Neat and thank you Dan! 
Speed Queen certainly does bring out the best in every agitator.
Speed Queen certainly does bring out the best in every agitator.
2018 Speed Queen topload models
- Thread starter Chetlaham
- Start date
Help Support :
speed-westy!
Martin - that is really a great video and great wash action with the spiral adj!
Martin - that is really a great video and great wash action with the spiral adj!
jerrod6
Well-known member
Would a suds saver work with today's non phosphate detergent?
I understand people's desire for top loaders,but I just cannot justify the amount of water being used and the impact to my water and sewer bill.
I understand people's desire for top loaders,but I just cannot justify the amount of water being used and the impact to my water and sewer bill.
Suds Savers and Non-Phosphate Detergents
I have no idea what one has to do with the other, Reusing wash water was done long before Phosphate detergents were ever invented and have also been used long since phosphates were gone from laundry detergents, phosphates have been gone from detergents for more than 30 years.
John L.
I have no idea what one has to do with the other, Reusing wash water was done long before Phosphate detergents were ever invented and have also been used long since phosphates were gone from laundry detergents, phosphates have been gone from detergents for more than 30 years.
John L.
Patrick, I agree with you about how DD WP made washers are reminiscent of Frigidaires. When I went to buy my Lady Shredmore October 1986, Sears had the TOL ebony electronic control panel pair connected. Salesman turned it on so I could see how it washed. The rollover and how it sucked clothes down to the base immediately had me thinking, that looks just like a Unimatic washing.
Interesting to see the same old arguments are still going around. Neutral-Drain vs Spin-Drain.
Used wash water vs fresh.
Well, I never had a "grease-ring" around a GE FF, SQ or Maytag agitator. And I've never seen a neutral-drain without them.
I never had a lint issue with any of them either and even if I did the dryer would catch it, anyway.
As for water conservation-----the whole idea rings hollow when it is discussed amongst people who make a hobby of collecting and using old "water-hogs".
If water conservation were that big an issue we would be discussing how to turn our toilet water into bath water and reuse it 30 times.
No thanks. water is still pretty cheap and plentiful here in Virginia and I have a basement full of toys I like to use---- not look at.
As for the new SQ's. They will continue to cheapen the product as the Government (who has no idea whatsoever how to design and manufacture a good washer----or anything else for that matter) continues to interfere with private enterprise. Also, once enough of the "sheeple" have been "conditioned" to pay more and expect less the management will really put the squeeze on every dollar they make. Reputation doesnt mean a thing in today's market.
Thank the Heavens I have enough good machines to last the rest of my natural lifetime.
Used wash water vs fresh.
Well, I never had a "grease-ring" around a GE FF, SQ or Maytag agitator. And I've never seen a neutral-drain without them.
I never had a lint issue with any of them either and even if I did the dryer would catch it, anyway.
As for water conservation-----the whole idea rings hollow when it is discussed amongst people who make a hobby of collecting and using old "water-hogs".
If water conservation were that big an issue we would be discussing how to turn our toilet water into bath water and reuse it 30 times.
No thanks. water is still pretty cheap and plentiful here in Virginia and I have a basement full of toys I like to use---- not look at.
As for the new SQ's. They will continue to cheapen the product as the Government (who has no idea whatsoever how to design and manufacture a good washer----or anything else for that matter) continues to interfere with private enterprise. Also, once enough of the "sheeple" have been "conditioned" to pay more and expect less the management will really put the squeeze on every dollar they make. Reputation doesnt mean a thing in today's market.
Thank the Heavens I have enough good machines to last the rest of my natural lifetime.
mayken4now
Well-known member
Well said Stevie
these energy saving conversationalist worry so much of how little water they can squeeze out, like water is not renewable.....yes, FLer conserve better for a lot of reasons compared to a TLer, but washing in drops of water is crazy....
now if they wanted to impress the world......put your brains together, and produce extreme fuel efficient gas engine that gets a true 50+ MPG.....and powerful to boot....and I don't mean one of these hybrids or little lunch box cars, full size vehicles, SUV's, and Truck's....
cars today are not getting any better mileage than cars of the 70's.....oh sure, 6, 8 maybe 12 MPG more than their predecessors, Puh-Leeze.....50 years later, and this is the best they can do?
I just think the price of water is not as much a concern as the price for gas per gallon....YMMV
now if they wanted to impress the world......put your brains together, and produce extreme fuel efficient gas engine that gets a true 50+ MPG.....and powerful to boot....and I don't mean one of these hybrids or little lunch box cars, full size vehicles, SUV's, and Truck's....
cars today are not getting any better mileage than cars of the 70's.....oh sure, 6, 8 maybe 12 MPG more than their predecessors, Puh-Leeze.....50 years later, and this is the best they can do?
I just think the price of water is not as much a concern as the price for gas per gallon....YMMV
Advantage of ND
In so far I am surprised no one has used the argument that during spin drain a small load of clothes can gather up on one side and throw the machine into imbalance. Not that that has happened to me as of late.
I agree with everything you said Gyrafoam
In so far I am surprised no one has used the argument that during spin drain a small load of clothes can gather up on one side and throw the machine into imbalance. Not that that has happened to me as of late.
I agree with everything you said Gyrafoam
speedqueen
Well-known member
And a load that small shouldn't cause any trouble for any machine with a reasonable suspension. Haven't had that trouble with either my SQ or MT. WP had another reason to go with neutral drain and that was their lesser suspension.
I'll admit that I don't own a belt drive whirlpool but you can see a lot of tub movement in them. Please, WP experts correct me if I'm wrong regarding their suspension. I do want to eventually ad one to my small collection, though.
I'll admit that I don't own a belt drive whirlpool but you can see a lot of tub movement in them. Please, WP experts correct me if I'm wrong regarding their suspension. I do want to eventually ad one to my small collection, though.
norgeway
Well-known member
Well...
I STILL don't want anything newer than the early 80s, I don't want and will never have another Maytag on my property, I am using a rimflow Hotpoint and matching dryer and could not be more pleased.When someone makes a real frontloader that uses enough water and does not reverse I will get one...Unless Bendix or Westinghouse are revived, I don't see it happening!
I STILL don't want anything newer than the early 80s, I don't want and will never have another Maytag on my property, I am using a rimflow Hotpoint and matching dryer and could not be more pleased.When someone makes a real frontloader that uses enough water and does not reverse I will get one...Unless Bendix or Westinghouse are revived, I don't see it happening!
industrial/commercial use
Seeing the above posting by 'norgeway' reminded me that I was always fascinated by the setups in hospitals for handling laundry. I have real admiration for the people who do that for a living as it's quite different from someone's hotel. That was the first time I ever heard of the Milnor brand, decades ago.
I went visiting through a dozen or so videos on YouTube demonstrating industrial laundry, in hotels, hospitals and elsewhere. I saw no reluctance on the part of those big horizontal-axis machines to reverse agitate. There's a really cool Milnor on there showing that it uses 5 belts to drive the drum!
I'm curious: is there any sort of standard calculation that is used to demonstrate, for example, the number of pounds of laundry per number of gallons of water? I see that 'norgeway' states that he'd like "enough water". Is there any industry standard on horizontal axis machines indicating what is "enough water"?
Seeing the above posting by 'norgeway' reminded me that I was always fascinated by the setups in hospitals for handling laundry. I have real admiration for the people who do that for a living as it's quite different from someone's hotel. That was the first time I ever heard of the Milnor brand, decades ago.
I went visiting through a dozen or so videos on YouTube demonstrating industrial laundry, in hotels, hospitals and elsewhere. I saw no reluctance on the part of those big horizontal-axis machines to reverse agitate. There's a really cool Milnor on there showing that it uses 5 belts to drive the drum!
I'm curious: is there any sort of standard calculation that is used to demonstrate, for example, the number of pounds of laundry per number of gallons of water? I see that 'norgeway' states that he'd like "enough water". Is there any industry standard on horizontal axis machines indicating what is "enough water"?
norgeway
Well-known member
Watch a old Bendix
Or Westinghouse FL, the water comes up about 1/4 of the way up the window, on the slant fronts the clothes are nearly submerged also.
Or Westinghouse FL, the water comes up about 1/4 of the way up the window, on the slant fronts the clothes are nearly submerged also.
Depends on what machine we are talking about
Enough water us when the washer can move water through the laundry sufficently enough.
When the washer has no aid in water movement besides the drum, you need enough for all the laundry being pulled through it.
Without scooping vanes, a recirc or slanted drum vanes which move laundry ccloser to the drum more towards either the front or the back and thus allow laundry from the core to move to the outside, water levels need to be high.
If there are scooping vanes, more water is "filtered" through the entire load thus reducing the needed waterlevel.
With a recirc, water levels drop again.
With lower water levels, detergent concentration rises thus reducing cycle time and necesarry mechanical action.
TLDR there is no one needed water level. Move water through laundry as much as possible.
How dosen't matter.
Who ever used a high capacity HE machine and filled it to the brim can testiment that: A (well designed and programmed) recirculation spray allows for faster, better cleaning and far far supirior rinsinging.
For hospitals there are sanatisation requirements. They aren't even concerned of cleanlines in terms of stain remival, but pure bacteria reduction.
The manufacturer tjen designs specific requirements and cycles for its machines to match needed standards, depending on how the machine is designed.
In hotels actually its the other way around, kind of. There is not set standard, thus, machine manufacturer and hotel usually play together to reach the desired level of results while minimizing usage.
For example, the manufacturer knows that its machine only needs 1.5gal per pound of flat bedding of a certain kind for the mainwash (numbers being just random). Thus, they programn to run a Hot Normal cycle with a certain load detection and reaction pattern.
If the hotel however knows for example its bedding needs a certain amount more water, but as they do not use starch, they need less water in the final rinse, the service tech who installs the new machine can tweak the cycles to correspond with that need.
If it turns out the new machine still needs different parameters (for example one rinse less entirely), the owner/supervisor is usually tought by a service tech how to change such parameters in case of linen or detergent change ir simmilar.
For householduse, you have to estimate an everage customer and its usage pattern and the design one or a few cycle that match those use cases plus as many more ascpossible. That design then is fixed, for at least one, but often even more itterations of the same machine.
You can't teach a costumer to reprogramn their machine due to liabiloty issues, and people don't have the will to pay for a service tech to come and reprogramn their cycles (if that even is posdible) and pay 159 bucks or such for that.
Thus often, washer controls are designed as read only due to cost reasons.
Itterations only happen with new machines.
However, hers in Germany at least, its common to find reprogrammable PCBs. Should there be major issues or minor fixes, the manufacturer pushes a new software for an appliance every few months or years.
If there is a service call then, while the technician writes his bill, his PC is just hooked up to the machine and installs the reworked software.
But even then, most customers don't even kniw that is possible or don't pay extra just for that service and thus it often only happens as a side-service during major other works.
Enough water us when the washer can move water through the laundry sufficently enough.
When the washer has no aid in water movement besides the drum, you need enough for all the laundry being pulled through it.
Without scooping vanes, a recirc or slanted drum vanes which move laundry ccloser to the drum more towards either the front or the back and thus allow laundry from the core to move to the outside, water levels need to be high.
If there are scooping vanes, more water is "filtered" through the entire load thus reducing the needed waterlevel.
With a recirc, water levels drop again.
With lower water levels, detergent concentration rises thus reducing cycle time and necesarry mechanical action.
TLDR there is no one needed water level. Move water through laundry as much as possible.
How dosen't matter.
Who ever used a high capacity HE machine and filled it to the brim can testiment that: A (well designed and programmed) recirculation spray allows for faster, better cleaning and far far supirior rinsinging.
For hospitals there are sanatisation requirements. They aren't even concerned of cleanlines in terms of stain remival, but pure bacteria reduction.
The manufacturer tjen designs specific requirements and cycles for its machines to match needed standards, depending on how the machine is designed.
In hotels actually its the other way around, kind of. There is not set standard, thus, machine manufacturer and hotel usually play together to reach the desired level of results while minimizing usage.
For example, the manufacturer knows that its machine only needs 1.5gal per pound of flat bedding of a certain kind for the mainwash (numbers being just random). Thus, they programn to run a Hot Normal cycle with a certain load detection and reaction pattern.
If the hotel however knows for example its bedding needs a certain amount more water, but as they do not use starch, they need less water in the final rinse, the service tech who installs the new machine can tweak the cycles to correspond with that need.
If it turns out the new machine still needs different parameters (for example one rinse less entirely), the owner/supervisor is usually tought by a service tech how to change such parameters in case of linen or detergent change ir simmilar.
For householduse, you have to estimate an everage customer and its usage pattern and the design one or a few cycle that match those use cases plus as many more ascpossible. That design then is fixed, for at least one, but often even more itterations of the same machine.
You can't teach a costumer to reprogramn their machine due to liabiloty issues, and people don't have the will to pay for a service tech to come and reprogramn their cycles (if that even is posdible) and pay 159 bucks or such for that.
Thus often, washer controls are designed as read only due to cost reasons.
Itterations only happen with new machines.
However, hers in Germany at least, its common to find reprogrammable PCBs. Should there be major issues or minor fixes, the manufacturer pushes a new software for an appliance every few months or years.
If there is a service call then, while the technician writes his bill, his PC is just hooked up to the machine and installs the reworked software.
But even then, most customers don't even kniw that is possible or don't pay extra just for that service and thus it often only happens as a side-service during major other works.
Well, I never had a "grease-ring" around a GE FF, SQ or Maytag agitator. And I've never seen a neutral-drain without them. I never had a lint issue with any of them either and even if I did the dryer would catch it, anyway.
I agree with Steve 100%. I have these machines lined up in the basement as well, including the first generation of perforated tub GE Filter-Flo and never once do I remember seeing any kind of lint deposited at the end of the cycle. Same goes for the Maytag 806 I had for several years. The only advantage to a neutral drain that I have found over the last 20 years has been better balancing with very small loads. The solid tubs however more than make up for that by the simple fact that the outer tub is completely segregated from the wash tub (with the exception of the overflow/recirculation machines) and it keeps any build-up of grime in the outer tub away from the clothes being washed. Twenty years of having these machines and I have not experienced most of the claimed issues stated in this thread.
As for water conservation, I won't play golf in the desert or go skiing on man-made snow, problem solved.
I agree with Steve 100%. I have these machines lined up in the basement as well, including the first generation of perforated tub GE Filter-Flo and never once do I remember seeing any kind of lint deposited at the end of the cycle. Same goes for the Maytag 806 I had for several years. The only advantage to a neutral drain that I have found over the last 20 years has been better balancing with very small loads. The solid tubs however more than make up for that by the simple fact that the outer tub is completely segregated from the wash tub (with the exception of the overflow/recirculation machines) and it keeps any build-up of grime in the outer tub away from the clothes being washed. Twenty years of having these machines and I have not experienced most of the claimed issues stated in this thread.
As for water conservation, I won't play golf in the desert or go skiing on man-made snow, problem solved
.Water convservation
Don't think that on TL vs another TL a different tub setup will make more the 25% difference in usage.
Given a somewhat sensible designs, the gap between out tub and drum shouldn't matter much anyways.
Given the main idea in terms of cleaning performance (which I didn't comment on yet):
I kind of see both sides as having a certain logic to them.
A neutral drain should just drain the water away with much interference with laundry.
The water would filter through the laundry while washing anyway, so filtering through while drainig stationary wouldn't change that much in my eyes.
Especially given that with a thourough wash and a lot of soil suspended in the water without a way of redeposit (most soil onces caught by tensides will never resettle without chemical interference), there is verry little soil percentage wise that would even be abled to resettle.
However, there are certain parts of laundry that tend to float to the top and, given that a neutral drain from end of agitation to empty tub is usually done in 3 minutes or less, the whole setteling/floating argument only plays a little role.
With a spin drain, I certanly see a powerfull kind of wash movement. Even though the water will move with the drum, the water will be going through the laundry with far greater force for far longer, giving kind of a pressure-wash effect that should disloge some soil or residue.
Further, most of the movement induced should be along the horizontal axis. Thus, floating or setlled dirt should be forced straight to the outside of the tub.
However, during the later stages, I see the potential of the holes in the basket to creat swirls which intermix non-suspended soil and dirt.
And, with a solid tub, I see the issue of extraction. Even with maximum extraction speed, some water will alway remain as a film on the tub that can not escape. This will be reabsorbed, increasing carry over from wash to rinse and final residual moisture. Not by much, but by a real amount I'd suppose.
Now, if we add and overflow rinse to a spindrain machine and a way for heavy sediments to escape quickly, these issue would be gone.
Then however, the water usage would be higher, and you'd need more wash time and thus more wear on the laundry as during the overflow portion, the concentration of detergent woukd steadily drop and thus reduce effective cleaning power of that period of agitation.
It quite honestly it is a draw for me from a purely logical standpoint.
A neutral drain with a seperate pump would allow me to do stuff like partial refills for cooldowns, possibly faster draining, and easier to construct drive train.
A spindrain would reduce the things to worry about while programming, while reducing needed electric parts/wiring and less risk of tub crud due to high-ish speed tub cleaning during each darin portion.
Don't think that on TL vs another TL a different tub setup will make more the 25% difference in usage.
Given a somewhat sensible designs, the gap between out tub and drum shouldn't matter much anyways.
Given the main idea in terms of cleaning performance (which I didn't comment on yet):
I kind of see both sides as having a certain logic to them.
A neutral drain should just drain the water away with much interference with laundry.
The water would filter through the laundry while washing anyway, so filtering through while drainig stationary wouldn't change that much in my eyes.
Especially given that with a thourough wash and a lot of soil suspended in the water without a way of redeposit (most soil onces caught by tensides will never resettle without chemical interference), there is verry little soil percentage wise that would even be abled to resettle.
However, there are certain parts of laundry that tend to float to the top and, given that a neutral drain from end of agitation to empty tub is usually done in 3 minutes or less, the whole setteling/floating argument only plays a little role.
With a spin drain, I certanly see a powerfull kind of wash movement. Even though the water will move with the drum, the water will be going through the laundry with far greater force for far longer, giving kind of a pressure-wash effect that should disloge some soil or residue.
Further, most of the movement induced should be along the horizontal axis. Thus, floating or setlled dirt should be forced straight to the outside of the tub.
However, during the later stages, I see the potential of the holes in the basket to creat swirls which intermix non-suspended soil and dirt.
And, with a solid tub, I see the issue of extraction. Even with maximum extraction speed, some water will alway remain as a film on the tub that can not escape. This will be reabsorbed, increasing carry over from wash to rinse and final residual moisture. Not by much, but by a real amount I'd suppose.
Now, if we add and overflow rinse to a spindrain machine and a way for heavy sediments to escape quickly, these issue would be gone.
Then however, the water usage would be higher, and you'd need more wash time and thus more wear on the laundry as during the overflow portion, the concentration of detergent woukd steadily drop and thus reduce effective cleaning power of that period of agitation.
It quite honestly it is a draw for me from a purely logical standpoint.
A neutral drain with a seperate pump would allow me to do stuff like partial refills for cooldowns, possibly faster draining, and easier to construct drive train.
A spindrain would reduce the things to worry about while programming, while reducing needed electric parts/wiring and less risk of tub crud due to high-ish speed tub cleaning during each darin portion.
BTW
Ever thought of a hybrid system?
Neutral drain as long as load is suspended in water. The level to which neutral drain is executed is determined by main fill level (for example you know that normal medium load would still be under the water line even with 25% of the water drained, thus, drain 25% neutral).
That gets rid of all the heavier-then-water soils, especiall if you give the load a minut or 2 to settle after agitation.
Then shift to spin drain. Still floats away lighter-then-water soils as they didn't touch laundry yet, and the tub as well as the laundry get their forcefull flow-through cleaning.
Just a weired thought...
Ever thought of a hybrid system?
Neutral drain as long as load is suspended in water. The level to which neutral drain is executed is determined by main fill level (for example you know that normal medium load would still be under the water line even with 25% of the water drained, thus, drain 25% neutral).
That gets rid of all the heavier-then-water soils, especiall if you give the load a minut or 2 to settle after agitation.
Then shift to spin drain. Still floats away lighter-then-water soils as they didn't touch laundry yet, and the tub as well as the laundry get their forcefull flow-through cleaning.
Just a weired thought...
of the machines I have, spin drain, neutral drain, FL, TL......the lint filter is just there for looks, removed while machine is in use, even most of the self-clean filters have been yanked out....
between sorting, cycle, water temp/level, detergent.....and proper washing techniques......dirt and lint will be held in suspension until the drain sequence of any type is done...
but all in all, you can take the same machine, same load, same washing techniques...and each person will get different results...
between sorting, cycle, water temp/level, detergent.....and proper washing techniques......dirt and lint will be held in suspension until the drain sequence of any type is done...
but all in all, you can take the same machine, same load, same washing techniques...and each person will get different results...
Question for 'norgeway'
I've purchased all the Westinghouse brochures for sale at this site. Going back through them, it's advertised that the water level is always below the opening for the door.
The last one, the "New Generation Washer", states, "All White-Westinghouse washers are so designed so that the water level is always below the door opening. This allows the door to be opened to add or remove articles at any time during the wash, except during spin, of course".
Several of the others state the same thing. Were there some other front loaders that didn't do this? I know those old Westinghouse machines appear to use more water than today's, but I thought that part of that was because of the sudsing showing up in the glass window on the front.
It's interesting that in the 8/58 CR test that I just posted as jpeg's on here, the Laundromat showed it used 28 gallons of water, which is basically what the top loaders used (though some got up to 37). The top-rated Frigidaires used 28 1/2. Obviously, back the the water savings wasn't emphasize. In my 10/62 CR test, the Westinghouse LLC-305W used a total of 32.2 gallons; the whole range of top loaders was from 28.8 (Kelvinator) to 48.1 (Hamilton). Frigidaire took 33.3, GE 40.0, Maytag 32.2, for example. So again, no real water-saving advantage.
Do you think that the washing ability on these current front loaders has been compromised too much for the sake of saving water? Boy, I'd sure say so for those silly top loaders with the plate in the bottom, but the two FL's I've owned were superb cleaners. Not trying to be argumentative, just curious.
I've purchased all the Westinghouse brochures for sale at this site. Going back through them, it's advertised that the water level is always below the opening for the door.
The last one, the "New Generation Washer", states, "All White-Westinghouse washers are so designed so that the water level is always below the door opening. This allows the door to be opened to add or remove articles at any time during the wash, except during spin, of course".
Several of the others state the same thing. Were there some other front loaders that didn't do this? I know those old Westinghouse machines appear to use more water than today's, but I thought that part of that was because of the sudsing showing up in the glass window on the front.
It's interesting that in the 8/58 CR test that I just posted as jpeg's on here, the Laundromat showed it used 28 gallons of water, which is basically what the top loaders used (though some got up to 37). The top-rated Frigidaires used 28 1/2. Obviously, back the the water savings wasn't emphasize. In my 10/62 CR test, the Westinghouse LLC-305W used a total of 32.2 gallons; the whole range of top loaders was from 28.8 (Kelvinator) to 48.1 (Hamilton). Frigidaire took 33.3, GE 40.0, Maytag 32.2, for example. So again, no real water-saving advantage.
Do you think that the washing ability on these current front loaders has been compromised too much for the sake of saving water? Boy, I'd sure say so for those silly top loaders with the plate in the bottom, but the two FL's I've owned were superb cleaners. Not trying to be argumentative, just curious.
