Modified Agitator

[tomturbomatic]

I did the same thing to that agitator years ago when I tried it out in one of my 'Tags. Maytag needed something on the upper agitator barrel to pull clothes to the bottom to help with circulation, but those 4 insipid fins were not the answer.

And as to why they eliminated the lint filter in the agitator: The no phosphate detergents did not buffer the water as well as the "real" detergents that preceded them. Everyone was having mineral buildup and the lint filter was where Maytag owners saw it first. It was easier to remove it from the agitator and put those two little mesh covered openings under the agitator to catch lint because nobody would notice when they became blocked with minerals. Truth be told, much more lint is removed & caught by the dryer anyway.

 

[tolivac]

I had a Maytag washer that had an agitator similar to the one modified-I had to "modify" mine-but in a different way-the base vanes-on the bottom-they were SHARP-I filed and sanded off those cutting edges-my clothes thanked me too-If I still had that machine-would have tried the "Impeller" mod shown in another thread.I sold the machine with one of the houses I used to have.

 

[Designgeek]

Good videos; that machine has a very fast agitator and very fast rollover. It would be interesting to see comparison videos with the unmodified agitator. Maybe the point of those pesky wings was to slow down the rollover (for who-knows-what reason)?

 

[tomturbomatic]

Those wings were a stand-in until Maytag could have their own dual action agitator when WP's patent expired. If anything, they should have been curved vanes, instead of wings, like on some of the WP agitators without the auger. That way the vanes would have been more effective at pulling the load down on the forward stroke in the direction of the curve of the vanes, but would not have pushed the clothes away on the reverse stroke, maybe. The fact is that the Maytag design was very outdated by this time and it was not up to handling the large loads of most of its competitors. Then, instead of designing a washer with a bigger tub, they made the top opening bigger. When they rode that cheap trick to the end of the road, they put their name on Norges, rather than design a new machine.

Companies that refuse to update and innovate will eventually be left behind. KitchenAid took a beating the last time the 14 series was tested. They came out with the 15 that put them at the top of the ratings for a while, but were very late in having a dedicated source of water under the upper rack (1977).

Maytag dropped the Amana freezers it sold right after WWII and the very well made gas ranges, again bought from another manufacturer that made a great product. They decided to concentrate on home laundry. But when they sought to expand the line, instead of going for quality, they decided to pick up the weakest appliance lines that were already in trouble because the were not innovators: Hardwick, Admiral and Magic Chef. Magic Chef had not introduced anything since the "Red Wheel" oven thermostat on their gas stoves some time in the 1920s or 30s. The refrigerators that Admiral made for Maytag were such POC that the doors would not align on the side-by-sides. Maytag stupidly thought that by putting their name on this stuff, people would be blinded to the faults by the Maytag name and Maytag would not have to spend money to make the stuff better, but could sell a lot of stuff and reward the stockholders and pay big bucks to the CEO and directors. They got away with it for awhile. The same thing has been happening in almost every industry that historically, at least, made things here. What people in this country do not realize is that a significant portion of the money that they pay for things that are not made here just leaves the country, except for the small amount that goes to the people who sell the stuff and a larger amount for the fat cats who decide what else can be moved offshore to avoid paying wages and taxes here.