Re: New AMC book.... what would you like to see??

[adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Sandwich Maker)]

" From: farna@xxxxxxx
" 
" I think there are some disconnects here. A "restoration guide" can't be
" a "one book covers all" volume. Not unless you take one year, one model,
" and do a complete bolt-by-bolt tear down and assembly -- everything.
" Well, you can get by without tearing the engine apart (internals,
" anyway), definitely not the transmission or rear axle. But everything
" else would have to be picked apart. The guides out there now are GENERAL
" guides, things to get one started with the process of finding the little
" details. It IS NOT a substitute for a factory service manual, but a
" supplement to it. 
" 
" A guide should help one get started and decode initial information on a
" vehicle found, and offer guidance and direction, general information
" so one can spot the aftermarket additions and modifications.

this argues for orientation cross-series by year, rather than
longitudinally by series, as restoration needs vary much more by age
then model.  likewise restoration parts if any would have more
cross-series application - eg. 01-40, 10-80 - than say all-year 80.

" Matt, you're perfectly correct -- a true guide that would eliminate the
" need for any additional information would be way to much to tackle --
" that's why there really aren't any, not for any relatively modern (post
" WWII) cars that I know of. I do seem to recall one for a Model T Ford,
" but that's a simple automobile that was virtually the same for its
" entire production run -- minimal changes compared to say the 64-69
" American body.

i dunno - over its life, the t had a pretty sizeable number of
variants...  cars, trucks, open, closed -- crank start and acetylene
lamps to electrics...

my local library used to have a slim volume covering fords '28-'48,
including lincoln zephyrs and 1.5t trucks.  tech and mech repair only,
but it was very complete...

i wish i knew what they did with it.

" But if a guide were made for each individual body, the
" longer running series would need to be split. Such as the Series 01
" split into four distinct groups: 58-63 American, 64-69 American/Rogue,
" 70-77 Hornet, 78-83 Concord.

i still think hornets and concords have much more in common than they
have different, and that separating them would cause needless
duplication; likewise separating the '70-up 01s and 40s.

" original message--------------------------------------------
" 
" From: Matt Haas <mhaas@xxxxxxx>
" 
" Starting with the mid-60's, the books would have to get pretty big to cover 
" everything for a particular body style the way you have them broken down. 
" There were lots of changes made due to safety and (especially) emission 
" regulations (particularly with 67 and up Rebel and Matador). Some of the 
" stuff would be easy to cover (like you have to have shoulder belts and a 
" dash mounted VIN if the car was made in January of 1968 or later) but think 
" about how different the emissions systems are between a 1967 Rebel and a 
" 1978 Matador or how about the differences between a 1970 Hornet and a 1988 
" Eagle?

yeah, but think how much that '67 rebel system relates to the '67
ambo and '67 marlin, and how much more to them generally than to '66
classics, or '57 rebels.

yes, there are a lot of years between the '70 hornet and the '88
eagle, but there's a lot that still interchanges.

could be my exact bounds aren't right, but i still think looking
across series to build on commonality and minimize duplication would
be the best approach.
________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Hay                                  the genius nature
internet rambler                            is to see what all have seen
adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                       and think what none thought