I have a 1999 Honda Accord EX with about 54,000 miles on it. Recently, I took it to the dealer for an inspection (registration renewal), and they reminded me that I should have had the timing belt replaced 3 years ago (that is after 6 years) or 105,000 miles, whichever comes first.
My understanding is that it is the mileage that counts not the age of the car.
So, my question is, how many more miles can I drive the car before I need to have the timing belt replaced? Granted, I recognize that replacing a timing belt is significantly cheaper than replacing a new engine (!!).
Your understanding is incorrect. There is always a time or mileage requirement for a timing belt change, it is always WHICHEVER COMES FIRST. Rubber parts like timing belts degrade over time even if not used much, like on your car. You are living on borrowed time. Don’t forget that, in addition to the cost of a new engine, when the belt fails in all likelihood you will be left stranded somewhere, probably in the middle of the night in the middle of nowhere.
You did not get the info that the age of the belt does not matter from this Forum,it does.
The answer to your question is probably sitting in your glove compartment.
If you take a look at the Honda Maintenance Schedule which should be in the glove compartment, it will confirm what you were told by the dealership. You have been very lucky so far, but if I were you, I would not press my luck with the overage timing belt any longer. If you want to avoid having to pay for a major engine overhaul, have the timing belt, belt tensioners, and the water pump replaced next week.
If you plan on keeping the car a few more years change it now. If its short term you can play the odds, we have nothing to lose.