get it done for a LOT less
somewhere else. I hadn't even thought of finding a Honda shop, though.
Do you happen to have any recommendations about the best way to go about
finding one in my area? Thanks again.

 

www.gates.com (search for "interference," as in 'interference engine'; click on
first hit; then view the first PDF file) says the TB interval for your 97 Honda
Civic is 105,000 miles. Normally there's a time limit, too. For many (or all)
1990s Hondas, this is six years. Some models may go up to 7 years, but I can't
remember for sure.

Either way, your car is due for a new timing belt. Note that it is an
interference engine, so if the timing belt fails (because you didn't replace it
at the recommended interval), the chances of doing several thousand dollars
worth of damage to the engine are high. Definitely replace it before your big
trip.

The pistons drive the crankshaft. At one end (the car's left) of the crankshaft
is a (sprocket) pulley at about the height of your car's left front wheel's
center. Over this sprocket pulley loops one end of the timing belt. The other
(upper) end of the timing belt loops over the camshaft sprocket pulley. So the
pistons drive the crankshaft which drives the timing belt which drives the
camshaft. The camshaft (right underneath the valve cover, which has the oil fill
cap which you've probably seen) controls exhaust and intake valve openings. The
valves must open and close according to the piston position. The timing belt
ensures they are synchronized ("timed") correctly.

On interference engines, the valves are actually in the path of the piston's
motion. If the valves get out of synch. with the pistons, they will be damaged.

http://www.cartalk.com/content/mechx/find.html may have some suggestions for
independent Honda mechanics in your area. Post your city, and others may very
well post here with specific suggestions. (They have in the past.)
Alternatively, check your yellow pages for Automobiles-Repairs or similar. Look
for foreign/import auto repair shops. Call them up and ask about their Honda
experience. Some independent shops are completely focused on Honda. Those are
the ones I first roll the dice on.

 

while its true that the belt is supposed to have its belt changed most
people i know never change it. just because it says 60k doesnt mean its
going to break at 60k. i have an accord with 220,000 miles on it and never
had the belt replaced i will be doing that in a few months however....the
timing belt can last past 60k miles and having one break on you that soon is
so rare i dont think you need to worry about it.... if you get to california
you might want to sell the car there. you might not be able to pass
california emissions tests with an out of state car so you might have to
sell it... why waste money on a belt if you are goihng to sell it?

 

Hey,

If you plan on selling the car once you get to CA, or even if you don't
plan on selling it, I wouldn't do the timing belt job right now. Given
the amount of miles on your car and the age, how bad of shape could the
belt be in? Probably none. When my Civic (2000) had around 70,000mi, I
drove from the midwest, down to Virginia and back. No problems, no fear.

Save the cash and put off the timing belt job for now.

-AGS

 

....

You don't say.

 

The recommended interval for changing the timing belt is 6 years or 90,000
miles. This interval is based on an average rate of failure. Some belts
may fail earlier while others last longer. Exceed the interval at your own
risk. If the belt breaks then the valves will get bent. It's not worth the
risk. It's unlikely that a timing belt would last 220,000 miles. If you're
not the original owner of this vehicle, then consider it likely that a prior
owner had this work done.

What is the basis for this claim? As long as the car is running within the
factory specs then it should pass california emissions.

A more logical reason for the original poster to wait to replace the timing
belt might be that they wish to wait until they get situated in their new
area. That way, if there was a problem with the work then they would still
be dealing with a local shop and not one 2-3000 miles away.

Incidentally, I changed my '88 Civic's belt at 8 years and 75,000 miles.

Eric

 

I agree, i think the whole "replaced the timing belt" is mainly a scam
to make money for mechanics. I posted this elsewhere but my old honda of
235,000 never needed one, and my newer one of 167,000 surely will be
fine by going over the recommended amount. a civic with only 60K? god,
no reason to do it that soon, maybe double or triple that mileage but
not 60K or 100K... my honest feeling is the fear factor of pistons
slaming into heads is an easy scare tactic for the uneducated and a
quick way to make $500...

with millions of honda's on the road, i've never heard of ANYONE having
a problem with a timing belt no matter how many miles driven without
replacement. i'm sure it happens, but 98% of the people following the
recommended guidelines are throwing money away.

 

I've signed up on a couple of web forums (as well as subscribing to this
NG) since I've been looking for either a VTEC Prelude, or an Alfa 145.
Prelude VTEC people have warned about listing for a whiring/slapping
sound when the tensioner drift a little, the belts move and rub.

The alfa boards and NGs are rife with tales of Alfas 75k belt change
actually being dealt with between 35-50k whenever the car comes in under
warrenty for other work as they have been failing.

I'm currently a Saab driver, and while I'm lucky that mine uses a chain
to run the cams on the i4 16V, later model owners with european GM based
V6 engines regularly complain of belt failures. This also a known
problem amongst other euro GM brands like Vauxhall and Opel with their
V6 models. Fiat are also known to stupidly regular on it's belt
failures.

I know not all brands of car, and not all brands of belts are the same,
but a belt is a weak link in the engine, but as long as looked after
correctly shouldn't cause an problems, if it does go though, you are
looking at a world of hurt to the wallet.

 

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.

 

I'm curious about these claims (of yours, Lamont's and others). I am trying to
keep an open mind. Last week I met a guy with a 1993 Toyota Tercel who had
changed the belt exactly once in 235k miles. The 1993 Tercel service manual
apparently says to change the TB every 60k miles.

I did google the alt.autos.honda and rec.autos.maker.honda newsgroups for {"my
timing belt broke"}

Lotta hits. I haven't read them all, but it seems like timing belts do not last
forever.

See for example a comment by poster "Io" on 04/01/1999: "*Twice* in the 190
thousand miles of my 89 Civic Si, I have broken the belt. My fault, I pushed the
milage. Both times no valves were damaged."

Just to throw this into the pot for anyone thinking about increasing the time
and mileage between TB changes...

Aside:
Lamont, goshdarnit, as others have said, post to the original thread.
Subsequently, the archives will be easier to follow, and a lot of people do use
the archives (see above!). Plus, folks don't necessarily know to what post you
are responding. You've got input that's useful, from what I've seen, so how
about it putting it where it will definitely be read by all who need it?

 

Excellent post--I agree with you. Why take a chance on such things. I once
heard an old man bragging that he owned a pickup truck that had over
200,000 miles on it and that he never changed the oil on it during those
200,000 miles. As he drove away in his truck--lots of black smoke was
coming out the the muffler. We all had a great laughting session about the
old man's story. It's my guess that the old man was lying to us and knew
that we would always remember his story. It worked. I change my oil every
3000 miles.

 

Ha. Clever old man.

What kills me is that just a little while ago today one "Dave Garrett" posted to
rec.autos.makers.honda that his timing belt broke:

"Yesterday the timing belt broke on my '90 CRX Si. I'd replaced it
previously at 60K, and was planning to do so again soon, as I just
passed 115K about a month ago."

Ouch. ;-)

 

True, but the "average rate of failure" or MTBF (Mean Time Before Failure)
is actually more like 2½ times the recommended replacement interval. Even
this number is a factory "hypothetical" failure rate based upon results of
accelerated tests in the test lab in an OZONE chamber with high
concentrations of OZONE and Ultraviolet light (both known to cause rubber
products to prematurely age and break down).

The "recommended" replacement interval for the timing belt, like the
recommended oil change interval is designed to err on the very
conservative side of the actual life expectancy curve. These recommended
service intervals are also designed to embellish the receivables of the
dealer service departments. If you want to follow these recommendations,
that's fine, but don't expect that your car is going to break down
suddenly if you fudge.

Example, the "recommended" oil change interval on the Lexus LS400 is 7,500
miles in normal service and 5,000 miles in heavy service. What does Lexus
know about their engines and the wear they incur that no one else knows?
Lexus also says 90,000 on the timing belt. Is there something particularly
special about Lexus engines or timing belts? I rather doubt it.

 

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.

 

Hey, adding oil now and then is cheaper than those damn oil changes.

 

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.

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

 

[snip]

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.

 

When do timing belts encounter UV light?

J.