wiper arms and blades

[EdwardGT350]

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

[J_Speegle]

All had flared bases

[Bob Gaines]

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.

[Greg]

Here is a picture of the non restored 6000 mile car recently sold at Mecum

Its number is 6S2086

[Bob Gaines]

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.

[EdwardGT350]

i just installed these. april 1 build date.

[J_Speegle]

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)











And from later in the year

6R163xxx



6R178xxx



6R186xxx



6R196xxx



6R2042xx




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

[JD]

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

[Bob Gaines]

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?

[JD]

Bob, it's a low #2000 number not a Hertz car

[6T6/7]

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

[Bob Gaines]

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 .

[J_Speegle]

.... 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

[Bob Gaines]

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? 

[6T6/7]

.... 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 🙂.