thought it might be nice to clarify the differences between early, mid and late wiper arms and blade holders.
arms- flange or plain(straight) caps
blades- curved or straight
finish- satin or polished
All had flared bases
Quote from: EdwardGT350 on January 20, 2018, 12:36:49 PM
thought it might be nice to clarify the differences between early, mid and late wiper arms and blade holders.
arms- flange or plain(straight) caps
blades- curved or straight
finish- satin or polished
66 carryover cars had polished blade holders and the rest of 66 GT350 production were satin.
Here is a picture of the non restored 6000 mile car recently sold at Mecum
Its number is 6S2086
Quote from: Greg on January 21, 2018, 08:43:54 PM
Here is a picture of the non restored 6000 mile car recently sold at Mecum
Its number is 6S2086
Yes that is the later 66 satin style blade holder. There is a earlier 66 style that looks like the polished 65 squared side style but in satin. The latest I have found was on a mid 1400's Shelby. I don't know how much later the early style went but guess a few hundred more (by Shelby VIN) . The same arms were used 66-mid 68.
i just installed these. april 1 build date.
Wiper condition today after 50 years has allot to do with what we we and find on these cars. Left alone many can show the affects of the elements on the finish while cleaning and polishing can create differences in the other direction
Here are some examples from all the same time period at San Jose in 66 (6R130000-about 136000)
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/9/6-200118213902.jpeg)
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/9/6-200118214255.jpeg)
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/9/6-200118214235.jpeg)
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/9/6-200118214137.jpeg)
And from later in the year
6R163xxx
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/9/6-200118214435.jpeg)
6R178xxx
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/9/6-200118214533.jpeg)
6R186xxx
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/9/6-200118214721.jpeg)
6R196xxx
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/9/6-200118214751.jpeg)
6R2042xx
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/9/6-200118214817.jpeg)
Personally for the majority of the production year (later period of the two) I would focus to find something that looks like the example 6R196xxx above. Happens to belong to a car I've know since the 80's very nice unrestored car that spent most if its life (after the initial years) stored inside under covers but not polished and detailed. Don't think its ever been buffed.
Didn't include the Shelbys numbers since they are not as accurate to production periods as Ford VINs are
Hope this helps
Which of these two wiper blade refills NPD offers would be more correct for a '66 GT350 with a Late April SJ Build date, WERE GUESSING THE LATER -1b ITEM?
17593-1A
REFILLS, Windshield Wiper Blade, rubber wiper, Trico 15 inch, repro, pair, Concours correct style rubber with early *dot* pattern and stainless steel spine, exact to originals, not made by Trico
Manufacturer Reference #'s: 480146, C3AZ-17593-C
17593-1b
REFILLS, Windshield Wiper Blade, rubber wiper, Trico 15 inch, repro, pair, Concours correct style rubber with later grooved or line pattern and stainless steel spine, exact to originals, not made by Trico
Manufacturer Reference #'s: 480181, C3AZ-17593-C
Quote from: JD on November 21, 2021, 11:34:17 AM
Which of these two wiper blade refills NPD offers would be more correct for a '66 GT350 with a Late April SJ Build date, WERE GUESSING THE LATER -1b ITEM?
17593-1A
REFILLS, Windshield Wiper Blade, rubber wiper, Trico 15 inch, repro, pair, Concours correct style rubber with early *dot* pattern and stainless steel spine, exact to originals, not made by Trico
Manufacturer Reference #'s: 480146, C3AZ-17593-C
17593-1b
REFILLS, Windshield Wiper Blade, rubber wiper, Trico 15 inch, repro, pair, Concours correct style rubber with later grooved or line pattern and stainless steel spine, exact to originals, not made by Trico
Manufacturer Reference #'s: 480181, C3AZ-17593-C
Curious of what Shelby vin is the car?
Bob, it's a low #2000 number not a Hertz car
My understanding has been the satin-type wiper arms were due to a Federal requirement effective January 1st, 1966. I've seen inputs over the years from owners of presumably unrestored cars or various publications, etc., stating that some early production '66 Mustangs originally came with polished wiper arms. Has there been any reasonable evidence, such as documented original cars, period photos, etc., to support this (or completely disprove it)?
Thanks
Quote from: 6T6/7 on November 21, 2021, 05:15:50 PM
My understanding has been the satin-type wiper arms were due to a Federal requirement effective January 1st, 1966. I've seen inputs over the years from owners of presumably unrestored cars or various publications, etc., stating that some early production '66 Mustangs originally came with polished wiper arms. Has there been any reasonable evidence, such as documented original cars, period photos, etc., to support this (or completely disprove it)?
Thanks
The general understanding is for the model year change to satin opposed to the 1/1/66 as the mandate states. Given the number of early 66 survivor cars with the satin arms In concours judging the burden of reasonable proof is on the entrant if he chooses to us the polished arms opposed to the more accepted satin arms. That is unless a concours judge wants to overlook .
Quote from: 6T6/7 on November 21, 2021, 05:15:50 PM
.... Has there been any reasonable evidence, such as documented original cars, period photos, etc., to support this (or completely disprove it)?
Just allot of San Jose built pre-Jan sold Mustangs in unrestored condition with satin finish. Would not choose going with the polished earlier look without some solid documentation for it and others build around the same time since there would not be just enough, polished arms, to do a car or 50 cars at the plant
Some federal changes were implemented early while others (example driver side fender in 66) were executed very close to the required date
Quote from: JD on November 21, 2021, 11:34:17 AM
Which of these two wiper blade refills NPD offers would be more correct for a '66 GT350 with a Late April SJ Build date, WERE GUESSING THE LATER -1b ITEM?
17593-1A
REFILLS, Windshield Wiper Blade, rubber wiper, Trico 15 inch, repro, pair, Concours correct style rubber with early *dot* pattern and stainless steel spine, exact to originals, not made by Trico
Manufacturer Reference #'s: 480146, C3AZ-17593-C
17593-1b
REFILLS, Windshield Wiper Blade, rubber wiper, Trico 15 inch, repro, pair, Concours correct style rubber with later grooved or line pattern and stainless steel spine, exact to originals, not made by Trico
Manufacturer Reference #'s: 480181, C3AZ-17593-C
Can you tell if the wiper blade holders have been replaced? If the the wiper blade holder is original to the car which Trico style is it?
Quote from: J_Speegle on November 21, 2021, 06:31:03 PM
Quote from: 6T6/7 on November 21, 2021, 05:15:50 PM
.... Has there been any reasonable evidence, such as documented original cars, period photos, etc., to support this (or completely disprove it)?
Just allot of San Jose built pre-Jan sold Mustangs in unrestored condition with satin finish. Would not choose going with the polished earlier look without some solid documentation for it and others build around the same time since there would not be just enough, polished arms, to do a car or 50 cars at the plant
Some federal changes were implemented early while others (example driver side fender in 66) were executed very close to the required date
Ok, fair enough. Jeff, your always excellent photo documentation of original cars shows from about 6R130000 - 136000. My car is 6R113XXX. I would be curious to see anything in that vicinity if it shows up. When I first got my car it had polished non-flaired style, which didn't seem correct. So, not basing anything on that. In the meantime, I'll keep the satin flaired arms that I installed until new information supports otherwise. The polished would look better on my car IMO 🙂.
Will take a look at what I have close to that. We'll see if I've got some close ups for some reasons and /or what details we can glean from what I do have
Quote from: Bob Gaines on November 21, 2021, 06:32:26 PM
Quote from: JD on November 21, 2021, 11:34:17 AM
Which of these two wiper blade refills NPD offers would be more correct for a '66 GT350 with a Late April SJ Build date, WERE GUESSING THE LATER -1b ITEM?
17593-1A
REFILLS, Windshield Wiper Blade, rubber wiper, Trico 15 inch, repro, pair, Concours correct style rubber with early *dot* pattern and stainless steel spine, exact to originals, not made by Trico
Manufacturer Reference #'s: 480146, C3AZ-17593-C
17593-1b
REFILLS, Windshield Wiper Blade, rubber wiper, Trico 15 inch, repro, pair, Concours correct style rubber with later grooved or line pattern and stainless steel spine, exact to originals, not made by Trico
Manufacturer Reference #'s: 480181, C3AZ-17593-C
Can you tell if the wiper blade holders have been replaced? If the the wiper blade holder is original to the car which Trico style is it?
The blade holders are the TRICO's, like the images in replies #3 and #5. Asking which of the refill rubber blade side patterns offered would be more correct, the car is a late April '66 build.
Quote from: JD on November 21, 2021, 10:17:08 PM
Quote from: Bob Gaines on November 21, 2021, 06:32:26 PM
Quote from: JD on November 21, 2021, 11:34:17 AM
Which of these two wiper blade refills NPD offers would be more correct for a '66 GT350 with a Late April SJ Build date, WERE GUESSING THE LATER -1b ITEM?
17593-1A
REFILLS, Windshield Wiper Blade, rubber wiper, Trico 15 inch, repro, pair, Concours correct style rubber with early *dot* pattern and stainless steel spine, exact to originals, not made by Trico
Manufacturer Reference #'s: 480146, C3AZ-17593-C
17593-1b
REFILLS, Windshield Wiper Blade, rubber wiper, Trico 15 inch, repro, pair, Concours correct style rubber with later grooved or line pattern and stainless steel spine, exact to originals, not made by Trico
Manufacturer Reference #'s: 480181, C3AZ-17593-C
Can you tell if the wiper blade holders have been replaced? If the the wiper blade holder is original to the car which Trico style is it?
The blade holders are the TRICO's, like the images in replies #3 and #5. Asking which of the refill rubber blade side patterns offered would be more correct, the car is a late April '66 build.
JD ,all the blade holders were made by Trico. There are two different styles used in 66. The picture in reply #3 appear to be the later (somewhat hard to tell from lighting and angle) style and #5 is the early style so they are are different. The early style is squared shape like 65 only satin not polished. The later style has more angles and is the same used also on 67 and 68. Typically each style has been found with a more typical type of rubber refill blade different from each other . I am trying to determine what you have so as to give the best answer. So with that said can you be more specific?
Quote from: Bob Gaines on November 21, 2021, 10:51:44 PM
Quote from: JD on November 21, 2021, 10:17:08 PM
Quote from: Bob Gaines on November 21, 2021, 06:32:26 PM
Quote from: JD on November 21, 2021, 11:34:17 AM
Which of these two wiper blade refills NPD offers would be more correct for a '66 GT350 with a Late April SJ Build date, WERE GUESSING THE LATER -1b ITEM?
17593-1A
REFILLS, Windshield Wiper Blade, rubber wiper, Trico 15 inch, repro, pair, Concours correct style rubber with early *dot* pattern and stainless steel spine, exact to originals, not made by Trico
Manufacturer Reference #'s: 480146, C3AZ-17593-C
17593-1b
REFILLS, Windshield Wiper Blade, rubber wiper, Trico 15 inch, repro, pair, Concours correct style rubber with later grooved or line pattern and stainless steel spine, exact to originals, not made by Trico
Manufacturer Reference #'s: 480181, C3AZ-17593-C
Can you tell if the wiper blade holders have been replaced? If the the wiper blade holder is original to the car which Trico style is it?
The blade holders are the TRICO's, like the images in replies #3 and #5. Asking which of the refill rubber blade side patterns offered would be more correct, the car is a late April '66 build.
JD ,all the blade holders were made by Trico. There are two different styles used in 66. The picture in reply #3 appear to be the later (somewhat hard to tell from lighting and angle) style and #5 is the early style so they are are different. The early style is squared shape like 65 only satin not polished. The later style has more angles and is the same used also on 67 and 68. Typically each style has been found with a more typical type of rubber refill blade different from each other . I am trying to determine what you have so as to give the best answer. So with that said can you be more specific?
Hey Bob, all of these
seem to be the same, the image from reply #3, one from #5 and got sent a photo of what is on the car, yes or no?
They understand that different iterations (years/versions) have a different version rubber blade pattern on the side(s), they are looking to know which of the two refills sold by NPD would be more correct for a late April build date San Jose car regardless of the holder.
I see your point that different holders had different refill/blade versions and wanting to get the correct version/style matted to the right holder and the right version to the car. I think you each are coming at this from the opposite ends, I'm just trying to help and caught in the middle - Thanks ;-)
So many of the original holders have been changed out for the later style because the refill blade included the holder. I am reluctant to go by date alone to suggest a rubber refill blade without seeing the style of holder. A picture to show different styles 65 is polished ,66 is satin and later 66,67 and 68 are a different shape compared to the first two. I have not read any written documentation but from used examples in the field the dot dot pattern has been seen on the first two and the line pattern on the last of the three which is on the right. I haven't seen any dot dot on the last style which which leads me to believe it was most likely the best choice for the first two style leaving the line style for the later 66-68 holder. I hope this helps.
Has anyone ever seen a angle adjustment on the blade so when it is off, it actually is parallel to the lower moulding?
Quote from: 67 GT350 on November 22, 2021, 04:48:10 PM
Has anyone ever seen a angle adjustment on the blade so when it is off, it actually is parallel to the lower moulding?
The only adjustment is taking the arm off of the splined wiper shaft and indexing it differently before pressing it back on for a closer to desired at rest position.
Bob, I'll pass it along, thanks
I have had to remove and bend the tip of the arm when I could not get it to index properly with the splines, usually moving splines will get an acceptable at rest position however.
Here is a twist, this is on my passenger side. I kind of like it because I can have the wiper parallel to my bottom moulding.
Quote from: 67 GT350 on December 07, 2021, 02:18:18 PM
Here is a twist, this is on my passenger side. I kind of like it because I can have the wiper parallel to my bottom moulding.
Certainly allows for fine tuning. Don't recall seeing a package of them hanging in a parts shop but they were likely too expensive for me at the time and I wasn't likely worried about needing wipers very often at the time. More interested in going fast :)
They do address an issue just not factory if your focused on that sort of thing