Do I really need new timing belt on '03 TL w/ only 23.8K miles??

Page 2 of 5  
On 06/07/2012 05:43 PM, Al wrote:


i don't know where they got those manual pages because i have the accord shop manual and they're not what i recall from my copy. i need to dig it out.
but it is true that different vehicles have different belt change intervals specified. not all belt types or manufactures are equal either.
--
fact check required

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/7/2012 9:33 PM, jim beam wrote:

Could that be for Canadian versions? What does that CD mean in the URL address, anyway? I can imagine Canadian versions having more frequent intervals due to the harsher weather, but I'm just speculating.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Canada has the same timing-belt service intervals as the US.
--
Tegger

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/8/2012 5:12 AM, Tegger wrote:

One would think so but then you find a Canadian web link like this:
<http://www.honda.ca/owners/honda-services/maintenance-calculator
where if you fill in the Complete Maint. Schedule variables for a 1994 Accord sedan and View Complete Maint Schedule for it, you'll find a "Specific Additional Required Maintenance" list at the bottom where timing belt replacement is called for at 96,000 km, which is about 60,000 miles. This is not what they specify for '94 US models.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/08/2012 11:07 AM, cameo wrote:

you'll get yet another disparity* if you look at the european specs too. which is why, with the qualification that belts /do/ need to be inspected and changed periodically, i'm in the "pinch of salt" department on this.
* my favorite is towing capacity. euro-spec towing capacity for a civic with a braked trailer is 4 digits. u.s. spec is zero. now /that/ is 100% bullshit and 100% the result of political backroom deals to keep the oilcos and detroit in business selling gigantic trucks with ridiculously huge gas guzzling engines selling to people that only want to tow a motorcycle or fishing boat.
<http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2008/02/the-great-american-anti-towing-conspiracy/
--
fact check required

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well woddyaknow. I was wrong. Even for my car they list a 60K mile belt chenge, whereas my factory paper manual (which I've been following for 21- years) says 90K miles.
This must be a fairly new thing, since the paper manuals I have (non- Accord, mind you) that are meant for both the Canadian and US markets give no difference in interval for either market. I wonder what changed?
--
Tegger

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/08/2012 07:30 PM, Tegger wrote:

i recently changed on of mine at 110k. it was in pretty decent shape when it came off.

detroit-trained management. the same ones that managed to ensure transmission failures "mysteriously" occurred across the honda line of civic, accord, odyssey, etc. [you don't get simultaneous failures on different transmission families unless you make a management decision that it's going to happen.]
and as we all now know, honda usa's senior guy is an "ex" frod guy. either he's misguidedly having honda mimic the worst of detroit's maintenance practices in an attempt to make a small amount more money without realizing the consequences. or he's still actually working for frod and setting out to undermine honda's customer loyalty as part of frod's public perception repositioning program.
--
fact check required

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/8/2012 7:54 PM, jim beam wrote:

Whoa, what a cynical view!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

"Cynical"?
Not at all. The facts in evidence support either conclusion, frankly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/9/2012 2:54 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

I thought you would understand without a smiley that it was a tongue-in-cheek comment.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/09/2012 01:28 AM, cameo wrote:

one technical thing we know for sure - there's no reason for a decrease in specification because belt quality has improved over time, not degraded.
another technical thing we know for sure - detroit [and the germans] consider transmission life limitation as "fair game". it doesn't affect the vehicle's appearance, its failure doesn't typically kill the driver, and it comes as a prohibitively expensive repair item at a time when a vehicle has lost a lot of value thus making it "uneconomic to repair" thus improving new car sales. i know this for fact because one of my profs was a consultant that helped a certain big name design failure /in/ to their transmissions for this reason. for honda to have major failures happen across multiple transmission families with no parts commonality, all in exactly the same time frame is not coincidence but a business decision in the detroit tradition at a time when they have "ex" detroit management.
one business thing we know for sure - frod have specifically mentioned honda in the business press as their target for domestic competition.
now, you may call my conclusion cynical, but it's also logical given the above.
--
fact check required

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

And the *real* conclusion is a massive exodus of customers.
In typical American management fashion, Honda chose this route at *exactly* the wrong time: when Hyundai (and its sister Kia) was in a position to, and chose to, attack the market heavily with decent products at decent prices and great styling.
Honda lobbed a softball to Hyundai, who went after it with gusto and is hitting it out of the park.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/09/2012 07:59 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

it was the late 90's when honda decided to get rid of the macpherson civics and jump on the detroit design life limitation bandwagon. hyundai/kia wasn't a serious consideration on anyone's horizon at that time. i agree that hyundai/kia have made a great interception, but i think the intended recipient was detroit. and to a large extent it's worked. look at frod's current customer approval ratings. it's certainly not because frod have improved technically, but the goal posts have moved to make frod look a good deal better just standing still.
--
fact check required

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

True, but inertia carried Honda's reputation long enough to allow Hyundai to form an attack plan. By the time their plan was ready, the chinks in Honda's armor were becoming more and more apparent.
I'm reading Car and Driver's review of the Acura ILX; when I see that, I immediately think of the Cadillac Cimarron. C&D is too sensitive to ad dollars to say that directly, and even tries to drive the reader away from that conclusion with things like "it doesn't share any body panels with the Civic". If THAT'S the best you can come up with, you've damned with faint praise indeed.
Personally, I've been waiting for Honda to put an auto trans in the Civic Si platform. That Acura launched the "all-new" ILX-dressed Civic Si with the same manual-trans-only configuration, and no auto trans option, tells us that they managed to get that car out the door *without* much (if any) govt-mandated testing (crash, EPA, etc). If that is indeed the case, then the cars are so similar as to be indistinguishable and the ILX is nothing but Acura doing its own Cadillac Cimarron play with the Civic.
Honda didn't spend the R&D dollars to put the auto trans into the "all new, completely different" ILX with the hot motor? Cheap bastards. Especially when Honda several years ago was among the first to show that they could achieve *higher* mileage with an auto trans vs a row-your-own.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/09/2012 09:26 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

ouch indeed.

damned right. you can get the "new" manual/auto transmissions, d.s.g. or otherwise, on bmw, vw, audi, subaru, frod, toyota... it's frankly ridiculous that in this day and age of electronic throttle, that honda's /still/ throwing the ball to the competition by neglecting this stuff. is this just incompetence? or is it trojan horse management?

"hot" motor??? wrx sti hot? mitsu evo hot? vw gti turbo hot? after they've dropped the nsx, the prelude, the s2000? and made the crz a gutless macpherson hybrid? and a civic hybrid that has lower mpg's than than civic hx or crx hf?

after a long and amazingly accurately targeted series of fouls against the old and loyal honda customer base, i just can't believe it's merely cheapness. particularly when you look at the civic hf vs civic hybrid.

indeed. see above.
--
fact check required

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I will go so far as to say that some of this is the same mentality that kept Honda using vinyl seats for so long, avoiding cloth, and that kept Honda from putting any kind of as sound system into their cars that was worth a damn until 2005.
The same mentality that said even in 2009, we won't use keyless start/entry on even the $50K Acura MDX.
The same mentality that has kept Honda from putting memory seats tied to the remote entry transmitter on anything other than the most expensive Odyssey, and even at that it took them until 2011.
Honda has a long and solid history of resisting to the end doing things the rest of the world considers mainstream.
They were able to do this because, for example, I would suffer the sound system problem (fix it myself) in order to get the Honda goodness of that 92 Civic Si. As just one example.
But now, all they have is "me-too" engineering that falls apart on cue--and they STILL expect me to suffer not having the goodies? Really?

Hot for Honda. Everything's relative. But "hot" on an absolute scale? See above.
OTOH, I know a guy who overall knows his stuff, who swears by his V6 Accord 6 speed. Dunno, never drove one.
I also know another guy who *really* knows his stuff (particularly Honda stuff from way back) who swears by the TL 6 speed SH-AWD. The AWD makes the difference. Apparently some good design accidentally slipped by the censors.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/09/2012 09:31 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: <brevity>

honda had the rt4wd civic way back. it was an awesome system, cheap and reliable, and you got a great car for your money*. then honda usa switched on to the crx being "too cheap", the 4wd civic being "too cheap", so they came out with the massively overpriced del sol and sold the 4wd civic in the shape of the crv with a radically different price tag, even though it's essentially the same car.
so the only reason you're getting the 4wd tl is because of the crazy price tag on it. compare that tag with the wrx sti or the evo and you'll understand that the tl is still not enough car for way too much money. and that they could sell it for way less and still make money like they did with the civic.
* 4wd civics go for silly money here in the bay area. beaten up ones are nearly $4k. good condition working ones, well, you could be looking at $10k.
--
fact check required

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Had one. Absolutely agreed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

hmmmmmm, maybe you're right. I was never in the market, so I never looked into it.
TrueCar shows the manual trans TL AWD w/Tech pkg to be a $39,000 car. The 'Rex STI Limited (I figure that must compared with the TL Tech) is $37,500.
But, they're different cars for different markets. I can see that price difference buying more luxury in the TL, and--frankly--a significantly larger car (whatever that might mean to you).
Edmunds shows that a 2010 highest end TL AWD w/36K should be in the $30K-$32K range. But AutoTrader doesn't even show any available in this area. I'd have to go 300 miles to find one.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/10/2012 08:56 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

indeed. honda/acura have axed everything that put them on the map:
the crx si/sir the civic si/sir that actually handled well and had a decent power/weight ratio. the prelude the s2000 the nsx
subaru have the wrx mitsubishi have the evo vw have the gti's.

i don't understand the intended market. lexus have eaten acura's lunch with much superior vehicles. the nissan super-car is in a different league. the only thing the tl can take aim at is audi or volvo. both those have the wagons as well as sedans, and wagons are a significant proportion of their market. and audi have the s4 and r8. so acura, again, is left standing with nothing competitive on any level, luxury or performance, and there's nothing on their horizon.
honda need to have a [genuinely competitively] fast version of the civic or fit. not on the basis that it'll sell in quantity, but on the basis that it helps the marque. and they need a prelude. and they need an nsx. again, genuinely competitive ones. they will define the low middle and high end ranges.
"win on sunday, sell on monday". it's an ancient motor sales maxim, but it's as true today as it ever was. and honda are doing exactly the opposite.
--
fact check required

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.