1966 Wiper Arms & Blades

[Loren L.]

My outdated 2nd edition judging manual uses the hated word "early" without any guidance when it states that "early" 1966's might have the bright 1965 wiper arms. The AIM reference date for the change from 382961/2 arms to 3888297/8 arms is July 19, 1965 - Is this enough to read "early" as meaning "very early", the first 1000 cars or ???
The AIM also recites TWO wiper blade changes - from 3871085 to 3888296 to 3908118 - can anyone explain the differences and the serial # ranges where they take effect?
I'm asking this for a friend that has coupe #5015 - my initial reaction is that he should have the brushed finish arms with the 3888296 blades.....? Thanks.

[Dave K.]

Re: 1966 Wiper Arms & Blades

The third edition of the JM makes no reference to an early to late change from bright to dull. It only refers to the 66 blades as being dull. I've seen references to both bright for early and dull for later but no reference to time frame or Serial # change. I have the dull finish blades.

Regards,
Dave Kitch
33108

[Robert W.]

Re: 1966 Wiper Arms & Blades

Loren - Nolands book states that the 66 wiper arms, part number 3888297(left) and 3888298 (right) maintained their bright finish until a change in 2-12-66 and he believes it was probably late March before the parts reached St. Louis and this was approximately serial number 18000. He states the wiper blades, part number 3908118 in the AIM, had a duller finish when production began and the arms caught up later as stated above. He further states the blades were sold in pack of two with part number3888296. Confusing enough?

[Everett Ogilvie]

Re: 1966 Wiper Arms & Blades

I have to go with the AIM date of 7/19/65, which refers to a change to both the blades and the arms. It is unlikely that many cars received bright arms or blades with more than a month between the AIM date and the start of '66 production. Both my cars were built Oct 12 '65 (2836 and 2881) and neither car has bright arms (neither car is restored). Both cars have TRICO blades with the brushed finish - a prior owner installed bright finish TRICOs on one of the cars, and I went back to the dull finish blades simply because I think it is more likely. It is my opinion that a 5000 VIN car should have brushed finish arms and blades.

[Loren L.]

Everett, my idea of the ECR date agrees

with yours - 7-19-65; I would expect to find ONLY the first 1000 or so 1966 cars with bright arms - but PROBABLY would expect to find NONE. Existing brights at St Louis could be shipped off to "Service" parts - I am curious, though, about the blade changes and what they were - especially if somethig more than birght to dull.
Who has the early 1966 cars??? Don't make us call you out by name......

[Peter L.]

Re: Everett, my idea of the ECR date agrees

Loren - For the TRICO blade assembly, the holder had the same flat topped configuration in '65 to mid or so '66 but the finish when from brightly polished in '65 to the brushed finish in '66. The rubber wiper element went from the one with the "dots" along each side in '65 to the one with 3 lines or ribs running the length of the rubber wiper in '66.

The ANCO blade assembly maintained the same configuration '65 thru '67, i.e the peaked shape top or inverted "V", but here again, the holder finish went from the bright polished in '65 to the brushed finish in '66. The rubber wiper element was the same configuration '65 thru '6, i.e. 2 lines or ribs running the length of the rubber element.

BTW, my '66 is a late car, 25305, so I guess I don't need to worry about you calling my name!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pete

[Everett Ogilvie]

Re: Everett, my idea of the ECR date agrees

My guess is that the first blade change (7/65) was for TRICO blades going from bright to dull finish (same flat style as '65, simply a finish change, most often observed on early cars). Perhaps the next blade change (4/66) was to go to ANCO blades (peaked style, most often observed on late cars). I agree that it is probable that no cars got bright arms - especially if this was all tied to a DOT-mandate to remove glare on parts. I don't know what date was specified by DOT, but those types of changes are associated with hard dates not subject to "using up parts on hand". Maybe Pete Lindahl will jump in here - he has researched this quite a bit.