69 window defogger option

[Frank Bernier]

Hi guys
These are the rear quarter panels that go behind the seats on each side

Why is there a retangular hole is in the drivers side ???
is this for the rear window defogger option ???
if yes ... if the vette did not have that option ... would the retangular hole still be there ?
or is it incorect for a vette without the window defogger option ???
-Frank

[George D.]

Re: 69 window defogger option

You are correct that the hole is for the rear defogger. However, this hole was only put in if the car had the rear defogger option.

[Jack H.]

Re: 69 window defogger option

Methinks the hole (slot) is there because a shoulder harness was standard equipment on coupes and an option on convertibles. So, why have two panel assy's for convertibles? Put a slot in all of them and you've got a common part that can go either way...

[Dick W.]

Re: 69 window defogger option

I agree with Jack that this is for the integral seat belt-shoulder harness that began in 1974. I do not think it is from a 1969.

[George D.]

Re: 69 window defogger option

These panels look very much like the ones on my 69 coup. If they are holes for a shoulder belt, why wouldn't there be a hole on the other side? Also,it looks like there are two small screw holes to attach the defroster vent.

[Frank Vincent]

'68 courtesy lights ???

The trim panel with the hole is pictured in the 1968 AIM (UPC 1, F15) as part number 3921500 and 3935540. It is unclear if there are seperate convertible and coupe pieces, or if these are right and left part numbers (there are also a few previous part numbers).

the "hole" appears to be for the rear courtesy lights ... (see UPC 12, C5, rear harness and lamp).

I believe this was a 1968 only item ... ??

[Frank Bernier]

Re: '68 courtesy lights ???

those 2 panels are from my 69 vette ... not sure if they are original .... this is why before put them back on .. i want to make sure if all driver side panel for 69 vette had the rectangular hole, even if the car did not have the rear defog option ... can anyone can confirm that ?

[Terry M.]

Re: '68 courtesy lights ???

Unless it was installed by mistake I would not expect a hole for a rear defogger, if there was no rear defogger installed.

[Frank Vincent]

Re: '68 courtesy lights ???

My early '69 coupe does not have the panels with a hole.

There should be a part number stamped into the back of the panel someplace. That will help you identify what it is.

If you look at the 1969 AIM (UPC C50), you'll see the rear defogger had nothing to do with this hole.

[Frank Vincent]

Re: '68 courtesy lights ???

If you look at the 1968-69 NCRS Technical Information Manual, 3rd edition, Page 17 ...

"In 1968 coupes, the rear storage area is illuminated by a light at the top of the rear quarter trim panel. Each has a rectangular white plastic lens in a chrome trimmed plastic bezel. In the 1968 convertible, there is a single bulb with no cover in a stamped galvanized metal bracket in the upper left corner of the rear bulkhead"

further ...
"In 1969, a single rectangular lamp in the center of the rear bulkhead illuminates the rear storage are of coupes and convertibles ... "

so, it would appear that your piece with the hole is a 1968 coupe only ...

[Grant W.]

Re: '68 courtesy lights ???

Hello Frank
What you have is 69 rear defrost 1/4 panel. It is NOT a 68 rear 1/4 panel with the lights. 68 rear 1/4 panel with lights is more centered. Also the tell tail sign that you have a rear defrost 1/4 panel is the 2 corner screws that hold the plastic vent. If your car has no signs of rear defrost motor or wires then the panels could have been replaced at one time and the originals discarded.

[Norris W.]

Re: 69 window defogger option

I tried to post right after this went up this morning but was having password problems and couldn't get in. Anyway, it's a defogger panel, not shoulder harness and not courtesy lights, and the 69 coupe DID NOT have a hole in the panel if there was no defogger option on that particular car. I have 5 69 big block coupes, and 2 of em had defoggers when they left the factory. The other 3 have plain panels with no holes there.

To your question "is it incorrect for a car without the defogger option", the answer is YES, it's incorrect for that car.