> 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.
The guy who runs the local independent Honda/Acura repair
shop in my town says the timing belt life is overwhelmingly
a question of mileage, not time. So, per his suggestion, I
drove my 94 Accord until 2011 without changing the belt at
all. It died in a traffic accident (nobody hurt) with about
70k miles on it, with the original belt and water pump
still working fine.
I think he's very likely right about that, but on the other
hand, neither he nor I will reimburse you if he's wrong.
The other factor is that when you go to sell the car, the
cost of the timing belt replacement will be a hit to the
price you get if belt replacement is due per the manual. So
if you're going to sell it within the next five years or so,
you might as well go ahead and do the belt now and not take
But if you're going to drive it till it dies, maybe every 14
years would be a reasonable period so long as the mileage
I just think it's EXTREMELY unlikely that you need a timing
belt at 23,800 miles. The manual says 7 years only because
it assumes 15,000 miles per year. There is no column for