Bonded windshield on a SII

Hello all,

I has to get a windshield replaced on my modern-ish minivan. I enjoyed observing the efficient process of positioning the glass and applying the adhesive.

Out of curiosity, I asked the technician if he could the same on my SII. Since the SIII has a bonded windshield, it seemed that my question was not too outlandish, at least from a technical point of view. His response was a confident yes.

This triggered the attractive (for my current project) prospect of a “flush windshield” like many do on American hotrods these days (although I probably would not go as far as ordering a new custom glass from Pilkington…).

Just fitting the SII glass in the same way the SIII glass is fitted (minus the chrome trim). Has anyone done it? Any lesson learned? Any reason why it would not work?

(Obviously, originality is no longer a concern, and a SIII glass cannot fit a SII).

Thank you.FB_IMG_1579270431099

1 Like

Interesting idea but what would you use to make a neatly trimmed join between the body and the glass (BBC5889 and stainless trim on the S3 in your diagram)?


This is one of those “be careful what you wish for” things :slight_smile: . The Series III arrangement is notoriously troublesome. Water becomes trapped behind the 5889 rubber strip. That’s why rusted-out windshield apertures are so common. At first blush many assume that the 5889 and 4794 rubbers are sealing strips…but they’re not. They simply hold the bright metal trim in place.

One way around this, I reckon, is to fully seal-off the 5889 strip.

Also, I wonder if the Ser II aperture flange is configured the same way as the Series III. I doubt it, but I’m no authority!

Interestingly, just yesterday I removed the windshield on my Series III. What a mess. The previous installer really bolixed up the installation. But that’s another story.



Is there any known, neat way we could improve on both series? I like the chrome trim, but not the rest and certainly not the installation process. Not sure how it would look without the chrome, either.

Aye, My 94 jeep was recently treated to anew WS ! done in my driveway. First one guy began the task, then joined by another to handle the rather large glass and height of the car.

Not a glue in. classic rubber around the glass and then the lip in the opening.

Very efficient guys… So much better than the old pitted and cracked glass…


Good question

I’ve looked for alternatives to the Series III set-up such as a universal windshield close-out trim, or something from another type of car, but didn’t see any alternatives I liked. I’ve also browsed some rod-and-custom type web pages looking for flush-mount trim products and ideas… but no epiphanies were to be had.

I know of one fellow who entirely filled the cavity virtually flush with the body and stabbed the bright metal trim into the urethane sans the 5889 and 4794 strips, so that the bright metal rests flat on the glass and abuts the body of the car. I never saw any pics of the end result.

Not sure how the Ser II glass is affixed. Is it non-bonded, where the glass fits into a giant rubber and then the rubber is installed on the pinchweld?


I have to correct myself a bit here.

The bright metal trim is held in place by the urethane. The rubber strips close out the gaps between the bright metal and the glass and the body.

But the rubber strips do not seal the glass to the body of the car.


1 Like

That’s right. We found it very hard to get the trim in and in shape and flush at the same time. At best the rubber trim keeps the water, it’s all between the sealant and the rubber between the glass and the lip of the body. Did I mention that I hate the design?..
If just the sealant was visible I imagine it would peel in short order. Now, if the trim was already bonded to the glass and then the glass was fixed into the window opening with a rubber strip and something that expands it…
Or the ‚classic‘ solution where the trim spreads the rubber: why not that?

Thank you folks, interesting conversation.
For my use case the intended expected result would be:

  • no bulky rubber seal
  • no chrome trim
  • glass as flush as possible to body.

What the glass technician did to the minivan in my driveway looked like a very neat, simple process with a robust modern and pleasant result. He used a tiny rubber trim hugging the glass, the rest is sealant.

I need to establish if the SII glass fits in the body aperture in such a way that it would not “fall through”. I will see that when I remove the glass.

I think I am going to try this thing.

I think you will find that the S2 windscreen will fall through the opening. The rubber has a channel both sides - one side holds the glass the other side holds the lip around the windscreen opening.


If you Google “Universal Windshield Trim Moulding” or similar you’ll see a huge variety of choices that look very workable.

For just one example

What I can’t find is a universal product that has a bright metal insert of some sort, even if it’s a fake chrome type of thing, so as to as least somewhat resemble the original appearance.


1 Like

Modern cars have a rubber dam inside the car, and a black silkscreened edge on the windshield, which basically lets you be a complete pig with the sealant and not see the mess. That’s be nice. But it wouldn’t have that olde worlde look.

Thanks, DD! That may come in handy when/if I replace the NLA windshield seal in my 1000SP.

My worry would be the rear screen being sucked out at higher speeds… the front windshield will probably be fine but the rear, especially with windows open, must be somewhat retained. If the urethane is strong enough… but of course the chrome trim is anchored in the sealant in case of the S3 and will play a role. So some positive restraint must be in place, if the rubber lip overlaps all the way it might be okay…
I wouldn’t trust the urethane on its own.

They (link) seem to be confident that 10mm of glue seem okay. But hold your hand out the window at 120mph and imagine that on the whole window area… not confidence inspiring.

That would be a bummer. Only way to solve that would be to weld an extension to the body lip all the way around the aperture… :frowning:

Thanks for that.

I would not want chrome strip so that is one less problem :slight_smile:

I seem to remember that on the Citroën SM you could not wind the windows down above a certain speed: they seemed to have experienced some rear glass popping out when testing at above 100mph and built in a speed triggered safety of some sort.

For my use case, 70 mph will probably never be as much as I ever go :slight_smile: I am thinking if bonding worked on the SIII and all modern cars do it, there must be a way to make this work front and rear on the SII.

Yes the blackened glass edge would need to be done to hide the mess.

The SIII rear glass is mounted exactly the same way as the front, it’s the urethane that keeps it in place, the trim is there just for aesthetic reasons.

1 Like

I would not try it, Eric…

As Doug says the S1/2 design is a far better arrangement, though more fiddly. It drains effectively, preventing rusting - which is a serious drawback on long lived S3. Besides, the ‘glue’ used may cause/contribute to drain clogging…

As an aside; on the S3, the glue adheres to the paint, which adheres to the metals as the sole rust protection. If, or rather when, the paint delaminates from the metal rather than the glue from the paint - the metal is left unprotected…and inevitably rusts.

The S2 set-up ‘never’ rusts…:slight_smile:

xj6 85 Sov Europe (UK/NZ)

xj6 85 Sov Europe (UK/NZ)