Don't gamble on timing belt replacement

Q I have a '97 Honda Accord LX with a 2.2-liter, four-cylinder engine and 103,000 miles. To this point, I have kept up with all of my scheduled maintenance on the car. Looking ahead though, I have a timing belt replacement coming up at 105,000 miles which will run me about $600 or so.

I have heard from a lot of people that with an Accord the end result of a broken timing belt can be disastrous to my engine. One mechanic I talked to estimated that it would run about $3,000 or so to fix the resulting damage to the valves and other parts. Therein lies my dilemma.

Statistically speaking, if the chances of a broken timing belt are better than 20 percent, I should do the replacement now. But if my chances are significantly less than 20 percent, I am spending a lot of money to prevent something that probably will never happen. I am 33 years old with two small children, so my days of jackrabbit starts and other such activities that wear on an engine are long behind me.

Also, I work from home, so I am putting only about 7,500 miles a year on the car. I do plan on keeping it, though, for at least another two years. I would like your insight into whether you think it is worth it to spend the $600 on the timing belt replacement.

A Happy to oblige: Have the timing belt changed. Here's why. First of all, Honda calls for replacement at 105,000 miles or 84 months under "normal" conditions. The interval is reduced to 60,000 miles or 48 months if the vehicle is operated at ambient temperatures under minus 20 degrees or over 100 degrees.

Two important factors leap out at me from the above recommendations. First of all, age. Honda suggests the timing belt be replaced at seven years of age or 105,000 miles. Even though you're just reaching that mileage, the vehicle is a solid nine years old at this point. Secondly, notice the significantly reduced service life for the timing belt under more severe operating conditions -- 60,000 miles or 48 months. We might not have had too many minus 20 degree days in the past few years, but we have seen them, and our climate is certainly more severe than many other parts of the country.

It would appear that by any standard of measure, your Honda is due for a timing belt change. And you've been advised correctly, the engine is an "interference" engine, meaning that serious damage could occur if/when the timing belt breaks while the engine is running.

The "interference" refers to the potential contact between valves that remain open because the timing belt breaks and the camshaft is no longer rotating, and the pistons which are still moving up and down in the cylinders as the engine spins down to a stop -- not to mention the drama and excitement of being stopped dead on the side of the road, miles or even time zones from home.

One more factor. Assume you "get away" with not changing the timing belt, the engine continues to run wonderfully well for the next two years, and you put the car up for sale with about 120,000 miles on the odometer.

Knowledgeable potential buyers are going to be aware of the maintenance intervals for the timing belt, and are going to ask you, "Did you have the timing belt changed at 105,000 miles?" Your answer will influence the price of the vehicle, I would think. Thus, you'll end up "paying" for this service one way or the other.

What are the odds of your timing belt breaking? I have no idea, but I can tell you that it's like any other gamble. If you draw the short straw, the odds didn't matter, did they? It's your call, but after you put the effort into keeping the vehicle well-maintained all these years, why stop now?

Motoring note: As a follow-up to the question about whether or not to use the parking brake on your vehicle, I received a useful reminder from Denny Prothero of Minneapolis. "I read your column this morning about parking brakes and automatic transmissions. The point I want to bring up is the first-generation GM W-body cars with rear disc brakes.

"People who didn't use their parking brakes found to their dismay that the rear calipers would 'freeze' up. The end result would be replacing rotors, calipers and brake pads in severe cases. Using your parking brake on a regular basis would keep everything 'freed up'. Most owners from the Upper Midwest never used their parking brakes for fear of it not releasing."

These vehicles, like many with rear disc brakes, utilize a cam or ratchet mechanism in the rear caliper, operated by the parking brake mechanism, to rotate or "screw" out the caliper piston as the brake pads wear. This is designed to keep the pads in close proximity to the rotors so that the parking brake mechanism stayed well adjusted.

Not using the parking brake regularly would fail to keep the mechanism adjusted, creating lots of slack in the cables.

From my experience with these vehicles, it's not the caliper pistons that can "freeze," but as I mentioned in my column, the cables and parking brake mechanism can rust/freeze, which in the case of rear disc brakes could lead to very poorly adjusted rear brakes and a "long" brake pedal, meaning the you'd need to push the pedal quite far before reaching a firm brake.

On these vehicles, consistent everyday use of the parking brake not only will keep the mechanism and cables rust-free, but will also keep the rear disc brakes and parking brake mechanism properly adjusted. Thanks, Denny.