My 4 cyl. '97 Accord F22B (no vetec) has only 35,000 miles on the belt but the belt just turned six years old. This is a 90,000 rated belt, I think. Does the age of the belt really matter? I know how unhappy I'll be if it breaks. Does anyone have experience to back up the "whichever comes first" advice or is that just the "safe" thing to say?
My gut tells me it would be fine, but I'm not the one to suffer the consequences if it breaks. Ultimately, if the peace of mind the new timing belt gets you is worth the cost, go ahead and do it. The handful of timing belts I've replaced have all looked like they could have gone another 60-90,000 miles and they were all about that old.
I'd replace it.... many belts show either mileage or time... my Lexus IS300 required a belt change @ 90k, or 72 months
look at it.
I wouldn't trust it..
If it were anything other than a Honda, I'd say don't worry. Older Honda belts age out, they don't mile out.
You'll need to log in to post.
