Classic Mustangs List Archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Watkins, Paul (email redacted)

I was looking through Amazon.Com and wondered if this book (Mustang '64
1/2-'70 Restoration Guide) was a good reference? I have two other books
from Tom Corcoran, one on Shelbys and the other on 64 1/2 - 68 Mustangs.
I really like them for their detailed photographs (especially engine
compartments)!

Can anyone comment?

Thanks!

Paul



---------------------------------------------------------------------
For information on Subscribing and Unsubscribing as well as a list
archive please visit:

antler.webworks.ca/cm

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: John M. Dettori (email redacted)

On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:10, "Watkins, Paul" <(email redacted)> wrote:
>
> [...] wondered if this book (Mustang '64 1/2-'70 Restoration Guide) was
> a good reference? [...]

IMHO, it should be on every Mustanger's book shelf, next to the
"Mustang Recognition Guide", the shop manual for your car, and
Wilson & Taylor "Mustang Restoration Handbook".

I guess an appropriate question would be a reference to do what?
General information, restoration how-to, parts reference, a guide
for correctness?

Telephone book-like in size, the soft bound publication contains
quite a bit of information, although not the way I would like to
see the information presented. Tom Cocoran does, to his credit,
do a very credible job of identifying every part of the 1964-1/2
to 1970 Mustang, with both black and white photos and diagrams.
Part numbers, castings numbers, and even paint marks are shown;
I just didn't find the book easy to use. The book is broken down
by functional area of the car, not year; kind of like a shop manual
covering several models - you have to plow through until you find
the sectional applicable to you. Not pleasure reading material,
but yes a good reference.

Another publication, I find useful is the "Ford Parts Identifier
65/68 Mustang Edition" by Robert Lane, published by Warner Robert.
There is a "69/70 Edition", a "71/73 Edition", a "High Performance
Ford Edition", and others I'm told. The book now comes in 3-hole
binder form, so you can get updates, and corrections for a nominal
amount. Call Warner Robert Productions at 407 696-6279 in Fern Park,
FL. This book comes with instructions on how to use it. It lists
every mechanical part used in the Mustang, with comments as to what
the appropriate deployment of that part was. When you're making a
list of what you need to get for your car, this book is the best.
There are a fair amount of illustrations, supporting text, and bios,
like for high performance versions of engines, suspension components,
etc. There are also statistics in this book, like how many of each
model were made, and a really good index. It doesn't include much
on body / chassis sheet metal.

Hope this helps.

---------------------------------------------------------------
John M. Dettori 86 SVO (2.3l IT)
Divisional VP, Program Trading 70 Mach I (351C-4V)
Paine Webber, Inc. 67 GT conv (289-4V)
New York, NY <reserved 4 67 GT500>
212 713 4683
(email redacted)
---------------------------------------------------------------


---------------------------------------------------------------------
For information on Subscribing and Unsubscribing as well as a list
archive please visit:

antler.webworks.ca/cm

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Watkins, Paul (email redacted)

Thanks John! I REALLY appreciate the extra information on the parts
identifier book too!

Regards,

Paul

> ----------
> From: John M. Dettori[SMTPemail redacted)]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 1998 5:10 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: [CM:9255] Re: Mustang '64 1/2-'70 Restoration Guide
>
> On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:10, "Watkins, Paul" <(email redacted)>
> wrote:
> >
> > [...] wondered if this book (Mustang '64 1/2-'70 Restoration Guide)
> was
> > a good reference? [...]
>
> IMHO, it should be on every Mustanger's book shelf, next to the
> "Mustang Recognition Guide", the shop manual for your car, and
> Wilson & Taylor "Mustang Restoration Handbook".
>
> I guess an appropriate question would be a reference to do what?
> General information, restoration how-to, parts reference, a guide
> for correctness?
>
> Telephone book-like in size, the soft bound publication contains
> quite a bit of information, although not the way I would like to
> see the information presented. Tom Cocoran does, to his credit,
> do a very credible job of identifying every part of the 1964-1/2
> to 1970 Mustang, with both black and white photos and diagrams.
> Part numbers, castings numbers, and even paint marks are shown;
> I just didn't find the book easy to use. The book is broken down
> by functional area of the car, not year; kind of like a shop manual
> covering several models - you have to plow through until you find
> the sectional applicable to you. Not pleasure reading material,
> but yes a good reference.
>
> Another publication, I find useful is the "Ford Parts Identifier
> 65/68 Mustang Edition" by Robert Lane, published by Warner Robert.
> There is a "69/70 Edition", a "71/73 Edition", a "High Performance
> Ford Edition", and others I'm told. The book now comes in 3-hole
> binder form, so you can get updates, and corrections for a nominal
> amount. Call Warner Robert Productions at 407 696-6279 in Fern Park,
> FL. This book comes with instructions on how to use it. It lists
> every mechanical part used in the Mustang, with comments as to what
> the appropriate deployment of that part was. When you're making a
> list of what you need to get for your car, this book is the best.
> There are a fair amount of illustrations, supporting text, and bios,
> like for high performance versions of engines, suspension components,
> etc. There are also statistics in this book, like how many of each
> model were made, and a really good index. It doesn't include much
> on body / chassis sheet metal.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> John M. Dettori 86 SVO (2.3l IT)
> Divisional VP, Program Trading 70 Mach I (351C-4V)
> Paine Webber, Inc. 67 GT conv (289-4V)
> New York, NY <reserved 4 67 GT500>
> 212 713 4683
> (email redacted)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information on Subscribing and Unsubscribing as well as a list
> archive please visit:
>
> antler.webworks.ca/cm
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
For information on Subscribing and Unsubscribing as well as a list
archive please visit:

antler.webworks.ca/cm

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: MrFomoco (email redacted)

John M. Dettori wrote:
>

> Another publication, I find useful is the "Ford Parts Identifier
> 65/68 Mustang Edition" by Robert Lane, published by Warner Robert.

Despite John's fervent, and oft-posted (::sigh: fondness
for this series of publications, my disdain of them is at
least equal in scope. I do not recommend them and find the
information they present is fraught with error.
--

MrF
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This month's special: NOS Autolite points, rotor, &
condenser for most 6-cylinder engines...........$15
voicenet.com/~fomoco
THE online source for 1960-1973 Ford & L-M info

---------------------------------------------------------------------
For information on Subscribing and Unsubscribing as well as a list
archive please visit:

antler.webworks.ca/cm

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (email redacted)

In a message dated 98-02-11 12:17:50 EST, you write:

<< I was looking through Amazon.Com and wondered if this book (Mustang '64
1/2-'70 Restoration Guide) was a good reference? >>

I've got his one. 95% of it is copies of the line drawings from shop manuals,
the other 5% are charts for colors, spring codes etc. A good reference book
even if you have the shop manual for your year, because sometimes the other
year's books show stuff at different angles, and that can be a hewlp when
you're stuck.......

My 2 cents anyway...

Tom C
'65 k fstbck
'82 GT

---------------------------------------------------------------------
For information on Subscribing and Unsubscribing as well as a list
archive please visit:

antler.webworks.ca/cm

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Bill Lewis (email redacted)

MrFomoco <(email redacted)> wrote:
>
> John M. Dettori wrote:
> >
>
> > Another publication, I find useful is the "Ford Parts Identifier
> > 65/68 Mustang Edition" by Robert Lane, published by Warner Robert.
>
> Despite John's fervent, and oft-posted (::sigh: fondness
> for this series of publications, my disdain of them is at
> least equal in scope. I do not recommend them and find the
> information they present is fraught with error.
> --
>
> MrF

If you do not recommend them, then what?

Allen, you have access to a vastness of original Ford part number
documentation that most on this list don't. Warner Robert has taken
information from similar Ford sources to compile his books. There
are errors, certainly, but I wouldn't say they were "fraught with
error". Not significantly more than the original Ford documents.
Mr. Robert has produced a nice booklet that fills a need.

When I see something better come along, I've got my money ready.

Bill
Ford parts for sale @ wrljet.com/engines/forsale.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------
For information on Subscribing and Unsubscribing as well as a list
archive please visit:

antler.webworks.ca/cm

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: MrFomoco (email redacted)

Bill Lewis wrote:
>
> MrFomoco <(email redacted)> wrote:
> >
> > John M. Dettori wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > Another publication, I find useful is the "Ford Parts Identifier
> > > 65/68 Mustang Edition" by Robert Lane, published by Warner Robert.
> >
> > Despite John's fervent, and oft-posted (::sigh: fondness
> > for this series of publications, my disdain of them is at
> > least equal in scope. I do not recommend them and find the
> > information they present is fraught with error.
>
> If you do not recommend them, then what?

Who says there has to be a good alternative, cheap
and accessible to everyone?

> Allen, you have access to a vastness of original Ford part number
> documentation that most on this list don't. Warner Robert has taken
> information from similar Ford sources to compile his books.

That's where we disagree; based on even a casual perusal
of his compendia, I think calling his sources "similar"
is begging the issue of what is "sufficient". His claims
are not supported by his results. While I'm sure he had
independent sources for his data, I don't think much of them.

> There
> are errors, certainly, but I wouldn't say they were "fraught with
> error".

Again, this begs the issue and points to the essence of
our disagreement. I disagree strongly and that's about
all I can say in less than a few hundred words.

> Not significantly more than the original Ford documents.

No offense, Bill, but I don't think you're in a good
position to make this statement.

> Mr. Robert has produced a nice booklet that fills a need.

"Fills"? I suppose...but how well? I only said
I hold the work in slight regard - you're free to
spend your money where you want.

> When I see something better come along, I've got my money ready.

I have no doubt, but I think Mr Roberts has already
tainted the well. People tend to believe the first
published stuff, with few or no questions. People
write me on a daily basis, citing grossly incorrect
entries from one of his books and expecting me to
supply the correct info. Yet its my experience they
will backslide into convenience/expedience and trust
his information next time!

In short, my job is not to save folks from themselves;
I'll leave that to their clergy. I only gave my opinion
to provide counterpoint to John's.
--

MrF
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This month's special: NOS Autolite points, rotor, &
condenser for most 6-cylinder engines...........$15
voicenet.com/~fomoco
THE online source for 1960-1973 Ford & L-M info

---------------------------------------------------------------------
For information on Subscribing and Unsubscribing as well as a list
archive please visit:

antler.webworks.ca/cm

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Watkins, Paul (email redacted)

OK I think I see everyone's point here. I think everyone's opinion is
valid... For general exploded views, assembly specs, etc... I think
first you look to the Ford literature. If you're not happy with that
cross reference it with supplemental sources (restoration guides) but
for the REALLY nitty gritty stuff (colors, part numbers, correct parts,
etc...) always get a second opinion and don't believe everything you
read!

The reason I asked about books in the first place is I'm really
fascinated and interested in some details like wire colors/routing,
nut/bolt finishes, factory markings and things like that. I'm not
suggesting that I'll actually do any of that on my current project but
since I wasn't even born when a 1966 Mustang was produced, I don't have
a clue what is right and what is not.

The periodicals sadly, do not do many "close-ups" or features on such
trivial topics - I guess it doesn't appeal to the masses And there
aren't any readily available sources for such things in print that I've
found (and I've owned a Mustang for 13 years).

One thing's for sure, I've learned more about this hobby through this
forum than any other means in the past. I wouldn't trade any of the
responses I've received for anything. despite all the varying options I
think we all can say you MUST do your homework wither you're doing a
concourse restoration or a resto mod and that has been made very clear
by everyone.

Thanks!

Paul

> ----------
> From: MrFomoco[SMTPemail redacted)]
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 1998 1:20 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: [CM:9269] Re: Mustang '64 1/2-'70 Restoration Guide
>
> Bill Lewis wrote:
> >
> > MrFomoco <(email redacted)> wrote:
> > >
> > > John M. Dettori wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Another publication, I find useful is the "Ford Parts Identifier
> > > > 65/68 Mustang Edition" by Robert Lane, published by Warner
> Robert.
> > >
> > > Despite John's fervent, and oft-posted (::sigh: fondness
> > > for this series of publications, my disdain of them is at
> > > least equal in scope. I do not recommend them and find the
> > > information they present is fraught with error.
> >
> > If you do not recommend them, then what?
>
> Who says there has to be a good alternative, cheap
> and accessible to everyone?
>
> > Allen, you have access to a vastness of original Ford part number
> > documentation that most on this list don't. Warner Robert has taken
> > information from similar Ford sources to compile his books.
>
> That's where we disagree; based on even a casual perusal
> of his compendia, I think calling his sources "similar"
> is begging the issue of what is "sufficient". His claims
> are not supported by his results. While I'm sure he had
> independent sources for his data, I don't think much of them.
>
> > There
> > are errors, certainly, but I wouldn't say they were "fraught with
> > error".
>
> Again, this begs the issue and points to the essence of
> our disagreement. I disagree strongly and that's about
> all I can say in less than a few hundred words.
>
> > Not significantly more than the original Ford documents.
>
> No offense, Bill, but I don't think you're in a good
> position to make this statement.
>
> > Mr. Robert has produced a nice booklet that fills a need.
>
> "Fills"? I suppose...but how well? I only said
> I hold the work in slight regard - you're free to
> spend your money where you want.
>
> > When I see something better come along, I've got my money ready.
>
> I have no doubt, but I think Mr Roberts has already
> tainted the well. People tend to believe the first
> published stuff, with few or no questions. People
> write me on a daily basis, citing grossly incorrect
> entries from one of his books and expecting me to
> supply the correct info. Yet its my experience they
> will backslide into convenience/expedience and trust
> his information next time!
>
> In short, my job is not to save folks from themselves;
> I'll leave that to their clergy. I only gave my opinion
> to provide counterpoint to John's.
> --
>
> MrF
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> This month's special: NOS Autolite points, rotor, &
> condenser for most 6-cylinder engines...........$15
> voicenet.com/~fomoco
> THE online source for 1960-1973 Ford & L-M info
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information on Subscribing and Unsubscribing as well as a list
> archive please visit:
>
> antler.webworks.ca/cm
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
For information on Subscribing and Unsubscribing as well as a list
archive please visit:

antler.webworks.ca/cm

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: John M. Dettori (email redacted)

On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 20:10, MrFomoco <(email redacted)> wrote:
> John M. Dettori wrote:
>
> > Another publication, I find useful is the "Ford Parts Identifier
> > 65/68 Mustang Edition" by Robert Lane, published by Warner Robert.
>
> Despite John's fervent, and oft-posted (::sigh: fondness
> for this series of publications, my disdain of them is at
> least equal in scope. I do not recommend them and find the
> information they present is fraught with error.

Allen,

You have to do better than that. If you take issue with the Warner
Robert publication, please let us see your side of the story, i.e.
give us an example of the problem. I certainly do not want to use
or direct others to a publication that is of low quality. But it
has been very helpful to me; in fact I keep the first edition on
my book shelf at work. Maybe I've yet to find where the publication
went wrong. This publication has been revised twice since originally
published. I guess it's about time I file some of those updates in
the binder, and read through it again with a jaundiced eye.

When someone of high reputation, integrity, and a perceived sense of
fairness like yourself has "disdain" for a product or service, the rest
of us are bound to wonder why. Help us understand.

---------------------------------------------------------------
John M. Dettori 86 SVO (2.3l IT)
Divisional VP, Program Trading 70 Mach I (351C-4V)
Paine Webber, Inc. 67 GT conv (289-4V)
New York, NY <reserved 4 67 GT500>
212 713 4683
(email redacted)
---------------------------------------------------------------


---------------------------------------------------------------------
For information on Subscribing and Unsubscribing as well as a list
archive please visit:

antler.webworks.ca/cm

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: MrFomoco (email redacted)

John M. Dettori wrote:
>
> You have to do better than that. If you take issue with the Warner
> Robert publication, please let us see your side of the story, i.e.
> give us an example of the problem.

John,

Since you asked...and publicly, too...

Tho' I sympathize, I'm under no more obligation to "prove"
my point than you were to "prove" yours. I wasn't surprised
when you provided no support, but offered only your opinion;
Why, now, be surprised at my doing the same thing?

For that matter, when did you press the author for evidence
of his data's authenticity? I'll bet I was asked for exactly
that more often in three weeks of posting than he's been asked
in the several years he's published those "guides". And when
it seemed important, I provided what was asked. Hey - I don't
mean to seem prosecutorial, but fair is fair.

Personally, whether anyone agrees/disagrees/takes my word for
this doesn't strike me as being terribly important. I just
put it out there as counterpoint and because whether people buy
unreliable texts *does* strike me as important. Just as you'd
like to steer people right, so would I...I don't even have a
competing work to offer, as Bill so kindly pointed out.

> I certainly do not want to use
> or direct others to a publication that is of low quality. But it
> has been very helpful to me; in fact I keep the first edition on
> my book shelf at work.

I, on the other hand, do not own one. All the worse,
my opinion is based on a cursory, 12-minute reading
of someone else's copy. Frankly, that was plenty... :-P
but it will be at least difficult to offer anything
more specific from memory, alone. Perhaps all those
"updates" you mention have improved the work - maybe
he read my articles? ;-)

> Maybe I've yet to find where the publication
> went wrong.

Could be, but that's a common thing - our perceptions
are based on whether something works for us. I cannot
be so lenient, as my own interests are tied so closely
to those of my customers and, now, readers. I have to
look at it from a larger perspective than just that of
my own project car(s). So far as I can, I have to view
things from several perspectives beyond my own...not a
good way to win friends and influence people.

> This publication has been revised twice since originally
> published. I guess it's about time I file some of those updates in
> the binder, and read through it again with a jaundiced eye.

I know what you mean, but there's more to it than
skepticism. If you don't have the information (and
presumably you don't, or why buy his?), how can you
doublecheck his stuff? I'm saying his texts aren't
necessarily of correct vintage, so his data has the
usual holes and errors due to obsolescence...among
other problems.

> When someone of high reputation, integrity, and a perceived sense of
> fairness

Flatterer. ;-)

>like yourself has "disdain" for a product or service, the rest
> of us are bound to wonder why. Help us understand.

Okey-dokey, but I think its plain enough. Now, if
you want something like *examples*, I'll play along
...up to a point. Frankly, if folks by now don't
think I have something valuable to say, they probably
never will.

Thus, if you can arrange to get me some copies, I'll
set out a brief list of subjects where he's bound to
screw up. If that doesn't sound fair, please suggest
something that won't turn into too much work - I'm not
going to do any pro bono editing. ;-)
--

MrF
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This month's special: NOS Autolite points, rotor, &
condenser for most 6-cylinder engines...........$15
voicenet.com/~fomoco
THE online source for 1960-1973 Ford & L-M info

---------------------------------------------------------------------
For information on Subscribing and Unsubscribing as well as a list
archive please visit:

antler.webworks.ca/cm

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: speegle (email redacted)

Watkins, Paul wrote:
>
> I was looking through Amazon.Com and wondered if this book (Mustang '64
> 1/2-'70 Restoration Guide) was a good reference? I have two other books
> from Tom Corcoran, one on Shelbys and the other on 64 1/2 - 68 Mustangs.
> I really like them for their detailed photographs (especially engine
> compartments)!
>
> Can anyone comment?
It has a number of good pictures for details but most of the text and
pictures are copies taken from mid 70's issues of the Ill Master Parts
Catalog. Hard IMHO to read for beginners and could have been done nicer
to help the reader find information (too many little boxes with no or
little explainations) An ok book in my opinion but not for everyone (I
recieved a copy when they first came out and have not used it much)

Jeff Speegle
MCA ANHJ

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Mustang Research Letter
geocities.com/MotorCity/6473/
Mustang & Shelby research, documentation, and help.
Where sharing with one .. means sharing with all.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
For information on Subscribing and Unsubscribing as well as a list
archive please visit:

antler.webworks.ca/cm

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: David McCracken (email redacted)



> For that matter, when did you press the author for evidence
> of his data's authenticity?

Robert Lane has provide me with some free information which I requested,
and he provided it at his expense. I also happen to think very highly of
his publications and do not find them fraught with errors. I am sure that
I am not very knowledgeable compared to Mr. Fomoco but Robert has been very
helpful and I also find his publications very helpful. In all fairness, I
have also found Mr. Fomoco to be very generous and very helpful with my
questions and also willing to share information, as well as being quite
honest.

I do appreciate all the generous help that I have received from so many,
especially concerning my research.
Thanks
David

---------------------------------------------------------------------
For information on Subscribing and Unsubscribing as well as a list
archive please visit:

antler.webworks.ca/cm