Books that spread bad info and can not be corrected.....

["Gary Walker" <NashFlash@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>                      That's the good stuff, now for the criticisms:
1. The perspective in the short history is a bit unusual. Not totally 
inaccurate, but it's obvious that the author had no previous knowledge of 
AMC history. It's obvious that this was a research assignment - there is no 
"passion" for the make.
2. There are a few glaring errors in the text. For example, there's a short 
one or two paragraph "Model Spotlight" at the end of each year section. The 
first sentence of the last paragraph under 1970: "Mark Donohue models came 
with a special 360-ci power plant that featured thick walls." This wasn't 
well researched! That myth has been "busted" many times and should have been 
easily caught if more than one source was used for research. There's a 
mention in 1971 that "...government regulations on horsepower ratings caused 
the to tumble down sharply." Is this even an avid car hobbyist? Government 
regulations had little to do with the power ratings - there was a change in 
the way power was rated by the SAE, not the government. I was unaware that 
the first and third runs of SC/Ramblers all have "00" as the paint code, and 
all second run have "SPEC", and that some early models did not leave the 
factory in Frost White. In fact, none of that can or has been confirmed to 
the best of !
my knowledge.
3. Two numbers aren't even mentioned: the body number and the final assembly 
sequence number on the bottom of every AMC door tag. Does the author even 
know what these numbers are? There is no real decoding for them, but they 
should have been defined.
As stated before, it's a relatively good field manual if you can get over 
the slightly skewed (in my opinion) and sometimes erroneous historic text. 
For $10.99 plus around $5 shipping and handling (depending on location - 
sent via priority mail), it's not a bad handy reference for the years 
covered. My advice is to buy it for number decoding and ignore the rest.


I rest my case.   ........and,......    What did I say ? !!    Write your 
own.   You have every right.     I said that individuals who write stuff 
MAY put out erroneous data.  That is what I said.  Now look.   Print is 
permanent.   Write your heart out.    That is why many people for three 
decades have thought that the maximum overbore for a 390 or a 401 is the 
ridiculous number of  .0225" of an inch.  Many of the piston manufacturers 
have relied on that mistake for all of these years, and it affects our 
piston availability to this day.   This is all because of the mistake in 
AMC's own publication, "Performance American Style".   Once again, we should 
record our information in a MODERN form that can be corrected when a mistake 
is identified.       Now, lay off.
        Your Friend,
         Gary Walker
            Your AMC Friend,
             Gary Walker