Timing belt question, 99 Honda Accord DX

Hello, I have a 99 Honda Accord DX four door, manual transmission. I
don't drive very much. I bought the car new in Feb. 99, and there are
less than 25,000 miles on it. So that's about 2,500 miles per year on
average. I'm also a point A to B kind of driver - easy on the brakes,
easy on the clutch, smooth acceleration etc. The weather conditions
have been pretty benign: 7 years in the Bay Area, 3 years in Portland
OR.

So the manual says change the timing belt at 105k miles/84 months,
whichever comes first. Obviously, I'm past the 84 months by about 2
years, but a long way from 105,000 miles. I also know there are
several other things that should be replaced if the timing belt is
replaced.

I wonder if you experienced mechanics and/or DIYers have an opinion on
how necessary this replacement is at this time. I'm sorry if the
question is annoying. I know the manual says what it says, and it
follows that I'm questioning the recommendations given therein, and
I'm basically clueless on this stuff. But sometimes the cognoscenti
are in posession of knowledge the manufacturers for one reason or
another are reluctant to share. (For example, tire pressure.)

Thanks for any input you might have.

All one can deal with here are probabilities. Your belt is
more likely to fail than one changed at seven years; less
likely to fail than one driven in extreme weather over the
last nine+ years. Also reports are that if a timing belt
fails at lower speeds, chances are better that no engine
damage will occur.

I would at least try to find a good import shop and see how
much they want for the job.

On 12/7/08 9:41 PM, in article
, "W^3"
> wrote:

> Hello, I have a 99 Honda Accord DX four door, manual transmission. I
> don't drive very much. I bought the car new in Feb. 99, and there are
> less than 25,000 miles on it. So that's about 2,500 miles per year on
> average. I'm also a point A to B kind of driver - easy on the brakes,
> easy on the clutch, smooth acceleration etc. The weather conditions
> have been pretty benign: 7 years in the Bay Area, 3 years in Portland
> OR.
>
> So the manual says change the timing belt at 105k miles/84 months,
> whichever comes first. Obviously, I'm past the 84 months by about 2
> years, but a long way from 105,000 miles. I also know there are
> several other things that should be replaced if the timing belt is
> replaced.
>
> I wonder if you experienced mechanics and/or DIYers have an opinion on
> how necessary this replacement is at this time. I'm sorry if the
> question is annoying. I know the manual says what it says, and it
> follows that I'm questioning the recommendations given therein, and
> I'm basically clueless on this stuff. But sometimes the cognoscenti
> are in posession of knowledge the manufacturers for one reason or
> another are reluctant to share. (For example, tire pressure.)
>
> Thanks for any input you might have.

The concern with low mileage but long time is with deterioration of the soft
parts in the belt. Chances are it could continue for a long time with your
usage, but then again it could be crumbling apart right now. The safe thing
to do would be to get it changed.

The other components everyone talks about (water pump, seals, etc.) are not
actually required by the manufacturer to be replaced, its just convenient to
do them preemptively when the timing cover is off because that's where they
are. I think with your mileage, I would not bother with those things.
There is little chance they are anywhere near needing change & would just
run up the price unnecessarily.

"E. Meyer" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> On 12/7/08 9:41 PM, in article
> , "W^3"
> > wrote:
>
>> Hello, I have a 99 Honda Accord DX four door, manual transmission. I
>> don't drive very much. I bought the car new in Feb. 99, and there are
>> less than 25,000 miles on it. So that's about 2,500 miles per year on
>> average. I'm also a point A to B kind of driver - easy on the brakes,
>> easy on the clutch, smooth acceleration etc. The weather conditions
>> have been pretty benign: 7 years in the Bay Area, 3 years in Portland
>> OR.
>>
>> So the manual says change the timing belt at 105k miles/84 months,
>> whichever comes first. Obviously, I'm past the 84 months by about 2
>> years, but a long way from 105,000 miles. I also know there are
>> several other things that should be replaced if the timing belt is
>> replaced.
>>
>> I wonder if you experienced mechanics and/or DIYers have an opinion on
>> how necessary this replacement is at this time. I'm sorry if the
>> question is annoying. I know the manual says what it says, and it
>> follows that I'm questioning the recommendations given therein, and
>> I'm basically clueless on this stuff. But sometimes the cognoscenti
>> are in posession of knowledge the manufacturers for one reason or
>> another are reluctant to share. (For example, tire pressure.)
>>
>> Thanks for any input you might have.
>
> The concern with low mileage but long time is with deterioration of the
> soft
> parts in the belt. Chances are it could continue for a long time with
> your
> usage, but then again it could be crumbling apart right now. The safe
> thing
> to do would be to get it changed.
>
> The other components everyone talks about (water pump, seals, etc.) are
> not
> actually required by the manufacturer to be replaced, its just convenient
> to
> do them preemptively when the timing cover is off because that's where
> they
> are. I think with your mileage, I would not bother with those things.
> There is little chance they are anywhere near needing change & would just
> run up the price unnecessarily.

Someone mentioned changing the tensioner when changing the belt. Why? What
is usually bad with that?

"Elle" > wrote in message
...
> Dillon, four folks reporting personal experiences where their broken
> timing belt did not damage the engine:
> http://www.honda-tech.com/showthread.php?t=2201848 .
>
> (For newbies, note the thread emphasizes that luck is a factor in not
> damaging the engine. If your TB is due, change it now.)

1989 Accord here, single overhead cam. I had the belt break shortly after
buying it used, in around 1998 with 140,000 miles on it. No engine damage
.... just put on another one. It ended up getting oil on it and broke again a
few months ago (200,000 mi.) when my son was getting off of the freeway near
the house.(lucky). He cranked it over trying to restart it. I didn't even
know what an interference engine was and turned the cam and crankshaft over
several times, trying to get things lined up. No damage. I later replaced
the head gasket and saw that the valves and pistons were intact. Wonder if
Honda is just playing "CYA" in case there is carbon build-up and things make
contact.

Thus spake "Elle" > :

>All one can deal with here are probabilities. Your belt is
>more likely to fail than one changed at seven years; less
>likely to fail than one driven in extreme weather over the
>last nine+ years. Also reports are that if a timing belt
>fails at lower speeds, chances are better that no engine
>damage will occur.

Not true. If the cam(s) isn't/aren't spinning but the crank is, you
will, in all likelyhood, have a piston be introduced to a valve. It's
the mechanics of the engine and has nothing to do with speed.

And any belt that old has probably had enough age wear on it. There's
a reason they put a mileage and time limit on it. That belt lives in
an environment where the temps frequently hit in excess of 150F and
there are plenty of contamanents in the air.

>
>I would at least try to find a good import shop and see how
>much they want for the job.
>
--
- dillon I am not invalid

When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams come true.
Unless it's really a meteorite hurtling to the Earth which
will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much hosed no
matter what you wish for. Unless it's death by meteor.

"Elle" > wrote in message
...
> "Forrest" > wrote
>> 1989 Accord here, single overhead cam. I had the belt break shortly after
>> buying it used, in around 1998 with 140,000 miles on it. No engine damage
>> ... just put on another one. It ended up getting oil on it and broke
>> again a few months ago (200,000 mi.) when my son was getting off of the
>> freeway near the house.(lucky). He cranked it over trying to restart it.
>> I didn't even know what an interference engine was and turned the cam and
>> crankshaft over several times, trying to get things lined up. No damage.
>> I later replaced the head gasket and saw that the valves and pistons were
>> intact. Wonder if Honda is just playing "CYA" in case there is carbon
>> build-up and things make contact.
>
> Pardon? What do you mean about the carbon build-up tending to promote
> valves hitting piston?
>
> Dillon raises a good point. I do not like my explanation for why sometimes
> the engine is not damaged. When driving and the TB breaks, it's true spark
> stops pretty instantaneously, but ISTM the tranny will keep the wheels
> moving and so the pistons moving for awhile, yet the cam is disconnected
> from the crank, so I would expect pistons to hit valves. Unless the valves
> can halt a slow((??) moving piston?

Pardon? I mean, like I don't think that the valves and pistons CAN hit
each other. If anything were to make contact, it would be the carbon
build-up ... not "promoting" valves hitting pistons. Talk about putting
words into someone's mouth.

"Dillon Pyron" > in his words
"thus spake"
> "Elle" > :
>
>>All one can deal with here are probabilities. Your belt is
>>more likely to fail than one changed at seven years; less
>>likely to fail than one driven in extreme weather over the
>>last nine+ years. Also reports are that if a timing belt
>>fails at lower speeds, chances are better that no engine
>>damage will occur.
>
> Not true. If the cam(s) isn't/aren't spinning but the
> crank is, you
> will, in all likelyhood, have a piston be introduced to a
> valve.
> It's
> the mechanics of the engine and has nothing to do with
> speed.

I think you are envisioning a literal breaking of the TB
apart, whereas I think many TB failures are not that
extreme. With the less extreme failures, the cam can may
still be moving somewhat in synch. The mechanics of the
engine are also such that it comes to a stop sooner when it
is under less load. Momentum and all.

Regardless, I am going by reports. I could be talked out of
the claims made that lower engine speed lowers the
probability of engine damage but without knowing more about
how TBs fail, I will stick with this.

"Forrest" > wrote
> Someone mentioned changing the tensioner when changing the
> belt. Why? What is usually bad with that?

Its bearings can fail. Based on advice here, I inspect it at
each TB change. Barring any sign of bearing failure, I
change it only every other TB change.

Dillon, four folks reporting personal experiences where
their broken timing belt did not damage the engine:
http://www.honda-tech.com/showthread.php?t=2201848 .

(For newbies, note the thread emphasizes that luck is a
factor in not damaging the engine. If your TB is due, change
it now.)