2000 Honda Accord 4 cyl Front Wheel Drive Automatic 61000 miles
What is the "real story" with timing belt replacement? Are there any reliable statistics on actual timing belt failures and the resulting engine repair cost? Yes, I suspect the auto industry of fear-factor tactics, promoting overly-conservative recommendations for extra repair profits!
My 2000 4-cyl Honda Accord has only 45k miles, but already the dealership recommends replacement because of 'belt degradation due to age'. My other Accord (4-cly 2001) is going in for a 60k mile check-up and I'm sure I'll get the sales pitch.
At honda. Com they mention 60-90K miles depending on the model, and that timing chains don't need to be replaced. I'll need to find the manuals for my cars to read the specific recommendations, but I don't trust these guys. When were timing chains invented? Any chance many engines in the past 10 years have continued to use rubber timing belts simply for gaining extra repair revenue from the customer?
I sure would appreciate some unbiased words of wisdom on this - thanks.
have the same problem?
Tuesday, January 29th, 2008 AT 2:21 AM