Wiper arms+blade pictures wanted
#41
Instructor
Thread Starter
Member Since: Jun 2010
Location: Fritsla Sweden
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks good. After I rebuilt my entire wiper door linkage with new bushings, rivets etc. the door is much more tight and more accurate. If you look back in this thread you can see my "original" arms that was on the car when I got it. It looks completely different on the passenger side compared to the repro arm. The blade is installed on the opposite side of the arm. But now with my rebuilt door that "original" arm causes almost no interference at all. The repro arm is no way near correct with respect to angle and height....also my car was/were in very original condition, and I believe more and more that my arm is the 68 correct arm, and the repro is simply wrong. Anyway, my wiper setup is 99% OK now, only occasionally the wiper door hits the passenger side blade, depends on exterior condition like temperature etc. But I guess thats way GM added the park switch on 69-up.....
#42
Team Owner
Member Since: Sep 2006
Location: Westminster Maryland
Posts: 30,173
Likes: 0
Received 2,878 Likes
on
2,515 Posts
Hi V,
It's good to hear you have been able to get things operating as they should!
Regards,
Alan
It's good to hear you have been able to get things operating as they should!
Regards,
Alan
#43
Racer
#44
Safety Car
Member Since: Sep 2011
Location: Madeira Beach, FL
Posts: 3,557
Received 793 Likes
on
444 Posts
2023 C2 of the Year Finalist - Unmodified
2020 C3 of the Year Finalist - Unmodified
Vos,
I decided to contribute to this thread as it discusses allot of the problems I too have experienced and am realizing its not just me but a universal glitch.
1st let me say, I have a June '68 coupe with the 427/390 motor.
I think my car was the parts clean up car for GM.
I have a mix of early and later parts. Seems like they used up what ever was still in the bin. I believe these parts were born on and not someones attempt at a 1980's era restoration.
Your wiper door is correct with 5 clips and the ridges on the underside.
Also look at Alan's trim it is correct the way it is painted.
I've seen it polished on other cars and this is not OEM.
It should just have the stainless steel lip reveal in natural.
I have the same set up and believe it to be correct and original.
My passenger side arm also orig. strikes the door as you described.
It is slight but it has over the years buffed the paint off the wiper arm.
What I do is I open the over ride and get the door clear. Then I use the wipers accordingly. Remember this was a very advanced system for its day. Both vac and electrical action is taking place back to back.
I'm thinking when I get time to revisit this problem I will adjust the plunger to allow all vac activity to complete before the electrical sequence starts. I'm thinking if the door opens more before the plunger starts the wiper operation it may be enough to correct for the contact prior to parking..
Mine doesn't hit on opening oddly enough just closing cycle it seems to get pinched by the rib on the underside of the door.
Owners manual doees rec opening wiper door and leaving in same position and working wiper switch as needed for intermitant rain.
As for repo parts, I could write the forward to Webco40's book.
I recently purchased a choke coil kit for our year car and engine.
I can use the coil that's about it. The coil cover in the kit is wrong.
The opening for the rod is on the wrong side and the rod is wrong.
So for $30.00, I got to use the coil which I could have purchased for $14.00.
So, I got this rod and cover that are useless. I can add them to the bastard parts I've accumulated already.
Just for everyone's entertainment here are a few more.
Oh and its not a particular vendor issue as this is what's out there and being sold by all.
1. Air cleaner stud quadrajet with orig. open style drop base.
Too short to use on orig air cleaner.
2. Seat bumpers upper section.
Wrong for '68 although states '68-69.
I'll be giving these away to my friend with a '69.
I'm sure you get my point and many others who have been at it allot longer
than I have probably accumulated quite an ensemble of incorrect parts.
If the plunger adjustment works for me I'll post results.
I just don't know if I'll get to it soon enough to be of value to you.
So our journey through GM history continues.
Marshal
I decided to contribute to this thread as it discusses allot of the problems I too have experienced and am realizing its not just me but a universal glitch.
1st let me say, I have a June '68 coupe with the 427/390 motor.
I think my car was the parts clean up car for GM.
I have a mix of early and later parts. Seems like they used up what ever was still in the bin. I believe these parts were born on and not someones attempt at a 1980's era restoration.
Your wiper door is correct with 5 clips and the ridges on the underside.
Also look at Alan's trim it is correct the way it is painted.
I've seen it polished on other cars and this is not OEM.
It should just have the stainless steel lip reveal in natural.
I have the same set up and believe it to be correct and original.
My passenger side arm also orig. strikes the door as you described.
It is slight but it has over the years buffed the paint off the wiper arm.
What I do is I open the over ride and get the door clear. Then I use the wipers accordingly. Remember this was a very advanced system for its day. Both vac and electrical action is taking place back to back.
I'm thinking when I get time to revisit this problem I will adjust the plunger to allow all vac activity to complete before the electrical sequence starts. I'm thinking if the door opens more before the plunger starts the wiper operation it may be enough to correct for the contact prior to parking..
Mine doesn't hit on opening oddly enough just closing cycle it seems to get pinched by the rib on the underside of the door.
Owners manual doees rec opening wiper door and leaving in same position and working wiper switch as needed for intermitant rain.
As for repo parts, I could write the forward to Webco40's book.
I recently purchased a choke coil kit for our year car and engine.
I can use the coil that's about it. The coil cover in the kit is wrong.
The opening for the rod is on the wrong side and the rod is wrong.
So for $30.00, I got to use the coil which I could have purchased for $14.00.
So, I got this rod and cover that are useless. I can add them to the bastard parts I've accumulated already.
Just for everyone's entertainment here are a few more.
Oh and its not a particular vendor issue as this is what's out there and being sold by all.
1. Air cleaner stud quadrajet with orig. open style drop base.
Too short to use on orig air cleaner.
2. Seat bumpers upper section.
Wrong for '68 although states '68-69.
I'll be giving these away to my friend with a '69.
I'm sure you get my point and many others who have been at it allot longer
than I have probably accumulated quite an ensemble of incorrect parts.
If the plunger adjustment works for me I'll post results.
I just don't know if I'll get to it soon enough to be of value to you.
So our journey through GM history continues.
Marshal
Last edited by marshal135; 08-06-2012 at 03:18 PM.
#45
Instructor
Thread Starter
Member Since: Jun 2010
Location: Fritsla Sweden
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have the same problem with the wiper door hitting the right wiper arm on my 71.
I purchased later model wiper arms which according to the venders web site would fit a 71. The problem is the blades do not sit parallel when parked.
The picture below shows the original right wiper arm next to the repro arm. The original has less of a bend at the end of the arm allowing the right blade to park parallel and lower down the screen. The repro has a more acute bend in the arm causing the blades to hit when parked and sit higher.
I purchased later model wiper arms which according to the venders web site would fit a 71. The problem is the blades do not sit parallel when parked.
The picture below shows the original right wiper arm next to the repro arm. The original has less of a bend at the end of the arm allowing the right blade to park parallel and lower down the screen. The repro has a more acute bend in the arm causing the blades to hit when parked and sit higher.
Again I must say thanks for posting the picture showing original vs. repro. It explains all the issues that I have had (and probably many, many others with me). The conclusion without any doubt is:
CURRENT REPRO WIPER ARMS ARE INCORRECT.
I even replaced my entire linkage mecanism to rule out geometry issues with my original one. "New linkage" was 100.0% identical in all aspects to my original one.
Since it appears that 99% of the repro vendors pull their parts from the same source, it's resonable to expect that almost all arms out there are WRONG.
I will see if I get get a used original arm for my pass. side, I can always remove the washer tubes (if not from a 68) and restore the arm.
Thanks again.
Martin
Last edited by voscreature; 08-26-2012 at 12:45 PM.
#46
Racer
Member Since: Nov 2010
Location: Brisbane Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 25 Likes
on
20 Posts
Are you sure you guys are getting the right parts? Reason I ask is the repros posted by Wabco40 don't even have the adjustor screw on the arm.
After my seeing the correct arms on the 1st page of this post and comparing to the ones I my car I ended up ordering the left and right 68 only arms from Zip which looked like the correct ones in the pic and have the correct adjustor on the side of them. They fit perfectly.
After my seeing the correct arms on the 1st page of this post and comparing to the ones I my car I ended up ordering the left and right 68 only arms from Zip which looked like the correct ones in the pic and have the correct adjustor on the side of them. They fit perfectly.
#47
Instructor
Thread Starter
Member Since: Jun 2010
Location: Fritsla Sweden
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you sure you guys are getting the right parts? Reason I ask is the repros posted by Wabco40 don't even have the adjustor screw on the arm.
After my seeing the correct arms on the 1st page of this post and comparing to the ones I my car I ended up ordering the left and right 68 only arms from Zip which looked like the correct ones in the pic and have the correct adjustor on the side of them. They fit perfectly.
After my seeing the correct arms on the 1st page of this post and comparing to the ones I my car I ended up ordering the left and right 68 only arms from Zip which looked like the correct ones in the pic and have the correct adjustor on the side of them. They fit perfectly.
My repro "68" arms did have the adjustment screw. The driver side repro arm was identical to my "original arm". My primary concern is my "original" passenger side arm that looks completely different compared to the repro. But the passenger side repro arm on my car causes the blades to be extremely un-parallell, no way I can adjust that out. Please see earlier pictures in this thread. wabco40's observation regarding his original arm would explain a lot.
I must ask you: How parallell are your blades when parked with your repro arms? Very interesting.
Thanks.
#49
Instructor
Thread Starter
Member Since: Jun 2010
Location: Fritsla Sweden
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1960fi,
Thanks. You also sent me this picture today which I post here showing the angle on what we think is an correct GM original arm:
And THIS is what I have when doing the same on my repro arm:
I assume 1960fi's tape measure is in inches also.
As far as I can tell it sure looks like my repro arm is bent way too much, which in turn leads to the strange un-parallell problem and parking issues.
wabco40: Is it possible for you to do the same measurements on your passenger side arms? I.e. repro and original?
It doesn't look too promising for the repro case right now.
Martin
Thanks. You also sent me this picture today which I post here showing the angle on what we think is an correct GM original arm:
And THIS is what I have when doing the same on my repro arm:
I assume 1960fi's tape measure is in inches also.
As far as I can tell it sure looks like my repro arm is bent way too much, which in turn leads to the strange un-parallell problem and parking issues.
wabco40: Is it possible for you to do the same measurements on your passenger side arms? I.e. repro and original?
It doesn't look too promising for the repro case right now.
Martin
#50
Racer
1960fi,
Thanks. You also sent me this picture today which I post here showing the angle on what we think is an correct GM original arm:
And THIS is what I have when doing the same on my repro arm:
I assume 1960fi's tape measure is in inches also.
As far as I can tell it sure looks like my repro arm is bent way too much, which in turn leads to the strange un-parallell problem and parking issues.
wabco40: Is it possible for you to do the same measurements on your passenger side arms? I.e. repro and original?
It doesn't look too promising for the repro case right now.
Martin
Thanks. You also sent me this picture today which I post here showing the angle on what we think is an correct GM original arm:
And THIS is what I have when doing the same on my repro arm:
I assume 1960fi's tape measure is in inches also.
As far as I can tell it sure looks like my repro arm is bent way too much, which in turn leads to the strange un-parallell problem and parking issues.
wabco40: Is it possible for you to do the same measurements on your passenger side arms? I.e. repro and original?
It doesn't look too promising for the repro case right now.
Martin
Sorry for the late reply. The repro arm I had was also bent too much and would not allow the blades to park parellal.
There was no adjusting screw on the repro arm and even if there was it would not have corrected the problem as the bend at the blade end of the arm was too acute.
I ended up using my original 71 arms which park parellal and with the adjusting screw stops the blades about 3/4" away from the windsheild side mouldings.
I purchased the repro arms some time ago from Zip. I think they where list as 75 onwards but replacements for 69-74 (plastic tubes and nozzles instead of brass).
Brad