Timing belt at 96k vs 120k, night and day difference

Pulled a belt off a 2011 Civic last week that was done at 96k by a shop, and the replacement I did at 120k looked practically new by comparison. The old belt had cracks on every rib, the new one is smooth all the way. Anyone else find that 100k is really the sweet spot, or do you stick to the factory interval even if it seems late?

2 comments

2 Comments

the_hayden4d agoMost Upvoted

Check the tensioner and idler pulleys when you're in there too, not just the belt itself. I've seen belts look fine at 100k but the tensioner is sloppy and it eats the new belt within 20k miles. The 96k belt you pulled probably had that same issue, shops love to skip the hardware and just swap the belt to save cost. If you're doing it yourself, grab the full kit with the water pump, it's not much more work and saves you a second tear down later. Factory intervals are based on ideal driving, but most folks are doing stop and go traffic and short trips which cooks the rubber way faster. I'd rather change it at 90-95k and know it's solid than stretch it to 120k and gamble on a snapped belt taking out the whole motor.

rosepark4d ago

Yeah that cracked rib thing is exactly what I saw on mine at 97k, they look way worse than people think.