(first posted 2/6/2017) Checking out Paul’s paean to the 1955 Lancia Florida, a design that influenced auto design worldwide for over a decade, I was taking in the sensuous curves and crisply ironed creases of the legendary Pininfarina concept when a minor detail drew my eye. Perched between the flying buttresses at back of the greenhouse was a pair of sparkling chrome windshield…um… rear window wipers.
Now there’s a novel idea, I thought. Rear wipers on a sedan. Wonder why that never caught on?
To someone accustomed to seeing a single muscular black squeegee on the tailgate of an SUV, the spindly chrome wipers at the base of the Florida’s rear window look a bit misplaced, like ankle bracelets at a debutante ball. They may have seemed even odder by the currency of mid-century, extravagant and unnecessary in a time when even sideview mirrors weren’t standard equipment on many cars. Nevertheless, they surfaced on a few other 1955 custom bodied cars, such as the Ferrari 250 GT Europa and a one-off Mercedes 300B (above), both designs also penned by Pininfarina. Rear wipers seem to have been a trifling trademark of Carrozzeria Farina in that year.
Which isn’t to say they became a common accessory in that or any decade. Not on sedans, anyway. Despite appearing on production Lancia Flaminias (introduced in 1957), the rear wiper didn’t catch on in common usage. It didn’t seem necessary, as conventional wisdom declared rear windows on sedans with long decks didn’t get dirty enough to merit it, and the noise might be an annoyance to rear passengers.
Eventually, the idea got some traction in Germany. Steve Brachmann, reporting for IPWatchdog.com, states that a rear wiper system was introduced by Bosch in 1926. On Petrolicious.com, James Kraus wrote in his seminal article that a version became a popular option on one marque, Porsche, after a wealthy German industrialist requested a custom setup for his 911 fastback in 1965. Porsche complied, and other owners clamored for duplicate installations. The rear window wiper became, if not ubiquitous, requested often enough to be offered for retrofit, and available as an option on new Porsches from 1966.
But the variant of the rear wiper that would become common today first found a place on the tailgate of the lowly family station wagon, 15 years after Pininfarina’s pet accessory appeared. Kraus writes that it was offered on the 1969 Volvo 140 series. It was perfect for the 145 “brick” wagon with its vertical rear window. We’ll call the 1970 model, above, a Swedish Blue… “Pinin for the Fjiords”.
Where did America fit in the development of the rear window wiper? Pretty far back.
In fact, all the way back. The first patent for a windshield cleaning device was awarded in 1903 to a Hall of Fame inventor from Alabama. Her name was Mary Anderson.
Various relating patents were granted during the following decades, and in 1938, J. H. Herzog applied with a design for a rear wiper that was dependent on continued popularity of split back windows, as it was mounted, teeter-totter style, on the pillar between them.
A patent was granted to O.W. Sailer in 1943 for a front and rear system “utilizing…a heating and defrosting and washing fluid, such as hot air or hot water, (that) may be selectively directed to one or more windshield wipers and through the latter applied to the windshield or window of the vehicle body in a manner such as to most efficiently perform its cleaning and washing functions.” One wonders how many windows Mr. Sailer shattered by applying hot “liquid” to them on a subzero day.
Patents that referenced the WWII era awards were granted to GM employees in 1963 and 1969 for variations on the tailgate mounted wiper specific to the roll down windows that were then popular, showing that American manufacturers, along with the Swedes, saw its usefulness on station wagons.
But that wasn’t always the case. looking over the pages on oldcarbrochures.com, I was dumbfounded to discover that one American manufacturer listed rear window wipers as an option as early as 1952…and, only on sedans.
That manufacturer was Nash. This was fully 3 years before it appeared on the Farina show car, and 5 years before it went into production on the Lancia Flaminia.
The connections are intriguing, because the 1952 Nash Airflyte was, of course, designed with consultation by (drum roll, please) Pinin Farina. Even though the Carrozzeria’s final contributions were limited to details, Nash milked the Farina name for half a decade.
My copy of August, 1955 Road and Track introduces the Farina Florida in a page 33 story on the Turin Salone dell’Automobile. Described as “a most interesting and outstanding design” it is never mentioned by name, only by coach house and chassis (“Lancia Aurelia long W.B.”). In neither photo of it (2nd row from the bottom) are the rear wipers visible. At the top of the same page is Farina’s rejected concept for the 1955 Nash. Still in existence, It has only front wipers.
All of this begs the question: Did Farina influence Nash, or did Nash influence Farina?
The answer may come from a chance encounter with a “bathtub” Nash in the fall of 2012 by PurveyorOfTheOdd (CC’s Nigel Tate, formerly Mr. Mann) and originally published by Paul on Nov. 15th of that year. It suggests that Nash offered the rear wiper option as early as 1950, as seen on this Ambassador.
Which brings us back to J. H. Herzog’s 1941 patent, again. There were actually two drawings in his 1938 submission, the odd looking two blade affair for a split light shown earlier in this article, and the one above for a single window. Maybe he made a little something from his invention, after all.
But wait, there’s more. Surfing for additional photos—to confirm that the wiper on the arch of that black 1950 Ambassador wasn’t a retrofit—brought me to the website of Desert Classics in Butte, Montana. In their yard is this multicolored short wheelbase example. They advertise it as a model 600 Brougham (it’s got the remains of the super cool canted club seats in back). Even without looking inside, the narrow rear window establishes its birth year: 1949.
Nash president George Mason toured the major European auto shows in the fall of 1950, and was taken by Pinin Farina’s latest designs, such as the Lancia Aurelia B10. That led to a consulting contract, for the new 1952 models, probably signed sometime in early 1951.
Airflytes offering the rear window option were in production for three years by that time, so it’s reasonable to think the idea for the rear window wiper traveled from Kenosha to Italy, and not the other way around. (Photo by John Trotta)
Coda: In 2008, Haroon Malik wrote on gizmodo.com about a new Pininfarina concept called the Hidra, designed by Leonardo Fioravanti, which utilized aerodynamics, chemical surface treatment and an electrical field to repel water from the windshield.
It had no wipers at all.
I’ve never seen a car with rear window wipers. I’ve seen station wagons with rear window wipers, but never a sedan (saloon). I’ve never understood why not.
Being from Canada it was common to see AMC, Volvo and Nissan wagons with the rear window wiper option. Even Chrysler got in the mix with units installed in Plymouths (which is returning in late ’17 with the Persona) and a few Dodge mid-range wagons and the wagons Mitsubishi offered too. So there were a few cars whose manufacturers brave enough to offer them in Northern countries such as Canada. I even rented a Saab 9-5 wagon in Lethbridge for a road trip to Calgary, and it had rear wipers, thank you Rent-A-Wreck!
Canuck here too. Rear wipers on wagons come in handy and wagons have always been more popular up here than in the States. BTW AMC offered rear washer/wipers on the Ambassador/Matador and Pacer wagon models, but not on the Hornet, and Concord only got that option from 1980 onwards along with the Eagle.
Love the rear wiper on my 2007 Ford Focus wagon.
Got a cite on that? Google search comes up snake eyes.
Unless Chrysler operates on Elon-ese time for product releases, I think we’re outta luck 😕.
Ah! So the 2018 Plymouth Persona, coming next year, will have Fool Self-Driving, then will it?
My 1977 Honda Accord hatchback had a rear window washer/wiper; I think it was standard equipment. I found it sometimes useful. I think there were quite a few Japanese hatchbacks that had rear window wipers.
Station wagons and hatchbacks with practical, non-aero styling tend to get very wet and dirty in back. There’s poor air circulation across the rear window to clear it, so a wiper is essential. But in a sedan, the length of the trunk keeps air moving beyond the rear window glass, and that helps keep water and snow moving, too.
Having owned 2 Pinto wagons, I never really noticed a need for a rear wiper. Maybe Pinto’s had better aerodynamics. And don’t forget the full size LTD wagons and their variation on it. The rear window frame was basically a squeegee and had a rear mounted washer bottle that cleaned the window as you raised or lowered it.
It really depends on the car, and Sedans do not have issues with the rear window becoming hard to clear under normal driving. The angle of the glass allows airflow to clear most water, and dust does not accumulate. Ford’s (mostly on Mercury and Lincoln) breezeway rear window was canted in a way that never got wet or dirty. However, on a hatchback or wagon with the rear glass perpendicular to the ground, you have need for something to clear the water and dust. It is like the headlight washer/wiper combos on luxury cars. It looks like it works, and it does, but it is just something that is not necessary for most useage.
Barry, this is a wonderful article.
You got me to thinking and it appears Nash may have also influenced Kaiser. How so? Kaiser had a rear-window wiper available as an accessory in 1951, as seen in this from oldcarbrochures (below).
The bigger question to me is whether or not the Nash was vacuum controlled (like the Kaiser) or motorized.
A few years back I wrote a CC on a ’53 Kaiser Dragon and the rear-window wiper was there in all its patina-ed glory.
Wow, Jason. Great find! I had been trolling oldcarbrochures.com looking for unusual options from the old days, but didn’t get to the Kaiser section. It looks like their wiper had better coverage than Nash’s, due to the rear window’s windscreen-like shape.
I knew that once this article went live, CC-ers would amplify the available info. That 42 Pontiac brochure that Jim put up is a hoot… looks like they exaggerated the sweep coverage a bit at the bottom.
I just checked back on Herzog’s patent and realized that even the variant he designed for a single rear window had two blades(!) Reading the text of the patent seems to indicate that the driving motor would be electrical. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/2298763.htmlRunning 15 feet of vacuum line to the back window would not seem to be all that efficient.
I wonder how well that vacuum-operated wiper worked on the Kaiser. Don’t these wipers get their vacuum from the engine thru hoses and such? So wouldn’t that mean a very long hose routed to the back window from the engine compartment? The engineering of it boggles my mind!
Great article on the kind of obscure topic that I love. I had forgotten all about these on the Nashes (and Kaisers, as Jason pointed out above).
I could have sworn that I remembered a picture of a Lincoln with such a wiper. This would have been from the 1949-51 era and wondered if it was on either the Cosmopolitan Capri or the Lido Coupe. However, after way too much time looking, I can find no evidence. Does anyone else remember this? Or am I going ’round the bend? 🙂
I recall a ’40’s vintage rear wipered Lincoln as well, as well as Nash and Pontiac from the same era.
Not sure when the first one was offered, but here’s the 1942 Pontiac accessories brochure, showing a rear wiper option.
I remember seeing a rear wiper on a 1948 Pontiac fastback once. It looked stock.
See below; I posted a pic of such a one.
I wonder how this was powered? I have a friend who’s father owns a 1940 Pontiac and the front wipers are powered by vacuum from the engine. This meant the car had to be moving to use the wipers.
Rear wiper, as on the ’49 Nash, was also vacuum powered. Don’t know what you mean by “the car had to be moving”. Vacuum wipers work when the engine is running. They work better when it’s not under higher load-which would be lower vacuum.
I rather suspected that someone might find an earlier example. It appears that these long fastbacks with almost horizontal windows really needed a wiper.
Yes, I’ve seen a 46-48 Pontiac fastback (not sure which year exactly) with a rear wiper.
My dearly loved GD series Mazda 626 hatch had a rear window wiper, and I miss it so very much ! Just one wipe when starting off was all you needed, unless you were going slowly.
If I recall there was an optional rear wiper on the first, 2nd and 3rd generation Honda Prelude offered in the USA.
Here is a Aussie Prelude with the wiper
Interesting read and topic! From personal experience, I’ve never seen the need for a rear wiper on a vehicle with a sloped rear windshield. They can be nice on an SUV or wagon, but due to the lack of surface area coverage by the rear wiper when compared to the front wipers, it usually just annoys me more to look in my rearview mirror and see a dirty rear window with a small clean section than just a completely dirty rear window.
I remember a “bathtub” Nash down the street when I was growing up had a rear wiper. Probably the most “normal” bizarre thing on that car for sure!
Excellent article!! This is why CC is the best.
This type of crazy question that pops into our heads every once in a while, and I don’t know if this specific one ever occurred to me before, but I salute both the Q and the A.
And “Pinin for the fjords”… Pure gold!
Lovely plumage…
Saw my first sedan with a rear window wiper in about 1985-86. It was on, of all things, a FORD badged sedan, the Mazda 323 based Ford Laser. I was temporarily stationed on Bermuda and the Ford Escort convertible and the Laser sedan were Ford’s volume sellers in the mid 80s.
I guess being the Bermuda market’s equivalent of a Crown Victoria it seemed logical to add this “extra” to what would have been a lower-tier car in the U.S. market?
Rear wipers on sedans were pretty common on Japan domestic model Nissan Skylines, Honda Preludes and Mazda6s, to name a few. Somehow, this useful feature was eliminated for the US market and I always wondered why. The Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution is the only US domestic market sedan I know of that has a rear wiper. Some mainstream European sedans like the Peugeot 306, 406 and this Ford Escort (Orion) had a rear wiper as well.
Also Fiat Tempra and Lancia Dedra (sedans) had an optional rear wiper.
Barry, thanks for this look back into a subject that’s been obscured for far too long.
“it was high time to wipe the proverbial slate clean on this obfuscation of obscurity.” – Prof. Irwin Corey
I was trying to head that direction, but didn’t quite get there. Poor visibility.
Thanks for clearing that up
What timing, its raining(!) in LA today and I was just thinking how useful a rear wiper would be on my 1994 Legend coupe, which has a pretty steeply raked backlight that collects raindrops en masse.
That movie poster gave me a great idea for a new genre of funny : Movie titles meet vehicular terms. You know, like “Mourning Becomes Electra 225”, “Vlad the Impala”, “The Audi Couple”, Easy Rotor”, and. “Cowl of the Wild”. I’ll stop now.
To Kill a Thunderbird?
Porsche Faces Life, if you’re a radio fan.
I Am a Fugitive from a Timing Chain Gang
All the Brothers Drove Valiants
Some other favorites:
2001: A Spacious Odyssey
The 300
The Sound Of The Fury
Faster In A Commander: The Far Side Of The World
Flex and the City
Hearts in Allantes
Ace Ventura: Pontiac Detective
Twilight Sentinel
Don’t be a Menace to South Central While Driving Your Deuce and a Quarter in the Hood
And of course, pre-cinema, Shakespeare wrote The Tempest.
Fast Times At Beaumont High
Karmen (Ghia), the opera
Cimarron Paradiso
Stranger VW Things
The Corolla With The Dragon Decal
Coming this summer from Ford Focus Features!
The Cardinal
…
…
The Fabulous Studebaker Boys
Who’s Afraid of VW Rabbit
The Quiet Rambler American
Dacia Logan’s Run
Event Omnirizon
The Itala Job
Pulp Fusion
I’ll stop there before I get banned from the site.
Dodge Day Afternoon
The Full Monte (carlo)
sorry…
The Seven Suzuki Samurai
The Chevy LUV Doctor
Austin Underpowered
The Maltese Ford Falcon
The Barber’s Seville
Finally, And drumroll, please!
The Pink Panther
Don’t forget the highest grossing one of all time, adjusted for inflation:
“Gone With The Windstar.”
That post was Audi sight.
No, it doesn’t. “Begging the question” doesn’t mean asking or raising it.
That settled, here’s my CC post of a local ’48 Pontiac equipped with a backglass wiper that looks like the factory put it there.
And in the ’70s, Hella offered a rear wiper/washer retrofit kit; sorry, these mini pics are the only ones I could find.
Well, I’ll be dogged.
When one googles the term, a new whole world of annoyed defenders of language opens up to one. It is quite impressive.
Was that Pontiac a fastback? I’m wondering if the option was only seen as helpful on what they called the sedanette body style.
From Apple’s dictionary app:
“The original meaning of the phrase beg the question belongs to the field of logic and is a translation of the Latin term petitio principii, literally meaning ‘laying claim to a principle’ (that is, assuming something that ought to be proved first), as in the following sentence: by devoting such a large part of the anti-drug budget to education, we are begging the question of its significance in the battle against drugs. To some traditionalists, this is still the only correct meaning. However, over the last 100 years or so, another, more general use has arisen: ‘invite an obvious question,’ as in some definitions of mental illness beg the question of what constitutes normal behavior. This is by far the more common use today in modern standard English.”
Yup. Language always evolves over time. But there are always a few who can’t quite accept that. 🙂
Suit yerself. I have no trouble with language evolution, but I don’t say “Nukular” or “Febyoowerry” or “Irregardless” or “It’s a doggy-dog world” or “One in the same” or “Between you and I”, either, no matter how popular those faults might be.
I don’t say those either. They’re just plain spelling, pronunciation, or basic grammar mistakes. They’re in a whole different league.
My issue is this: am quite willing to admit I didn’t know the origin and original meaning of that phrase, until you made me aware of it a while back in a similar critique/comment. All of my exposure in reading it has been in its more typical modern use and intent. And given that I’m a dumb and ignorant immigrant high school dropout, reading is how I’ve learned what little I know of the English language.
So if almost nobody uses a phrase in its older intent, and almost everyone uses it in the newer meaning, it’s essentially a lost cause for those that have a problem with that.
For instance, do you still use the word “gay” in its older meaning, other than than in what has become essentially its only meaning? I could make the same argument about that word too. Or quite a few others. Over time, usage, meaning and intent changes. I don’t have a problem with that.
Nothing personal, but I do get slightly annoyed though by folks who call out others for the use of a word or phrase that has become common usage, like how you did here regarding its use in this article. It’s pedantic nit-picking, at best. Sorry, but that’s how I see it.
I appreciate that you’re fighting the good fight, but I fear this battle has been lost. I’ve abandoned the phrase because the correct usage confuses people, and I can’t bring myself to accept the new meaning.
The new meaning especially irks me because “begging the question” is a useful piece of terminology for critiquing an argument using classical logic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
“I appreciate that you’re fighting the good fight, but I fear this battle has been lost.”
I believe you are correct, much as is the case with something that remains a slight bugaboo of mine, using “loan” as a verb (as in, “Would you loan me your…?,” instead of “lend”). I’ve given up, as that usage has evolved into standard American English.
If we’re going to fight, let’s do so for the elimination of “would of,” “should of,” and “could of.” Like fingernails on a chalkboard (now there’s an analogy that dates me), because it so obviously makes zero sense.
And Paul, regardless of your attainment of formal education, where on earth did you get the idea that you’re dumb or ignorant? Do I have to attend the next CC gathering, and straighten you out? 🙂
Another battle that has been hopelessly lost is the one that constantly grates on me: “Everyone is entitled to *their* opinion.” One is entitled to his (or her) opinion. All are entitled to their opinions. But this common usage that whipsaws from singular to plural to singular again has won in the court of popular usage.
As with some others on the other phrases, I have tried to just stop using it. FWIW, my college roommate was a grammar and composition major who was relentless in correcting me whenever I misused a word or a phrase. Which is why I chuckled and nodded at Daniel’s original point. 🙂
I think using “their” instead of “his or her” has been driven in part by 1) a desire to be gender-neutral and 2) finding “his or her” to be too clunky to use. In an earlier era, people probably would have just said “his”, unless a specific identifiable person was being referenced, and that person was a woman (then it would have been “her”).
Another one of these is “lose” and “loose”. See the two sentences below:
1) “For a while, it looked like the Patriots were going to lose the Super Bowl.”
2) “For a while, it looked like the Patriots were going to loose the Super Bowl.”
I grew up understanding “lose” and “loose” to be two completely different words with two completely different meanings. I would understand #1 to mean “the Patriots were playing in a football game called the Super Bowl, and for a while it looked like they would be defeated” and #2 to mean “the Patriots had something in their possession called a ‘Super Bowl’, and for a while it looked like they were going to take this ‘Super Bowl’ and turn it loose” (e.g., perhaps this ‘Super Bowl’ was being kept in a cage, and the Patriots were going to open the cage and release it).
When I was younger that is how I saw these terms used virtually all of the time. About 15 or 20 years ago, however, I began to see people use #2 with the intended meaning I had always associated with #1. At the time, this struck me as an obvious spelling/grammatical error, and I even pointed this out to people on a few occasions. Over time, though, I began to see more and more people use #2 (“loose”) with the intended meaning I had always associated with #1 (“lose”). Today, I would say using #2 is probably at least as common, maybe even more so, than #1. Is this another situation where what was once grammatically incorrect has now become standard usage? Or was this always a regional thing to begin with, and #2 somehow spread to be used throughout the country, perhaps through internet usage?
The one that grates on me the most, in the same vein, is ads listing items “For Sell”. No, no, no, it’s For Sale…and yet For Sell seems to be frighteningly common.
If loose is becoming equivalent to lose in common usage, we’re really in trouble!
Also the correct use of the possessive apostrophe seems to be a lost art. Or is that a loosed art..
I’m sure in texts and tweets loose and lose are down to just “luz” and few people really know the difference anymore. For me, when I want to write loose I always spell it loose. But sometimes when I mean to write lose my fingers type loss.
The most irritating for me, and I think the young people do it on purpose sometimes, is your place of you’re, as in “good luck when your driving over that old bridge.” Probably because both became “ur” a long time ago.
I remember seeing some 60s wagons with air deflectors at the rear of the roof to keep the rear windows clean…not sure if they were factory or not, or if they actually worked.
Very common in Australia during the sixties/early seventies.
I can’t remember if my AP5 Safari had them, but the AP6 to VG had d-pillar deflectors; then the VH – CM had the integrated roof deflector.
Diecast manufacturer Motor Max seems to be fond of them, they put them on their 1/24 scale Chrysler (M-body) Town and Country and AMC Gremlin.
Chrysler’s new wagons for 1969 had a stylish integrated air deflector above the rear window supposed to blow dust off the window and also keep exhaust fumes out of the car when driving with the rear window open.
. The Australian wagons had them as well starting in 1971. My Dad had one (Aussie) can’t remember, how effective it was though, but they looked good.
On the Saab 95 the deflector was built into the body.
I remember seeing a late-40s Chevy, Pontiac, or Oldsmobile fastback with a rear wiper in the 1950s. My mother, who would have been in her 30s when the car was built, said the automakers loaded cars up with accessories in the postwar seller’s market.
Let me combine three points from our discussion here into a single question:
Windshield wipers, air deflection as a function of design, and SAAB.
My father owned a string (five) 2-Stroke SAABs in the 1960’s; a 93 and then two sequential sets of matching white 95’s for him and mother.
He insisted that the bullnosed little SAABs – designed by aircraft-trained engineers, after all- were designed so that the air flow over the nose of the car streamed in such a way that wipers were unnecessary when driving over about 30 mph – neither rain nor bugs could hit the windshield because the airstream lifted them over the top of the car.
I never doubted my father, who always drove those cars without the wipers on, but I have never heard anyone else say this either.
Is such a design possible? Did Saab do that? Does anyone know?
I had three ’68 and ’69 Saab V4’s over a period of 15 years. I assume from your “bullnosed” comment that none of your parents’ Saabs had the longer front clip that mine had, so that makes a difference right there.
I just assumed that when it rains, you use the wipers. I’d think that if the airflow were lifting the rain over the windshield, then I would have heard the sound of wipers on a dry windshield.
You have to wonder how you would you see through an intersection at a stoplight in a heavy downpour? It sounds like an enhanced memory. If you have to turn them on every time you come to a stop, you might as well leave them on. If the air stream really kept the windscreen dry, leaving them on would be annoying because they would shudder. Maybe it’s one of those deals where you could “almost” shut them off.
I just looked at some 1946-47 newspapers, and they do have wire-service articles about complaints: dealers are packing on the accessories/options, including the (typically $17) rear window wiper. [Is there a distinction to be drawn here between “factory option” and “approved dealer-installed accessory”?] Here’s an ad from 1948 that mentions Bosch specifically:
Somewhere around 1985 I owned a 1975 Buick Apollo, 4-door sedan, with a rear wiper.
Never found out if that was a factory option, and never seen another one, or one of it’s twin brothers with one.
I can’t imagine any factory option on an X-body sedan being rare. What was the switch installation like, or do you remember.
I dont understand the image #7 (patent drawing from 1969). Is wiper mechanism moving along with the window? That would require quite sofisticated lid mechanism, especcialy if it is to be water proof. Otherwise window must be rolled down every time it need cleaning, that makes no sense to me…
Lookit the patent and see for yourself.
Rain-ex the new el-cheapo Trico rear window wiper.
If I understand it, the explanation in the patent application seems to be saying that the wiper runs lengthwise across the window on a tubular rack at its base. It goes up and down with the window as a unit into the tailgate. The cutaway in the drawing seems to obscure a notch in the top of the tailgate that allows the wiper to raise with the window only while in its resting position at the extreme left. It’s similar to some of the earliest versions of wipers that didn’t follow an arc. To my mind, this is a somewhat inelegant solution to the problem of wiping a movable window, but I don’t have a better one.
Given one of today’s other posts, we should acknowledge that the high-content, 3rd gen “fat Camry” brought the double rear wiper to America’s masses. (The boxy Cressida had it too, but that was a pretty rare bird.)
That second wiper would be a great addition to today’s SUVs with their gunslit rear windows that are too short (vertically) to accommodate a normal-sized wiper. But if they had two wipers side-by-side, they could actually clean more than a postage stamp.
I don’t understand why ALL cars don’t have rear wipers. That said, I was unaware they existed prior to the Volvo 145, so once again CC adds to my automotive knowledge. The rear window of my double-cab Toyota stays fairly clean/clear on the outside, so I don’t really miss a wiper there, but it boggles the mind (or is that begs the question?) why pickup manufacturers don’t offer heated rear windows to speed inside demisting … my TRD Premium package has heated seats and mirrors, but not rear glass.
Very enjoyable. I give it five stars.
Pinin for the Fjords? Love it! But tell young people nowadays that we didn’t always have rear wipers, and they won’t believe you!
Back in MY day we didn’t even *have* rear windows! Or windshields! The 70-mph breeze blew right through the car! Built character!
Rear window wipers were also an option on early 50’s Packards. I have seen pictures of one on packardinfo.com, and seen them advertised on Ebay.
Great posts like this are the reason I keep coming back to CC!
Interestingly enough, Mitsubishi’s eight generation Lancer was sold with a rear wiper in Puerto Rico.
and I think we can finally say with all that information….
IT’S A WASH!
say goodnight gracie…
I could write for days about front wiper types and designs. On the rears I think some of them can make the whole car like on a Mk 1 Scirocco.
Seeing the Scirocco brings back memories! Not to go off on rear wipers but we had both the ’76 limited edition automatic in walnut metallic and a ’79 manual trans limited edition in sliver/grey metallic with red interior. One of these had one wiper only on the front windshield from the factory. race car inspired. People would go bonkers seeing one wiper in front.
Japanese sedans seem to have rear wipers too. I don’t know how commonly, but JDM spec Nissan Skylines do, and the captive import Ford Meteor from the late 80s sported one too.
My favourite Skyline, the R32 of 1989
The Flaminia sedan actually had four rear wipers, two outside and two inside, working in tandem.
.
Now, that is absolutely insane! Not the best solution to condensation on the inside. If you used them often enough, water stained upholstery would have to result.
That is interesting! I’ve actually seen that employed in a fire truck when on a grade school field trip… There was some sensory overload going on, so I cannot remember for sure if it was an open cab or not, though the voices are saying “yes”.
My wife’s Honda CR-V has a nifty feature…if the front wipers are on, and the shifter is put in reverse, the rear wiper automatically turns on for a swipe or two.
My Citroen does the same the wipers are automatic rain sensing.
A bit late here, but echoing a few of the comments above, a rear wiper was and is optional on a wide variety of JDM sedans. Heck, on some 80s/90s Nissans, you could even get optional wipers on the rear-view mirrors…!
Rear window wiper hit GM as an accessory in 1941. 100% Sure, I have sold many. Rob
In 5th grade..my teacher asked for a short story with a new invention as subject.mine was to put windshield wipers on back of cars to see better on a rainy day…that was 1963..how clairvoyant!! I’m still imaginative!! Got lots more!!
When I was a kid, my dad took me and my brothers into junk yards to visit them. All over the US West. It comes from the days that he worked at a junk yard himself.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/auto-biography/my-first-ride-1954-dodge-coronet
At a visit in the plains of Kansas, around Harper County, we spied a pair of Hudsons. Beautiful cars with large stylized badges of a jet across their trunk lids. Both of them had window wipers on their back windows. That was the first time I had ever seen such a thing. My dad explained what the cars were, years and why they should be remembered. He told us that the window wiper on the rear window helped the driver. We thought the whole thing was pretty cool.
This is how I also became familiar with the Kaisers, the Frasiers, Metropolitans, and other historical cars. Back then, one could visit a junk yard with little kids. They were like auto museums, and my dad was like a tour guide. It was a lot more fun than spending time with our mom and sister, right?
A different approach to a wiper… actually more of a rear window washer… was on my friend’s mother’s Marquis wagon, a 1972 I think.
The washer operated from the driver’s seat. It operated by retracting the window into the tailgate, where it was hit by windshield wash sprays. There was a squee-gee afterward. There was a small door in the chrome trim which allowed filling the reservoir.
I don’t know if it could work while driving. I do know it did a horrible job; pretty worthless.
Interesting!
I had noticed that 1951-54 Packards (all sedans) had available an optional rear window defroster, essentially a heater vent aimed at the back glass. Probably 1955-56 too, and maybe before 1951 as well. Also a useful feature! On Volvo 240 sedans I always thought the rear window electrical heating elements were a neat feature, those don’t seem to be very common either. Maybe they are in newer cars.
Hrr? Volvo was an early adopter, but it’s been damn near impossible for a few decades now, at least in the US and Canada, to find any car without that grid-type backglass defogger.
I’ve never really spent much time in any car newer than a 2001 in recent years, for better or worse. But yes, most (all?) cars have those electrical heater grids now, as far as I can tell. When you had them on a Volvo 240, it was a revelation!
They were optional along with the rear wiper on imported Ford Fiesta and Capri in the 70s whilst standard on Euro ones perhaps to keep the entry price low which was typical of the time. “Every thing is optional”.
A terrific article that I’m glad to see re-run. I love this sort of attention to detail that CC authors attend (hummm…) to.
Right now, my early-adopter Volvo sits sans its rear wiper. That’s because the rear wiper motor on 2 successive tailgates has frozen rock solid (admittedly, one may be a wiring vs. motor problem) and I’ve yet to solve the problem for several years. Nevertheless, my state motor vehicle inspection rules state that if the vehicle has a rear wiper, it must be functional to pass inspection. The “solution” is to simply remove the wiper arm. That somehow gets it past inspection without my needing to actually remedy the basic problem.
Still, I’d like to actually have a functional rear wiper. Or a functional grid-type defogger…something else that’s actually given up the Swedish ghost.
Jeff, if you have a wiring problem, here’s a repair hack I wrote up several years ago
http://www.vclassics.com/archive/tailgate.htm
Thank you Evan!
May I present the next step from rear-window-wipers: rear-view-mirror wipers! (Factory fitted on a JDM 1990 Nissan Cima)
subaru svx
Great art and article! Get em’ while you can. I LOVE rear wipers, since I park outside, near fog and use them every day (in California). I’m looking for our next wagon, SUV or van, and it’s going to be an EV. To me, rear wipers should be on every hatch-opened vehicle. Not the case. They’re becoming rare. New hatch vehicles that are without wipers: Volvo C40, Polestar, Porsche Taycan, BMW i4, Tesla Model Y & X, Hyundai Ioniq 5 and Kia EV6, Lyric … and the list grows. The only EVs that have rear wipers, I think are the Audi e-Trons SUVs, VW ID-4, Mercedes EQB, Mach E, Bolts, Kia Niro and Hyundai Kona. Cost and aerodynamics will be the demise of them.
I never understood why rear wipers weren’t more common on sedans. Living in NZ and driving heaps of hatch- and lift-backs over the years, they’re indispensable. We commonly got rear wipers on an array of Nissans in the 90’s, P11 Primera and A33 Maxima are two that spring to mind.
I’m currently driving a 2023 Mercedes-Benz E-class, and every morning my rear screen is obscured by dew, which doesn’t shift until I get to the motorway. That said, nowadays it isn’t such an issue as it was, with reversing accomplished with the reverse camera.