As I browsed the vendors at Carlisle, I saw the 1974 Owner's Manual being offered in two editions. The First Edition was denoted by the letter A and the Second Edition was denoted by the letter B, both letters being on the back cover. Besides the price, (1st edition was more $), is there a difference? Which one would be correct for a car that was built Jan. 11, 1974?
-
-
Re: '74 Owner's Manual
Ray, talked to you at Carlisle at my Orange '74. Have'nt found my original manual yet, but with my car being a Sept of '73 build date, I 99% sure it'll be the "A" version-not the "B" version I showed you at Carlisle. This is the call I'd make-since they made 37,502 '74 Corvettes, the first 18,751 had the "A" version, the second 18,751 1974 Corvettes HAD to take the "B"!!!!! -
Re: '74 Owner's Manual
For '72, there were actually 3 editions. Each had a print date on the inside title page. Wouldn't '74's also have a print date, and if so, wouldn't that determine which manual your car could have / couldn't have had???Comment
-
Add-on
As Mike mentions, you'll typically find a release date associated with a given revision of the owner's manual and that sets the earliest possible date for it to have shipped with a car.
Now, you'll also find the PN of the manual was almost NEVER changed when the book's revision level rolled. That means the factory used a common inventory bin to warehouse the various revisions (unless there was a specific dirrective to purge inventory and that we'll never know). Hence, after a new revision went to press, you can typically expect it to be randomly mixed with on-hand, earlier inventory for cars being built/shipped and it's the luck of the draw as to what went out the door with a given car.
Of course the probablility of getting an earlier revision with a car built after the replacement revision book's release decreases with time. But, saying what's 'right' for a given vehicle is a black art.
In my opinion, after a given book was revised, I'd accept ANY prior version for a subsequently built car because I know I don't know! Case in point, having studied a number of '65 BB cars (the owner's manual changed revision in early January of '65 sort of coincident to the mid-year introduction of L78), I found a rather equal number of cars built in the March-May timeframe having 1st vs. 2nd revision owner's manuals with them....Comment
-
Re: Add-on
A "release" date (not edition) is not used all the time and especially is lacking on the later(post 72) manuals and the early (53-63)manuals. 63 thru 72 manuals seem to be more often dated. Common sense prevails as there is no research or factual data to confirm when a certain editions was used. Paul is right with his example, however I think mid production cars could use either first or second editions. The old adage applies, meaning that the new editions began when the old editions ran out. Remember owners manuals were installed in the car at the Assembly plant. I've heard of May 67 car having a first edition manual when the second edition 67 manuals are dated April of 67.Comment
-
Re: 'Owner's Manual Revisions
A subsequent edition of a manual is not always the same. Many times the manual changed because something in the options changed. For example, the second editon for 1972 (dated January) explains the addition of a buzzer to the seat belt reminder. The first edition only lists a warning light on the dash.
It seems to me that in those cases, the old manuals would have been discarded, which may not have been true if a printing just ran out. But then who knows?Comment
-
Re: 'Owner's Manual Revisions
I implemented hundreds of running changes in Chevrolet assembly plants over the years during the 60's and 70's, and it was VERY rare to "scrap existing stock" unless there was a safety or significant functional or durability issue involved in the change; Chevrolet watched every penny, and most of the time "exhaust existing stock" was the disposition of the replaced part. When a release engineer wrote an ECR (Engineering Change Recommendation) to replace a part, the value of the existing stock (along with its disposition) had to be included on the ECR before it made the rounds for approval signatures, and the beanies had to be convinced at every approval step that the change was important enough to "scrap existing stock" if that was the direction.Comment
Comment