I could use some insight, please.

I own a 2001 Accord LX, 4 cyl. auto trans. The car has 13,994 original miles on it (purchased new in '01, I work 2.5 miles from home and everthing else is very close by).

Our Accord will be 9 years old next month and has always been dealer maintained since new. My service writer is advocating a timing belt change (along with the water pump, etc.). The last time our Accord was in for service, exactly one year ago, all it needed was an inspection and oil change. Since then, we've only driven it 1,700 miles. The car has only ever needed one new battery and new tires (all done last year). The car is in TIP-TOP mechanical condition - always dealer maintained and NEVER a mechanical issue.

My question is as follows: is a timing belt change strictly a mileage issue or a "time" issue as well? I haven't a clue and I have great confidence and faith in our Honda service people as this is our 3rd Honda within the last 23 years.

Any insight into this issue would be most helpful.

 

I think it's 100k miles or 7 years, whichever comes first. Clearly the 7 years came & went, first.

I don't know how to judge for you, but I'd probably change the belt. Taking off the top timing cover & inspecting the belt is pretty easy, but it might not tell you much. If there's any cracks at the teeth of the belt, then replace it now. If there's no cracking, I'd probably still be nervous since the belt is 9 years old.

If the belt breaks, pistons can hit the valves & that's never a good thing.

 

Thanks for your reply. It seems to make sense. It it is quite an important service to have performed, in particular if one wants to avoid the always-inconvenient headache of an expensive breakdown.

I went ahead and had it done this morning at my Honda dealer. Total cost $775 includes timing belt, water pump etc, state inspection, oil change and tax. I really shouldn't complain. I dodged an eventual bullet if I had tried to be "miserly" about it.

Thanks again for your reply.