10 year old timing belt with low KMs - at what point replace it?
 

I have 58,000 KMs on the current timing belt in a '99 SiR, but it was installed 7 - 10 years ago. Should I bother replacing it?

The service manual says to replace the timing belt at 168,000, and I replaced it at around 100,000 KMs. The car's now at 158,000 KMs.

If it were me? No I wouldn't. But if you were doing some track racing or could not afford to swap in a new motor if it blows, then it's cheap insurance and can be done DIY

if i have the space and time, i would
like 320 said, it's easy enough esp on a 99 civic

i have an MDX, acura is telling me to change my timing belt. it currently has 60 000kms.

they said it is 100km/ or 7 years.

i refused to do it for now.

I do a mix of shorter drives and freeway drives, and I like to push the car a bit when I'm able. No track racing.

I'll leave it for now, then, since I have other stuff to look after. Good to know.

I've always thought that when manufacturer say 170K kms or 10 years, it is to be understood whichever comes first. I thought the compound of the timing belt will deteriorate and be compromised after a certain number of years.

I recently had mine done not because it reached the mileage specified but because it reached/surpassed the number of years.

Be Glad your not cheap, You did the right thing to avoid possible major problems.
and
It is which ever comes 1st. regardless if your driving it or storing it.

I believe its whichever comes first.

Its better to have it done than face the potential problems.

I can probably get it done in 3 months, but my money is all budgeted for the next 2 months. I'm also not expecting to start driving the car again for at least another month.

I'll get it done soon, though.

I'd do it. Rubber deteriorates over time, this is a preventative maintenance item

Is it an interference motor and how badly would you be inconvenienced if you suddenly couldn't drive it?