2018 Speed Queen topload models

Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support :

Suds Saver

Perhaps it's because I grew up on the Texas Gulf Coast, but I've never seen a 'suds saver' down here - not growing up, not now. It always made sense to me with wringer washers that one would run multiple loads through hot, soapy water. However, draining that water into a big open tub to cool it down, then feeding it back on to more clothing, just didn't seem right. I can remember as a kid seeing Kenmore machines in the catalogue talking about 'suds saver' and couldn't understand it. For me (and just speaking for me) if water usage got that critical, I'd just go with front loading and be done with it. Would rather wash my stuff in clean water.
 
A Better Lint Filtering System In SQ TL Washers

Hi Barry, the new SQ TL washers will have neutral drain and will leave a lot less lint and crap in the clothing.

 

I don't know how anybody can look a a neutral drain TL perforated basket and think that all the dirty just drains THROUGH the clothing, LOOK at what is actually happening, the clothing is suspended in the water as the drain starts, the water level goes down slightly faster in the outer tub. 90% of the washer is leaving through the side holes of the wash basket carrying lint and  dirt with it. { this system is not perfect, but far better than the alternative ]

 

Same washer spin drain: everything starts spinning, clothes are heavier that water, clothes get pushed to the sides of the wash basket from centrifugal force, over 1/2 of all dirty water is forced under pressure THROUGH your clean clothing forcing your CLEAN clothing to become a gaint lint and grit filter.

 

This phenomenon has been proved again and again, every manufacturer that ever built Spin Drain TL Perforated Basket machines had problems with lint redisposing and streaking of clean clothing, you can read in the service manuals and see the things they did to the design of the machines to try to minimize this affect. [ you can read the thread hear about the guy in Pennsylvania with his linting problems that they had when his WP built DD washer stopped neutral draining, and how he solved the problem ]

 

Fact; every TL washer manufacturer who had a machine that was capable of doing a ND DID SO, the only reason SD washers were ever built is because they were CHEAPER to build as they did not have to do another complicated function. [ every TL washer built World Wide will soon be Neutral Drain 98.9% are ND now ]

 

Hi John, Suds-Savers where the water was stored in a separate tub really worked very well and made a lot of sense.

 

First since you would almost always start with HOT water you want it to cool somewhat for the next load or two, and having the water sit in the laundry tub for 20 minutes or longer really let the heavy soil settle in the bottom of the sink [ anyone that has ever used a SS can tell you that you always end rinsing this soil down the drain between every load.

 

Also the better WP-KM SS washers that had the great Self-Cleaning lint filters trapped a lot of lint during the wash and rinse parts of the cycle and automatically pumped this lint down the rinse drain hose, so it did not SAVE the lint.

 

These are great improvements on using the water over and over in a WW, people that had these WP. KM,  SS washers really loved them, which is part of the reason that WP-KM sold more than 90% of all the SS automatic washers ever sold. In the neighborhood I live in literally almost every house had a KM SS washer when I was a kid, and one neighbor after another was really upset when they eventually had to replace these washers and could not get another SS washer.

 

I think that most other manufactures only built and sold SS washers because Kenmore and Whirlpool forced them to because many customers wanted this feature.

 

When buying a new KM washer say in 1968, paying the $10 for the SS option saved enough money in the 8-12 years the washer was likley to last in a family of four essentially gave you a FREE AUTOMATIC washer compared to your poor neighbor with a Non-SS washer [ imagine if there was a $100 option on a new car in 1968 that saved enough money to pay you back the complete cost of owning the car, EVERYONE and their brother would have bought that $100 option. As with many thrifty educated people things like SS washers helped many consumers to become more wealthy than their neighbors.

 

John L.
 
Spin-drain

We may have to agree to disagree here. In my experience its neutral drain washers that leave more fuzz and junk behind, though not by much. I've seen post FF GEs do neutral drains where all the stuff floating in the water just settles on the clothes rather than being flung out through the holes as the water rises up. The big benefit of neutral drain comes in the ability to cheapen a washer, which is why I think it caught on so much. You need a clutch or at least a beefier clutch, beefier driver system, along with a re-designed tub cap and overflow system. Ie, if a post FF GE spin drains water leaks out via the overflow tub. Same reason for ridding breaks and going lid-lock, its cheaper to remove parts and/or design them around less stress load.
 
Hi Chet

 

I would Like To see a GE FF do a neutral drain.

 

You are correct that a lid lock eliminates having a tub break and probably saves money building a machine although it often increases problems, the trash brands like WH and WCI started using lid locks early on.

 

I certainly do not agree with the rest of your analysis on spin drain vs Neutral Drain TL washer, and problem is you have no credibility as we don't have any idea if you have ever seen, worked on, or have any first hand knowledge about washing machines.

 

At this point it is up to you to prove your ideas as I have seen a few hundred real life examples to prove my points, including every major American manufacturer of TL washers putting this problem in print, and all of them trying to take steps to address consumer complaints about excessive linting related to trying to spin drain a washer full of water and clothing.

 

Maytag even put in their advertising how much cleaner your clothing will be when they were promoting their Norge-Tag washers compared their DC machines, because the way the NT spun and drained out the dirty water as it was not spun out though the clothing nearly as much.

 

One of my favorite signs here at work says,

 

                                           I Would Agree With You, But Then We Would Both Be Wrong

 

John L.

[this post was last edited: 10/10/2017-11:22]
 
Neutral drain cheaper?

As far as I understand dosen't any TL with typical reversing motor have a clutch? Simply because the motor is fixed speed by winding?

A neutral drain requires way more components. You either need a transmission system that allows the motor to run while empty if the pump is motor driven or an entirely seperate drain pump. You still have a clutch to my knowledge.
Spindrain is just a clutch, optimized for more slippage.
Sure the motor power needs to be ever so little higher, but even that can be compensated via the clutch.

Lid locks are cheaper then brakes, yes. The only way to stop a 700rpm drum in seconds notice is a heavy duty break.
Given that there is no use in opening the lid while the spinning is going (can't add laundry during a spin, can you), locking the lid while spinning is far more economical then the breaks.
 
spin draining

Upon thinking about this over and over, it really does make sense that spin draining would stir up everything and promote lots of linting on clothes. Whirlpool/Kenmore were actually the very first top load washer that had a true perforated tub that filled the outer tub too. I always thought that Whirlpool/Kenmore did have a much better set up by draining all the water as the clothing settled closer to the bottom and then spun out. It would promote much less linting and would actually be better on the bearings too, since the clothing is concentrated at the bottom of the tub and doesn't have as much leverage and stress on the bearings. The GE FF in particular seemed to promote more linting in washing anyway and then spin draining just stirred it all up through the clothes as it spun and drained. So neutral draining does seem to make a lot of sense. The heavy duty braking systems some machines had would have to be stressful on the machines too. A lid lock during spin makes perfect sense too.[this post was last edited: 10/10/2017-13:53]
 
spin draining

Upon thinking about this over and over, it really does make sense that spin draining would stir up everything and promote lots of linting on clothes. I always thought that Whirlpool/Kenmore did have a much better set up by draining all the water as the clothing settled closer to the bottom and then spun out. It would promote much less linting and would actually be better on the bearings too, since the clothing is concentrated at the bottom of the tub and doesn't have as much leverage and stress on the bearings. The GE FF in particular seemed to promote more linting in washing anyway and then spin draining just stirred it all up through the clothes as it spun and drained. So neutral draining does seem to make a lot of sense. The heavy duty braking systems some machines had would have to be stressful on the machines too. A lid lock during spin makes perfect sense too.
 
Neutral drain

"As far as I understand dosen't any TL with typical reversing motor have a clutch? Simply because the motor is fixed speed by winding?"

There are many top-loaders without clutches. Excluding the past (Unimatic) in this convo, GE did away with their clutches in about 2005, and most new toploads have no clutch at all. In part this is due to neutral draining, and also in part due to PSC /VFD motors which do not need to hit 1720rmp (or which ever) in 1/4 a second to drop the centrifugal switch.

"I certainly do not agree with the rest of your analysis on spin drain vs Neutral Drain TL washer, and problem is you have no credibility as we don't have any idea if you have ever seen, worked on, or have any first hand knowledge about washing machines."

Easy way to distance yourself there.



"At this point it is up to you to prove your ideas as I have seen a few hundred real life examples to prove my points, including every major American manufacturer of TL washers putting this problem in print, and all of them trying to take steps to address consumer complaints about excessive linting related to trying to spin drain a washer full of water and clothing."

If the problem was so great, then why did so many washer continue to spin drain, some like Maytag even boasting it? I have no doubt this is what you have personally seen and it certainly is not an invalid observation or conclusion, but in my experience based on home use of many machines over many years I have achieved better results with spin draining. That is not to say everyone has experienced the same.
 
chetlaham

Yeah, exactly, old motor generations needed a clutch, period. And the SQ has such a motor.

The Hydrowave design by GE had a seperate drain pump. Additional part -> cost.
Especially back 30+ years, an additional motor would have been a great point of cost. Further these did not use the reversing motor to dial between wash and spin but used a mode shifter instead.

WP DDs had a transmision internal system for neutral drain. A part that reasonably often failed and was reasonably hard to repair. That is cost.

Let me put it in a more easy to understand context: Imagine converting a SQ spin drain machine into a neutral drain.

You add an additional seperate pump motor. That is cost, plus timer adaptation.

You adapt the transmission for a neutral drain. Well, that is complicated and expnsive as well.

I don't see the SQ getting any cheaper by just makeing it neutral drain without creating an entirely new platform, what incedently GE did around the time you mentioned.

On the reverse, any machine with an inverter based motor could for sure spindrain. Look at the old Cabrio sense and pretreat phase, or the LG WaveForce. If they can spin a tub of water while washing, they could do so while draining.

But don't. Why? Certanly not because its cheaper...
 
Speed Queen neutral drain

You are supporting my point to a degree, actually. Yes- you can't make a Queen that much cheaper without changing the platform. But when you do change the platform, said engineer does not have to take the stress from spin-draining into account. That saves cost in many areas.

Also in terms of getting a VFD to spin-drain, yes it can be done, but thats more logic in the control board that needs to be programmed and more that can go wrong.
 
why in the world would you have to adapt the transmission in a Speed Queen if you wanted to convert it to a neutral drain with a separate pump?....

since the Australian market has them.....meaning they have a neutral drain and use the same transmission....

seems they would be cutting/saving cost by building one machine for several markets....

new platform?....new timer?.....new transmission design?

most likely the newer units will be all touch pad, adding one more program to a cycle isn't going to be all that much of a hassle...
 
More logic in the board that could go wrong? Read up on ROM systems, my friend.

Yeah, but with a new machine platform, it's no longer a cheaper then thing. You'd be designing an entire new product, with an entirely new prcie point.

And a new platform would most certanly use a modeshifter and a highly efficent inverter based drive system. Not because of the way it drains, but because these part are state of the art in terms of things they can do and their price in general.
And again, new platform machines could certanly spindrain without modification. BUT THEY DONT:

No engeneer would redesign a new platform around the draining system.

Yogitunes: That was a hypothetical scenarion to disproof the "neutral drain s cheaper" argument.
 
better yet, check out the Australian machines.....

they already neutral drain, added to our US counterparts....

the main motor stops agitation, pump removes the water, and then the motor is energized and reverses, causing spin....

until we hear from JohnL, who knows Speed Queen inside and out, I don't see Alliance making a huge change all at once....

besides, I am sure they will perfect it more than the current manufacturers have done in the past.....
 
"why in the world would you have to adapt the transmission in a Speed Queen if you wanted to convert it to a neutral drain with a separate pump?...."

You do not- unless you are building a new design from the ground up for cost efficiency reasons.

"new platform?....new timer?.....new transmission design?"

I guess we have not considered GE, Whirlpool, Frigidaire... ie, DD to VMW.

"until we hear from JohnL, who knows Speed Queen inside and out, I don't see Alliance making a huge change all at once...."

I am referring to washers in general. A design that has to take spin-drain stress will always cost more than one that only has wet clothing to spin.

"More logic in the board that could go wrong? Read up on ROM systems, my friend."

And who programs said ROM? The programmer not only has to come up with the right sequence for agitation, distribution, ramp, out of balance, ect ect, but must also perfect a spin drain sequence.
 
re suds saving & Staber

'combo' - I hear what you are saying about those 'suds saver' machines. Perhaps it was just something for people up north. Plus, where I grew up and live again, we hve no basements, being too close to the Gulf. Certainly in my utility room now there would be no room for a big open tub.

I'm afraid that re-washing clothes with used water reminds me of the old days when several family members would share the same bath water. Fortunately in my area, we just weren't that desperate. And again, these days people can do better by just going with a front loader.

Does anyone on here know what ever happened to the Staber washer? I actually considered buying one of those a decade ago but the shipping cost was excessive where I live. I thought there were so many good and innovative ideas there, but I got the impression the company ran into some financial and/or legal troubles.
 
Speed Queen uses a single piece agitator because I am sure they found it to be perfectly adequate to get clothes clean.

I had a DD super capacity Kenmore washer with a triple action DAA . Those agitators work well in the taller narrower tubs.

I also had a DD super capacity Whirlpool prior to that with a 5 vane Surgilator with the pull off barrel for the lint filter.

That agitator also rolled very large loads over with out problems. Slower yes but still circulated the loads.

I like the wash motion of the flex vane. It causes certain loads to behave much like an old DC Maytag or Kenmore. Lots of sloshing with bulky loads. Things get stirred up quite nicely with that agitator.

If the picture Malcolm posted is the new agitator,.. how will it possibly work ? Those vanes on the bottom are almost non existent. How high could it fill up ?

Martin you bring up a good point also. Speed Queen knows what it's customer base expects I am sure . I don't believe they will let down repeat buyers with an inferior product. This is why we buy their products and they know it.

Speed Queen wins by default because they have no competition in making old school school laundry equipment. Whirlpool and GE lost their way with top load washers. Regression not progression.

In any case, whatever Alliance does I wish them every success.

[this post was last edited: 10/10/2017-19:51]
 

Latest posts

Back
Top