what do i have? whats the difference between the two? which one is better?

 

The difference is in how the clutch is actuated.

Cable - self explanitory. A pulling motion.

Hydro - You press pedal, compression fluid which pushes on the slave cyl, actuating clutch. Just like how your brakes work.




Neither one is "better."

 

so what do i have? so shift linkage and all that is the same, just the clutch style right?

 

All the stock '88-'91 CRXs and Civics have cable trannys. You have a CRX, right? The linkage is different on the hydro trannys as well.

 

Basic concept.

91 and older Civics have a cable type trans. When you push the clutch, it pulls on a cable attached to it to release the clutch.

92 and newer Civics have hydro type tranaxles. When you push the clutch, you push in a piston on the clutch master cylinder, which pushes hydrolic fluid through a tube to the clutch slave cylinder, who's piston helps release the clutch.

As mentioned, neither is really better, but hydrolic is the more common style. In cable systems, the cable can stretch and require adjustment. In hydro systems, the master and slave cylinders can wear out or blow and require replacement, and the fluid needs to be flushed... along with the squishiness inherent to rubber hydrolic lines (in certain parts of certain models.)

I prefer cable due to simplicity, myself.

 

And I'd be willing to bet that if you WANTED to adjust your clutch, you'll be much happier if you happen to have a cable one.

 

Yes, but if it came to replacing your cable, you'd be much happier to replace fluid instead.

 

i got a 91 civic hatch standard

 

Oops. Thought you had a CRX. Either way you have a cable tranny. I, like Kai, prefer a cable or even a mechanical rod linkage over hydraulic. They tend to be more reliable.

 

Reliable until the cable snaps. But rarely does that happen.