Don't leave it laying down too long,transmission oil and such might leak.....
kennyGF
kennyGF
Maytag A406 washer - should it go to the dump? and other questions...
- Thread starter thaobecca
- Start date
Help Support :
ok, I finally got the darn thing upright. There are a few scuff marks as can be seen in the pictures. On the front edges I don't think they will wipe off, but the others seem to be just temporary. The pics did not come out as clear on the page as I had hoped. I can email them to anyone who would like a better view.
brettsomers
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2005
- Messages
- 1,993
I dare say it will probably outlast any new machine you migh
i have to agree. its too bad the porcelain (?) on the front had to be ruined by laying it down. its too bad *new* is more valuable to most consumers than *quality*. can the scratches on the front be polished off?
i have to agree. its too bad the porcelain (?) on the front had to be ruined by laying it down. its too bad *new* is more valuable to most consumers than *quality*. can the scratches on the front be polished off?
Some of the scratches can be polished off. The ones on the edges are through the paint. I blame my boyfriend. He did not realize there was a resell market for old washers when he installed the new one. I will give him grief for all of you.
Even if the old Maytag lasts another 10 years, the energy and water savings from the new Frigidaire will more than make up for the cost. Already saw a 12% reduction in water usage in one month. Too bad some consumers are more concerned with their vintage collections than they are about saving water and power on their machines.
Even if the old Maytag lasts another 10 years, the energy and water savings from the new Frigidaire will more than make up for the cost. Already saw a 12% reduction in water usage in one month. Too bad some consumers are more concerned with their vintage collections than they are about saving water and power on their machines.
Umm,
Too bad some consumers are more concerned with their vintage collections than they are about saving water and power on their machines.
My A606 uses 40 gallons of water per large load.
Since I found this out....I do more laundry.... (thx Erik
This site isn't named Conservationist's Washers of America.
And honey...maybe some day when you get as old as some of us, you too will be wishing for the good ol' days, when things were made of STEEL and not some plastic MIC crap.
Oooohhh, I better shut up....
Too bad some consumers are more concerned with their vintage collections than they are about saving water and power on their machines.
My A606 uses 40 gallons of water per large load.
Since I found this out....I do more laundry.... (thx Erik
This site isn't named Conservationist's Washers of America.
And honey...maybe some day when you get as old as some of us, you too will be wishing for the good ol' days, when things were made of STEEL and not some plastic MIC crap.
Oooohhh, I better shut up....
frontaloadotmy
Well-known member
thaobecca
Nice Maytag. Rather than haul it to the dump, since it still works why not offer it to a Habitat for Humanity type store?
While it uses more water it does what it is supposed to do,
no need to add it to the landfill just yet.
Nice Maytag. Rather than haul it to the dump, since it still works why not offer it to a Habitat for Humanity type store?
While it uses more water it does what it is supposed to do,
no need to add it to the landfill just yet.
brettsomers
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2005
- Messages
- 1,993
Too bad some consumers are more concerned with their vintage
i hate to admit *becca* has a point! this is the only bad thing i can say about these fabulous old machines, they do use a disgracefull amount of water. however, you could also say that the poor quality and short-lived designs of the machines being produced today are a waste of resources too, since they will last maybe 10 years before being trashed. after 10 years, one of these old Maytags is just breaking in its belt!
i hate to admit *becca* has a point! this is the only bad thing i can say about these fabulous old machines, they do use a disgracefull amount of water. however, you could also say that the poor quality and short-lived designs of the machines being produced today are a waste of resources too, since they will last maybe 10 years before being trashed. after 10 years, one of these old Maytags is just breaking in its belt!
westytoploader
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2004
- Messages
- 4,485
Common stereotype about most vintage washers is that they use too much water. That is not always the case. My 1952 Frigidaire WO-65-2 Unimatic uses only 28 gallons of water on a single 10-pound load, including the overflow rinse. I can bet it washes and rinses a LOT better than a crappy modern Frigidaire front-loader OR top-loader (which is a disgrace to the name) as well, and I KNOW, with an 1140 RPM spin, it spins better! Nor do I really give a s**t about water guzzlers...in fact, I LIKE water guzzlers! Otherwise we wouldn't discuss them here! My 1977 GE, on an extra large load with the soak and extra rinse options enabled, can use up to 100 GALLONS ON A SINGLE LOAD. Is that a little much? Yes, but you can bet those clothes will be squeaky clean afterwards!
That large-capacity Maytag has, in my opinion, average water usage. Same as a modern TL which are not really water hogs. I have a large-capacity 2003 Maytag Dependable Care and it uses the same amount of water as the vintage 'Tags. Probably in the 40-50 gallon range on a LARGE load. That's also a perfectly good example of a perfectly fine machine RUINED cosmetically by mishandling. Talk about no respect for vintage!!
More concerned about our vintage collections...you better believe it! Our vintage Frigidaires and GE Filter-Flos will be running long after the "replacement" machine has met its fate at the crusher, probably in another 10 years or even less than that...
I've ranted enough for now.
--Austin
That large-capacity Maytag has, in my opinion, average water usage. Same as a modern TL which are not really water hogs. I have a large-capacity 2003 Maytag Dependable Care and it uses the same amount of water as the vintage 'Tags. Probably in the 40-50 gallon range on a LARGE load. That's also a perfectly good example of a perfectly fine machine RUINED cosmetically by mishandling. Talk about no respect for vintage!!
More concerned about our vintage collections...you better believe it! Our vintage Frigidaires and GE Filter-Flos will be running long after the "replacement" machine has met its fate at the crusher, probably in another 10 years or even less than that...
I've ranted enough for now.
--Austin
The only porcelain part on the cabinet is the top. The front panel is painted,so the scratches should be no problem to refinish. Nice washer!
I say you should have any washer that makes you happy,be it new and energy efficient,or old and classic!
kennyGF
I say you should have any washer that makes you happy,be it new and energy efficient,or old and classic!
kennyGF
frontaloadotmy
Well-known member
Well Said
Farmer of GTO's
Farmer of GTO's
Austin, thank you for pointing it out. It was a misconception solid tub machines were hots with overflow rinses. The case is actually, they were more efficient in most cases as gallon/lb. of clothes. And a Frigidaire 1/18 sounds like it is a water hog too, but that machine can handle more than 18 lbs. of clothes. I have calculated and my 1986 Lady Shredmore uses more gallons/pound than the 1/18 when properly loaded. And the same thing goes for Fisher & Paykel moder machines. I could get at least 1/3 more in Glenn's machine for the same amount, or slightly less than my Lady Kenmore!!. I think the one thing that really hurts modern top loaders is the lack of long spray rinses. with the old snapping timers on Maytags, I'd set it so that I'd end up getting two timer increments of a spray rinse. And true Westinghouse TLers, I witnessed it myself. Almost elminates totally the need for a 2nd deep rinse, which would still use more water than the spray rinses. But I"m encouraged by LG's latest model offering an extra water button said to fill right below the door. Maybe it will catch on.
brettsomers
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2005
- Messages
- 1,993
i assume, from "beccas" mention of water savings, she got a front loader? without starting a front vs top debate, thats what i was thinking when i said she had a point about the water savings. am also curious what she meant about "factoring age into effectiveness" does the Maytag not perform properly? it either works properly or it doesnt.
getting your dander up
Ok, I admit - I prefer solid metal to cheap plastic any old time. I also don't smoke, don't drive in the city (easy in Europe) and don't waste water unnecessarily. I do, however have my LG do a second deep rinse on everything. Why put up with the detergent residue when you can avoid it?
But I also don't have the water bills folks in Iowa have.
Enough, tho'. I am shocked, do you hear me, shocked by the attacks on the poor woman I have read here. Sheesh, at least she is thinking and trying to save a good machine's life! Ok, it hurts to see the scratches and I, too, have been known to go ballastic over Whirlpool anything built after 1975. But come on, folks...this is no way to treat a lady. Either of them.
By the by, just how much water goes into making one of these new machines? Would be worth knowing - I bet it is an enormous quantity.
Ok, I admit - I prefer solid metal to cheap plastic any old time. I also don't smoke, don't drive in the city (easy in Europe) and don't waste water unnecessarily. I do, however have my LG do a second deep rinse on everything. Why put up with the detergent residue when you can avoid it?
But I also don't have the water bills folks in Iowa have.
Enough, tho'. I am shocked, do you hear me, shocked by the attacks on the poor woman I have read here. Sheesh, at least she is thinking and trying to save a good machine's life! Ok, it hurts to see the scratches and I, too, have been known to go ballastic over Whirlpool anything built after 1975. But come on, folks...this is no way to treat a lady. Either of them.
By the by, just how much water goes into making one of these new machines? Would be worth knowing - I bet it is an enormous quantity.
The advantage of new HE washers is not just water savings - it's also the energy to heat water. It takes about four times as much energy to heat water for an older top loader hot wash, as it does to heat water for a modern FL. That can be a significant savings. It also allows people to use more hygenic laundry parameters (hot or boosted hot wash temp) for loads that need it (underwear, socks, bathroom wash cloths, kitchen towels/dish cloths, etc) the most, and still save on energy. As a recently posted link to a European laundry study indicates, hotter and longer washes are very important in reducing bacterial contamination of the finished laundry. The same temps and times may be difficult to achieve in a traditional top loader, even at greater energy cost.
Anyway, I was thinking the same thing - put the vintage maytag up for sale, or donate it for free. If there's a craig's list in your area, that's a very good way to sell or give away items like these.
Anyway, I was thinking the same thing - put the vintage maytag up for sale, or donate it for free. If there's a craig's list in your area, that's a very good way to sell or give away items like these.
Becca, I agree abiout the no pre-treat of stains anymore. Experienced that with a Duet HT at the 2002 Convention.
Similar threads
