LWB Window Regulators

Hello All,

As this Thread is quite lengthy, I’ve made it over two Posts.

Awhile ago I Posted a request for Forum Members, that were able, or willing, to check out the configuration of the Window Regulators of LWB E Types; S2 2+2 and all S3 Models. I got no takers, so I’ll explain the reason for the request and provide my findings to perhaps help others to not go down this rabbit hole.

A few weeks ago a client brought his S2 2+2 to my shop to have the RH Window Regulator replaced with new; the part number of which is BD32616.

When the new part arrived, pictured below in the Window Up position and you’re all probably saying “OK, nothing wrong there”,

I stripped the door and got the new unit in place, complete with window attached, ready to secure it to the door frame via the Winding Mechanism housing and a four threaded stud bracket, which I’ll refer to as the Centre Frame Bracket. I toiled with this task for many a minute, until in utter frustration, I removed the Window Regulator from the door. On comparison with the original part removed, it was the mirror image as shown in the following picture.

Now I expect that you’re saying, “so, the one on the Left is a LH unit and of course it will be the mirror image”. However, the one on the Left is the Window regulator removed from the Right Hand door of the client’s car and following my normal practice, notwithstanding that only the RH door was being work on and therefore, no chance of mixing up L and RH parts, it was immediately marked on removal, R Hand for Right Hand.

In fact, the Window Regulator on the Left above that appears to be a Left Hand unit in the Window Up position, is a Right Hand unit in the Window Down position as shown in the following picture.

Following is a scan of the page from a Jaguar Parts manual showing the part of focus. Now I hear the muttering, “But it’s shown the same in the Parts Manual, as the New RH Window Regulator in the first picture above. Surely someone has mixed the Old Window Regulators up in the past.”

Well it does seem that way; but there is a mistake in that drawing. What is unequivocal is that, irrespective of whether the assembly is Left or Right, the tail of the Scroll Spring must always be tethered at the bottom of the lug and not at the top as shown in the picture above and more clearly in the following picture.

If tethered at the top of the lug, the spring would load up as the window is wound up. In this case, the Window Winder Mechanism would be fighting both the Scroll Spring and the weight of the window; that would be illogical. The Scroll Spring should load up as the window is wound down and therefore, the stored energy of the spring in the window down position will assist in raising the window and resisting the tendency of the window falling down.

Now I hear you saying, “So they made a mistake when drawing the spring, so what”

Well, if they made a mistake drawing the spring, why not the whole assembly? The part shown in the Parts Manual Picture above appears to be a RH unit in the Window Up position except that the tail of the spring is tethered at the top. If that drawing was flipped about its long axis, it becomes a LH unit in the Window Down position and the tail of the Scroll Spring would be tethered at the bottom as it should.

During the travel of the Window from Up to Down, the channel at the bottom of the window must cross past the lower horizontal member in the Parts Book drawing above. Accordingly, the Old, Original part shown as a LH unit in the Window Up position following,

becomes a RH unit in the Up position, configured as shown in the following picture.

Now I hear you saying, “cut to the chase and get on with it” and also, “so, the Window Regulators can be installed in either door.” Actually, this is Not possible.

If you try and install the part, configured as shown in the following picture in a RH Door, the parts that has the Part Number BD32616 and is marketed as a RH assembly,

you get profound interference with the Inside Door Latch Handle remote bar as shown in the following picture, even before the Centre Frame Bracket is fully home, flush with the inside face of the door frame, also shown in the following picture. Further, if the above unit is installed in a RH Door, when the window is wound down, the component of the Window Regulator indicated with the “Interference Label” will foul with the Vibration Damping Bracket and stop further progress.

If the Window Regulator is configured as shown in the following picture, an original part removed from a RH door,

then no interference whatsoever occurs, as shown in the following picture. The part that was shown to interfere with the Inside Door Latch remote bar and Vibration Damper Bracket is well out of picture in the direction of the Red arrow in the following picture, with no chance of interfering with the Vibration Damper, or other components inside the door.

Series 1 LWB cars are a different story. The remote bar for the Internal Door Latch is on the outside of the frame and therefore, there is no internal Vibration Damper and Bracket to deal with, accordingly; the Window Regulator can be configured either way and will fit equally well in either door.

It’s been my observation that the Window Regulator configured as shown in the very first picture is the norm for S1 cars, but an impossibility with S2 and S3, LWB cars if the Vibration Damper and Bracket haven’t been omitted.

Over the last couple of weeks, I’ve inspected fourteen LWB S2/S3 cars and only one had the Window Regulators fitted, configured as shown in the very first picture. In this example, the car had been assembled in a Panel Beating shop that had no experience with E Types and using the Scroll Spring tail tether position as the identifier of the handedness of the unit, it was clear that it had been assembled in the wrong door. The Vibration Damper and Bracket had been removed.

In summary, it’s my opinion, based on a lot of evidence and logic, that the Window Regulators being sold by at least one After Market Supplier and many eBay sellers, are incorrectly specified; Left for Right and Vice Versa. Accordingly, if you’re in the market for a LWB Window Regulator, caveat emptor.

If still not convinced, go to the next Post.

Regards,

Bill

Hello All,
If still not convinced, read on.

In the following picture, the piece of tape bearing the label Damper Standoff, indicates the position and approximate plan view size of the Vibration Damper Bracket, attached via pop rivets to the inside of the door frame; the height of the bracket from the inside surface of the door frame is circa 25mm. The fixing, through which the internal door latch lever remote bar runs, stands out a further 10mm.

The same picture above shows a Window Regulator that is being incorrectly marketed as a Right Hand assembly, BD32616, superimposed on a Left Hand Door, positioned where it would be when attached inside the door frame. You will note that the area enclosed in the Red Ellipse is nowhere near the position of the Vibration Damper Bracket. During the travel of the Window from the full up position, shown in the above picture, to fully down, the parts indicated in the Red Ellipse come no closer to the Vibration Damper Bracket. This is the only configuration where its possible to install the Window Regulator, without omitting the Vibration Damper Bracket; totally opposite the specification of the supplier.

The following picture shows a Window Regulator that is being incorrectly marketed as a Left Hand assembly, BD32617, superimposed on a Left Hand Door positioned where it would be when attached inside the door frame. You will note that the bottom horizontal member is right over where the Vibration Damper Bracket is located and attachment of the Window Regulator to the frame will be prevented by the Vibration Damper Bracket.

The following, show the result of attempting to assemble an original Window Regulator complying to the incorrect specifications of the above Right Hand Window Regulator, BD32616 with a Right Hand Door. After applying very firm pressure against the resistance posed by interference with the Vibration Damper Bracket only two of the threaded studs passed through the door frame sufficient to engage a nut by a couple of threads. It is simply impossible to install the Window Regulator configured as shown in the above picture in an S2 or S3 door unless the Vibration Damper Bracket has been omitted. And who in their right mind is going to do that? Two Wrongs don’t make a Right.

The fitting of Window Regulators to S1 2+2 cars is a totally different story, because the internal door latch lever remote bar is on the outside of the Door Frame and therefore, there is no Vibration Damper Bracket for the Window Regulator to contend with. Accordingly, any handedness of Window Regulator can be installed in any handedness of door.

I have noticed that many of these Window Regulators are being incorrectly specified on eBay and the untrained eye would be unlikely to pick the issue.

Regards,

Bill

Maybe I’m missing something, as I’ve never worked on a LWB door, but it appears to me the primary difference between the two regulators is orientation of the lower arm, the one with the sharp curve at the rear end. In one, the arm hooks UP at the rear, while in the other it hooks DOWN at the rear. Is it possible that one arm is simply incorrectly assembled into the regulator? What would be the reason for that sharp bend if NOT to clear the damper bracket?

I think it’s because he bought ones for north of the equator by mistake :man_facepalming:

But if so, wouldn’t the handles just turn the opposite direction?

1 Like

The purpose of the bend in the arm can only be to clear the door handle bolts, if they stick out. There is no mechanical difference between them whatsoever - you make that shape anything you like so long as the two pivot connections at either end are in the same place in the x-y plane.

If the supplied car originally had no door handles fitted then the arm bend becomes totally trivial.

kind regards
Marek

But does the bend not also help clear the damper bracket? That’s what Angel pointed out in his first post as the reason the new regulator cannot be fitted. I understand it make do functional difference in it’s ability to raise/lower the window, but it certainly does change what may or may not interfere with through its range of travel.

It doesn’t matter. There are two possibilities:- it is just geometry - there to clear something OR it is a legacy item for some similar reason which is now obscure as the design changed. The hand grip design may have changed. It isn’t for any useful mechanical reason.
kind regards
Marek

In restoring my S2 OTS, I failed to mark the regulators when I disassembled the doors. so recently I attempted to determine which one goes to which side. I spent many hours analyzing and installing and removing them from the doors and looking at the new replacements and parts book drawings as Bill has done. My conclusion agrees with Bill that on the SWB cars they are interchangeable however I have yet to completely assemble all the workings in the doors including windows and rails so that will be the final answer.
Regarding the differences, there are 3 that I see:
The position of the hooked arm as described
The position of the spring hook
The location where the arm is riveted to the toothed sector (opposite sides)

I suspect the design engineers had a good laugh about how confused they would make us with this design.

Good luck Bill!

Hello Ray,
You have it exactly.

You can assemble either a L or RH unit in either door and they will each work as they should; but, in an S2/S3 LWB door, only if the Vibration Damper Bracket is removed.

I think the mistake by the After Market supplier could have been caused by a legacy issue, because all S1 LWB cars I’ve inspected have the Window Regulator installed configured as follows for the Window Up.

However, there is no confusing S1 units with S2/S3, as the S1 has a different method of attachment of the Window Winder Handle.

What I find hard to understand, because its impossible to assemble the units in respective Left and Right Hand doors in any other way than I’ve described, without removing the Vibration Damping Bracket, is that it seems I’m the first to have raised the issue with the supplier. You have to make a conscious effort to remove this bracket. Why would you?

Regards,

Bill

Should be a simple matter to remove that arm, and re-attach it flipped the other way, no?

Hello Ray,
No on two counts.

  1. Three of the four components of the parallelogram are mirror images of their opposite hand counter parts; they have 3D shape differences.

  2. When I buy a dog, I don’t expect to take it home and have to bark for it.

Regards,

Bill

1 Like

I am assuming that the trapezoid can be moved to make (A) into (B). So which configuration is correct for the 2+2? With the bend (arrow) inward (A) our outward (B)? I know that A is correct for the SWB cars.

I see that (B) is drawn in the 2+2 parts manual but should it have been drawn as (A)? Almost universally when there are handed parts, the RH part will have the lower part number and the LH part will have a part number 1 higher, such as in the window regulators.

Hello Denis,
I suspect that there will be no issue with a Short Wheel Base car, because there is no Vibration Dampening Bracket inside the door for the Window Regulator to contend with.

Regards,

Bill

I thought I’d made it quite clear, that in S2/S3 cars is must be configured as in “A”.

On the original equipment, there are no part numbers. Had their been, it would have been a simple task convincing the supplier and manufacturer as I understand it, that they have it wrong. Their parts do carry a part number stamped into it.

The easy fix for them is to simply swap the part numbers to the opposite handed part.

Regards,

Bill

Ah! I see. That “step” just before the bends was not obvious in the photos.

I never cease to be amazed how the suppliers go to all the trouble and expense of tooling up and/or purchasing parts that simply do… not… fit… I’ve seen rack mounts with the studs placed so they CANNOT be fitted into the the holes in the picture frame. Chrome headlight rings with screw holes that are an inch or more from where they should be. All kinds of rubber seals so thick and hard they cannot possibly be used. Thermostats too thick to mount in the housing without using multiple gaskets. Temp and oil sensors that are so far off calibration they are useless. U-joints where the spider is so “fat” they cannot possibly be installed in the half-shaft mounts. Tappets so thick you’d need 0.05" shims to achieve any valve clearance at all. ALL of these sold by “the usuals”, often for very good money. And, of course, when you point out the problem, the answer is almost always “Huh! We’ve sold lots of those and never had a complaint!”.

Well this just shows the confusion with this particular assembly. For SWB cars my research shows that based on parts book drawings, new parts from the suppliers and a very original pair of assembled S1 OTS doors, item B appears to be correct. However, I would imagine the factory assemblers probably didn’t pay attention and assembled them both ways. It’s easy enough to change the position of the spring to make them work on either side.

Hello Denis,
For the S2/S3 assembly, there can be no confusion; it could only have been installed at the factory one way as outlined in my previous Posts. What’s confusing, is why the “After Market” manufacturers of this part didn’t make sure that it was fit for purpose by identifying the part correctly. Whilst the original parts are void of a part number, clearly a conscious effort must have been made when specifying the part number to be stamped on each specific handed “After Market” assembly.

Regards,

Bill

Hello Ray,
I can’t agree with you more. It’s not even a case where the After Market manufacturers have to design the parts from scratch, but simply copy what worked correctly before.

The following picture shows a sealed lower ball joint that’s used as an upgrade for all Series of E Type.

The QC employed by the manufacturer of this part was either non existing, or rubbish in its criteria and implementation.

Lemforder is the only brand that’s worth considering.

Regards,

Bill

Hi Bill,

I understand your points and agree with you completely.
My post was in response to RC Liggitt who stated that photo A is correct for the SWB OTS and FHC cars whereas my research shows photo B as the accepted correct configuration as per new parts suppliers, parts book diagrams and my examination of an original series 1 OTS door, although it appears it can be and was installed either way.