I have a 2000 Honda Civic EX that has 76,654 miles on it. Lately, the car has been getting lousy mileage (28mpg instead of 35-37mpg), and when I took it to the dealer (it is still under warantee), the dealer said that it was because my timing belt needed to be replaced. Now, while I know that timing belts eventually need to be replaced, I thought that a timing belt was either good or it wasn't (they don't stretch enough, so they either work or they break), so I didn't think that could contribute to the crappy mileage. They said that since the car was six years old, the timing belt had to be replaced, despite the car only having 76K on it (the recommended replacement is around 105K). Of course, this isn't covered under the warantee.
First, would the timing belt have anything to do with the mileage? Do you think there would be other contributing factors that could be the problem?
Second, at 6 years old, should I be getting the timing belt replaced anyway, due to the risk of dry rot (although I would think they could inspect that first to tell you if it needed replacement), or could it hold out for another year?
First, would the timing belt have anything to do with the mileage? Do you think there would be other contributing factors that could be the problem?
Second, at 6 years old, should I be getting the timing belt replaced anyway, due to the risk of dry rot (although I would think they could inspect that first to tell you if it needed replacement), or could it hold out for another year?
Nov 30, 2006 at 1:32 AM