NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/rec/autos/tech/15177

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-09 | 1.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!ogicse!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!atropa!berger
From: berger@atropa (Mike Berger)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: "official" shop manuals vs. Chilton's
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Nov 92 04:14:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: ux1.BxHFrq.It7
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 23

[e-mail] (Tom Dillard) writes:
>I have the shop manual for my '87 Ford Taurus.  I have compared a Chilton's
>manual with it and noticed the Chilton's had some of the _exact_ same
>diagrams as was in Ford's.  They were arranged differently.  As it turned
>out the Chilton's manual was set up for doing a particular job.  With the
>Ford, you would have to flip back and forth to a couple of differnt sections.

>In the end, though, I think you get more information with the factory book.
*----
A LOT more in my experience.  And where there are changes in production,
they are generally noted in the factory manual and not mentioned at all
in the third-party manuals.  One advantage of the third-party manuals is
that they often explain how to do a particular job using standard tools,
while the factory shop manual may refer to manufacturer-specific special
tools.  But the diagnostics in my Ford Aerostar shop manual, for example,
are far more detailed than those in the third party editions.  And every
detail, from the cruise control to the seat belt warning buzzer, is
covered.  The third party manuals tend to concentrate on engine and
drive train components that are common to more than one model.
--
    Mike Berger
    Internet    [e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Robert Gjertsen)