Hi All,
Finally getting some time on my car again. One of the issues I have kicked down the road is the side window vertical seals. I bought all new for my very late Mk2 a few years ago and they have been in the car for over a year with the windows rolled up. They are a molded rubber with a fuzzy finish where they touch the glass. They fit in the channel perfectly (I think) with just a bit of the rubber standing proud of the frame and the lip in the frame fitting into the molded-in groove in the seal material. Though they look great, the windows are nearly impossible to wind up and down. It's as if the opening is too narrow and is pinching the glass with too much force.
As mentioned, my 1966 is a very late Mk2 and I did purchase the seal (From Moss Motors, I think) for a "late" Mk2. I have two sets of window frames and used the better ones for the car but I don't know if they are the originals. I did measure the opening and came up with 0.460 inches for both the spares and the set in the car, so I don't think I installed a "late" seal in an early car.
I'm hesitant to put any sort of lube on the seals but maybe that is the answer?
Has anyone else run into this issue? Should I just use the adhesive backed felt that seems to be available for "early" MK2s?
Thanks in advance,
Craig

 

From my spares book, they changed the door glass at the same chassis numbers that they changed the seal from felt to to flocked rubber. The later types started at chassis numbers 162651, 179010, 230298, 222289 respectively 3.4,RHD/LHD and 3.8 RHD/LHD. SNG list both felt and the seal that you have. I don't know what changed in the side glass. I can only guess that they reduced the thickness slightly though that's a bit surprising.

According to Nigel Thorley's 'Original Mk1/2' book, the change in seal came with a change in the window frame, which doesn't match with what I understand from the spare parts book.

Either way, there's a need to match the seal to the glass or frame or, as we are all used to doing, improvise. At this stage, I don't see that there's anything to lose in a applying a smear of grease.

My January 1963 car has felt. It's worn away in places and I replaced some with foam rubber strip decades ago. The driver's door window on my car could do with some extra stiffness as it's easy to raise and lower by a hand against the flat surface.

 

Hello Peter,
Thank you for the input. Based on the car numbers, my car is definitely in the "late" category.
I did some measurements between the frames I used and the second set of frames. Measurements are in inches.... my calipers are the old dial type. The frames I used have an opening in the 0.400 to 0.450 range while the ones I did not use are 0.450 to 0.475 range. I"m pretty sure that the ones I did not use were the originals since no one would buy spares with chrome as poor as the chrome on those. I supposed a nominal 0.050 inches could make a difference. The glass is very consistently 0.200. I would be curios as to the thickness of the "early" glass.
I'm thinking I will try a little grease to see if that makes a difference. If not, I think I will try one set of felt seals and see if that works.
Would you mind measuring your glass thickness or if anyone else has an older car and glass thickness measurement, that would be appreciated.
Thanks
Craig

 

I have had windows in all sorts of Jags getting very tight to the point where electric windows are stalling.
I have had a lot of success with silicone spray lubricant on the tracks and glass
It is not ideal as I avoid silicon in older cars as it is a PITA especially when repainting bodies or refinishing woodwork.
However, when original specs. are missing on 60-year-old cars "any port in the storm" is reasonable

 

My glass measures 0.202 and the frame 0.42 or 0.43, which match yours. I think Bill's advice is good. If you want to be more careful about spreading silicone oil spray, you could use silicone furniture polish instead.

Going back to the sizes, mine should be the early type and they certainly have a felt seal, but the sizes seem closer to your late ones, which is confusing. It might be a case of Jaguar not being very precise about production changes or the sizes always having a wide tolerance.

 

I have let the silicone spray settle in for for several days and wound the window up and down many times and it is still very stiff. Better..... but still too tight. I tried to order a set of felt seals for an "early" Mk2. Of course neither SNG or Moss has both the front and rear seal in stock. I received the front from SNG and waiting for the back to take an airplane ride from the UK. It seems like nothing I need is ever in stock.

 

A followup to my post above.
The silicone spray helped. a little but it still felt like I was going to break something. I ordered enough of the the window channel felt for earlier cars to do one window and it now glides up and down. It is not at all loose but rolls up and down with what seems like reasonable effort.
Given this success, I ordered enough from SNG Barratt to do the rest of the windows.
I guess this is just a case of a reproduction part not being quite the same as the original. It's a shame since the seals looked great, fit into the channels very nicely and cost a lot of money.
If anyone is interested in giving the seals a try in their car, PM me. I don't want to just throw them away.
Craig

 

My 1966 3.8 MkII, owned by me since 1971 and completely original, has felt seals between door and glass. It has made water to enter the door which have rusted internally.

I don’t have the MkII/340 Spare Parts Catalogue at hand but I think the rubber seals were introduced with the 240/340. They have a chromed strip at the top of the doors to which the seals are fixed I believe.

 

I'm not sure when they were introduced, but certainly the last cars, 240 and 340, had them. The last time that I searched, no one stocked the chrome strip. I believe the early XJ cars used chrome strip with the same cross section, though different length, but they are also out of stock. Unless some other car used the same type, I guess the only way to obtain some is from the scrap yard.

 

I think as you that the rubber seals on the 240/340 are fixed to the chrome strips, which were introduced for this purpose. I will come back when I have the Spare Parts Catalogue with parts numbers etc.

 

my two cents:
I would test the problem by removing the window channel rubber entirely and cranking the window up & down, just to make sure the difficulty is not from the regulator crank mechanism.

It the window raises and lowers easily without effort, then you know it is the channel rubber.

In my '65 S type, the channel rubber is intact but it isn't exactly super smooth to raise and lower the glass, however, it isn't stiff either as you describe yours. I've never had to mess with windows in 21 years of ownership, in any weather.

 

I have completed the instal of the felt in the window channels and the windows are rolling up and down just as you would expect. I'm calling that solved.
My Mk2 is within 200 of the final LHD 3.8 Mk made and it has the chrome strip that holds the rubber window scraper as opposed to the earlier cars that had the felt "window frizzies" on the inside and outside of the glass. I think I saw a reference to where that changeover happened and its was just a few cars before mine was make. I also think it was always used on the S-Type. My parts book does not list the chrome strip / rubber scraper parts and the rest of my book is pretty up to date.
I believe Peter is correct in that the chrome strip is NLA. I looked everywhere years ago and finally got some straight used pieces from a gent on this forum. I had them rechromed and trashed my originals as they were so bent and torn. The rubber insert is still available, likely because the profile was used on other cars.

 

https://www.sngbarratt.com/English/U...0SEALING(11323)

I came across this on the SNG Barratt website. If it's the same section, I guess it could be cut down to fit our cars.