Thanks boofoo!
As a follow up. My 95 only has 41k miles. I've done extensive research on the net and apparently miles is a greater indicator of potential failure than age, based on evidence.
specifics for my car:
1. always senior owned and not raped out to 6000 rpm at every shift. Its and automatic and shifts happen at lower rpm, ie less stress and load.
2. up until a couple of years ago the car was in Southern California near the coast. this is also easier on the belts as the weather is temperate year round. No freezing starts and no very hot starts.
3. 80s and up to the mid 90s or so was the height of Japanese quality control and the original belts were made very well.
4. I've spoken with several people who have old civics and never replaced their belts, even with over 200k miles. I don't think this is a good idea, just pointing it out.
Therefore, I pretty much decided to wait until 60k miles to replace the belt.
Anyone disagree or agree?
