Manual preference - Haynes, Chilton, other?

For my 94-95 Mustang, I use the following manual most often:

  • Haynes

    Votes: 7 43.8%
  • Chilton

    Votes: 4 25.0%
  • Manual Purchased on CD

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Ford Shop Manual

    Votes: 5 31.3%
  • Some other manual

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I don't use a manual!

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    16
  • Sponsors (?)


Haynes as I have had one for almost every car I have owned and never had much of an issue fixing things.

It does help the wifes uncle is a sr master ford mechanic with 25-30yrs exp. Any odd ball question I can in most cases bounce off him. Really nice/helpfull guy I hope I can keep myself on his goodside.
 
Haynes hits most of the important stuff, and leaves common sense to the rest. It's still a little scarce on some information, but that's what you get for $15. They make good assumptions, like not including procedures on how to rebuild an automatic transmission. They realize that most people aren't going to do this, so they make a seperate manual for it.

Chiltons manual on how to rebuild a Ford engine:
1. Disconnect negative battery terminal
2. Rebuild Engine
3. Reconnect negative battery terminal.

Kurt
 
I have three different manuals. A Hayne's manual, a Chilton, and the last one, I can't remember the author, but it's cover is red with a flamed fox body mustang.

I like the Chilton from them all, more information Including wiring diagrams, and hose diagrams, but their is just alot more info in the Chilton manual's overall.
 
I have a Haynes, Chilton, and Ford shop manual (on cd).

Out of those 3 the Ford shop manual is the best but most may not have access to it. Comparing the two more readily available, the Chiltons book seems to run circles around the Haynes one.

If you simply compare the thickness difference between the two, the Haynes manual looks more like a magazine. I could go on and on about the differences, but in the end, my Chiltons manual is the filthiest.
 
the one thing about the ford cd is that it wont install on a vista machine. i think that is because it is a 16 bit installer and vista doesn't support 16 bit programs any more

but i was able to install and run it on a virtual machine running on my vista computer.