When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Mainly meant as a '63 question but actually applies to later years I guess.
We've all heard about the coupe roof dies being too small. The intended inside dimensions being used for the outside dimensions. They used the dies anyway and had to bend in the tops of the doors, etc.
My question is did they have to modify the front/rear glass and their associated trim or did they force those too? Would sure explain the rear glass/trim and the windshield top trim being a bear.
They had the windows down when they bent the tops of the doors in. They were making sausage, they didn't modify anything eles. Hence, the windows drag in the channels.
Last edited by vettsplit 63; 04-18-2019 at 02:34 AM.
The question is about the front and rear glass and I don't recall, and have not read, where any mods were made in those pieces to accommodate the **** up on the coupe roof measurement.. From all I've found the "cheap seat" was to have a beefy guy on the factory floor "reef in" the top of the door frame with a knee in the middle of the door. Original doors will show a crease where this was done..... By the time the issue was discovered and a corrective action identified the C2 production run was far too deep into its final stages to make it financially reasonable to fix...
I guess I didn't catch that.....RIF .. I don't have a lot of experience on windshields on 63s, only put in two, but they both were a bitch. I was afraid I was gonna break the glass getting it in. and yes I did use the string method with lots of lube. and a rubber mallet... Back glasses? They were easy, but then there is no reason why they wouldn't be.
To add to Frank's post, I remember the drivers side roof panel being filled just a bit on my 63 coupe when painting it years ago. The filler looked exactly like the factory panel adhesive. No factory filler that I remember on the passenger side, but I'm sure I massaged it with some body filler.
The door fit could be pretty bad on later 63's -- here is my unmassaged DS door - the top front edge stands "proud" of the "A" pillar well over 1/4"....it always bugged me and my bodyman worked the area to look better after much discussion....it looks decent now...
The door is original and the body number (334) on both doors match the number elsewhere on the car...
I see four different places on a built car that suggests GM cheated on the body build to make the doors fit. Four places aside from any door bending.
Take a little here, lose a little there, etc., etc.
Simply bending the door frame in wouldn't cut it. Takes more finesse than that but the finesse you worked on at the top of the door will show someplace else unless you alter body lines/surfaces..
This story has never really made much sense to me. I don't really think the fiberglass panel itself would affect the window fit or the surround trim because that is all pretty much set by the birdcage structure itself. Has any one from way back then said they actually modified the birdcage in any way to accommodate the roof panel issue - that they shortened the pillars or rough fit the pillars lower in the assembly jig before welding? The panel sets on top of the bonding strips on top of the birdcage. If there was no change in the bird cage assembly then I'm not sure how the roof panel mold mis-match would really change anything other than the roof panel would be a bit short at the fender top behind the door and at the base of A-pillar. That was probably made up for in the bonding joint with bonding adhesive.
But, there is probably something about this story that I don't know.
I must be the luckiest guy on the planet. I’ve had several 63 coupe’s with original paint and the doors fit fine I’ve had early cars, middle of the Vin numbers and very late cars and never had a door fit problem. I think most of the problems are these cars got hit so many times and were repaired by people that didn’t know what they were doing. Weatherstripping on the doors was always a problem until they re-produced a very soft weatherstrips. As far as putting glass in, other than some of the poor reproduced glass, if you put an original windshield in it to fits perfect and the trim goes right on.
I think there is something to it, I would love to see if there was bodywork under that original paint on your cars.
I have noticed on many 63 cars how the vertical windshield side trim is much closer at the top vs the bottom, sort of like if someone bent the door top in a bit. On my coupe the door gap evens out if you just lift the door out at the front top A pillar but the top horizontal door fiberglass opens up and does not lay against the rubber that's attached to the top birdcage.
I do know It's made reference to in Noland's book.
This story has never really made much sense to me. I don't really think the fiberglass panel itself would affect the window fit or the surround trim because that is all pretty much set by the birdcage structure itself.
Good point Dan. The front glass is for sure set in the birdcage. The rear window though is set into the top's molded recess.
With an error this large I would think the junction of the tail light panel, rear fender and top would be holy hell. Then there's the gas door.
Good point Dan. The front glass is for sure set in the birdcage. The rear window though is set into the top's molded recess.
With an error this large I would think the junction of the tail light panel, rear fender and top would be holy hell. Then there's the gas door.
That's a good point too on the rear window. But as long as the opening was properly molded in the panel, the height of the panel didn't really make any difference as far as the glass dropping it. I'm convinced the fit and bonding of many of the body panels was not nearly as precise an operation as many might believe - at least precise in terms of uniform panel gap, panel position and panel height.
Last edited by DansYellow66; 04-18-2019 at 08:05 PM.
Keep in mind the top of the roof was off by design only by the thickness of the fiberglass panel. The St Louis body process back then could easily have varied that much anyway and the tolerance stack of all the parts involved didn't help. If I remember correctly they tweaked the door bonding process and the metal reinforcement to bring the door header down. There were talented door fitters to be sure also.
Keep in mine in those days you didn't have magazine writers going around cars with strait edges and calipers to check body fit all they cared about is what happened when you stood on the GO pedal.
Mark
I had a superb article on the door fit issue (Dobbins mebbe) that I can't find...it showed the dimensions and issues with this whole topic. The roof dimension error and "reefing" the doors in distort the curve at the door-to-roof transition so that it is actually somewhat flat....not perfectly curved. Not always super apparent but that's what happens and then you get to fight issues with good repro upper roof door ledge weatherstripping.
One of those cases where "perfect is the enemy of as good as you can get it"
04-17-2019, 08:51 PM
Coupe Roof---Die(s) Too Small
