• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Tired of the sucky, biased Mustang books
My wife just picked up a copy of Peter Henshaw's "Mustang" http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/mustang-...1101103613 and man does it suck.

There are all sorts of technical errors, mispellings (carburettor... really?), wrong picture descriptions ('69 'verts in the '67 section called '67 'verts), and obviously disdain for anything NOT '70-and-older. He even slid a section in about the ugly European Capri which was mysteriously hidden in the 1983 section... with no mention of 1983 Mustangs to speak of.

The 1971 section is titled, "Wrong Car, Wrong Time," and has a whopping 3 pages of borderline hatred for the car, along with two (count 'em - 2) pictures of the same low-optioned Mach 1 (non Ram-Air, no stripes, dog-dishes, no rear spoiler, etc.). This is right after the dozen or so pages for the 1970, dozen or more for the '69, '68, '67, and almost thirty each for the '66 & '64.5-'65.

I say, don't waste your money. Every car pictured has Colorado plates - it's obvious he didn't stray too far from his own local club or that one trip he made to the Denver/Colorado Springs area (written in the Queen's English, nonetheless).

Here's the review I posted at Barnes & Noble:
"Don't waste your money. Chocked full of mispellings, technical errors, mislabeled pictures, and obvious bias against anything besides 1964.5 through 1966 Mustangs - especially disappointed in the typical lack of coverage for '71 through '86 years (except for the SVOs). It's obvious the author looked no further than a single Mustang club, as pretty much every picture features a car with Colorado plates. As an owner of a 1971 Mach 1, this is typical of the majority of those who call themselves Mustang enthusiasts, so I guess he's pandering to a specific crowd.

Aside from everything else, the pictures provided are clear and well composed - the vehicles featured are all very nice specimens, and the 450-page book makes a great paperweight on breezy days."


[Image: mach1sig2.gif]
I picked this book up at hastings and read it a bit...I agree totaly!!..I didnt noticed any of the mispellings but it was a very bias book..And very typical...I was just looking at the only review..Isnt this the most bullcrap fake review you ever heard? I think we need to post a few of our own and see if they go up.............The review only review....5 stars.. " This book has extremely detailed information and huge color photos. It's simple to understand and encompasses the entire history of the Mustang. a perfect book for an enthusiast! " <~~~~~~Sounds like the author did his own review too me..lol
I guess my review got lost because it immediately asked me to 'register' and I completed that task - never got a 'acknowledgment' message.

I just resubmitted it.


[Image: mach1sig2.gif]
Great reviews! Sounds like not much of an editing job was done.
Agreed fully! Most mustang books I’ve read spend most of the articles telling me how lee Iacocca hated the 71- 73 than anything good? I have never understood why our cars get no respect. In all the car shows I’ve been to around here the 71/73 are always in the same class as the 74/78. Sometimes not even parked close to the other mustang? Crazy….

[Image: keytft.png]
I have two Mustang books, including Peter Henshaw's. Both are equally bad and deserve no further comment.


[Image: 25yvyp3.jpg]
madwevl;61363 Wrote:I have never understood why our cars get no respect.
9" rear.. 351 cleveland.. toploader trans... pure garbage Dodgy
I got that book for Christmas, although I like the pictures of the cars in the book, that is just about it. When I got it I immediately flipped to the 71-73 mustang section and pretty much had to put the book down before I threw it across the room.

[Image: 25rnz1y.jpg]

I have found that the more dated books are likely to give our car a fair shake. The best book I've found so far is simply titled Mustang! and was published in 1979. It includes all the clay models for the early mustangs including ours.
I know now I belong here.
For far too long 71-73 have had to put up with a bunch of crap.
When I read this thread I remembered why I would stop posting or "helping out" on other websites.
I had one guy tell me my $ 10k 351C was an antique and too old......
My opinion is stroker 5.0 based motors are as or more common than 350 chev's.
I’m ok with more exotic 400 cid+ 302 and W motors……
If I wanted something easy and cheap I would have built a 1st gen Camaro…..
More is NOT better, unless it’s CID.
Long live all of the 429's and 351c's.......
Share Thread:  

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Rental Mustang question... soonerbillz 3 318 06-14-2018, 12:13 PM
Last Post: Boss1Ray
Wrench 1973 Mustang greyskier 3 144 06-08-2018, 04:40 PM
Last Post: greyskier
  "I SPY A MUSTANG" Boss1Ray 2 167 06-05-2018, 01:02 PM
Last Post: OMS
  Mustang crash eddyw 8 1,341 06-01-2018, 02:34 PM
Last Post: Boss1Ray
  Locating my 1971 Ford Mustang Boss 351 Rwilkosz 21 3,542 05-15-2018, 07:55 PM
Last Post: Rwilkosz
  73 Mustang convertible 6 cyl 73429mach 7 273 05-14-2018, 03:47 PM
Last Post: Boss1Ray
  Taillight functionality of 71 Mustang?? neurotoxin312 3 303 05-11-2018, 03:52 PM
Last Post: Mister 4x4
  Mustang build on YouTube Boss1Ray 12 673 04-28-2018, 07:22 PM
Last Post: c9zx

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)