Honda Service Manuals

I am the owner of a 1992 Honda Civic VTi.

Does anyone know if any service manuals in English cover this car? As
far as I have been able to tell the car wasn't sold in the UK that
year, so that's not an option. And the Haynes and Chiltons manuals are
oriented for the North American market, so they don't cover the 1595cc
VTEC.

Or, alternately, what combinaion of manuals could I use (in English!)
to service my car?

Thanks folks.

 

I have a 91 Civic and use as needed a combination of the UK
site's Concerto and CRX manuals and the other online
resources listed
at http://home.earthlink.net/~honda.lioness/id9.html .

I dispute the claim that Chilton's manuals are junk. Much of
modern Chilton's manuals are excerpts (or near so) from the
Factory Service Manual.

 

I never claimed the Chilton's were junk - they just don't cover all the
mechanicals on my car.

 

Pardon my miscommunication. There are a few regulars here
who regularly opine that Chilton's is junk. I think that's
absurd.

I do see the VTEC engine mentioned in a few places in my
1984-1995 Civic/CRX/del Sol manual.

If you care to mention what areas in particular you found
the Chilton's lacking, that might shed more light on whether
you absolutely have to spend the bucks for a Helms manual or
not.

Even Helms omits important info. E.g. trailing arm bushing
replacement can now be done with the arm in place.

 

Elle wrote:

it's omitted because it's not a factory procedure. factory procedure is
to replace the arm to eliminate risk of it fatiguing as its mileage
increases. it can easily survive the life of one main bushing, but two
is a risk.

that said, i personally always replace the main bushings on any used
honda i buy, but i have two things in my favor:

1. i live in rust-free california.
2. i know what i'm looking at in terms of cracking and stress risers.

a manufacturer can't recommend a procedure to all that only safely
applies to a small subset of users.

 

Doh.

But fact is, dealerships will replace the trailing arm
bushing and not the trailing arm.

In the past I have asked you to cite statements like this,
and you get all upset.

So, no, without a citation, this is just bullshit from a
Usenet poster. And if you get all upset, it's more bullshit.

 

right now, only one of us appears to be using the language of negative
emotion, and it ain't me.

fact: i have seen stamped steel suspension components like this fatigue
and break.
fact: corrosion reduces the cross section of material.
fact: corrosion causes pitting - which acts as a stress riser.

reduced cross section /and/ stress riser? that sure is something to get
upset about, but not in the way you're doing. and quitcher bleating
about citations - original source does not require it.

 

Beamer: No citation, no sell. Your calling that emotion
shows what a weak-ego'd bullshit artist you try to be.

 

elle, what are you trying to get out of this exchange? you're evidently
not speaking from knowledge or experience here, so why dig yourself even
deeper? get yourself to a junk yard and see where rusty springs have
fatigued and failed - [other] suspension member failure is exactly the
same thing, and you may even see one if you look long enough. i'm kinda
shocked as to why this would be such a conceptual hurdle for an engineer.