The same AIM illustration (and door weatherstrip part number) is used for all midyear coupes in the 1963-1967 assembly manuals.
For 1967 the illustration is on UPC 1Doors-K12 (View "C", see AIM picture below), showing the cuts required to join the two ends of the main door weatherstrip at the bottom-middle of the door. Is this diagram drawn from a perspective as if you were viewing the weatherstrip at eye-level, e.g., if the car was on a lift, raising the bottom of the door up to eye-level?
It appears that making the cuts shown in the diagram will result in much less surface area contact between the two ends being joined together. It seems to make more sense to have the ends cut in a way that maximizes the contact patch (picture #2 diagram below).
Since the weatherstrip is held in place by glue all around the perimeter of the door, I'm guessing the joint between the two ends is not critical for keeping the weatherstrip attached. Is there some other reason (fit or function) why the AIM instruction seems to minimize the contact patch between ends?
For 1967 the illustration is on UPC 1Doors-K12 (View "C", see AIM picture below), showing the cuts required to join the two ends of the main door weatherstrip at the bottom-middle of the door. Is this diagram drawn from a perspective as if you were viewing the weatherstrip at eye-level, e.g., if the car was on a lift, raising the bottom of the door up to eye-level?
It appears that making the cuts shown in the diagram will result in much less surface area contact between the two ends being joined together. It seems to make more sense to have the ends cut in a way that maximizes the contact patch (picture #2 diagram below).
Since the weatherstrip is held in place by glue all around the perimeter of the door, I'm guessing the joint between the two ends is not critical for keeping the weatherstrip attached. Is there some other reason (fit or function) why the AIM instruction seems to minimize the contact patch between ends?
Comment