Maytag A406 washer - should it go to the dump? and other questions...

[westytoploader]

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

 

[goatfarmer]

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

 

[frontaloadotmy]

Well Said

Farmer of GTO's

 

[appnut]

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]

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.

 

[thaobecca]

The old Maytag works properly. The new machine simply works better. I now don't have to pretreat or soak my loads before I throw them in the wash.

 

[panthera]

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.

 

[sudsmaster]

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.

 

[appnut]

Becca, I agree abiout the no pre-treat of stains anymore. Experienced that with a Duet HT at the 2002 Convention.

 

[Unimatic1140]

Too bad some consumers are more concerned with their vintage collections than they are about saving

Hmmm, I haven't read this thread in a while. If us "consumers" were not so concerned about our vintage collections this web site wouldn't exist, but away...

Becca, another option you might like to consider is saving that old Maytag and hooking it up as a second washer. You could use it as a utility washer, washing things like old rugs and other items that you might not want to mix in with your regular laundry.

Just 'cause I can't resist, we always hear about the savings from these new front loading washers. But does any know the approximate cost someone would actually save by switching from a "old" top loader to a new fangled front loader? Have any studies been published? Just curious.

My average water bill is $20 per month, my May-Sep (furnace pilot light off) gas bill is about $40 per month sometimes even lower, but I like to take long hot showers that I can use up the entire 50 gallong tank at times, so I know that at least half of those costs are attributed to that. My electric bill is generally around $55 during the Oct-May non a/c season. So my average utility bill is (not including trash and other non washer related bills) is $115. What would it be if I would unhook the collection and switched to any one of the new front loaders? $100, $80, $2? It would be an interesting experiment to find out.

 

[bajaespuma]

My two cents

There is just something so beautiful about that generation Maytag in "Spanish Avocado". Why, oh why do we mess with the classics?

I'd love somebody out there to tell me whose decision it was at the Maytag company to move the dial from the center and change the panel to look like every other ordinary washer out there. Do any of you remember Consumer Reports' frequent carping about how the Maytag backsplash was judged "inconvenient to clean"? I think CU's opinions ruined more companies machines than any other influence.

 

[sudsmaster]

You know, Robert, I don't believe I've ever seen published accounts of expected savings of a modern FL over an older TL. A lot would depend, I imagine, upon one's laundry use and water/utility rates.

I have seen claims of water volume savings in ads and promotional materials for FL's, such as for the Neptune when it first came out. There would be stacks of 1 gallon water bottles filled up, set on a display next to the washer.

What some of us have done is to take the Energy Guide information for a FL and compare it to that for a modern TL. As I recall, typically a modern TL would use something like 900 kWh/year, while even the lowly Neptune would use only 362 kWH/year. In my neck of the woods, that would be about $75/year in electric savings. Heating only 5 gallons of wash wagter, vs. 20 gallons in a TL, would net additional energy savings. Then there are savings in terms of clothes lasting longer in a FL than in a TL, plus savings from the ability to wash large bulky items at home in the FL vs. paying $2.50 or more per load at the local laundromat.

There may also be savings in entertainment costs, as many FL owners say they find watching the laundry tumble back and forth is better than an Oscar winning movie ;-). Some of us are easily entertained, I guess...

Which in a sense brings us back to square one. As collectors we are not all that interested in water and energy savings. This is a hobby, and any costs associated with it should not be charged to the conservation arena. We easily could be into performance cars or other hobbies that use far more energy and resources. But perhaps for the single washer, non-enthusiast household, an economic case can be made for a modern HE washer.

 

[Unimatic1140]

Hi Rich, yes I couldn't agree more, maybe having only one HE machine might be good for a non-enthusiast home, but not for many of us here. From what I have found on the net I suspect my utility bills would drop about a total of $10-$12 a month if I only used a HE front loading washer, but of the cost of special HE detergents would go up, bringing the total savings just under $10 a month.

Now for $10 a month more if get to wash and dry in machines that look like this, bring it on!...

 

[westytoploader]

Same with this (thanks again Robert for this excellent machine!!!), and at only 29 minutes and 28 gallons per load! Although as usual, the "typical everyday user" probably could care less whether their washer was pink or gold or almond...you name it, or whether the styling resembles a 1950's automobile and is just TO DIE FOR, like your Pink 1957 Ladies. The only thing that matters to them is that it's a front-loader and is high-efficiency.

(Sigh...)

 

[repair-man]

I guess it depends on how much laundry you do . . .

My family does close to 20 large loads every week so the savings does add up. I switched from a Maytag Atlantis to a Frigidaire 3.5 cu.ft. front load 6 months ago. As close as I can estimate it saves about $25 per month. I do track my utilities carefully so I am pretty confident in this number. So even if the machine only lasts 5 years it saves $1500. I only paid $600 for the washer. I don't always use HE detergent either. I have tried everything and don't really see a difference.

That being said I still don't believe that water and energy savings is reason enough to tell anyone what kind of washer to own. For the same reason I don't like people telling me what kind of car to drive. If one is willing to pay extra for something, and it doesn't hurt anyone else, you should have every right to do what you wish.

Finally, I don't believe that my "modern Frigidaire front-loader" is "crappy" at all. It does a very good job of washing and rinsing unlike what was said by someone above. It just doesn't have any excitement factor to it. I still prefer older top load machines with lots of suds. The best washer I ever had (unfotunately not for long) was an early seventies Kenmore 800. And of course I know my modern machine wont last all that long.

ED

 

[mistervain]

Too bad some consumers are more concerned with their vintage

My response....all this "energy conservation" has left me with long cycle times--and clothes that still stink.

Maybe your washer works well for you, but the superiority of vintage machines over modern ones cannot be overstated. They are practical, much better built, and they spend energy--thank goodness--because it's needed.

 

[panthera]

I can see mistervain's point

It is really hard to compare these things. Electricity versus gas, HE detergent versus suds cake...
My folks have water bills like no one's business (a problem you can't understand if you don't know the west) (and I hope no one ever needs to, either). Their Fl uses 1/3 the water and, according to my dad, about twice the energy to get the clothes really clean as their TL did. He tracks all those things in little columns on the computer...so guess that is pretty accurate. With electric bills under 60$ a month but water over 300$ a month guess that is what matters.
My rollermatic sat right next to the water heater. I think that was the best of both worlds.
Mistervain, I bet they would get clean and non-stinky if you out-smart the machines limitations. After over 20 years of FL here in Germany I had forgotten my early frustrations. Found this letter to my folks from 1983:
"...so I load the two pairs of shorts and three t-shirts, one bath towel and washmit. Decide to live dangerously and add a hand towel. Barely force the lid onto the drum - it was soooo full - then set the dial to 60° and Baumwolle.
First it pumps for about five minutes and turns back and forth. Then it sounds like a water cannon is hitting the little detergent box. Now I know why it is all stainless steel. After that it sits there and does nothing, ab-so-lu-te-lly no-zing for 20 minutes.
Now it turns back then forth then back then forth for about an hour. That is all.
After a while I hear water flowing like mad into the bathtup. Whuf! It dances a jig. IT BOUNCES ON ITS LEGS!!! Then the whole thing starts up again from the beginning. This time it doesn't sit there, it turns the drum back and forth for 10 minutes. Then another display of callisthenics. I know why Manfred has an old tire around the base now - that thing rockets around the whole bathroom.
Two more acts and then the denoument...crazy. It jumps, it twists, it shakes and rumbles. Water floweth forth like mad.
Finally all is done and it has died. Light goes off, lid goes clunk and the clothes are nearly dry and very very clean.
Barely took two and one-half hours, too..."
And that was the secret to these things: Time and heat. Lots of time and very very hot water. The machines were made for Europe, where people wash normal clothes at 60° (maybe 40 now-a-days, when they can). Let's see, hmm...60 * 9= 540. 540/5=108. 108 + 32= 140°F. And that explains an awful lot. 60 minutes at 140° will clean anything. Plus the slow rise to that temperature gives the perborate and enzymes time to really do their thing.
No way these machines can clean well if they are running in, for their design, cold water and set to run way to fast.
Bottom Line: Use way hotter water, set it to wash twice and then see what happens. I miss my Frigidaire, I do!

 

[Unimatic1140]

Ed, twenty loads of wash a week, and that's 20 loads in a large capacity washer, oy, I average about nine vintage size, 10lb loads a week in the winter and six or seven during the rest of the year. You must be washing constantly! Of course there are just two of us and dog here.

Here is something none of you can't do with a modern Front Loading washer (and I'm sorry about it :0 ):

On Saturday afternoon friends called and invited us out for dinner, they said to meet them at 7:00, it was now 5:30. We said yes, but I realized that neither one of us had any clean blue jeans to wear and the restaurant was too nice to wear shorts. So I quickly picked up five pare of jeans from the laundry pile and ran to the basement.

I threw them into my '58 Frigidaire Unimatic and set the wash timer for seven minutes of agitation (out of a possible 10 max wash time). Warm wash and cool rinse.

Here's the entire cycle:
Start at 5:35pm
Fill: 4:00 min
Pause: 0:40
Wash: 5:40
Overflow wash: 1:20
Spin at 1140rpm: 2:00
Brake: 0:40
Rinse Fill: 3:20
Overflow Rinse: 2:30
Final Spin at 1140rpm: 4:00
25.5 minutes (28 gallons)

Threw them into my 50amp 1957 Kenmore High Speed Dryer at 6:01, set the dial for 30 minutes with high heat, came back at 6:27 they are bone dryer with 4 minutes left on the dial.

Finished getting dress with fresh perfectly clean jeans and out the door and arrived at the restaurant 10 minutes early.

Now had we invited some of you from the modern Front Loader gang without any clean jeans, us vintagers could have had dinner, take in a movie then we will meet you modernites for coffee after and we will all be wearing clean jeans.

 

[repair-man]

Yes, 20 loads a week. Four kids and a job that makes a dirty uniform every day.

Please everyone understand that I'm NOT saying that my front loader is superior in any way. But it does save a lot of water and the clothes are very well washed and rinsed. My water and sewer bills were close to $150 every month with the Maytag Atlantis. I picked the Frigidaire because it does have reasonable cycle times (45 min to 1 hr max).

BTW, Robert if I had your basement I would have spent the whole hour and a half deciding which machine to use.

Ed

 

[panthera]

That is exactly the point

Robert has put his finger on it. Just as people had to buy an extra piece of everything in their kitchen when they got a dishwasher, over here in Europe we cope with the long long longest laundry times in the world by having extra pairs of pants, etc.
I remember those dryers...bet the metal rivets burnt like hell.
I still think my rollermatic was very very miserly when it came to the water she used. By the by, given the teeny tiny size of apartments over here, having a machine you can build in under a counter-top or stack with a dryer is a must for most people. My kitchen is gigantic by German standards (bigger than the rest of the apartment together, actually...) and the washer and dryer still take up 1/2 the available counter top space. Sometimes you just have to go with what you can do.

 

[sudsmaster]

Well Robert, not to knock the Unimatic 1140, which sounds like an awesome machine, but with my Neptune 7500 I *could* set the machine to a 5 minute quick wash (I would choose hot wash cold rinse), and two rinses, and be done with the entire wash load in 32 minutes with the max extract (1,000 rpm) option enabled. For a load of only five jeans, I figure the dryer would have everything done in less than 30 minutes. So about one hour 2 minutes total - 6.5 minute longer than your quick wash in the Unimatic.

And if I had a Speed Queen, a half-max wash cycle would probably be done in about 30 minutes as well.

But rarely am I in enough of a wash day emergency to use the 5 minute quick wash on the Neptune. And I would only use it on lightly soiled small loads (I'm assuming your jeans didn't see garden or shop duty). I suppose one of these days I'll have to try it with five pairs of jeans just to see how long it takes to dry them in the matching gas dryer (usually I dry them on a clothes line to save energy).

At the same time, I could have a candle-light supper emergency where I just had to set a full table in less than an hour. I'd probably choose my '58 Kitchenaid KD-2P portable washer, which can have everything washed and dried in 43.5 minutes, vs an average of 105 minutes in the modern Bosch dishwasher... but wait, the Bosch says it has a quick cycle too, at 19 minutes. So I guess I could use that (never tried it), if I didn't mind towel drying the dishes. And dor that matter, I could stop the KA at 19.5 minutes, before the heated air dry starts, and do the same...

So when did you want dinner? ;-)

 

[Unimatic1140]

Hi Rich, ah but here's the difference. While I have no doubt that the Neptune would clean the those dirty Jeans using the standard cycle, could it clean them completely using the short cycle with only a five minute wash? I suspect it would still do a pretty good job, but completely clean, I don't know about that, tap tap tap.

In my cycle I'm using nearly the full wash time, and I know for experience they would come clean.

As for dinner, how about some Mac & Cheese