Just to stir the pot...
https://midwestlaundries.com/products/coin-operated-topload-washer-pwnbc2pp
Carry on...
https://midwestlaundries.com/products/coin-operated-topload-washer-pwnbc2pp
Carry on...
2018 Speed Queen topload models
- Thread starter Chetlaham
- Start date
Help Support :
re: Post# 962259 , Reply# 99
Now that is a neat machine!
What I hope to see public laundries around here (after all, the company IS "Midwest") evolve into...
-- Dave
Now that is a neat machine!
What I hope to see public laundries around here (after all, the company IS "Midwest") evolve into...
-- Dave
Reply 99: Well, well, Launderess. Our grey beauty is a water miser. I believe my Speed Queen uses around 24.6 gallons on the Normal Eco cycle at the Large load setting, which utilizes a spray rather than deep rinse. However, it also says the lid doesn't lock so fabric softener can be added. Maybe there is an optional fabric softener setting. Assuming that would trigger a deep rinse, I'd think the amount of water used would nearly double.
I certainly hope it doesn't fill to only a medium water level for both wash and rinse.
I'm even more convinced there was something either the users or owner hated about these machines in order to scrap them after less than two months.
I certainly hope it doesn't fill to only a medium water level for both wash and rinse.
I'm even more convinced there was something either the users or owner hated about these machines in order to scrap them after less than two months.
Looks like we are slowly but surely being forced off of top loaders. This is what happens with government interference micro managing our lives. They probably could be programmed to use more water but "big brother says" we must conserve. We didn't create the earth we live on, so how is it up to us to "save" it?
Unfortunately we will all be forced to go front load unless these new revised machines actually wash clothes without the headaches people have complained and experienced with these HE top loaders since Whirlpool launched the first cabrios and kenmore oasis back in 2005.
The problem isn't going with front load machines, the problem is being dictated to that that will be our only choice in the future apart from beating our clothes on a rock. Unfortunately there are no streams or rivers handy where I am.
Unfortunately we will all be forced to go front load unless these new revised machines actually wash clothes without the headaches people have complained and experienced with these HE top loaders since Whirlpool launched the first cabrios and kenmore oasis back in 2005.
The problem isn't going with front load machines, the problem is being dictated to that that will be our only choice in the future apart from beating our clothes on a rock. Unfortunately there are no streams or rivers handy where I am.
brucelucenta
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,924
chetlaham
The makers of perforated tub top loaders all (for the most part) had reversing motors and pumps that would only pump water out in one direction. The reason they all mostly would spin drain is because it would have been very complicated to make a machine with a neutral drain that then kicked into spin, since it was already going in the direction it was supposed to for pumping out. It would have taken a 2 stage mechanism, like what Whirlpool had with the direct drive models. The spin drain had been working for all of them up until that time, so why invest in that much money to change it? All the old solid tub machines HAD to spin drain to remove the water which spun out at the top of the tub. This was just a carry over from what they already had been doing and most chose to just stay that way and not invest the extra $$$ for a neutral drain. The original Whirlpool machines were designed with a one direction motor and the "wigwag" is what energized the agitate and spin on those. So neutral drain was easy for them. With Norge, they had a reversing motor also, but they had a tub brake that would disengage with a solenoid. That was how they achieved a neutral drain. I'm sure excessive use would have probably worn down the clutch on Norge machines in time, since it ran before the brake disengaged. I know that on many of the old super capacity BD Whirlpool/Kenmore machines the clutch would wear down and need to be replaced since they had such a large load to spin.
The makers of perforated tub top loaders all (for the most part) had reversing motors and pumps that would only pump water out in one direction. The reason they all mostly would spin drain is because it would have been very complicated to make a machine with a neutral drain that then kicked into spin, since it was already going in the direction it was supposed to for pumping out. It would have taken a 2 stage mechanism, like what Whirlpool had with the direct drive models. The spin drain had been working for all of them up until that time, so why invest in that much money to change it? All the old solid tub machines HAD to spin drain to remove the water which spun out at the top of the tub. This was just a carry over from what they already had been doing and most chose to just stay that way and not invest the extra $$$ for a neutral drain. The original Whirlpool machines were designed with a one direction motor and the "wigwag" is what energized the agitate and spin on those. So neutral drain was easy for them. With Norge, they had a reversing motor also, but they had a tub brake that would disengage with a solenoid. That was how they achieved a neutral drain. I'm sure excessive use would have probably worn down the clutch on Norge machines in time, since it ran before the brake disengaged. I know that on many of the old super capacity BD Whirlpool/Kenmore machines the clutch would wear down and need to be replaced since they had such a large load to spin.
Ok- I could understand it being an inadvertent hold over from the solid tub days (ie, GE went to a perforated tub without re-designing the suspension and outer tub) But there is still Maytag who endorsed spin-draining many times over.
Marketing, it's all marketing. Hundreds of millions of consumers lived with neutral-drain Kenmore and Whirlpool washers for many years and were satisfied enough to buy 2nd and 3rd replacement machines ... and likewise millions lived with spin-drain Maytags and bought replacements of those.
And how would we know that n-d isn't marketing either? Honestly, and based on marketing history, both make little difference if you ask me. Remember, it was Whirlpool who went from N-D to S-D on their first DDs. I don't think they would have done that if they knew S-D was that bad.
Whirlpool Though they could pull a fast one
And save some money, BUT they found out fast as customers returned the new machines and complained up a storm.
When you are the worlds largest washer builder with far more repeat customers than ANY other brand, they could not get away with selling an inferior poor performing product.
Interestingly Maytag had one of the lowest repeat sales rates of he big washer builders back in the 70s-80s. Of the hundreds of MT DC washers we hauled out of homes I have only ever had about 3 customers that wanted another MT washer, they were usually impressed with long they had lasted but they were always ready for something that was larger in capacity and performed better. [ And I never had a customer that wished they had kept the old MT after they got their new WP or SQ top load washer ]
We were taking back early DD washers and giving customers BD ND machines till WP came up with a very clever fix in 1985.
John L.
And save some money, BUT they found out fast as customers returned the new machines and complained up a storm.
When you are the worlds largest washer builder with far more repeat customers than ANY other brand, they could not get away with selling an inferior poor performing product.
Interestingly Maytag had one of the lowest repeat sales rates of he big washer builders back in the 70s-80s. Of the hundreds of MT DC washers we hauled out of homes I have only ever had about 3 customers that wanted another MT washer, they were usually impressed with long they had lasted but they were always ready for something that was larger in capacity and performed better. [ And I never had a customer that wished they had kept the old MT after they got their new WP or SQ top load washer ]
We were taking back early DD washers and giving customers BD ND machines till WP came up with a very clever fix in 1985.
John L.
Combo52, do you have any insight why WP even went to a SD to begin with ? I find it interesting that after 30+ years at that point of WP building ND machines why they just didn't stick with that. As much as like my current SQ TL washer I would give it up for the versatility of the KM DD 90 series i had. NEVER had my clothes torn or shredded in one of those and it puts the SQ to shame in the rinsing department.
I think WP went with an initial SD design on their early DD washers to save money. I think John as eluded to that.
@Combo: How would a customer know though that the Whirlpool they were about to purchase linted less? I think rather what pushed people to Whirlpool was the larger capacity, and this I have witnessed first hand several times at a local dealer 10 years ago when the DC were still in the back storage room.
I can't speak to what you have seen first hand, but the explanation I have received from a Maytag dealer and a service tech is that the reason Whirlpool went to N-D was due to clutches wearing out faster. (and something about the original DDs being designed around a small capacity machine)
Second N-D for a DD is a misnomer. A large chunk of these machines spin drain as they age, and I have even used new machines were the first spin was S-D. The neutral drain mechanism was a joke to be honest.
I can't speak to what you have seen first hand, but the explanation I have received from a Maytag dealer and a service tech is that the reason Whirlpool went to N-D was due to clutches wearing out faster. (and something about the original DDs being designed around a small capacity machine)
Second N-D for a DD is a misnomer. A large chunk of these machines spin drain as they age, and I have even used new machines were the first spin was S-D. The neutral drain mechanism was a joke to be honest.
The Kenmore I purchased in 2003 was one of the last with the side opening lids before they went to the flip up lids. I got rid of that machine all because the plug broke off of it too. I could kick myself for that stupid move. That was one of the most versatile washers I ever owned. The only thing I replaced on that washer were the agitator dogs.
I know people on this site are very divided over wp/km dd washers, but from my experience with 2 of those machines, I have never had an article of clothing that I had get ripped or worn out. WP was also much more successful with their changeover than either GE or MAYTAG.
When you think about how heavy and bulky the BD washers were and then to change over to a totally new design and have that design as the most reliable tl washer 2nd only to Maytag is quite an engineering feat.
Quite frankly, I think the steel used on the tops of the dd washers was of a better grade than my current SQ. They didn't buckle under a little weight, but the internals of the SQ appear to be very HEAVY DUTY where it counts. The dd wash basket seemed to be made of heavier gauge steel that the tub in the SQ.
Apologies for going off topic. Like I said earlier I like the SQ washer I have now but if I am truly being honest the dd washers were far better performance wise overall.
I know people on this site are very divided over wp/km dd washers, but from my experience with 2 of those machines, I have never had an article of clothing that I had get ripped or worn out. WP was also much more successful with their changeover than either GE or MAYTAG.
When you think about how heavy and bulky the BD washers were and then to change over to a totally new design and have that design as the most reliable tl washer 2nd only to Maytag is quite an engineering feat.
Quite frankly, I think the steel used on the tops of the dd washers was of a better grade than my current SQ. They didn't buckle under a little weight, but the internals of the SQ appear to be very HEAVY DUTY where it counts. The dd wash basket seemed to be made of heavier gauge steel that the tub in the SQ.
Apologies for going off topic. Like I said earlier I like the SQ washer I have now but if I am truly being honest the dd washers were far better performance wise overall.
Whirlpool DDs
I think what made the DDs so famous was two things:
1. The bulk of Whirlpool machines were sold under the Kenmore name. Sears knew how to sell, and they turned everything into gold under their name. Kenmore gave low price, high end features on low end models (ie today you can get sani-rinse on a BOL Kenmore, but outside of that you must go to at upper MOL), large capacity, warranty, service contracts, ect ect. Bottom line their was all the incentive in the world for people to buy Kenmore, and Whirlpool had all the incentive to build a machine that gave the most bang for the buck.
2. The GE and Maytag change over was a disaster:
a. GE has always leaned toward builders and landlords, and in the 90s the Welch magic kicked in possessing everything with greed and an even bigger desire to appeal to the buider's grade market. A market GE won over in the 70s and 80s. As such the post FF washers were never really intended to be stellar or durable machines, rather appealing to a market that was never really intended for joe consumer.
b. Maytag always had joe consumer in mind, but made a lot of mistakes. In an effort to compete with Whirlpool they copy-pasted several designs without actually improving them or simply coming up with their own. The end result was horrible reliability that destroyed their reputation.
Personally DDs do shred, but only on the fast setting which is why Kenmore made sure low-fast was their "normal" cycle.
I think what made the DDs so famous was two things:
1. The bulk of Whirlpool machines were sold under the Kenmore name. Sears knew how to sell, and they turned everything into gold under their name. Kenmore gave low price, high end features on low end models (ie today you can get sani-rinse on a BOL Kenmore, but outside of that you must go to at upper MOL), large capacity, warranty, service contracts, ect ect. Bottom line their was all the incentive in the world for people to buy Kenmore, and Whirlpool had all the incentive to build a machine that gave the most bang for the buck.
2. The GE and Maytag change over was a disaster:
a. GE has always leaned toward builders and landlords, and in the 90s the Welch magic kicked in possessing everything with greed and an even bigger desire to appeal to the buider's grade market. A market GE won over in the 70s and 80s. As such the post FF washers were never really intended to be stellar or durable machines, rather appealing to a market that was never really intended for joe consumer.
b. Maytag always had joe consumer in mind, but made a lot of mistakes. In an effort to compete with Whirlpool they copy-pasted several designs without actually improving them or simply coming up with their own. The end result was horrible reliability that destroyed their reputation.
Personally DDs do shred, but only on the fast setting which is why Kenmore made sure low-fast was their "normal" cycle.
Like I said I didn't have that experience with my machines. YMMV. The 90 series i had, had three speeds and i would use the middle speed on things like shirts or Kakis which were easier to turnover than say sturdy cottons like denim. Very versatile washer with I think it had 6 water temperature choices,...3 of which were thermostatically controlled and 5 speeds. If it had the suspension of the SQ it would have been the perfect washer.
You had a nice model, thats for sure 
One place where I think we can both agree that Kenmore winds over Speed Queen is capacity. The Queen I have does hold less over my Whirlpool built Maytag DD.
One place where I think we can both agree that Kenmore winds over Speed Queen is capacity. The Queen I have does hold less over my Whirlpool built Maytag DD.This might sound sacrilegious to some but the turnover on a dd reminds me a little of the GM Frigidaires in that there is a steady rollover with very little lateral movement. The dd washers have more "flow" I would say. More efficient definitely, but not nearly as fun and dramatic as a speed queen.
I could agree- however I still think the SQ cleans better. Maybe I'm just biased- but there is something very seductive about Speed Queen washers. Thats not to say that I do not miss the old Kenmore line. It certainly had much to offer in many regards.
Before I forget- what Dual action agitators are capable of fitting in a Speed Queen? Will the transmission be safe? I just might give it a try.
Before I forget- what Dual action agitators are capable of fitting in a Speed Queen? Will the transmission be safe? I just might give it a try.
I don't get my clothes filthy so it is hard to compare which one cleans better.
Let's hope SQ gets this new design right from the get go. I'm all for HE TL ers if SQ can avoid the common problems WP had with their designs, and much of that came from folks not reading directions and not realizing what they actually bought, judging by the hundreds of on line complaints. I quickly learned how to use the Maytag Bravos ( belt drive version) after I got it in 2011.
After only 2 years it bit the dust as the control board failed. On top of that I never saw a washer so lightly built. It would shake in spin with no clothes in it. Maybe the combination of the plastic base and SS tub made it somewhat out of round. For all its faults I liked that washer because it was different to all the conventional washers I was used to up to that point.
That Bravos washer actually cleaned very well. I had tissues that got washed in that machine by accident and not a one tore or shredded up. Once you get the learning curve they clean very well.
I'm not one of those who will curse WP up and down for their past mistakes. I look at it like some have said here. When automatics first hit the scene they were largely unreliable in the first decade or so. Only in this club with people who have vast knowledge know how to keep these old classics up and running. As time went on they were more reliable overall.
So the same goes for the HE TLers,...at least we hope so. It has only been 12 years since the first cabrio and oasis washers. Hopefully the manufacturers will succeed[this post was last edited: 10/15/2017-16:07]
Let's hope SQ gets this new design right from the get go. I'm all for HE TL ers if SQ can avoid the common problems WP had with their designs, and much of that came from folks not reading directions and not realizing what they actually bought, judging by the hundreds of on line complaints. I quickly learned how to use the Maytag Bravos ( belt drive version) after I got it in 2011.
After only 2 years it bit the dust as the control board failed. On top of that I never saw a washer so lightly built. It would shake in spin with no clothes in it. Maybe the combination of the plastic base and SS tub made it somewhat out of round. For all its faults I liked that washer because it was different to all the conventional washers I was used to up to that point.
That Bravos washer actually cleaned very well. I had tissues that got washed in that machine by accident and not a one tore or shredded up. Once you get the learning curve they clean very well.
I'm not one of those who will curse WP up and down for their past mistakes. I look at it like some have said here. When automatics first hit the scene they were largely unreliable in the first decade or so. Only in this club with people who have vast knowledge know how to keep these old classics up and running. As time went on they were more reliable overall.
So the same goes for the HE TLers,...at least we hope so. It has only been 12 years since the first cabrio and oasis washers. Hopefully the manufacturers will succeed[this post was last edited: 10/15/2017-16:07]
SQ also has the right speed and stroke to make ramped agitators effective as well....
our Dan is such a little scamp....but he is brilliant!
our Dan is such a little scamp....but he is brilliant!
