why does the recommend maintenance schedule say to replace the timing belts at 60,000 and then 105,000 miles? shouldnt it just be every 60,000 miles?
It only recommends 7 years or 105k miles, which ever comes first. Your first replacement should have been in 2006. If you had it done then and you had about 60k miles at that time and you have 105 now, I can see your confusion. The good news though is that you wont need a new timing belt until 2013 (7 years from last belt change) or 165k miles (105k miles from last belt change), whichever comes first.
wait…so the first was supposed to be at 60,000 miles (which I did), and the next would be at 165k? Im confused. why isnt it just every 60k?
huh…but you’re saying its supposed to be around every 7 years…which means the next would be in 2 years…and i’ll likely be at around 120k then. so I geuss due to my low driving mileage I should follow time and not mileage intervals?
The first was supposed to be at 7 years. Due to your low mileage, yes, follow the time intervals, not the miles.
My '03 Civic has a timing belt replacement recommendation of 7 years or 105K miles whichever comes first. In '99 I think the replacement interval was different than my '03. As I recall it is either 60K or 90K miles and I’m not sure of the time. Do you still have the owner’s manual?
IIRC my old 99 had a 6year/90k interval
yup, I do got the owner’s manual. and since I drive in NYC and my daily commute to work is 3 miles, I’ve been following the “severe” recommendations.
but since I drive less than 10,000 miles a year, I’m just going to follow the yearly recommendations from now on.