How many gallons of water does a Whirlpool direct drive washer use per cycle on the highest fill setting? I am comparing how much water a top load uses compared to newer front loads.
Gallons of Water Per Cycle
- Thread starter Chetlaham
- Start date
Help Support :
Super capacity direct drive washer used around 50 gallons for a full cycle, if you use an extra rinse, you were at 75
This is why the performance in terms of cleaning and stain removal is so poor compared to a new front load washer you just can’t heat and condition that much water economically
I still use my top loaders occasionally, but I always suds save the water and get at least one more washing out of the hot sudsy water, and I never double rinse, spray rinses with one deep rinse is more than enough.
John L
This is why the performance in terms of cleaning and stain removal is so poor compared to a new front load washer you just can’t heat and condition that much water economically
I still use my top loaders occasionally, but I always suds save the water and get at least one more washing out of the hot sudsy water, and I never double rinse, spray rinses with one deep rinse is more than enough.
John L
Thats around 25 gallons of water per charge. I can see why detergent gets so diluted now when I really think about it.
vacerator
Well-known member
An older washer that fills the basket up can wash in less time than new ones which use a spit of water. More detergent doesn't help, and needs more rinsing. New machines are harsher on fabrics also because the impellers or paddles are rubbing directly on them. Just my 2 cents.
I'm also positive that a 1947-1970 Frigidaire, ABC-O-Matic/Kelvinator Orbital and Philco Automagic washers are gentler on clothes long-term than modern front loaders with their large drums that drop clothes on many of their cycles for nearly an hour or more.
I believe you. I wish a side by side comparison could be done. If I had the ability I would bring some of your vintage top loaders back into production because from what I am seeing the cleaning and fabric care results are spectacular.
This sounds kind of ludicrous, but sometimes I think if machines (mainly top loaders) only had a 8 to 9 pound capacity, you’d be forced to fill the machine all the way up with the smaller capacity tub. Bigger capacity machines aren’t always better, there’s no way I’d be able to use the entire capacity of a LG or Samsung top loader (from loader as well) with it’s behemoth capacity despite wearing everything in my wardrobe after 3 weeks to a month’s time. Even if I were to throw everything in at the end of the week in my Whirlpool mainly consisting of shirts socks etc, still wouldn’t be able to fill the machine all the way up to it’s 8 to 9 pound capacity.
As for water consumption, believe my Whirlpool uses around 36 gallons or so of water, not as much as one would think. Again, with the smaller tub, forced to fill the machine all the way up.
Personally, I find the belt drives wash and rinse much better than the direct drives, don’t think the extra rinse was really needed on them (unless the machine suds locked) since they rinse out that well which saves water and time.
As for water consumption, believe my Whirlpool uses around 36 gallons or so of water, not as much as one would think. Again, with the smaller tub, forced to fill the machine all the way up.
Personally, I find the belt drives wash and rinse much better than the direct drives, don’t think the extra rinse was really needed on them (unless the machine suds locked) since they rinse out that well which saves water and time.
The specs for our 1976 18# Supreme 70 stated for the four fill levels: 12 gal, 17, 22, 27.
44.6 gallons equals 168.8 litres.
vacerator
Well-known member
Brings back memories of the heavy belt drives. The big gearcase, spin tube, clutch, and wig wag. The huge gray motor. The three strut rods anchored in the cabinet with rubber snubbers under heavy gague steel covers. The steel outer tub mounted on the heavy base where the struts carried everything.
I think the specification details on the older belt drives were a little more thorough or gave you more information. I would assume the 74 Kenmore would probably be just like the 76 Whirlpool your family had Glenn. They both had/have those larger tubs. I can see the difference with the Kenmore next to my Whirlpool now. It's not that much but you can definitely notice it. The tub in the Kenmore is a little bit deeper and wider.
Water consumption of the 1985 whirlpool supreme belt drive washer
Water consumption of automatic washers has been a concern since the machines came out. Many people had limited supplies of of water and hot water in particular but after the 1970s, they really started to be more serious.
The above 1985 Belt Dr. machine was already a downsized, super capacity machine and they had turned the water level down a little bit to make it look more attractive because people were starting to become concerned about water consumption again.
The 44 gallons per cycle was a little deceptive. They don’t mention the permanent press cycle for example which used considerably more.
John L
Water consumption of automatic washers has been a concern since the machines came out. Many people had limited supplies of of water and hot water in particular but after the 1970s, they really started to be more serious.
The above 1985 Belt Dr. machine was already a downsized, super capacity machine and they had turned the water level down a little bit to make it look more attractive because people were starting to become concerned about water consumption again.
The 44 gallons per cycle was a little deceptive. They don’t mention the permanent press cycle for example which used considerably more.
John L
Which is where that sweet screw on the pressure switch comes in
I do agree with you about the Permanent Press cycle. My Speed Queen just uses a low speed first spin with spray instead of a half tub drain and re-fill cool down and I haven't noticed any extra wrinkling.
