They are LHD MK 1 Ka wiper arms only RHD is the wrong orientation. I looked for some MK 1 Ka's in scrap yards around Rotterdam back in 2018ish and they had already all rusted away so you will be lucky to find one now.

Those clips are very breakable.
Some are for renault and don't fit exactly.
costed me a window in the past..

The Ford Ka older type fits on the joints. Then you have the hooked fit for the wipers, so you can mount wipers to your like.
LHD Ka, don't now about RHD





On Murena






This is also interesting.
https://nl.aliexpress.com/item/1005007176284527.html?spm=a2g0o.order_list.order_list_main.420.796879d2751uMG&gatewayAdapt=glo2nld

Is this the plastic thing sitting at the end of the wiper arm? I don't recall seeing anyone with the same problem. What does Simon have to say to your problem. It looks like there are two different width of wiper arms.

Hi everybody, one of my wiper adaptors snapped the other day. I got replacement parts from Simon but the hole size was smaller and my wiper arms did not fit. Does anybody have a solution? Where I may be able to obtain equivalent parts, whether there are other wiper blade that fit Murena's wiper arms, etc. This wiper arm seems called the bayonet type, and cross sectional profile is approx. 9.0 mm x 3.3. mm, whereas a common bayonet seems 7 mm wide. Please help me, it is going to rain tomorrow here... Hisashi

Thanks for the input guys.

Thanks to this site I am aware of the order of the rocker arms. These were mounted in the right order. I removed and cleaned them and I will put them in back in the correct way. The rocker arm of the worn lobe was also damaged. This was not as bad as the lobe and it could be salvaged by a light regrinding, hardening and polishing. The other arms will be regrind also. All valves are cleaned and polished, and the springs are alle fine. I also refurbished the waterpump, again with help to the info on this site.

But I found this cilinder head wasn't original. The upper engine mount mounting points are welded on, so it's probably from a Tagora or 180. The head of the 2nd motor however is original. This one is also been totally refurbished (as above) and is as new.

Further the oil has been removed, engine and pump cleaned and new oilfilter mounted. I found no pieces of metal in the old oil. Hopefully the filter caught the particles. I will change the oil and filter after a few rides, to be sure.

The cam itself is now at a specialist who will be welding the worn lobe, than regrind it to the Holbay specs and give it a hardening treatment.
I expect to have it back in a week or 2. Can't wait to put it in the car.

Sorry that this topic got out of hand.
So my last thing of it defending my statement about the the Simca shocks.
Simon/Carjoy did sell them for Bagheera as wel as the Murena.
I was also sceptical about it for the same reasons as you.
So to proof it I bought a set from Carjoy for around 150 Euro (overpriced but I wanted to know).
The Monroe R3227 arrived and I looked them up in Tecdoc carbible.
They are for Simca 1100.
Carjoy didn't mention this.
In a pic above you see me with weights, clock time to go up and down, to compare them to the originals.
I was suprised that they measured not far of from thee originals.
In fact the originals after 40 years measured harder in my case.

I mounted them on 4 Murena's and we all agreed roadhandling was fine.
Carjoy sold a bunch of them, I never heard anything bad about it.
I am not here to criticise the experts, in fact I learned from your FAQ as wel  and I know you put a lot of effort in it.
I only ventilate my opinion and results of my experimental things with shocks.
This sets for Simca 1100 are still to find for a few euro's from several brands.
Of course the originals can be overhauled but pricewise this is not bad.

The Spax G695 are realy good. You can adjust force ( 28 clicks), and adjust the height.
I still daily drive my 1.6 with the Koni fronts for 1100 and Spax since 2013 and I like the setup.

Herman

First thing Henk, have you removed all the rocker arms and kept them in order so you know exactly which position they came from?  Have you checked that all the exhaust rocker arms are the ones with oil holes on the underside as this lubricates the system on that side?  The inlet rocker arms don't, or should not, have an oil hole on their underside.  They have oil fed from the rocker shaft internally.  Having both sides correct is very important.  Over 90% of all the engines I have stripped, with cam wear on various lobes, have been previously rebuilt by someone who did not keep them in the correct place and there were arms with oil holes on the inlet side and some without on the exhaust side!

With that amount of wear even on only one lobe and rocker arm - and that rocker arm will be bad and should be replaced too as I doubt it can be refurbished, but if they do manage, it will certainly need the case hardening to be redone.  I have seen this so many times and it shows how many people overhauling engines don't really know how!  Also with that amount of wear, all the material that has come off will have circulated with the oil and you need to check everything for wear now.  Particularly the oil pump, and all bearings on the crankshaft, as well as totally cleaning out the oil system to get rid of the abrasive oil and metal swarf mix.

As JL has already said, I would be surprised if they can recover that cam because of the amount of wear on that one lobe, but if they have rebuilt it up and reground it, they must have also redone the case hardening.  Make sure they have done that to all the lobes.  But you must not rebuild this now without refurbishing all the rocker arm pads.  You do not use worn rocker arms against a newly reground cam, because it will not last if you do.  I know at least two owners that did that and the cams were shot in less than 10,000 km.

Roy

That does not look particulary good, when you fit the new/reground cam you will need to fit either new followers or get the existing ones refaced(if they are in good enough condition). I would also check that valve and spring assembly to make sure that there is no undue stiffness or sticking to cause that amount of wear also do not be surprised if there is not enough of that cam lobe left to allow a regrind.

Good Luck
John

I've send the cam to the machineshop last week for regrinding it to the Holbay specs. I noticed one of the camlobes is badly worn, as is clearly shown in the picture. Only one, the others are fine. How is that possibl.... So not a moment to soon. I expect the cam back in a few weeks. Before it's back I will clean the engine and prepare everything so I can fit the faster camshaft quickly.

If these Bagheera and Rancho figures are meant to be for cars in the U.K. then I'm afraid you are not talking about reality!  There are only ten (yes 10) Bagheera actually on the road, and currently only 2 Rancho on the road with 8 SORN!  Our DVLA doesn't have the right information for these rare cars, because of the way the computer was set up, and I can give you lots of examples, but I have been over and over this subject many times, as well as speaking to people from DVLA and they know they have multiple faults when it comes to all rare cars and small manufacturers, but it would cost too much and take too much time to put it right, so they have no intention of changing things.

Sure, I know of possibly more than 250 Bagheera that have been here in the U.K. in the past, but most have rotted away, been scrapped, have been sold abroad, or are just lying somewhere yet to be found but rotting away like many old abandoned cars.

The reality is there are only a handful of Bagheera and a few Rancho left.  Even the Murena with its galvanised chassis number only around 50 fit for the road.

If you want to send me that list of 42 Rancho with good M.o.T. I will double check them myself, but I seriously doubt they are all truly fit for the road.  The DVLA had 42 Rancho listed back in the year 2000, 25 years ago, but never as many since!

Roy