Double-Duty Super-Surgilator – 16mm Film

[user 12105]

It is advertising after all. Once you know the weak and strong spots of the machines you're dealing with you can use that to obtain any result you want, and to prove any point you want to prove.


Personally, IMO, the agitator in the film shown here pales in comparison to the dual action agitator.

Hardly Chet. If you noticed, Kenmore agitators mostly had their vanes on the bottom. Whirlpool used that Surgilator throughout the belt drive run and made modifications to it over the years to make it even more effective. By the time the Double Duty came out in 1978 it smoked the DAA and was about as perfected as that agitator got. Would love to see some wash action comparison tests side by side. Whirlpool didn't need a cork screw and quite frankly neither did Kenmore. The Penta Swirl and vane were both fine agitators in their own right.

 

[gelaundry4ever]

Hardly Chet. If you noticed, Kenmore agitators mostly had their vanes on the bottom. Whirlpool used that Surgilator throughout the belt drive run and made modifications to it over the years to make it even more effective. By the time the Double Duty came out in 1978 it smoked the DAA and was about as perfected as that agitator got. Would love to see some comparison tests side by side. Whirlpool didn't need a cork screw and quite frankly neither did Kenmore. The Penta Swirl and vane were both fine agitators in their own right.

I'm curious about how it handled tough ground-in dirt in work and play clothes compared to GE and Maytag.

 

[gelaundry4ever]

IDK. There certainly is more continuous controlled rollover and not as much splash with the DD, and not as much lateral movement either compared to a belt drive. The BD Penta Swirl for example can get the load to slosh and splash and rock the water. It can get a little tempest going on in that tub.The WP/KM DD's don't really do that by nature of shorter faster agitation strokes.

What I mean is that Whirlpool had more splash in the belt drive compared to the direct drive which used waterflow. In other words, a wall of water flowing through the clothes.

 

[combo52]

Load size

Mark, you’re absolutely correct if they’ve done half the load in the Maytag or 2/3 in the GE it would’ve easily cleaned the load. The purpose of the demonstration was to show how much really dirty laundry the whirlpool could wash.

Keep in mind that this demonstration was done with the full 26 gallon tub super capacity whirlpool the GE was never more than about 25 gallons and a lot more of that stayed in the outer tubAnd smaller tub of course the Maytag only ever got up to 19 gallons. Which would’ve actually given the Maytag and the GE a slight advantage because of a higher detergent concentration, they put the same one cup of detergent and all three machines.

 

[DADoES]

What I mean is that Whirlpool had more splash in the belt drive compared to the direct drive which used waterflow. In other words, a wall of water flowing through the clothes.

That's because direct-drive agitators typically don't have significant fins above the water line like the Surgilators to generate splashing. The lower fins on the Surgilators provided equivalent swishing and turnover in the nether area of the basket as the DDs. Seems clear you've never used a belt-drive Surgilator.