bajaman

I find that the Factory Service Manual just SUCKS for providing any sort of detailed information all too often. Or conversely it will go into way too much detail on the mundane details.
I mean come on! In the engine removal section it doesn't even show ANYTHING about separating the engine from the transmission, for crying out loud! Hell, it doesn't even describe removing the friggin' fuel lines, nor half the other necessary hoses and electrical connectors!

I just find it amazing that a $100, 5 inch thick manual like this doesn't even begin to have the detail or be as 'user-friendly' as a $20 Chilton's or Haynes manual.

I guess I have just gotten spoiled with the level of detail provided by the Audi manuals I have had in the past. The FSM I purchased with my Quattro I had in '85 had such incredible detail, and if there was ANY difficult or potentially costly mistake possibility for a service point, the book went into great, lengthy detail on special considerations.

I know, I know....STFU and quit my bitchin'...right?

Mahjik

iTrader: (1)

Well, it's all in there, just in different sections. I guess they expect you to jump to the Transmission section if you are removing the engine and need to know how to do it (and so on with the other bits and pieces).

However, some of their instructions are sometimes confusing until after you do it.

AMRAAM4

Actually, the reason for the manual being informative, yet vague, is because it is designed for shop TECHNICIANS. Not for Joe Slapnut who has his car in his garage and learns to work on it. The manual is designed to be used in conjunction with the TRAINING the technician received on the car during its time of sale.

bajaman

lol.....too bad most dealers didn't bother training their Techs to work on the FD, huh?

I know what you mean, but what you are saying would hold true for the Audi guys, and believe me....after working with a FSM like that, you don't want to go back!

Mahjik

iTrader: (1)

While I agree that they do expect the person(s) who is viewing the manual to have some training, they do realize that these manuals will be used for years after training does not exist for these particular cars.

As bajaman man pointed out, other FSM are better, and some are worse.

If Mazda only intended people with training to use the manual, all they would have put in it would be the troubleshooting information as the rest would have been covered in training.

To me, it looks like the manual was created and written by a mechanic. I see the same things in my software development field. Documentation created by a developer is completely different than documentation created by someone who does that for a living. The developers tend to "leave things out" which they just expect everyone to know which is the same kind of things that seem to happen with the FD3S FSM. Never looked at any of the older RX-7 manuals though.

bajaman

Yes, I believe you are right, Mahjik. The manual is written for someone who starts out on "step 5" rather than 'step 1.

I have seen the same thing in my line of work which is machining. When we'd get a newbie in, the people that were training him/her would be leaving out some basic, fundamental steps simply due to the fact that it had been YEARS since they'd been at that entry level.

As far as the issues I have with the FSM, I am a skilled mechanic, I have been working on cars for 30 years now and have pulled and rebuilt many different engines over the years in cars, trucks, and boats.
But I have to admit that this RX-7 is kicking my ***!