Did any one here think about replacing their timing belt on a 5 year old car with 35k miles? My service mgr suggested replacement of belt and water pump since the car is 5 years old now. Is this something anyone else would do at 35k miles?

Thanks for any feedback!

Acurod

 

That's a miles issue NOT and age issue. Acura says at 105,000-ish. Car will tell you when. Tell the service manager to read his service manuals and not his P&L statement.

 

Thats almost worth complaining to acura about.....highway robbery....

Unless there is a problem with the vehicle, its not needed for quite some time.

 

ripping you off! my belt changed 110,000mi still looked brand new!!!

 

I can't believe he said that to you with a straight face. Unless the belt is showing signs of wear (visible cracking), you do not need to repace it until 105k miles as others have stated.

Shameful. THose are the sorts of people that give the dealerships a bad name.

 

Not completely defending this guy, but some of the older acuras had both a miles and time calculation for timing belt replacement. Honda/Acura engines are interference engines-that means when the belt breaks, and the pistons and valves are out of time, they interfere with each other. (read bends your valves and destroys the head at a minimum.) Really need to pull upper cover off and inspect belt condition for cracks, ect.

 

^^^^^
Even so, to recommend replacing a timing belt on a 5-year-old car with few miles is not correct.

 

Exactly.

 

I hady serpertine belt replaced at 45k because it was ripping under warranty

 

The old recommendation was 90000 miles or 6 years whichever came first.

 

I thought I read in the owners manual that you might have to change the timing belt at 60K miles, if most of your driving is slow stop-and-go city driving or if you drive up and down steep hills (like San Francisco area)?

 

Correction to what I said in my post above. Page 313 of the owners manual says:

-In very high temperatures
(over 110°F, 43°C).

-In very low temperatures
(under 20°F, 29°C).

-If you frequently tow a trailer.

Other than those reasons above, you should not change your timing belt anytime before 105K miles unless is tearing up.

 

this guy wants to change out a timing belt on a car with 35,000miles???? even though you aren't supposed to change it until 100k...

Ask this guy how much to replace yoru "spark plug filter" and $5 says he tells you $500....and warns you that it needs to get changed right away......

 

That is what I was referring to on the older acura/hondas. Still not defending the contradictory recommendation to OUR scheduled maintenance, but at six or seven years old, I would probably replace it myself just out of aggressive maintenance.

 

the extreme temps will definitely weaken any type of belt. My snowmobile drive belts always seem to know when I am not carrying a spare!

 

As others have stated, far too early to change timing belt, unless it is showing signs of damage. Also Honda/Acura cars for that year had an odometer issue where it was showing more mileage than the car actually had on it (about 2,200 for every 50,000 miles). So you may actually have about 1000 miles less on your car than the odemeter shows. My 2004 RL is indicating 105k but actually only has about 101k.

 

Yeah I read something like that as well, what year did they finally fix that problem (if they did)?!?

 

Not to dig up an old thread but I was looking for info for my RL...

I replaced the timing belt in my '00 NSX because of age. It only had about 30K miles on it.

This is typical for NSX owners to have to replace because of age and not by miles since these cars are not usually driven much. The manual recommends every 7 years or 105K miles whichever comes sooner. It was not worth having to worry about a timing belt failure on this car.

On the other hand I had the timing belt done on my '94 Legend at 90K miles by the book. It now sits at 130K and is probably due for another change by age.

As for my '06 RL I guess I'll wait until 105K.