When I check online for when I should change the timing belt, the criteria seems to be no more than 100k kilometers before replacing it. Time also seems important, so even if the car hasn't driven that far, if it is old, say 10 years, you are still recommended to replace it. But could this be a little exaggerated?
I bought a 2002 Honda Accord recently and its timing belt was never replaced; at least wasn't replaced since 2006 when it was at around 70,000 km and now it is at around 170,000 km. I decided to change it today as per recommendation. But when I had a look at the old one, I kind-of regret that I paid around $1000 for it. My father said something similar when he replaced the timing belt for his 2004 Camry a few years ago.
So is the recommendation really accurate? Or is it hugely exaggerated?