Should timing belts be replaced according to km's or time internal?

Hi everyone,

I have a ek that has been serviced every 6 months since ownership.

I don't believe the timing belt has been changed yet according to its service history. My question is, the car is hitting 11 years old this year. Should I get the timing belt replaced at the next service? The car runs perfect and smooth and does not have any loud timing belt "squeaky" sound.

A friend says timing belts should be changed at 100,000km because they don't "ware and tear" if the car is not driven a lot and says I'd be fine and just change it at 100,000km. I rarely drive the car (<5,000km a year) so I wont be hitting the 100,000km mark until another 7+ years.

So the question is, should timing belts be replaced according to km's or time internal? i.e. every 100,000km or every 10 years?

Appreciate all response fellas, cheers :)

remove the timing covers to inspect for wear, having a car sitting for long periods of time can wear out certain components.

that's very low ks paint must look like new :) would love a pic of the engine bay

going out on a limb here, but i'd say the correct answer is whichever comes first

inspect and check for deterioration. its all in the owners manual

Whichever comes first. A car that is not driven often can have worse wear on the rubber belt compared to one that is driven often. I have an accessory belt that is only 1 year old but is already starting to crack because I only drove 1000km in that 1 year that I had that new belt in. The rubber had hardened due to me not driving every week and as a result, stretched about 10mm beyond the limits of the tensioner!

So you should replace that timing belt if it has not been replaced before given the number of years that the belt has been in the car for.

I always say if in doubt just do it the cost of a timing belt which is bugger all far out ways the cost of repair or replacing an engine !!!

Manufacturers typically recommend a timing belt service internal of xxx,xxx klms or X years, whichever comes first.

This is because rubber belts and hoses deteriorate over time, regardless of frequency of use.

If in doubt and your car has a few years under its belt (pun intended), get the timing belt service done. If the belt snaps, say hello to a new engine ...

Last time i checked my belts the pulleys where the belts are on have a crap load of gunk and dirt in it. Making the belts stretch and crack easily get a mechanic to check that, i took a blade knife and cleaned that out followed by a metal brush.

Oem honda timing belts are about $90 from jdmyard and it should cost about $50-100 to replace depending on who you go to.

you might aswell also do the seals while the belt is off, and u dont have to buy OEM there are much cheaper aftermarket replacements like Dayco

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grifty

you might aswell also do the seals while the belt is off, and u dont have to buy OEM there are much cheaper aftermarket replacements like Dayco

---

After using a Dayco accessory belt (which stretched about 5-7 mm when my engine was on), I'd stick to an OEM belt eventhough it is a bit more pricey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arghtype

Hi everyone,

I have a ek that has been serviced every 6 months since ownership.

I don't believe the timing belt has been changed yet according to its service history. My question is, the car is hitting 11 years old this year. Should I get the timing belt replaced at the next service? The car runs perfect and smooth and does not have any loud timing belt "squeaky" sound.

A friend says timing belts should be changed at 100,000km because they don't "ware and tear" if the car is not driven a lot and says I'd be fine and just change it at 100,000km. I rarely drive the car (<5,000km a year) so I wont be hitting the 100,000km mark until another 7+ years.

So the question is, should timing belts be replaced according to km's or time internal? i.e. every 100,000km or every 10 years?

Appreciate all response fellas, cheers :)

---

Timing belts don't 'squeak'.