Browse over 9,000 car reviews
My wife's 1998 Honda CRV is due to have the engine timing belt replaced. The service book says it must be replaced every 100,000km, or five years. Her car is more than five years old but has done only 42,000km. My 1988 Toyota Celica has done only 96,000km in 16 years, but Toyota claims the belt needs changing only after 100,000km, regardless of age. My wife believes the Honda timing belt should also last 100,000km regardless of age. Toyota claims the Celica engine will not be damaged if the belt does break, whereas Honda says the CRV engine will be damaged if the belt breaks. Is this true and does that explain why Honda is more cautious about changing the belt?
I'm afraid I take a conservative approach, so I would change the belt as Honda recommends. The belts do deteriorate as they age -- it's not just a question of mileage -- and the engine will sustain expensive damage if it breaks. Same goes for the Toyota. It should really be changed after about five years to avoid potentially expensive damage to the engine internals.
Comments