Manning

If you have to reuse the upper portion of the existing door panel, any ideas about filling in where the hole for the switches are now (if you also do the manual windows like I am now)?

Also, I was thinking FG would be easy to mold up. You could even (ugh) use a chopper gun (read cheap) like they used to do to build those retched Bayliner boats. Nothing about that would make it impossible to cover in vinyl and you don't have to reuse the existing upper portion of the interior panel. Thoughts?

tifosiman

Well, to add to this, I was able to examine a set of RS panels for a 911 while working on mine and they use a thin, balsa-wood type material for the backing, covered with vinyl. I am using almost the same material, sourced from a crafts and fabric store.

Tifo

Manning

Re. fiberglass, I'm just thinking from a mold-ability standpoint. Would keep from having to trash original door panels just to get at the upper section.

What is the fiberboard type junk that our current panels are made off?

SidViscous

"What is the fiberboard type junk that our current panels are made off?"

Recycled toilet paper

Ken D

A one-piece full fitting panel would be best IMO. I wouldn't cut up my original panels. Having to buy a second set of donor panels to 'kitbash' is just additional $$ better spent on something else.

Skip

I hear ya on the reuse of the original panel. My worry is cost/affordability. A complete molded piece with contours and such is going to be much more expensive than flat fiberboard with holes and vinyl applied. I would just be guessing, but it would raise the price 3X to go that way. With the manual window conversion costing $250, these things can't pass an additional $200. Once you remove 13-20 year old door panels and window motors, there's not much value in them after the fact. Also, the switch back to electric windows is not the problem if we just replace the lower portion. The only permanent change would be to the lower portion of the door skin... which, if done right, would be an upgrade in many cases or just simply not noticeable on others. I'd like to steer clear of the complete panel replacement and stick to just the bottoms... but, I am not the customer - you are. Speak to me.

Skip

I think this thread has moved on enough from the "Manual window conversion" to "RS-style door skins" that it requires a makeover. For further info on door skins, see the new post.

Feel free to post here about the window conversion, or the door skins... just want to open up the discussion a bit more.

M758

Skip... Just the lower portion?

I thougth the door panels are all 1 piece?

I know the early panels are all part. Maybe you go complete minimalist and have 1 door panel for both cars. Simple vinyl covering with no moulding for the top and no option for power mirrors.

Not the best pic... but

Dan Gallagher

they are one piece i think, but we are talking about cutting the top part off, the part that continues the line of the dash, and attaching it to a flat custom made piece.

Geo

Yummy. I'm interested. Can I get direct deposit to Paragon? Saves time.

ITS requires either the stock panels or 0.060" aluminum only.

shortyboy

any word on this skip?

Skip

Well, I haven't personally installed one yet. But, I think I have all of the parts identified if you'd like to give it a try.

Joe Jackson

Maybe someone here besides me who has done the manual window conversion can speak to this. I currently have a set of 924 manual lifters in my car. If anyone have closely examined the late style doors they'll find that you have two options for positioning the manual window lifter. In the first (lowest) position, the windows go fully up and down. But, in my car with a late style dash, the cranks hit the dash. In an early car with the different shaped dash, this is not an issue. In the second position (where my lifters are currently set), I can turn the crank but my windows don't go all the way down. Maybe 2 inches or so is left up. This has to do with the angle of the arm coming off the regulator.

I know the first set came from a 924 and I bought a second set supposedly from a 944S2 Euro car that ended up being the same thing. So what gives? Is it possible that I'm just using cranks that are too long (924 style)? Are there shorter cranks out there?

Skip

That's great feedback, Joe - I hadn't heard this one yet. So, if you could check the part # on the cranks against these:

- 321.837.581 - 924, early 944
- 944.555.057.00 - 85.5-86 944
- 944.555.057.01 - 87+ 944

There is usually a molded-in part # on all parts - shouldn't be too hard to find if they are off the car.

I don't have any in hand, but the parts listed should be the only derivations and it does specify two different types for what would be considered the later dash type.

Skip

Also, there are two lifiting mechanism types - this could be the problem with the "mounted properly but won't lower fully".

They are:

477.837.441A (left, right is *442A)- 924/924S/944 83-85.1
944.537.041.00 (left, right is *042.00) - 944 85.5+