It's a matter of
your personal decision when
you are going to change your timing belt and water pump. Acura's maintenance schedule specified 90K miles or six years, whichever comes first. If you hit 90K miles in less than six years, everyone will tell you to change it, period. So if you don't hit 90K miles on the timing belt, how long are you going to go beyond Acura's recommendation?
I have discussed this extensively with Mark Basch, and the simple facts are these: (1) You can't tell a good timing belt from one that is about to go. (2) If the timing belt fails, it can cause considerable damage to your engine, possibly resulting in the need to replace it, at a cost that's substantially more than that of the timing belt replacement. If you replace it with a used engine, you may have no idea for sure how many miles that engine has, how it has been driven, or what problems it may have. (3) Regardless of whether the engine needs replacement, a timing belt failure will disable the car - probably at an inconvenient time and place. (There is rarely a convenient time and place for a breakdown.) And, (4) timing belts
do fail. Mark Basch has seen several such failures. I'm sure he'll be happy to let you know how much these owners paid by "saving" $1200 by not replacing the timing belt.
Originally posted by matteni:
Do you think it is a good bet to spend $1500 plus to save around $7k on an engine replacement
That's for you to decide - except that (a) you shouldn't need to spend $1500 plus; $1200 is a typical price, and (b) there's no guarantee that you can do so for $7K or that the used engine you put in will be as good as the one you destroy.
Keep in mind, though, that the only downside to changing it now vs later is the cost, which you're going to pay anyway; it's just a matter of when. If you change it every eight years instead of every ten years, the difference in cost is $30 per year of ownership ($150/year vs $120/year), which you may (or may not) consider worth it for the peace of mind.
I'm not saying that you go one day past six years and it's guaranteed to self-destruct. I
am saying that you are comparing a known expense of $1200 against a risk of a timing belt failure. As Nick says, those are the odds. $1200 against an expenditure of $7K or more, plus additional risk of a used motor, plus the possibility of getting stranded somewhere. And the probability of that risk increases over time. Do you like the odds at six years? Eight years? Ten years? There's no magic number that is the "right" time, other than Acura's recommendation of six years. Some owners are currently driving with timing belts that are twelve years old
(as well as coolant hoses and other parts that are twelve years old and can fail). My opinion is that twelve years old is a long time for parts that are only designed to last six. But that's just my opinion. It's your car. Your money. Your odds. Your comfort level. Your decision. As Clint Eastwood said, "Are you feeling lucky today, punk?"
FWIW, I was quite content to replace my timing belt and water pump after eight years at 40K miles, for a cost just under $1100. Why eight? Because that's when it was worth it based on my comfort level; in my opinion, $150 per year for a scheduled maintenance item is worth every penny
to me. You'll have to decide when it's worth it
to you.
[This message has been edited by nsxtasy (edited 10 October 2002).]
