triumphs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Haynes Manuals

To: triumphs@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: Haynes Manuals
From: "Jim Muller" <jimmuller@pop.mail.rcn.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:43:27 -0500
References: <026301c40f4c$09a42520$87a23745@charter.net>
On 21 Mar 2004 at 14:50, Michael Hargreave Mawson wrote:

> No, Haynes' Manuals are not that good.   They are certainly not as
> useful (or as user-friendly) as a factory manual. 

Hmm.  I beg to differ.  My experience has always been that the Haynes 
manuals are excellent for most of the things a non-professional 
mechanic would want to do with a modestly equipped toolbox and modest 
garage space.  Or to put it another way, if you have to ask, your 
experience level is such that the Haynes manuals are great.  The 
"excessive" or not-quite-complete descriptions may be hard to follow 
at times, but at least they exist and are helpful for the first time 
you do something.  By comparison, the Bentley "Factory" manuals are 
cryptic and terse, if more thorough for some things.  I've used both 
in my small garage or in the driveway or by the curbside.  Many a 
time when starting a new task I've been left puzzled by the Haynes 
one-picture-too-few descriptions only to find that the Bentley manual 
said nothing at all as if I'm supposed to know how to do it already.  
There are some jobs I've never done myself, such as disassemble a 
diff or gearbox (at least, not on purpose!), but for most other 
things the Haynes manuals have been great.  I actually owned the 
Bently manual for the Spitfire for years before I ever found 
something I needed it for.  Now, there certainly are manuals you 
should run away from (I've seen significant errors in Clymer manuals, 
for example).  The Haynes books are not a problem.

Just my opinion.

-- 
Jim Muller
jimmuller@pop.rcn.com
'80 Spitfire, '70 GT6+





<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>