I have a 2003 Acura TL (purchased in November 2002) with 23,800 miles on it. The dealer is recommending I have the timing belt changed,because the manual says it should be done every 7 years regardless of the mileage. It costs around $840 with their current $100 discount, and this includes the timing belt, water pump, drive belt, and I think up to 1 gallon of coolant.
NOTE: The dealer told me there is no way to inspect the condition of the belt because it is hidden.
Do I REALLY need to have this done on a car with only 23,800 miles on it (even though the manual does say it should be done every 7 years regardless of the mileage) or should I wait? If so, then when should I get it done? Let me know what you recommend.
Yes, you are past due. The timing belt does deteriorate over time hence why they give a mileage and time value, whichever comes first. If it will actually snap or not is a gamble. If it goes bad it could do a little damage to your engine, it could do a lot. Your call on if you want to take that risk.
As for the price, shop around. A good independent shop could come in at a much lower price. And yes, you do want to do the water pump at the same time.
Thanks. Is there any correlation between the condition of the visible rubber belt(s) under the hood versus the timing belt. In other words, if the belt(s) that are visible look okay, then is it likely that the timing belt is still okay, or is there no correlation?
Thanks. Is there any correlation between the condition of the visible rubber belt(s) under the hood versus the timing belt. In other words, if the belt(s) that are visible look okay, then is it likely that the timing belt is still okay, or is there no correlation?
...and because there is no way to inspect the condition of the belt even if it were in plain sight. You cannot evaluate the level of material degradation simply by looking at it.
Why are you questioning the owner's manual?
Oh, wait--you mentioned $840...got it.
Fact: tires last no longer than 5 years before they become unsafe, and your TB also degrades over time.
It has nothing to do with use.
BTW, ask your dealer what are the consequences of your NOT changing the belt, and then it breaks while you're driving it. Hint: $840 will suddenly seem like a very small amount of money.
man, you are REALLY pulling shit out of thin air here, desperate to avoid having to maintain the car you bought.
How about looking at the tires? How about looking at the power steering fluid? Maybe you want to try to correlate the condition of your floor mats with the timing belt--"hey, look, floor mats are OK, therefore the TB is OK!"
You can solve this entire problem simply by leasing a new car every three years. No maintenance involved; problem solved.
snipped-for-privacy@verizon.net wrote in news:4d0548f0-0dbc-459a-b6f5- snipped-for-privacy@o17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
No.
No correlation. You can't go by the appearance of the belt. The belt fails because the carcass weakens, not because the teeth become visibly worn.
The belt is a combination of rubber and fabric, with the fabric being the structural medium. But rubber ages. As it does so, it begins to delaminate from the rubber, which eventually causes the teeth to strip. You can't see this with the naked eye until after the event.
If the teeth should strip, you're looking at about a 50-50 chance of valve damage. That puts the cost of belt replacement at least double what it would have been. Are you a gamblin' man?
truth is, this "five [or seven] year tire life" smoke has been blown up people's skirts by frod to protect their legal ass from corporate manslaughter charges following their exploder rollover fiasco. which i can understand from their perspective.
what i don't understand though is that the public swallow this stuff unquestioningly, despite the availability of hard scientific fact to the contrary.
so we are told. personally, i'm not taking it without a largish pinch of salt.
regarding the materials used in belt manufacture, assuming their q.c. is sufficient of course, the rubber is a highly saturated nitrile - it's "degradation" is minimal simply as a factor of time, if anything at all. the cordage is either glass fiber or twaron - neither of those degrade appreciably with time either.
my guess is that the time interval is specified to be "safe" in the event that there may be oil leakage, which /can/ degrade the rubber that holds the fibers together, then time would indeed be a factor.
use is definitely a factor - hence the mileage limit.
personally, i've never seen a broken timing belt that didn't exhibit signs of wear. now, do most people know what they're looking for with "signs of wear"? no. is it easy to describe or see? no. but is it there? definitely.
anyway, just for fun, check these out:
on the first, obviously, i carefully selected sample pic area, and you'd really have to know what you're looking at to see wear evidence. but on the second larger pic, the wear evidence is much more obvious.
i think the bottom line is that the belt needs to be taken off to be inspected properly, and given that the labor is so expensive, and the belt so cheap, and the potential cost consequence of breakage so high, you may as well simply replace the thing rather than bother trying to eke out more miles on an "old" belt.
you'd have to have a magnifier and some expert experience to have any chance of being able to tell. it's much safe to simply say "no" and replace on schedule.
but you can find a much cheaper price quote than the $840. and at that mileage, you do NOT need to replace the coolant pump or oil seals - what they always add on to the job list. replacement of these latter items may be appropriate for frod or gm, but on honda, it's much more destructive than constructive. don't do it unless you have actual leakage or bearing damage.
yup, that's pretty much it - you replace because it's safe and because most people can't typically tell signs of wear.
Reading this thread prompted me to check the service manual of my '94 Accord if it specified any time limit for the timing belt but could not find any. It only specifies 90K mile intervals and even that is just recommended. So I don't understand why some models have a time limit besides the milage interval, others, like mine, don't.
careful there dude - you'll lift the lid on the pandora's box of fud and obfuscation that is the gap between the facts known by the manufacturer and what's safe to tell technicians and owners.
and to all the "adherents" of the service manual and the service intervals being advocated, look again for what honda actually specify on coolant pump replacement interval/procedure then report back...
Hamilton Honda, located in Central NJ, advertises $390. for a complete job.
formatting link
go to service, then servicecoupons. Even includes water pump, but I agree with Jim Beam andwould not let them replace. Perhaps you can take that coupon to your local guy and ask them why they are so much higher.
I have no connection to Hamilton except I bought one car there. The facility is modern and the service dept seems efficient and attentive.
for the "replace" advocates, its their inconsistency that irks me. apart from the damage that things like seal replacement can cause, why do these guys get so up-tight about replacing stuff that's observably not defective just because they can access it when they change the timing belt? i /never/ hear the same people bleating about a much more commonly problematic issue - the seal on the flywheel end of the engine. why? because it's a pita to get to, that's why. so they completely ignore it.
doing stuff just because it's there [particularly when accounting for damage risk] is simply superstition and witchcraft. particularly when it's not in the service manual/specified by the manufacturer!!!
it's just like people that change their oil every 3k miles, even though modern oils are significantly different to those of the 1950's and [readily and cheaply accessible] testing will put the facts right in front of their eyes.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.