Chilton vs. Haynes
Thread Starter
|
Junior User
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Chilton vs. Haynes
Who writes a better technical manual for the Aerostar, Chilton Staff or Haynes? I currently have a Haynes manual for 1986-1990 and I'm trying to get a newer book (Is it even worth doing?)
Postmaster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,818
Likes: 3
Chilton vs. Haynes
From a purely technical standpoint, Chilton's offers more data tables and diagnostic guides. Haynes manuals are more hands-on in approach and often offer more practical information regarding improvised special tools and more extensive photographs than does Chilton.
I use both extensively. The Haynes I find is handy when you wish to get a quick, overall feel for a never-before attempted procedure. My personal beef with most Chilton's guides is their use of pictures and illustrations from other models that often share similar engines and drivetrains. They both may be 4.0 engines but some of their stock pictures are from say a Ranger or Explorer rather than an Aerostar.
I use both extensively. The Haynes I find is handy when you wish to get a quick, overall feel for a never-before attempted procedure. My personal beef with most Chilton's guides is their use of pictures and illustrations from other models that often share similar engines and drivetrains. They both may be 4.0 engines but some of their stock pictures are from say a Ranger or Explorer rather than an Aerostar.
