Author Topic: 65 Wiper Blades  (Read 4419 times)

Offline Brian Conway

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1623
65 Wiper Blades
« on: July 16, 2014, 01:56:14 PM »
     Does the OE wiper blade holder have any ID marking ?  Not the arm but the actual part that holds the refill.  My 69 has that part clearly marked TRICO.  Thanks,  Brian
« Last Edit: July 16, 2014, 02:12:10 PM by Brian Conway »
5RO9A GT  4 Spd Built 5/29/65
9TO2R SCJ 4 Spd Built 9/19/68
Owner Driver Mechanic
San Diego, Ca.

Offline CharlesTurner

  • Charles Turner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7675
Re: 65 Wiper Blades
« Reply #1 on: July 16, 2014, 03:01:38 PM »
'65 would be stainless steel with TRICO markings.

Noticed that your wiper arms are incorrect for the cowl type also... should be flared at the base.  The non-flare were only used with the earlier bezels.
Charles Turner - MCA/SAAC Judge
Concours Mustang Forum Admin

Offline rocket289k

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 381
Re: 65 Wiper Blades
« Reply #2 on: July 16, 2014, 04:41:13 PM »

Noticed that your wiper arms are incorrect for the cowl type also... should be flared at the base.  The non-flare were only used with the earlier bezels.

+1 good eye Charles I was just about to mention that as well. 

Regards,

Ron
1965 "A" Code 289 Mustang GT - Planned Build Date July 19 / Bucked July 21 Metuchen / Factory AC & PS / C4 Auto / 3.00 open

Offline Brian Conway

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1623
Re: 65 Wiper Blades
« Reply #3 on: July 16, 2014, 06:14:20 PM »
Thanks for the Heads up.  The brushed upper pair would be correct ?  The arm assembly has the TRICO and other info the actual wiper blade holder has no stampings ?   I think I left the chrome ones on because they are so difficult to get off.  Brian
« Last Edit: July 16, 2014, 06:17:02 PM by Brian Conway »
5RO9A GT  4 Spd Built 5/29/65
9TO2R SCJ 4 Spd Built 9/19/68
Owner Driver Mechanic
San Diego, Ca.

Offline J_Speegle

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24541
Re: 65 Wiper Blades
« Reply #4 on: July 16, 2014, 06:41:56 PM »
Thanks for the Heads up.  The brushed upper pair would be correct ?  ..........

Not for a 65 you want shinny :)
Jeff Speegle

Anything worth doing is worth doing concours ;)

Offline Brian Conway

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1623
Re: 65 Wiper Blades
« Reply #5 on: July 16, 2014, 08:27:23 PM »
OK the bright polished stainless finish with flange version it is.  Suggestions for getting the current set of wiper arms off ?  Searching removing wiper blades or arms does not help.  Brian
« Last Edit: July 16, 2014, 11:51:02 PM by Brian Conway »
5RO9A GT  4 Spd Built 5/29/65
9TO2R SCJ 4 Spd Built 9/19/68
Owner Driver Mechanic
San Diego, Ca.

Offline C5ZZ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 461
Re: 65 Wiper Blades
« Reply #6 on: July 16, 2014, 10:42:09 PM »
Suggestions for getting the current set of wiper arms off ?

NPD sells a tool to remove the arms, part# 956-1 for $5.95
other vendors may sell it also.
MCA # 00945

65 Fastback, 6 cyl, AT, AC, PS, PB
Rangoon Red/Red Interior

Offline Brian Conway

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1623
Re: 65 Wiper Blades
« Reply #7 on: July 16, 2014, 11:24:34 PM »
http://www.npdlink.com/store/products/mustang_wiper_arm_removal_tool_easily_removes_wiper-107211-2981.html                                                                   Thanks For the help.  Small breaker bar does the job.  No particular finesse involved.  Brian
« Last Edit: July 16, 2014, 11:53:41 PM by Brian Conway »
5RO9A GT  4 Spd Built 5/29/65
9TO2R SCJ 4 Spd Built 9/19/68
Owner Driver Mechanic
San Diego, Ca.

Offline outback mustang

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: 65 Wiper Blades
« Reply #8 on: July 17, 2014, 01:24:43 AM »
i've seen people do it with large screwdriver and trying to protect the paint if not make any dents in the body, using towels, blocks of wood or rubber to spread the load. they get them off albeit with a lot of mucking about sometimes (setting up and if its stubborn). it wouldnt be my favoured way(AT ALL- too much risk) but it seems to work for many. if i was in your neck of the woods then i'd give the NPD tool a go coated with some electrical tape. there is another tool but i've only found it shipped from Australia so its more pricey! (search for "WINDSCREEN WIPER ARM REMOVER PLIERS 9" / 230mm T&E TOOLS, DALLAS") that is a reverse type plastic coated plier that is shaped to fit around the nub of the wiper. worked good for me.

the general consensus is chrome/shiny for 65 wipers and satin/dull for 66 (which suits me fine for the KISS method). but it can be more complicated than that from what i have found. some people that know their stuff (part numbers etc etc) have researched it in depth over many years (decades and several hundred examples from junk yards to NOS) others have been in the parts trade game for generations and claim to know from the horses mouth that TRICO began to change to satin/brushed from early may 65 on mustangs (another reliable source says june or july but that is based on his collecting data off vehicles over many years). there can also apparently be some differences in the transition period before TRICO had nailed down their method. so on some it is said that the outer side will be dull while the inner will be shiny, no doubt brushed or bead blasted on one side the existing shiny stock left from 65, late 66 and 67 have a more dull finish by the looks (especially at the base knuckle), compared to mid or early built 66's (i'v not noticed my self until shown an example but i wasn't looking that closely up to then)

so its said to be that from sept 64 to beginning may 65 shiny, flanged, with polished arms and blades is correct. but its probably one of those things that will never be known for sure given the time passed and other variances such stock on hand at different plants .Also it was suggested that TRICO managed to get the blades sent out satin while the arms were a little behind in development and still shiny in some instances, also on some its reported the base is dull but the rod section is still polished...yet others have insisted that their early built 66 (assume oct or so) had shiny equipment-go figure :)

Offline Brian Conway

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1623
Re: 65 Wiper Blades
« Reply #9 on: July 17, 2014, 01:38:11 AM »
     Well that is certainly a lot of information.  Thank you.  I googled ' how to ' and got a refresher course in ' they pry off '.  It has been probably ten years since I put the satin no flange ones on there and had forgotten all about the procedure.  At the time I was told satin and no flange was correct.  Perhaps a few of the San Jose, May 65 owners would like to volunteer what type of finish and flange is on their car.  Thanks,  Brian
5RO9A GT  4 Spd Built 5/29/65
9TO2R SCJ 4 Spd Built 9/19/68
Owner Driver Mechanic
San Diego, Ca.

Offline CharlesTurner

  • Charles Turner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7675
Re: 65 Wiper Blades
« Reply #10 on: July 17, 2014, 05:07:04 PM »
The first flanged wipers were chrome in '65, changed to satin later, probably sometime in '66.  The blade retainers changed to satin then also.  Anyone that has driven a '65 with the chrome/stainless wiper blades they know if the sun hits them right, it will downright blind you!

Snap-On has a nice wiper arm removal tool, surprisingly cheap too!:

http://store.snapon.com/Window-and-Windshield-Removal-Tools-Removal-Tool-Windshield-Wiper-Arm-P636287.aspx
« Last Edit: July 18, 2014, 02:34:22 PM by caspian65 »
Charles Turner - MCA/SAAC Judge
Concours Mustang Forum Admin

Offline J_Speegle

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24541
Re: 65 Wiper Blades
« Reply #11 on: July 17, 2014, 08:55:18 PM »
............so its said to be that from sept 64 to beginning may 65 shiny, flanged, with polished arms and blades is correct...............

At what factory? 

The bezeled wiper posts were installed well after Sept 64  so no need (and not used) for the flanged wiper arms

For helping determine shinny verses dulled I try and use the base/connection base since its chromed on the shinny ones even though the arms themselves may have dulled a bit over the years or due to exposure. Seems to work for me

To further the discussion I do have pictures  unrestored/original cars with the flanged shinny wiper arms with projected build dates in the last two weeks of scheduled production at San Jose in 65


..............Perhaps a few of the San Jose, May 65 owners would like to volunteer what type of finish and flange is on their car.

Challenge may be IMHO is that that seems to be dead in the middle of the change over period at San Jose from my collection of info and since we don't ahve real build dates we'll likely never get closer to an exact date

From 5R214611 - 5R221983 is the range I currently have for the change over from bezeled to flanged

« Last Edit: July 17, 2014, 09:24:41 PM by J_Speegle »
Jeff Speegle

Anything worth doing is worth doing concours ;)

Offline Brian Conway

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1623
Re: 65 Wiper Blades
« Reply #12 on: July 18, 2014, 01:46:30 PM »
Thank You Jeff for that last bit of info.  Let me add a little more FWIW.  The owners card with date and vin.  The wiper assembly I put back on the has been in storage, since I changed them out probably closer to 15 years ago, and are most likely the originals.  Brian
5RO9A GT  4 Spd Built 5/29/65
9TO2R SCJ 4 Spd Built 9/19/68
Owner Driver Mechanic
San Diego, Ca.

Offline drummingrocks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
Re: 65 Wiper Blades
« Reply #13 on: July 18, 2014, 02:27:16 PM »
+1, get the tool that NPD sells.  It works like a charm and if you're careful, won't scar your paint or the wiper blades.  I've tried it every other conceivable, and that tool is indispensable. 
Too much junk, too little time.

Offline Scott302

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
Re: 65 Wiper Blades
« Reply #14 on: March 19, 2019, 04:45:25 PM »
Resurrecting this topic as I was working in the area and thought I'd post some information to spur additional thought and conversation. 
Not posting to make any conclusions just adding to the body of information.
The 5/3/65 date seems to be the time frame for the change from non-flanged to flanged arms.  Keep in mind these dates are some Ford imposed "average" for all the assembly plants.
I find it interesting that the arm shows as dull starting with the 5/3/65 date but the blade is shown as dull from 9/3/65.  I’m guessing the C5ZZ-17526-B arm number was probably for the flanged chrome arm but it is not accounted for in the parts books which leaves us to surmise or find original samples to tell when the flanged arm changed from chrome to dull. 
Regards,
Scott
Scott Halseth
Ford Product Manager
National Parts Depot
MCA#01776