Ineffective windshield wipers (58)

[Christopher Hoffman <imperial67@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

A couple of thoughts on the wiper situation...

I used to use Rain-X but found it to be "addictive" in a way. Namely, the
more I used it, the more often I had to re-apply it or the windshield
quickly became smeary (if that's even a word) whenever I used the wipers. I
vowed after a while never to introduce a car windshield to Rain-X and I've
been content ever since... The few times I've driven my '67 in the rain, the
water naturally beaded up after a few prolonged seconds of letting it build
up on the glass (you have to resist the temptation to turn on the wipers
right away) and I could drive without the wipers despite Rain-X never having
touched this car's windshield.

In the mid-60s, Chrysler began to use "airfoil" wiper blades, with curved
spoilers running nearly the length of the blade (not the arm), a bit more
subtle and less "Euro" looking than the kidney-shaped airfoils added by some
manufacturers (and available in a less integrated form through the
aftermarket) to one of the wiper arms. These were ANCO blades and they are
still possible to find in junkyards and perhaps even from some auto-parts
suppliers.

A quick lesson in aerodynamics as it relates here: The airflow across the
typical windshield occurs in a fan-shaped pattern, radiating from the bottom
center of the windshield. That means the airflow is perpendicular to blades
that pivot from the outer edges of the car during most of their travel,
which is what causes the blades to lift as driving speeds increase. For
Imperials built after 1966, this applies to the driver-side blade (the
passenger side blade pivots from the center of the car, and thus it is
almost always in line with the airflow). But up through the '66 models, this
means both blades are almost always in the least desirable position relative
to the airflow across the glass.

You can compensate for this only partly... finding a set of airfoil blades
would help harness this airflow to push the blades toward the glass. On one
of my import cars that came with an airfoil on the driver-side wiper arm,
it's actually too great an effect and the blade almost always chatters. But
that's probably also because the arms are short and the springs are stout.
Another approach is to replace or re-tension the springs that are on the
car. Re-tensioning can be difficult... about all you can do it hope to twist
the springs a full revolution without breaking them. Your best bet is to try
and find a set of springs that will fit but which have more pull. And do
what you can to remove all free-play (in any direction) from the various
wiper mounts and the linkage... floppy blades and arms are far more prone to
lift, and once they lift a little, the air tends to keep flowing under them
and lifting them more.

As for the sweep patterns of center-parking blades, well, let's just say
thoughtful design in this area was pretty primitive then. (Heck, on a lot of
cars today it is still lousy... GM seems to think you don't need to use the
top three inches of the glass when it rains.) There's not much you can do
but accept that it's How They Did Things back then in the pre-safety days.
You usually cannot install longer blades because they'd hit the windshield
frame (or worse yet, the painted bodywork) at some point in their travel.
You just have to live with the wiping pattern the car was born with. You
also have to live with a sub-par defroster, less-refined airflow and other
things typical of a 45-year-old car. That's the cost of driving an old car
every day. You can't take the "1958" out of the car in so many ways!

Or trade up to a nice '69 model or newer, with larger wipers and an
articulated arm on the driver-side that lets the blade stay parallel to the
A-pillar as it approaches... You'd be amazed how much better it got even
then (and how little progress has been made since then).

Chris in LA
67 Crown
78 NYB Salon