mrcleanjeans
New member
Which is better and why in your opinion? And which is purtier?
1950s-1960s era Speed Queen or Maytag ?
- Thread starter mrcleanjeans
- Start date
The Maytags IMO
Built like a tank, they seem to last forever. However, I believe they were a bit lacking in the feature department. There was a recent thread showing a top of the line 60's Speed Queen, and it was loaded with features. I love the looks of the older Maytags... simple elegance that can never be matched.
Built like a tank, they seem to last forever. However, I believe they were a bit lacking in the feature department. There was a recent thread showing a top of the line 60's Speed Queen, and it was loaded with features. I love the looks of the older Maytags... simple elegance that can never be matched.
danemodsandy
Well-known member
Hmm...
"Built like a tank, they seem to last forever. However, I believe they were a bit lacking in the feature department."
That may have been true in the '50s and the early '60s, but by the time of the New Generation models of the mid-'60s, they had much better features. The TOL 906s were so chock-full of features and so pre-programmed, the only machines I know of that could match them were contemporary Lady Kenmores (it must be said that the LKs offered more flexibility; 906s were set up so that you couldn't modify any of their preset cycles).
Later, in the '70s, Maytag extended features even deeper into the line. I have an LA108 from the latter half of the decade; it's a one-speed model that was nearly the bottom of the line. Yet- courtesy of Maytag's almost unbelievably simple engineering- it has three cycles (Regular, Permanent Press, and Delicate), four water temp selections (Cold/Cold, Warm/Cold, Hot/Cold, and Warm/Warm), as well as three water level selections (Small, Medium and Large). In addition, it has a bleach dispenser and a softener dispenser. This is a one-speed machine, so the Delicate cycle is Fabric-Matic, meaning that the machine agitates a bit, stops a while, then agitates a bit more, then stops, etc.
All of this is done with some of the simplest, most elegant technology I've ever seen. It is absolutely all the washer I need. Other brands produced in the same time frame didn't have this many features, because their engineering was too elaborate. For instance, softener dispensers were often solenoid-controlled on other makes, instead of the Maytag's simple reliance on centrifugal force. That meant that such dispensers were too expensive to put on every model. Maytag could afford to give one of theirs with most every machine.
In their time, Speed Queens were supposed to be exceptionally robust machines; they were promoted as such and people who bought them believed that to be true. But from what I can see (and I am willing to be corrected on this point), the survival rate on vintage 'Tags is higher than that for SQ's from the same time frame.
Can you tell I loves me some Maytags? ;-)
"Built like a tank, they seem to last forever. However, I believe they were a bit lacking in the feature department."
That may have been true in the '50s and the early '60s, but by the time of the New Generation models of the mid-'60s, they had much better features. The TOL 906s were so chock-full of features and so pre-programmed, the only machines I know of that could match them were contemporary Lady Kenmores (it must be said that the LKs offered more flexibility; 906s were set up so that you couldn't modify any of their preset cycles).
Later, in the '70s, Maytag extended features even deeper into the line. I have an LA108 from the latter half of the decade; it's a one-speed model that was nearly the bottom of the line. Yet- courtesy of Maytag's almost unbelievably simple engineering- it has three cycles (Regular, Permanent Press, and Delicate), four water temp selections (Cold/Cold, Warm/Cold, Hot/Cold, and Warm/Warm), as well as three water level selections (Small, Medium and Large). In addition, it has a bleach dispenser and a softener dispenser. This is a one-speed machine, so the Delicate cycle is Fabric-Matic, meaning that the machine agitates a bit, stops a while, then agitates a bit more, then stops, etc.
All of this is done with some of the simplest, most elegant technology I've ever seen. It is absolutely all the washer I need. Other brands produced in the same time frame didn't have this many features, because their engineering was too elaborate. For instance, softener dispensers were often solenoid-controlled on other makes, instead of the Maytag's simple reliance on centrifugal force. That meant that such dispensers were too expensive to put on every model. Maytag could afford to give one of theirs with most every machine.
In their time, Speed Queens were supposed to be exceptionally robust machines; they were promoted as such and people who bought them believed that to be true. But from what I can see (and I am willing to be corrected on this point), the survival rate on vintage 'Tags is higher than that for SQ's from the same time frame.
Can you tell I loves me some Maytags? ;-)
danemodsandy
Well-known member
And Oh, Yeah...
...You asked about purtier.
My vote would be for Maytag there, too. Maytag styling was highly professional, very sleek and beautifully done. For my money, SQ styling always had that "alternative product" look, with styling that was a little stodgy and a little out-of-date. I don't mind that, actually; my 1980's TriStar vacuum cleaner has styling derived from the Compact vacuum cleaner of 1940, updated only in small details. "Niche" manufacturers offering a product that was supposedly better than the big brands often had outdated or slightly clunky styling (think American Motors vs. General Motors). In cases where the product really was terrific (like my TriStar), "alternative" styling can actually be somewhat endearing.
I think that SQs were good machines, don't get me wrong. I just happen to like Maytags a lot.
...You asked about purtier.
My vote would be for Maytag there, too. Maytag styling was highly professional, very sleek and beautifully done. For my money, SQ styling always had that "alternative product" look, with styling that was a little stodgy and a little out-of-date. I don't mind that, actually; my 1980's TriStar vacuum cleaner has styling derived from the Compact vacuum cleaner of 1940, updated only in small details. "Niche" manufacturers offering a product that was supposedly better than the big brands often had outdated or slightly clunky styling (think American Motors vs. General Motors). In cases where the product really was terrific (like my TriStar), "alternative" styling can actually be somewhat endearing.
I think that SQs were good machines, don't get me wrong. I just happen to like Maytags a lot.
danemodsandy
Well-known member
Correction:
My LA108's water temp selections are:
Cold/Cold, Warm/Cold, Hot/Cold, and HOT/Warm
My LA108's water temp selections are:
Cold/Cold, Warm/Cold, Hot/Cold, and HOT/Warm
chaskelljr2
Well-known member
Which One???
Actually, to me, it would be hard to choose either one if I have to take either one on face value alone.
But if I have to put some thought into it, which one would I choose for that era (1950's-60's)???
For Features???? I would say Speed Queen (in fact, earlier this decade, "eddy" (from Canada) did luck up and snap up a beautiful 1960 Speed Queen Dryer with a lighted panel, didn't he)).
For Performance, Elegance and Durability??? Then I would have to say Maytag hands down (their all push-button models from that era are some of the most beautiful machines ever designed...... I also liked the understated quietness they exhibited when they were in operation..... and as everyone else has said here on this forum many many times...... their durability and longevity were unmatched (Speed Queen claimed to have very robust machines, but it was proven time and time again that Maytag had eaten Speed Queens for lunch when it came to durability and longevity), and sorry to say..... my being a Kenmore fan, I think that Whirlpool/Sears Kenmore could take a page or two out Maytag's book when it came to longevity as well).
So to me, it would have to be Maytag by an unaminous decision.
But when it comes to pure love of the machines, I'll still take a Lady Kenmore any day though.
--Charles--
Actually, to me, it would be hard to choose either one if I have to take either one on face value alone.
But if I have to put some thought into it, which one would I choose for that era (1950's-60's)???
For Features???? I would say Speed Queen (in fact, earlier this decade, "eddy" (from Canada) did luck up and snap up a beautiful 1960 Speed Queen Dryer with a lighted panel, didn't he)).
For Performance, Elegance and Durability??? Then I would have to say Maytag hands down (their all push-button models from that era are some of the most beautiful machines ever designed...... I also liked the understated quietness they exhibited when they were in operation..... and as everyone else has said here on this forum many many times...... their durability and longevity were unmatched (Speed Queen claimed to have very robust machines, but it was proven time and time again that Maytag had eaten Speed Queens for lunch when it came to durability and longevity), and sorry to say..... my being a Kenmore fan, I think that Whirlpool/Sears Kenmore could take a page or two out Maytag's book when it came to longevity as well).
So to me, it would have to be Maytag by an unaminous decision.
But when it comes to pure love of the machines, I'll still take a Lady Kenmore any day though.
--Charles--
gyrafoam
Well-known member
The 1950's SQ's had the styling all wrapped-up. The mid-fifties pairs were works of art.By the early 1960's Maytag had begun to look very nice, especially in turquoise!
Performance wise, the Maytag had an edge with the pressure-fill that would allow precise water-level and full rinses regardless of the pressure.
Other than that I really cant think of much else different as far as washing ability between the two----except-----for people who do get their garments greasy------then the SQ has the edge with the over-flow rinses.
Both machines have VERY aggressive straight-vane agitators. And both have decent spin-speeds.
I regularly use the trio of a late sixties SQ, early (1964) Highlander and a 1954 Unimatic. The three power-houses get all my wash done perfectly.
Performance wise, the Maytag had an edge with the pressure-fill that would allow precise water-level and full rinses regardless of the pressure.
Other than that I really cant think of much else different as far as washing ability between the two----except-----for people who do get their garments greasy------then the SQ has the edge with the over-flow rinses.
Both machines have VERY aggressive straight-vane agitators. And both have decent spin-speeds.
I regularly use the trio of a late sixties SQ, early (1964) Highlander and a 1954 Unimatic. The three power-houses get all my wash done perfectly.
hilovane
Well-known member
As top-loaders go, I've been especially partial to Maytag; while I was never keen on their full-time lid switch, and the fact that if their rinse cycle were any shorter (as in "you blink, you miss it!")I always felt they set the standard by which others were judged. When they introduced the Power-Fin agitator, it was practically "game over." The rollover, regardless of speed or water level, was IMO, unsurpassed. The 606 was the penultimate MOL washing machine.
Get one of each and put the dryer(s) in the garage ;-)
.
I like the1950's and early 1960's Speed Queens styling, and the fact that they had the stainless solid tub and stainless dryer drum.
I also like the simplicity of the mechanical design of the Maytag, plus the quality of workmanship, right down to the superb metal prep and rust proofing job that was done on the cabinets. The first design centre dial Maytags are in a class all their own. Very pleasing styling, right down the base model Highliner. While I do not want a basement full of Maytags, I think that no collection should be without at least one.
That being said, I would LOVE to find a 1950's to early 1960's Speed Queen for my collection also. <:
I like the1950's and early 1960's Speed Queens styling, and the fact that they had the stainless solid tub and stainless dryer drum.
I also like the simplicity of the mechanical design of the Maytag, plus the quality of workmanship, right down to the superb metal prep and rust proofing job that was done on the cabinets. The first design centre dial Maytags are in a class all their own. Very pleasing styling, right down the base model Highliner. While I do not want a basement full of Maytags, I think that no collection should be without at least one.
That being said, I would LOVE to find a 1950's to early 1960's Speed Queen for my collection also. <:
danemodsandy
Well-known member
One Other Thing:
That I always admired about Maytags of the centre-dial era was that most washers and dryers in the lineup could be paired, and appear to match. The all-pushbutton 906s were an exception, of course, and lighted console models didn't appear to be a dead match with lower-series models that didn't have that feature. But by and large, you could put together exactly the models you wanted, and they'd match. Other manufacturers' machines didn't come anywhere close to matching from series to series, so if you bought a TOL washer and skimped on the dryer (as many people did), your attempt at thrift really stuck out like a sore thumb. Sears was particularly devious in this regard; while most of their machines had a "family" resemblance, a Lady Kenmore and a MOL or BOL machine didn't look right together.
So, that's one more reason I like 'Tags. My own Maytag pair is an LA108 that is nearly a BOL machine (not that I need anything more). But my dryer is an MOL, electronic sensor LDE608- a more upscale machine than the washer. They match perfectly. It just adds more value, y'know?
That I always admired about Maytags of the centre-dial era was that most washers and dryers in the lineup could be paired, and appear to match. The all-pushbutton 906s were an exception, of course, and lighted console models didn't appear to be a dead match with lower-series models that didn't have that feature. But by and large, you could put together exactly the models you wanted, and they'd match. Other manufacturers' machines didn't come anywhere close to matching from series to series, so if you bought a TOL washer and skimped on the dryer (as many people did), your attempt at thrift really stuck out like a sore thumb. Sears was particularly devious in this regard; while most of their machines had a "family" resemblance, a Lady Kenmore and a MOL or BOL machine didn't look right together.
So, that's one more reason I like 'Tags. My own Maytag pair is an LA108 that is nearly a BOL machine (not that I need anything more). But my dryer is an MOL, electronic sensor LDE608- a more upscale machine than the washer. They match perfectly. It just adds more value, y'know?
mrcleanjeans
New member
Speed Queens IMHO rinse better with the overflow
rinse,don't have a messy lint screen to clean
(though one model had one)and are more interesting
and ornate.The stainless steel tub is another plus.
Although SQs are exceptionally well built,I will say that
those old Maytags beat out EVERYONE EVER in the longivity
dept.
rinse,don't have a messy lint screen to clean
(though one model had one)and are more interesting
and ornate.The stainless steel tub is another plus.
Although SQs are exceptionally well built,I will say that
those old Maytags beat out EVERYONE EVER in the longivity
dept.
I've had limited personal experience with both early Maytags and SQ's, but I've always thought Maytags were a little better at rollover with large loads.
What are your thoughts on the subject?
What are your thoughts on the subject?
chaskelljr2
Well-known member
Rickr.....
I agree......
In fact, I think I am going to go on my list in my profile and put at least a Maytag or two on the list.
And this is a wish list that includes the likes of a Speed Queen, a couple of Philcos, a Westinghouse or two, a few Frigidaires and a whole list of Kenmores (Most of them either Lady Kenmores of different eras, a couple of Kenmore Elites and a #2 and a #3 Kenmore). Now, I must say that this wish list/collection has to have a couple of Maytags in it too.
--Charles--
I agree......
In fact, I think I am going to go on my list in my profile and put at least a Maytag or two on the list.
And this is a wish list that includes the likes of a Speed Queen, a couple of Philcos, a Westinghouse or two, a few Frigidaires and a whole list of Kenmores (Most of them either Lady Kenmores of different eras, a couple of Kenmore Elites and a #2 and a #3 Kenmore). Now, I must say that this wish list/collection has to have a couple of Maytags in it too.
--Charles--
getta' load of this turnover...SQ on youtube -
this is Mark (Lighted Control's) Speed Queen - it has some turnover! But I think Maytag was a purtier design
this is Mark (Lighted Control's) Speed Queen - it has some turnover! But I think Maytag was a purtier design
maytagbear
Well-known member
The Maytag, by
a wide margin!
I admit to bias, the only Speed Queen machines I used from '68-'80 were coin-ops, and no one I knew had one.
However, Maytags, real Maytags, were quiet, solid, got the job done without any fuss. One of the happiest days of my life was when the A208 was delivered in 1978. (Until then, we had a Whirlpool Imperial).
I am so glad that I got one of the last real Maytags when I got my Dependable Care set.
Lawrence/Maytagbear
a wide margin!
I admit to bias, the only Speed Queen machines I used from '68-'80 were coin-ops, and no one I knew had one.
However, Maytags, real Maytags, were quiet, solid, got the job done without any fuss. One of the happiest days of my life was when the A208 was delivered in 1978. (Until then, we had a Whirlpool Imperial).
I am so glad that I got one of the last real Maytags when I got my Dependable Care set.
Lawrence/Maytagbear
Stainfighter,
Notice on Mark's machine, however, that the agitator in that video is from an Easy ringer machine. That explains the rather brisk action and fast turnover. Although the original agitator would have done about the same I'd imagine. Maybe just less of the spinning the clothes around.
Jon
Notice on Mark's machine, however, that the agitator in that video is from an Easy ringer machine. That explains the rather brisk action and fast turnover. Although the original agitator would have done about the same I'd imagine. Maybe just less of the spinning the clothes around.
Jon
Maytag!
I have used the following top-loaders in my life regularly enough to remember:
1981 Wards (Norge)
1993 Kenmore 80 Series DD
1999ish Whirlpool DD
1978ish GE FF
2005 Speed Queen Coin-Ops
1999ish Maytag Coin-Ops
1st gen. Maytag Neptune Coin-Op (HATED IT!!!)
early 1990s Maytag
GE (Whirlpool) Portable DD
Kenmore (WCI) stacked top-loader with plastic indexing tub
2004 Amanatag (Hated it too)
1980 Maytag A208
The Maytag A208 wins hands down. It has the quietest operation, the least vibration, and the best results. The GE FF is better at lint removal, but the Maytag just PERFORMS! It always balances the load and spins up to 618 RPM without shaking the house. It is a low-end machine, but the best featured-regular capacity washer available of the era. I can't say enough good things about it.
Center Dials age gracefully and will still beat their contemporary competition.
Dave
I have used the following top-loaders in my life regularly enough to remember:
1981 Wards (Norge)
1993 Kenmore 80 Series DD
1999ish Whirlpool DD
1978ish GE FF
2005 Speed Queen Coin-Ops
1999ish Maytag Coin-Ops
1st gen. Maytag Neptune Coin-Op (HATED IT!!!)
early 1990s Maytag
GE (Whirlpool) Portable DD
Kenmore (WCI) stacked top-loader with plastic indexing tub
2004 Amanatag (Hated it too)
1980 Maytag A208
The Maytag A208 wins hands down. It has the quietest operation, the least vibration, and the best results. The GE FF is better at lint removal, but the Maytag just PERFORMS! It always balances the load and spins up to 618 RPM without shaking the house. It is a low-end machine, but the best featured-regular capacity washer available of the era. I can't say enough good things about it.
Center Dials age gracefully and will still beat their contemporary competition.
Dave
*giggle*
Yes, Mark's machine is awesome with that agi, but my experience with the Speed Queens at Greg's was that they were a little lacking in the turnover department. Fun, dramatic, and gorgeous, but a standard capacity Maytag would knock the socks off of one.
Of course, the "scoop-and-squirt" lint filter on the SQ was pure entertainment...I have to give it that.
Yes, Mark's machine is awesome with that agi, but my experience with the Speed Queens at Greg's was that they were a little lacking in the turnover department. Fun, dramatic, and gorgeous, but a standard capacity Maytag would knock the socks off of one.
Of course, the "scoop-and-squirt" lint filter on the SQ was pure entertainment...I have to give it that.
eddy1210
Well-known member
solid tubs rule
OK you know where I would stand here. But, if Maytag had an S/S solid tub model with an overflow rinse it would be in my collection. And I've got 4 Maytags now so I have the bug.
OK you know where I would stand here. But, if Maytag had an S/S solid tub model with an overflow rinse it would be in my collection. And I've got 4 Maytags now so I have the bug.
toggleswitch
Well-known member
~The Maytags IMO. Built like a tank, they seem to last forever.
Agreed
Saw mid-60's Maytags with the turquioise back-panel still alive and well in the (for sale) home of some older women The women became old and infirm; the Maytags did not.
Agreed
Saw mid-60's Maytags with the turquioise back-panel still alive and well in the (for sale) home of some older women The women became old and infirm; the Maytags did not.
Nate is right - a standard capacity Maytag next to a Speed Queen would be a rather unfair "fight". The Speed Queen machines ranked near or at the very bottom of the ratings for years - until they went to a perforated tub design in 1980 and even then, their ratings didn't improve much. Some of the constants were poor extraction, average or less-than-average washing ability and especially in the case of the 70's reversing motor machines, rather poor reliability ratings. It was curious that SQ continued to use the reliable solenoid design in it's commercial line, but changed to the reversing motor and helical shifting mechanism in the domestic line which were regarded as mostly garbage when they were first introduced in 1970.
Not that I don't love the SQ's - I've had quite a few of them but my favorites were the solenoid machines by far.
Maytag never fared much better in CR ratings for washability, scoring mostly average ratings but their reliability reputation made them an obvious winner in that area. CR consistently rated them at or near the top - not because they were so much better than any other make, but because they had fewer disadvantages and fewer lower scores than other makes.
Not that I don't love the SQ's - I've had quite a few of them but my favorites were the solenoid machines by far.
Maytag never fared much better in CR ratings for washability, scoring mostly average ratings but their reliability reputation made them an obvious winner in that area. CR consistently rated them at or near the top - not because they were so much better than any other make, but because they had fewer disadvantages and fewer lower scores than other makes.
peterh770
Well-known member
Speed Queen, all the way, hands down. Nothing could escape the agitation, and the overflow rinse gave sparkling results.
laundromat
Well-known member
Horrible sand disposal
The Speed Queens had a solid tub that was horrible when it came to doing anything from the beach.They not only left sand in their solid tub but it also got into the fabrics of the wah done in that load.The Maytag's perferated tubs were much more practicle as well as larger in capacity.The Maytag's Power Finn Agitators were also much better.Being flexible instead of solid and molded into the actual frame of the agitator,made the Maytags have a much more assured turn over of the clothes.For example,some agitator washers would cause air to build up in pieces like bedsheets and dress shirts.The Maytag's turn over ,more or less,did away with that problem by the vacuum build up in the wash and rinse water created by the flexible finns.That was one of the first positive features I saw in the older Maytags as aposed to the Whirlpools and GE's. I noticed too the difference the spinning with the water in the tub caused.I already miss the original machines they made to last.I need to get one for keeps.
The Speed Queens had a solid tub that was horrible when it came to doing anything from the beach.They not only left sand in their solid tub but it also got into the fabrics of the wah done in that load.The Maytag's perferated tubs were much more practicle as well as larger in capacity.The Maytag's Power Finn Agitators were also much better.Being flexible instead of solid and molded into the actual frame of the agitator,made the Maytags have a much more assured turn over of the clothes.For example,some agitator washers would cause air to build up in pieces like bedsheets and dress shirts.The Maytag's turn over ,more or less,did away with that problem by the vacuum build up in the wash and rinse water created by the flexible finns.That was one of the first positive features I saw in the older Maytags as aposed to the Whirlpools and GE's. I noticed too the difference the spinning with the water in the tub caused.I already miss the original machines they made to last.I need to get one for keeps.
Entertainment value
To me,the Maytag wins the dependability contest hands down,along with the crown for easy repairs when needed.Styling is up to personal taste,so ruling that out,one thing us washer nuts look for is entertainment value-overflow rinses,cool lint filter systems,odd agitation styles,etc.The Maytags were competent in all respects,but devoid of excitement.As was posted earlier in this thread,I have little use for timed fills.I imagine it was even more of a problem when these machines were new,as water pressures probably varied more then.Years ago,we had to get rid of Grandma's almost new Speed Queen because the water pressure was not adequate for it.KM and WP I always liked for the great washing action,but never could live with the neutral drain drawing the dirty water thru the clothes,complicated by the fact that all the clothes being packed in the bottom of the tub made the spray rinses ineffective.All this being said,my choice between Maytag and SQ is neither(although I love them both).I think if it was 1965,to pick a year at random,I would go with a GE.Decent dependability,good action,good filtering,good spray rinse....
Tom
To me,the Maytag wins the dependability contest hands down,along with the crown for easy repairs when needed.Styling is up to personal taste,so ruling that out,one thing us washer nuts look for is entertainment value-overflow rinses,cool lint filter systems,odd agitation styles,etc.The Maytags were competent in all respects,but devoid of excitement.As was posted earlier in this thread,I have little use for timed fills.I imagine it was even more of a problem when these machines were new,as water pressures probably varied more then.Years ago,we had to get rid of Grandma's almost new Speed Queen because the water pressure was not adequate for it.KM and WP I always liked for the great washing action,but never could live with the neutral drain drawing the dirty water thru the clothes,complicated by the fact that all the clothes being packed in the bottom of the tub made the spray rinses ineffective.All this being said,my choice between Maytag and SQ is neither(although I love them both).I think if it was 1965,to pick a year at random,I would go with a GE.Decent dependability,good action,good filtering,good spray rinse....
Tom
laundromat
Well-known member
I wasn't that fond of the GE's.The water coming out through the Filter Flo spray nozel was always dirty and sudsy.I liked the clear rinses I had with the Laundromat,Maytag and 1-18 FRIGIDAIRE models.I am not saying I didn't like Speed Queens.They are great and I liked the old Fluid Drive transies as well as their overflow rinse.But the capacity as well as the solid tub design just didn't cut it for me.I know that FRIGIDAIRE"s tubs were also solid but the up and down agitation as well as the Rapidry Spin made up for that.
1965 GE Washer
Funny you said GE for the first pick - Consumer Reports rated washers in 1966 and the GE Filter-Flo with Mini-Basket was the top rated washer!
Funny you said GE for the first pick - Consumer Reports rated washers in 1966 and the GE Filter-Flo with Mini-Basket was the top rated washer!
djmjlcst
Well-known member
Tough Question - I love them both!
Got to tell ya, I love both the SQ's and the Maytags! I guess it's a matter of functions, features, styling, etc. Mom had a 1964 SQ with a lighted control panel. My earliest memories of it was when occasionally it would get out of balance during the spin cycle. Also the lint filter would pop off the agitator once or twice during a wash cycle and it was a bit annoying. But the cool factor was watching this lint filter bring up the wash water and splash it on the center post as it went back and forth. Kinda cool! Also the way that loud solenoid kicked in from wash to spin! The timer used to make the click/snap sound when it advanced. The overflow rinse was something to behold! All that fresh water coming in. It would really make a suds cake from the wash cycle just before spinning. Then the overflow rinse when the washer filled and started agitating then turn off for a few minutes and giving another two minute overflow rinse before the final spin! The laundry water was always clean and clear! Mom said she went through three pumps on that machine. Mom and Dad sold the house we lived in and that SQ and the Hamilton dryer stayed there for the new owners. We went washerless for the next few years until we moved again. Then we had a used Wizard machine - it had the overflow rinse but it was prone to "skate across the basement floor" when spinning. When we finally moved for the third time a set of avocado green Maytags were sold with the house. I can't remember the model number but we moved into that house in August 1975. They were maybe one or two years old at that time. The Maytag washer was very quiet when running. The only time you could hear it run was when the timer advanced. Other than that you had to go down half the flight of stairs to hear what it was doing - either washing or spinning. It didn't have a lighted control panel. The washer had the trip control to stop spinning when it got unbalanced. I hated the lid switch on the back - you couldn't see the washer run with the lid up. But, as the years went by it somehow became stuck in the closed position. Much to my surprise the washer would run when the lid was raised regardless of what cycle it was in. Mom used to do throw rugs and this caused it to stop on occasion. No overflow rinse on the Maytag, but it did have a one or two minute spin rinse between wash and rinse cycles. It only had regular and permanent press cycles on the dial; small, medium, large water settings, regular or gentle action, and hot, warm, or cold water temperature settings. Had to love the spin drain, just like the SQ. I retired that washer after it went through two floods, and it started making louder noises after the 2nd flood. But Dad always took the front cover off the washer and dried the motor out with a fan for a few days before attempting to do a load of wash. Finally about 7 years ago I replaced those Maytags with a pair of the Atlantis models after Mom passed away. So far they'be been OK BUT Dad said the timer stops midway during the cycle on the washer. I'll have to investigate this further.
My own set of daily drivers are the Speed Queens from 1983 and 2007 respectively and I love both of them!
Hope this wasn't too long of post but I just had to tell the story.
Mike
Got to tell ya, I love both the SQ's and the Maytags! I guess it's a matter of functions, features, styling, etc. Mom had a 1964 SQ with a lighted control panel. My earliest memories of it was when occasionally it would get out of balance during the spin cycle. Also the lint filter would pop off the agitator once or twice during a wash cycle and it was a bit annoying. But the cool factor was watching this lint filter bring up the wash water and splash it on the center post as it went back and forth. Kinda cool! Also the way that loud solenoid kicked in from wash to spin! The timer used to make the click/snap sound when it advanced. The overflow rinse was something to behold! All that fresh water coming in. It would really make a suds cake from the wash cycle just before spinning. Then the overflow rinse when the washer filled and started agitating then turn off for a few minutes and giving another two minute overflow rinse before the final spin! The laundry water was always clean and clear! Mom said she went through three pumps on that machine. Mom and Dad sold the house we lived in and that SQ and the Hamilton dryer stayed there for the new owners. We went washerless for the next few years until we moved again. Then we had a used Wizard machine - it had the overflow rinse but it was prone to "skate across the basement floor" when spinning. When we finally moved for the third time a set of avocado green Maytags were sold with the house. I can't remember the model number but we moved into that house in August 1975. They were maybe one or two years old at that time. The Maytag washer was very quiet when running. The only time you could hear it run was when the timer advanced. Other than that you had to go down half the flight of stairs to hear what it was doing - either washing or spinning. It didn't have a lighted control panel. The washer had the trip control to stop spinning when it got unbalanced. I hated the lid switch on the back - you couldn't see the washer run with the lid up. But, as the years went by it somehow became stuck in the closed position. Much to my surprise the washer would run when the lid was raised regardless of what cycle it was in. Mom used to do throw rugs and this caused it to stop on occasion. No overflow rinse on the Maytag, but it did have a one or two minute spin rinse between wash and rinse cycles. It only had regular and permanent press cycles on the dial; small, medium, large water settings, regular or gentle action, and hot, warm, or cold water temperature settings. Had to love the spin drain, just like the SQ. I retired that washer after it went through two floods, and it started making louder noises after the 2nd flood. But Dad always took the front cover off the washer and dried the motor out with a fan for a few days before attempting to do a load of wash. Finally about 7 years ago I replaced those Maytags with a pair of the Atlantis models after Mom passed away. So far they'be been OK BUT Dad said the timer stops midway during the cycle on the washer. I'll have to investigate this further.
My own set of daily drivers are the Speed Queens from 1983 and 2007 respectively and I love both of them!
Hope this wasn't too long of post but I just had to tell the story.
Mike
Interesting
Gansky,I did not know that-I assumed by that time Maytag was winning every award!Any way you could post that article for all to enjoy?
Mike,your story was NOT too long-I enjoyed it!
Laundromat,I too never liked the big burp of sudsy water the GEs spit out into the pan at the beginning of the rinse,but overall I will stick with my pick,especially after Gansky enlightened me!
Tom
Gansky,I did not know that-I assumed by that time Maytag was winning every award!Any way you could post that article for all to enjoy?
Mike,your story was NOT too long-I enjoyed it!
Laundromat,I too never liked the big burp of sudsy water the GEs spit out into the pan at the beginning of the rinse,but overall I will stick with my pick,especially after Gansky enlightened me!
Tom
Similar threads
