I like both looks, but the Shelby windows do have the advantage of not having a huge blind spot.While I can understand why someone would want their car original, I personally think the windows look much better than the vents...
I agree, to put it back stock you would need the outside louvers, the inside fiberglass panels , all the air extractor "guts" and the structural metal. When I had mine apart for restoration, I counted all the individual pieces and IIRC it was about 90... To gather and buy all these pieces individually would be quite a project in itself.Hey Torino, since the piece will not be visible when you are done and all you are looking for is to have the mechanical strength for your vents, I would simply fab up a new piece with the holes in the right place.
Or, perhaps you could offer someone your windows in trade for that piece that they would need to cut out?
Wrong part, wrong year. That is the 67/68 interior vent assembly which is not part of the 67/68 unibody. AFAIK the 65/66 vent support portion of the unibody is not reproduced. When Dynacorn gets around to producing 65/66 fastback unibody shells those bits will obviously be reproduced but I tend to doubt those bit will be available for purchase as stand alone parts.
Aside from being functional, the car just looks better-balanced with the windows. The vents make the back of the roof look squashed, and they have an unfortunate 'busy' look to them.Really? I never understood the point of that conversion. I honestly do not like them. The vents are just cool.
To each his own, I much prefer the vents to the window.Aside from being functional, the car just looks better-balanced with the windows. The vents make the back of the roof look squashed, and they have an unfortunate 'busy' look to them.
Like I said, I can understand someone wanting their car original, but I've never liked the vent look and if I got my hands on a 2+2 that wasn't a pure resto candidate the window swap would be one of the first things on the list.