If you take the time to look at the black Bakelite agitator and the turquoise Powerfin agitator side by side, you will see not only that the Powerfin has the flexible fins, but their shape is different from the high, fixed fins of the Bakelite agitator. With large loads in the narrow tub of the automatic, the high fins that extended to the edge of the skirt actually impeded turnover whereas the Powerfin design features fins that taper down toward the edge of the agitator skirt. You will also see that in the Powerfin design, the vanes emerge higher on the agitator column relative to their height at the base. This gives more of a vane on the agitator column that helps with water currents to pull clothes downward. This coup[led with the slightly speeded up ocm of the agitation makes a lot of difference in the turnover.
Another thing Maytag did when they introduced the new agitator was extend the rows of holes in the side of the tub down to the bottom. The older style tubs were solid opposite the agitator fins. The new design obviously forces water through the load at the bottom of the tub and out through the holes into the outer tub which might help cleaning. I know from having the Powerfin in a '61 Highlander where the holes do not go all the way to the bottom of the tub that the washing action is far more vigorous in the old-style tub than in the newer. In the newer tub the water is forced out of the tub through the lower rows of holes whereas in the old tub, with the same agitator, the water is forced up around the outside of the tub when it hits the solid portion which means that more water is pulled down near the agitator to better encourage turnover. Don't forget the problems Maytag had with bleach damage in their automatics, partly because agitation stopped when the lid was raised to add the bleach and partly because the shape of the old agitator did not encourage much downward water movement around the column. The Lint Filter agitator improved this somewhat.
If you have ever seen the inside of a Maytag conventional washer, you can see how much wider the tub is beyond the agitator skirt than in the automatics. The Gyrator created great water action and rollover in the wider tubs and, due to the width of the tub, the clothes were able to roll off from and away from the fins instead of being stuck right over the agitator in the narrow tub of the automatics. I agree that Maytag wanted to hide their anemic washing action from users. Only the bol, time fill AMP would operate with the lid up and after that they had the full cycle safety lid switch. When designing the automatic, Maytag refused to re-engineer their Gyrator to the realities of the narrower tub in the automatic. They could hide their washing action, but people who had a Maytag and then switched to a Whirlpool told John how much cleaner and better rinsed their clothes were with the Whirlpool.
