>I'd considered that - but concluded that as the complaint was of
>'occasional' misbehaviour it didn't really fit the bill. On the other
>hand high friction events on a drying screen could well result in spline
>slippage. Gear/shaft jumping would create noise which hasn't been mentioned.
>
>Either way, if the easy problems are eliminated it's going to be hard work.
Mine on the 110 would wipe a small-ish arc on a dry screen, and a larger one
on a wet screen, and an intermittent one on a not-very-wet screen. The play
in the drive allows the arm, once moving, to flop down further not under
power, if the screen's wet enough. Or that was my interpretation. simple
way to check, though, start the wipers going, kill the ignition with 'em
half-way up the screen, and get out and see how much you can move the arm.
On mine, there was a good 3" movement at the blade tip.

Signature
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep. But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep."
Robert Frost (1874-1963) from Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening
MVP - 23 Apr 2005 21:25 GMT
>>I'd considered that - but concluded that as the complaint was of
>>'occasional' misbehaviour it didn't really fit the bill. On the other
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>half-way up the screen, and get out and see how much you can move the arm.
>On mine, there was a good 3" movement at the blade tip.
mine behave similarly ref the wet/dry.
with screenwash or much rain the blades touch the rubber screen trim,
when dry they stopan inch or two short.
Regards.
Mark.

Signature
_________________________________________
1984 110 CSW 2.5(na)D
(3,000 rivets flying in close formation)
www.4x4info.info
www.mvp-fine-art.co.uk
www.markvarleyphoto.co.uk
charity calendar project -
http://www.4x4info.info/calendar/
_________________________________________
Dougal - 23 Apr 2005 21:35 GMT
>>>I'd considered that - but concluded that as the complaint was of
>>>'occasional' misbehaviour it didn't really fit the bill. On the other
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> Regards.
> Mark.
That's definitely the wear problem.
The wear can often be treated by turning the rack through 180 degrees at
the motor. This presents (unless it's already been tried before!) an
unworn part of the rack to the gear at the wheelbox. It's a cheap
solution if it works. It should work at the wheelbox, too.
Dougal - 23 Apr 2005 21:48 GMT
>>>> I'd considered that - but concluded that as the complaint was of
>>>> 'occasional' misbehaviour it didn't really fit the bill. On the
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>
> It should work at the wheelbox, too.
That's less than clear! Disengage the gear at the wheelbox and turn it
through 180 degrees to expose the unworn (subject to the previous
proviso) side of the gear to the rack. Rather easier to say than to do -
mark the position of the gear relative to the wheelbox casing before
dismantling and don't disturb the other end of the rack until it's all
reassembled.
McBad - 23 Apr 2005 23:46 GMT
> >>>> I'd considered that - but concluded that as the complaint was of
> >>>> 'occasional' misbehaviour it didn't really fit the bill. On the
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
> dismantling and don't disturb the other end of the rack until it's all
> reassembled.
Interesting concept. I haven't noticed any odd noises associated with the
wiper system, other than the thud as the wiper hits the bulkhead. Turning
the gear around sounds like a good idea; I'll consult my manual tomorrow and
perhaps have a go at sorting it out (if it's not raining).
Cheers,
M.