"Anon" <anonnospam@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:xO2dnQeCeulV0qHUnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>
>
> If Honda is going to use a part that must be changed as part of the
> routine eminence schedule, it should be designed so it is easy to change.
> I consider it poor design.
>
>
>

I don't think so - poor design would be the 2.6L Mitsubishi "silent shaft"
engine that was in our 1984 Dodge 600. The timing chain needed replacement
at 94K miles (it was rubbing the housing). The first step was to remove the
engine to allow the timing chain cover to be removed. I am told there have
been great improvements in chain design since then, which allow chains to
last the life of the engine. The timing chains I remember from my youth had
life expectancies of 60K miles.

I've replaced a couple of Honda timing belts (as well as a Volvo and a
Nissan belt, and a Ford belt - on the side of the road! - back in the '70s).
They aren't really any worse than average, in spite of the rumors that the
belts - timing and balance - in my daughter's '93 Accord were exceptionally
tough. The parts costs add up, though, with a tensioner for each belt that
really should be replaced at the same time. It is also foolishness to not
change the water pump while it is exposed. $240 and eight leisurely hours (I
work very slowly) did the trick for another half decade for the Accord.

Now, changing the clutch in my son's Acura... there was a struggle!

Mike

 

"Greg Campbell" <nospam@null.net> wrote in message
news:xeV_k.14049$v37.9929@newsfe01.iad...
> Anon wrote:
>
>> I have 2 Honda Accords, a 2001 V6 and a 2002 4 cyl. If the timing belt
>> breaks, will it cause extensive engine damage?
>
> http://www.gates.com/part_locator/in...o=Interference

Oddly, this is not completely accurate. My '85 Volvo had a provably
non-interference engine (a Volvo guru even ran all the clearances with every
available cam) but the list showed it to be interference. Hmm.

>
> Most belt driven Hondas run interfering valves that will be extremely
> unhappy if the piston/valve timing fails.
>

I love understatement!

>
> Unless you can determine with some certainty that the belt has been
> changed, you should start thinking about getting it done. As mentioned,
> ~100K is the highest likely service interval. As the belt ages, it will
> become statistically more likely to break. If it's a 100K belt, you'd be
> 'fairly' safe for another 10~20K, (and it's not 100% guaranteed to break
> at 150K.) But each passing mile increases the odds (at an increasing
> rate!) of a VERY expensive boo-boo.
>

Exactly so. Consider the logic of the situation: if you don't know when the
belt is due and elect not to change it now, when will it be done? My guess
is: too late. Once you change the belt you will know when the next one is
due. And I can almost guarantee if the belt has been changed the seller will
be showing you the receipt, because it adds value to the car.

Mike

 

"Elle" <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:BrZ_k.2210$Xt.1372@newsfe13.iad...
>
> Many people trade in their Hondas (among other car makes) for a new car
> when the timing belt is due because they cannot do simple financial
> calculations. Keeping a car for 14 years/210k miles and spending $1000
> once for a timing belt in that period is an excellent financial choice
> compared to buying a new car every 7 years/105k miles. As importantly, do
> you know of a car make that is clearly more reliable, and so is less
> costly to maintain, that costs less to purchase than a Honda?
>
>

That's a very good statement of the situation, although I would add that
many people are thinking about trading in their 7 year old car anyway and
are prompted by the looming cost. In any event, I think Hondas in that
category can be very good values. They have enough miles that the evidence
of how they have been treated is hard to hide, and they have a high
likelihood of providing reliable transportation for at least another decade
with low service costs. Doing your own maintenance is definitely a plus in
keeping the costs down, but in any event the 2002 is very likely to be more
economical overall than a brand new car. My son-in-law is looking for a car
and I would certainly recommend a car like that. What the OP said about the
seller's honesty is a much bigger problem.

Mike

 

"Elle" <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:yGY_k.3239$uS1.636@newsfe19.iad...
> "Anon" <anonnospam@yahoo.net> wrote
>> If Honda is going to use a part that must be changed as part of the
>> routine eminence schedule, it should be designed so it is easy to change.
>> I consider it poor design.
>
> How would you improve on this design?
>
> Have you run the numbers to see whether it pays more to replace the TB and
> keep the car vs. buying a new one?
>
> Once every 7 years/105k miles is not routine. The typical Honda owner
> probably changes the TB exactly once while owning the car, after all.

I like to keep my car maintained, I change the oil regularly and do other
recommended maintenance.

This expensive timing belt thing is changing my way of thinking. It would be
cost effective to keep a car for 4 years, only change the oil once or twice
then trade it for a new one. The money saved on all that increasingly
expensive maintenance would be almost pay for the new car, and I'd have a
new car every 4 years. I'm sure there are a lot of people that do that.

 

Anon wrote:
> "Elle" <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:yGY_k.3239$uS1.636@newsfe19.iad...
>> "Anon" <anonnospam@yahoo.net> wrote
>>> If Honda is going to use a part that must be changed as part of the
>>> routine eminence schedule, it should be designed so it is easy to change.
>>> I consider it poor design.
>> How would you improve on this design?
>>
>> Have you run the numbers to see whether it pays more to replace the TB and
>> keep the car vs. buying a new one?
>>
>> Once every 7 years/105k miles is not routine. The typical Honda owner
>> probably changes the TB exactly once while owning the car, after all.
>>
>
> I would say it is more likely that most Honda owners do not keep their car
> for 7 years. They unload them before this expensive, necessary belt change
> is due.
>
>
Hmmm,
The more new cars you buy, the more money you lose. Cost of money,
insurance, etc. My runaboubt '98 CRV has ~260K Km now and so far it
needed a brake job, two sets of tires, timing belt/water pump
replacement and I paid cash when I bought it. Other minor maintenance I
do it myself. So far it does not burn oil, it does not sqeak or rattle,
everything works like new. Being retired all I need is a reliable car. I
am going to keep this car until econmically it is not
wise idea to keep it any more. Then I'll go out and get a new car with
cash again, probably another Honda. My family has 4 vehicles of varying
ages. All Japanese brand.

 

Michael Pardee wrote:
> "Anon" <anonnospam@yahoo.net> wrote in message
> news:xO2dnQeCeulV0qHUnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>>
>> If Honda is going to use a part that must be changed as part of the
>> routine eminence schedule, it should be designed so it is easy to change.
>> I consider it poor design.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I don't think so - poor design would be the 2.6L Mitsubishi "silent shaft"
> engine that was in our 1984 Dodge 600. The timing chain needed replacement
> at 94K miles (it was rubbing the housing). The first step was to remove the
> engine to allow the timing chain cover to be removed. I am told there have
> been great improvements in chain design since then, which allow chains to
> last the life of the engine. The timing chains I remember from my youth had
> life expectancies of 60K miles.
>
> I've replaced a couple of Honda timing belts (as well as a Volvo and a
> Nissan belt, and a Ford belt - on the side of the road! - back in the '70s).
> They aren't really any worse than average, in spite of the rumors that the
> belts - timing and balance - in my daughter's '93 Accord were exceptionally
> tough. The parts costs add up, though, with a tensioner for each belt that
> really should be replaced at the same time. It is also foolishness to not
> change the water pump while it is exposed. $240 and eight leisurely hours (I
> work very slowly) did the trick for another half decade for the Accord.
>
> Now, changing the clutch in my son's Acura... there was a struggle!
>
> Mike
>
>
Hi,
Another example of poor design, some 4 bangers with spark plugs facing
fire wall. Try to replace plugs, it's MAJOR hassle. Some you have to
remove access hole cover from front wheel well.

 

"Anon" <anonnospam@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:g8SdnYEycPwI-qHUnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>
> I like to keep my car maintained, I change the oil regularly and do other
> recommended maintenance.
>
> This expensive timing belt thing is changing my way of thinking. It would
> be cost effective to keep a car for 4 years, only change the oil once or
> twice then trade it for a new one. The money saved on all that
> increasingly expensive maintenance would be almost pay for the new car,
> and I'd have a new car every 4 years. I'm sure there are a lot of people
> that do that.
>
>
>

My aforementioned 1984 Dodge 600 is a good example of how that can backfire.
With regular maintenance it was a reliability nightmare. Besides the
carburetor overhaul at one week of age and a replacement PS rack just before
the warranty ran out, it needed an A/C clutch (bearing seized), then an A/C
compressor, two drive axles, an A/C hose, and fuel pump... all in the six
years we had it. I did all the non-warranty labor, including hunting down a
lighting short that involved removing the entire interior to trace it. (The
short was in the front passenger door, where the wire had banged against a
sharp edge until it shorted and welded in place.) I didn't keep track of the
labor hours, but all that would have been somewhere between $3000 and $5000
in labor after the warranty period. The parts (I went with the cheapest I
could find) totalled more than $1000, including the $700 compressor. Dodge
wanted $1350 for the compressor, so I guess I got off okay.

I have owned only three new cars in my 40 years of driving; a 1970 Mercury
Capri, the infamous 1984 Dodge, and a 2002 Toyota Prius. The first two were
serious lemons. I have had much better results - not luck, once I got some
experience at evaluating used cars - with cars that have around 100K miles.
At 50K miles it is hard to tell how a car has been treated; at 100K it is
hard to hide. I would never buy your putative car with the infrequent oil
changes, and not only because it had too few miles (although it illustrates
my point about hard to tell vs hard to hide). One of the screening checks I
do is to remove the oil filler cap and look under it for amount of varnish
and deposits; the poorly maintained car would fail right there. Also *never*
buy any car with any trace of rust in the cooling system. I violated that
once with the Nissan 300ZX because I lusted after the car, and I repented
with many weekends under the hood. Always ask around in usenet forums about
the model and the year of the car you are thinking about - you will learn a
lot about common problems without learning it the hard way. Forget Carfax -
it listed my daughter's Accord as having been a fleet car (the previous
owner showed me the paperwork from when he bought it new and the title
record agreed) and didn't mention - as the seller revealed - that it had
been stolen and recovered. Carfax also gave a clean bill to my son's Acura -
the one with wrecking yard markings on several front body parts and no
labels under the hood.

Mike

 

"Anon" <anonnospam@yahoo.net> wrote
> This expensive timing belt thing is changing my way of
> thinking. It would be cost effective to keep a car for 4
> years, only change the oil once or twice > then trade it
> for a new one.

Some numbers from www.kbb.com a well known automotive
pricing service that consumers and car dealers alike use:
Today a 2004 Accord sedan LX automatic transmission with 55k
miles on it and having complete and verifiable service
records (so "excellent" condition) trades in for $8225 in
zip code 02138. People are paying about $20k for a new 2008
Accord sedan LX. Figure at least $500 for sales tax. So the
net cost of the new 2008 Accord to you would be about $12k.

Do you think you would spend $12k on maintaining the 2004
Accord over the next four or so years? Do you know how much
you have spent on your two Accords since buying them?

There is nothing wrong with wanting a new car, Anon. But it
cannot be justified financially. This is not just me talking
but the Car Talk guys; any reputable financial adviser; any
accountant; etc.

 

"Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:NWZ_k.3247$uS1.299@newsfe19.iad...
> Hi,
> Another example of poor design, some 4 bangers with spark plugs facing
> fire wall. Try to replace plugs, it's MAJOR hassle. Some you have to
> remove access hole cover from front wheel well.
>

Ah, yes! I thought it was a major gaffe when the Chevy Vega had that
problem. Since then it has turned up in a bunch of other models, I
understand, including the Chevy Astro V6. So, what car company is in the
most financial trouble?

At work I have also heard about the Ford F-series spark plugs. Apparently
the late models use platinuk or iridium plugs with a long service interval.
reat, except the threads are titanium coated for no obvious reason. Titanium
is very reactive, and most owners who leave the plugs in until replacement
is called for find they have welded themselves in - lots of horror stories
of having to remove the head to get the plugs out. Apparently Ford has
released a TSB on removing the plugs: warm up the engine, loosen the plugs
about 3/4 turn, apply penetrant and let the engine cool... then, good luck.

Mike

 

"Michael Pardee" <null@null.org> wrote
> I would add that many people are thinking about trading in
> their 7 year old car anyway and are prompted by the
> looming cost.

Sure, but this choice cannot be justified financially unless
some dollar value is attached to the mental satisfaction of
owning a new car. Plus a lot of them think they are going to
see maintenance costs go way up in the coming years. With
cars built about 1990 and later, this just does not happen,
on average.

A fun example: My parents are driving a 91 Ford Taurus with
124k miles. He is an engineer and numbers wonk. He tracks
his car costs and MPG carefully. He was able to justify
having $1000 of suspension work recently, because his
overall cost of ownership per year continues to decline, and
because the MPG is good enough that he thinks the engine is
fine. He does not do his own care maintenance, either.

They bought a Toyota Corolla a couple of years ago (to
replace an even older Taurus), but mostly for fun and better
MPG.

 

"Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote
>Being retired all I need is a reliable car.

Being retired I need at least two older Hondas to keep my
mind engaged. :-)

 

"Michael Pardee" <null@null.org> wrote in message
news:GsGdnUiZIZFg8qHUnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@sedona.net.. .
> "Anon" <anonnospam@yahoo.net> wrote in message
> news:g8SdnYEycPwI-qHUnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>>
>> I like to keep my car maintained, I change the oil regularly and do other
>> recommended maintenance.
>>
>> This expensive timing belt thing is changing my way of thinking. It would
>> be cost effective to keep a car for 4 years, only change the oil once or
>> twice then trade it for a new one. The money saved on all that
>> increasingly expensive maintenance would be almost pay for the new car,
>> and I'd have a new car every 4 years. I'm sure there are a lot of people
>> that do that.
>>
>>
>>
>
> My aforementioned 1984 Dodge 600 is a good example of how that can
> backfire. With regular maintenance it was a reliability nightmare. Besides
> the carburetor overhaul at one week of age and a replacement PS rack just
> before the warranty ran out, it needed an A/C clutch (bearing seized),
> then an A/C compressor, two drive axles, an A/C hose, and fuel pump... all
> in the six years we had it. I did all the non-warranty labor, including
> hunting down a lighting short that involved removing the entire interior
> to trace it. (The short was in the front passenger door, where the wire
> had banged against a sharp edge until it shorted and welded in place.) I
> didn't keep track of the labor hours, but all that would have been
> somewhere between $3000 and $5000 in labor after the warranty period. The
> parts (I went with the cheapest I could find) totalled more than $1000,
> including the $700 compressor. Dodge wanted $1350 for the compressor, so I
> guess I got off okay.
>
> I have owned only three new cars in my 40 years of driving; a 1970 Mercury
> Capri, the infamous 1984 Dodge, and a 2002 Toyota Prius. The first two
> were serious lemons. I have had much better results - not luck, once I got
> some experience at evaluating used cars - with cars that have around 100K
> miles. At 50K miles it is hard to tell how a car has been treated; at 100K
> it is hard to hide. I would never buy your putative car with the
> infrequent oil changes, and not only because it had too few miles
> (although it illustrates my point about hard to tell vs hard to hide). One
> of the screening checks I do is to remove the oil filler cap and look
> under it for amount of varnish and deposits; the poorly maintained car
> would fail right there. Also *never* buy any car with any trace of rust in
> the cooling system. I violated that once with the Nissan 300ZX because I
> lusted after the car, and I repented with many weekends under the hood.
> Always ask around in usenet forums about the model and the year of the car
> you are thinking about - you will learn a lot about common problems
> without learning it the hard way. Forget Carfax - it listed my daughter's
> Accord as having been a fleet car (the previous owner showed me the
> paperwork from when he bought it new and the title record agreed) and
> didn't mention - as the seller revealed - that it had been stolen and
> recovered. Carfax also gave a clean bill to my son's Acura - the one with
> wrecking yard markings on several front body parts and no labels under the
> hood.
>
> Mike

I had an 1987 Olds V6 I obtained from my mother when she died. I drove it
for 2 years and gave it to my daughter. She finally totaled it this year
with 187000 miles on it. The only maintenance ever done was tires,
batteries, oil changes every 8000 miles. It had a timing GEAR, not a belt.

 

"Elle" <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4o__k.16504$M33.41@newsfe03.iad...
> "Anon" <anonnospam@yahoo.net> wrote
>> This expensive timing belt thing is changing my way of thinking. It would
>> be cost effective to keep a car for 4 years, only change the oil once or
>> twice > then trade it for a new one.
>
> Some numbers from www.kbb.com a well known automotive pricing service that
> consumers and car dealers alike use:
> Today a 2004 Accord sedan LX automatic transmission with 55k miles on it
> and having complete and verifiable service records (so "excellent"
> condition) trades in for $8225 in zip code 02138. People are paying about
> $20k for a new 2008 Accord sedan LX. Figure at least $500 for sales tax.
> So the net cost of the new 2008 Accord to you would be about $12k.
>
> Do you think you would spend $12k on maintaining the 2004 Accord over the
> next four or so years? Do you know how much you have spent on your two
> Accords since buying them?
>
> There is nothing wrong with wanting a new car, Anon. But it cannot be
> justified financially. This is not just me talking but the Car Talk guys;
> any reputable financial adviser; any accountant; etc.
>

You might spend 12k on maintenance if you did everything in the manual at
the dealer and a timing belt plus all those oil changes plus new tires,
shocks, brake job and battery. AND I would have the pleasure of driving a
new technology car every few years.

 

"Michael Pardee" <null@null.org> wrote
> At 50K miles it is hard to tell how a car has been
> treated; at 100K it is hard to hide. I would never buy
> your putative car with the infrequent oil changes, and not
> only because it had too few miles (although it illustrates
> my point about hard to tell vs hard to hide). One of the
> screening checks I do is to remove the oil filler cap and
> look under it for amount of varnish and deposits; the
> poorly maintained car would fail right there.

I was going to raise this point, but the oil change interval
for newer Hondas is now one year and 10k miles for many
newer Hondas; potentially even less often for Hondas with
the Maintenance Minder system. So I think he might get away
with changing the oil twice without too much wear and tear
on the engine. I am not so sure one could tell, after four
years and only two oil changes, that it had not had the oil
changed often enough. I am not so sure car dealers care that
much on a trade in, since they tend to still have so much
maneuvering room on the actual sale.

> Carfax also gave a clean bill to my son's Acura - the one
> with wrecking yard markings on several front body parts
> and no labels under the hood.

I heard there have been problems with Carfax. I have seen
www.autocheck.com get better reviews.

 

"Elle" <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Hx__k.16506$M33.12263@newsfe03.iad...
> "Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote
>>Being retired all I need is a reliable car.
>
> Being retired I need at least two older Hondas to keep my mind engaged.
> :-)
>

I hear you, I once loved maintaining my own car. I am also retired and have
a bad back that prevents me from doing anything to the car except drive it.