Bentley Manual...

[Wayne 962]

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed some strange errors and incorrect information in the Bentley Carrera manuals. For instance, the two very wrong things in the bottom pic of page 102-21.

I keep seeing things, but I never mark them or write them down...

-Wayne

[speeder]

Don't know about the carerra manual, (other than mistakes I've seen mentioned here), but one of our NW Pelicans, might be Doug Z., compiled a list of boo-boos from SC manual. It's funny, but an otherwise excellent, (but could be more comprehensive), manual would have so many goofs.

BTW, did you mean pages 120-121 ?

[Early_S_Man]

Well, what I see on both pages 102-20 AND 102-21 is an engine earlier than a 3.2 laying there for the world to see an earler oil pump and a crankcase with a strainer plate! In fact, it appears to be a '75 2.7 case with the double notches for the main bearing shells ...

Other than it seems out of place in a Carrerra manual ... what else is obviously wrong?

[mskar]

Yep, noticed that there was a table of coil resistance values which did not exist. The do have discussion area and some online clarifications at: http://www.rb.com

[John Brandt]

Wayne, I just wish that in either your book or the Bentley, there would be an actual picture of what the fork seated on the throwout looks like. I think if there were a photo, far fewer people would forget this procedure. (just a suggestion, I didn't personally forget about this)...It was one of my friends, yah that's it, one of my pals.

[TedSlick]

Pgs. 640-6/7 Window adjustment procedures and accompanying photos seem backwards for the coupe vs. targa.

[Wayne 962]

Ooops, forgot to tell. On this page, the rod holders are installed incorrectly, and they are using a generic engine stand which is not good for the case.

Odd, considering that they are using all of the other esoteric Porsche tools...

Warren, I didn't even notice that it wasn't a Carrera motor that they were rebuilding. What hugely glaring oversight for a Carrera-specific book...

-Wayne

[Doug Zielke]

Originally posted by mskar
They do have discussion area and some online clarifications at: http://www.rb.com

Yeah....sure.
I've sent them a lengthly list of errors in the SC manual, with nothing but silence returned from their quarter.

[Jim Sims]

Some editions of Bruce Anderson's Performance Handbook contain a few errors too. One of them listed an incorrect tightening torque (too high) for a rocker arm shaft pinch bolt! The factory shop manuals have a few goofs too plus inscrutable "Porsche English". So many details, so few obsessive checkers and editors and picky customers to boot. What's a technical publisher to do? Jim

[Jdub]

Writing docs (as a business) is all about time to market versus resources versus accuracy. Typical triangle where you can't get all three, but most of two...

An error page would be appropriate at the Bentley site, but then again once the manual is out the focus is on sales. Followup for accuracy is the orphan of this process.

John

[thabaer]

Never heard of a Bentley that didn't have errors, not that it's unique to them.

My set for the '91 200q has different torque numbers for the same part depending on what page you are using. I keep a quick reference sheet of standard torques for common diameter/pitch sizes stuffed in the table of contents of the first volume.

For the red sled, I have these nice, accurate gray and red binders, no Bentley. For additional info of course the Bosch FI & Bruce bibles sit next to the binders along w/ a few others.

[doug petty]

1st thing i did after getting my 85 got my bentley manual, need to find out why my oil light didn't work. just about burnt up my gauge because it calls out the temp sender as the light sender. don't have the book handy now to give the page numbers but bentley for carreras falls very short for serious info. On the other hand bentley for vw's was the best money i ever spent.