I have a 2000 Honda Accord EX sedan (4 cyl) with just over 60,000 miles. When I had the oil & filter changed at the dealership, a service tech said I should have the timing belt changed, since the car is 10 years old. The owner’s manual says change at 105,000 or 7 years, whichever comes first. Should I have this done now, or are they just trying to gouge me for extra money?
Yes. You are three years overdue based on age. No gouging involved here.
The belt is now likely going on 11 years old since the belt was likely manufactured in 1999 along with the car itself.
Six years is about the limit in my opinion.
This means the belt should have been changed, along with the tensioners and water pump, about 4 or 5 years ago.
Either way, it’s long past due and if you think they’re trying to gouge you now just wait until the belt snaps and leaves you with some serious engine damage.
The belts can go any time and will provide zero warning when they do pop. It may decide to snap 3 seconds after the car is started the next time. Who knows.
Your motor is interference so follow the guide to a tee.
“The owner’s manual says change at 105,000 or 7 years, whichever comes first.”
What part of “whichever comes first” do you not understand?
Yes, it is overdue for this very important service by about 3 years, so you have been very lucky so far.
However, that luck could vanish in an instant to the tune of over $2,000 for the resulting repairs.
If you are a true gambler, then you may decide to continue to ignore this vital service, but I have to say that the odds are against you.
The responses are in & are all unanimous: get it done immediately. I’ll call & schedule this ASAP.
Thanks for everyone’s input.
Remember that there’s no need to have this done at a dealership. Independent mechanics are equally competent and may save you some money.
I don’t know where you’re located but there’s a dealer here in Central NJ that advertises timing belt jobs for $389 and $75 additional if the tensioner has to be replaced .