Most powerful motor
- Thread starter Chetlaham
- Start date
Help Support :
I rather doubt Henrik
Has had the opportunity to use a Twenty-Eight Hundred. We love ours, but they're aren't that many around, especially not in Europe.
It's all a matter of what one knows - I spent most of my adult life in Munich, so I'm as familiar with 'vintage' European as I am with American. My last Miele in Germany was a 2013 and it certainly was not built to the quality of my beautiful 1979 (which the movers dropped down the stairs, sigh).
So, yes - good German dishwashers clean quite well. But not better than a classic potscrubber I or III (I know, dahlinks, but it's like talking about Basketweaver 'I', if you don't add the III, everybody will think you mean those horrid "IIs".
Henrik, your viewpoint is too narrow.
Has had the opportunity to use a Twenty-Eight Hundred. We love ours, but they're aren't that many around, especially not in Europe.
It's all a matter of what one knows - I spent most of my adult life in Munich, so I'm as familiar with 'vintage' European as I am with American. My last Miele in Germany was a 2013 and it certainly was not built to the quality of my beautiful 1979 (which the movers dropped down the stairs, sigh).
So, yes - good German dishwashers clean quite well. But not better than a classic potscrubber I or III (I know, dahlinks, but it's like talking about Basketweaver 'I', if you don't add the III, everybody will think you mean those horrid "IIs".
Henrik, your viewpoint is too narrow.
iheartmaytag
Well-known member
Just my dimes worth
A well known consumer magazine consistently rated the GE Potscrubber as a top rated machine for many years testing. The GSD1200 held the position of "best consumer buy" for value, and effectiveness.
A well known consumer magazine consistently rated the GE Potscrubber as a top rated machine for many years testing. The GSD1200 held the position of "best consumer buy" for value, and effectiveness.
Potscrubber, noise, water use
The Twenty-Eight Hundred is so very well sound insulated that it is not noisy, it's quieter running that any of our KitchenAids have ever been.
We are, however, talking about a level of sound insulation you would otherwise only find in a top-notch sound studio which has to work while their street is being torn up with jack-hammers.
As to the water usage - for those too young to know what we're discussing, here's the normal cycle for most Potscrubbers over the last roughly 40 years (they're still made, if only as a BOL).
Pre-wash (up to 20 minutes heated in some models, especially Kenmore).
Pre-Wash (just a quick one, may have a running water purge in some).
Pre-Wash (short, may use less water than the first two in some models).
Wash (heated in all versions, may incorporate time delay/thermostatic control and or both)
Rinse (may have running water purge in some models)
Rinse (short, may use less water in some models)
Rinse (may be skipped, may use running water purge in some models, may use less water in some models).
Rinse with rinse-aid, heat, timer delay/thermostatic control in some models
Now, before those who only know the universal mechanical timer or the GSD 2800-3D say the above ain't true, please go try a 1200 with the multi-orbital arm (the one it supposedly didn't have) and get back to us.
GE has fiddled with the rinse cycles even more than with the pre-wash cycles through the years and the original timers were all over the place in how they ran. GE standardized replacement heaters at only about 500W for all potscrubbers and offered first two then one universal timer for all (with modification, it works, too).
One characteristic of all of them: Tons of water used. It's a big reason they clean so well and don't leave yibblets.
Second characteristic: That gigantic passive filter in the back of the tub on the MOL/TOLs for decades WORKED. When they replaced it with the ring-around-the-tower-of-power, it was a disaster. Gummed up constantly, was designed to work with phosphates and failed MISERABLY without them.
Noise: A lot of it is the gigantic fan in the shaded-pole motor which GE chose for the potscrubbers and only replaced with a capacitor start much later. They're interchangeable, but the discussion as to why they chose a shaded-pole for such a large motor is still ongoing.
It has a few advantages, not least: They are the most reliable and trouble-free motor built. Unlimited lifespan (many are still running perfectly after over 100 years, in service).
No capacitor, no complicated wiring.
As these things go, an exceptionally friendly motor to logic and other electronics. Given the cost and vulnerability of electronics in house-hold appliances back in the day (make that vulnerability, today, too), this motor was an outstanding choice.
Disadvantage: Because the starting torque is weak, weaker, weakest of all practical electric motor designs, they had to over-dimension it enormously to guarantee it would start under load.
Disadvantage: Produces lots of heat, partially because it's over-dimensioned, partially because it's inefficient, so a gigantic cooling fan is needed. Enormous.
All in all, though - what matters is the performance. Any Potscrubber with the multi-orbital arm will do a better job of washing dishes clean, all else being equal than any other home dishwasher. Add in the power-shower (which many consider useless, though I disagree) and that filter and you have no yibblets, a dishwasher which will clean your dishes sparkling clean even if your young helper puts the percolator basket into the machine without emptying the coffee grounds.
But, heh - we still hear how cheap and dreadful the GE Filter-Flo was and how wasteful the P7 was...some people just can't get past the harm done to the company in the 1990s by Welch. Understandable, but it's as if one were to take a WCI Frigidaire washer and then tar and feather the Unimatic based on the Franklin transmission in that hunk of plastic WCI called a 'Frigidaire'.
The Twenty-Eight Hundred is so very well sound insulated that it is not noisy, it's quieter running that any of our KitchenAids have ever been.
We are, however, talking about a level of sound insulation you would otherwise only find in a top-notch sound studio which has to work while their street is being torn up with jack-hammers.
As to the water usage - for those too young to know what we're discussing, here's the normal cycle for most Potscrubbers over the last roughly 40 years (they're still made, if only as a BOL).
Pre-wash (up to 20 minutes heated in some models, especially Kenmore).
Pre-Wash (just a quick one, may have a running water purge in some).
Pre-Wash (short, may use less water than the first two in some models).
Wash (heated in all versions, may incorporate time delay/thermostatic control and or both)
Rinse (may have running water purge in some models)
Rinse (short, may use less water in some models)
Rinse (may be skipped, may use running water purge in some models, may use less water in some models).
Rinse with rinse-aid, heat, timer delay/thermostatic control in some models
Now, before those who only know the universal mechanical timer or the GSD 2800-3D say the above ain't true, please go try a 1200 with the multi-orbital arm (the one it supposedly didn't have) and get back to us.
GE has fiddled with the rinse cycles even more than with the pre-wash cycles through the years and the original timers were all over the place in how they ran. GE standardized replacement heaters at only about 500W for all potscrubbers and offered first two then one universal timer for all (with modification, it works, too).
One characteristic of all of them: Tons of water used. It's a big reason they clean so well and don't leave yibblets.
Second characteristic: That gigantic passive filter in the back of the tub on the MOL/TOLs for decades WORKED. When they replaced it with the ring-around-the-tower-of-power, it was a disaster. Gummed up constantly, was designed to work with phosphates and failed MISERABLY without them.
Noise: A lot of it is the gigantic fan in the shaded-pole motor which GE chose for the potscrubbers and only replaced with a capacitor start much later. They're interchangeable, but the discussion as to why they chose a shaded-pole for such a large motor is still ongoing.
It has a few advantages, not least: They are the most reliable and trouble-free motor built. Unlimited lifespan (many are still running perfectly after over 100 years, in service).
No capacitor, no complicated wiring.
As these things go, an exceptionally friendly motor to logic and other electronics. Given the cost and vulnerability of electronics in house-hold appliances back in the day (make that vulnerability, today, too), this motor was an outstanding choice.
Disadvantage: Because the starting torque is weak, weaker, weakest of all practical electric motor designs, they had to over-dimension it enormously to guarantee it would start under load.
Disadvantage: Produces lots of heat, partially because it's over-dimensioned, partially because it's inefficient, so a gigantic cooling fan is needed. Enormous.
All in all, though - what matters is the performance. Any Potscrubber with the multi-orbital arm will do a better job of washing dishes clean, all else being equal than any other home dishwasher. Add in the power-shower (which many consider useless, though I disagree) and that filter and you have no yibblets, a dishwasher which will clean your dishes sparkling clean even if your young helper puts the percolator basket into the machine without emptying the coffee grounds.
But, heh - we still hear how cheap and dreadful the GE Filter-Flo was and how wasteful the P7 was...some people just can't get past the harm done to the company in the 1990s by Welch. Understandable, but it's as if one were to take a WCI Frigidaire washer and then tar and feather the Unimatic based on the Franklin transmission in that hunk of plastic WCI called a 'Frigidaire'.
Copious Water
That can also be argued as being incorrect. With a load of very dirty dishes the water consumption is about the same when you take into account all the soil sense fills, purges, drains and water top-offs in a modern Whirlpool. The GE simply defaults to a heavy cycle when normal is selected while the Whirlpool defaults to a light cycle (with normal selected) adjusting the time and water as needed.
If one was to change the GE sump boot to the newer low profile version and add an induction motor that has the narrow pump body washing and rinsing performance drastically increase. One could easily use the 'light wash' for normal to heavy soils. Its also worth mentioning that GE put a separate drain pump on their high end 2000s models which would drain the sump completely- GE was able to do away with an entire pre-wash and rinse.
Now, if I pre-washed everything would the Whirlpool always use less water? Of course, but whats the point of doing that when pre-rinsing uses the most water next to hand-washing altogether?
Noise-
The higher end GE machines had very good sound insulation- and if one puts an induction motor inside of them the noise will be only slightly more than a Whirlpool.
That can also be argued as being incorrect. With a load of very dirty dishes the water consumption is about the same when you take into account all the soil sense fills, purges, drains and water top-offs in a modern Whirlpool. The GE simply defaults to a heavy cycle when normal is selected while the Whirlpool defaults to a light cycle (with normal selected) adjusting the time and water as needed.
If one was to change the GE sump boot to the newer low profile version and add an induction motor that has the narrow pump body washing and rinsing performance drastically increase. One could easily use the 'light wash' for normal to heavy soils. Its also worth mentioning that GE put a separate drain pump on their high end 2000s models which would drain the sump completely- GE was able to do away with an entire pre-wash and rinse.
Now, if I pre-washed everything would the Whirlpool always use less water? Of course, but whats the point of doing that when pre-rinsing uses the most water next to hand-washing altogether?
Noise-
The higher end GE machines had very good sound insulation- and if one puts an induction motor inside of them the noise will be only slightly more than a Whirlpool.
@panthera:
Just to add those shaded pole motors were the #1 bane of all GE dishwashers by far. Speaking with maintenance at the apartment complex I used to live at the #1 call next to blocked toilets and jammed garbage disposals was dishwasher humming but not running. Maintenance immediately knew what the problem was, and that involved simply taking the toe-kick off and turning the fan blade by hand. As a courtesy and just in case a foreign object was causing it they would vacuum the sump out with a shop vac and remove anything else remaining like glass or tooth pics. The stalling would happen most often when the dishwasher wasn't used for more than a week such as when tenants were moving out and new ones were coming in. Speaking of disposals, those were never GE's strong point. Maybe I am just ignorant of disposals in general, but they seemed to jam more than they ran.
As for why GE used a shaded pole my best guess is cost. The shaded pole motors while not perfect, were good in general when compared to their low capitol cost at the time. GE's market has always been predominately selling BOL to landlords and contractors, so every part of their machines had to be value engineered. But still, in defense of these mediocre motors, I've seen them purr like a kitten 30 years latter, so I restrain myself on being too judgmental.
Just to add those shaded pole motors were the #1 bane of all GE dishwashers by far. Speaking with maintenance at the apartment complex I used to live at the #1 call next to blocked toilets and jammed garbage disposals was dishwasher humming but not running. Maintenance immediately knew what the problem was, and that involved simply taking the toe-kick off and turning the fan blade by hand. As a courtesy and just in case a foreign object was causing it they would vacuum the sump out with a shop vac and remove anything else remaining like glass or tooth pics. The stalling would happen most often when the dishwasher wasn't used for more than a week such as when tenants were moving out and new ones were coming in. Speaking of disposals, those were never GE's strong point. Maybe I am just ignorant of disposals in general, but they seemed to jam more than they ran.
As for why GE used a shaded pole my best guess is cost. The shaded pole motors while not perfect, were good in general when compared to their low capitol cost at the time. GE's market has always been predominately selling BOL to landlords and contractors, so every part of their machines had to be value engineered. But still, in defense of these mediocre motors, I've seen them purr like a kitten 30 years latter, so I restrain myself on being too judgmental.
cycle sequence
Someone will need to back me up, but I remember reading the manuals to the 1200 and 2800s and it was 11.4 gallons on the Potscrubber.
Yes fills did go down on every GE machine as time went on, and in cases like the high end machines that was not to bad, but yielded a disaster on their BOLs.
Someone will need to back me up, but I remember reading the manuals to the 1200 and 2800s and it was 11.4 gallons on the Potscrubber.
Yes fills did go down on every GE machine as time went on, and in cases like the high end machines that was not to bad, but yielded a disaster on their BOLs.
Having checked it
I know that our Twenty-Eight Hundred uses just over 13 gallons for the most thorough was cycle programmable.
That is indisputably a lot of water.
On the other hand, every study shows that people who hand wash or pre-rinse use far, far, far more than that.
So - you can use a vintage Maytag or GE Potscrubber and skip the pre-rinsing and pre-washing you had to do for a KitchenAid or Whirlpool (and which didn't help with the awful D&M) or you can pre-rinse/wash for those and end up using more water, even in the best dishwashers today, than those two used and still use.
Oh, and, yes - that filter basket over the sump will keep an aircraft carrier out of the pump, I know it will. Anything smaller, though.....
One can add a pump to any GE which ran the solenoid the entire time (some did) it was draining, and with the low-profile sump and SIEMENS motor, you've got a machine which actually can skip two pre-washes and still wash perfectly.
I'd not skip the rinses though. I've NEVER understood the KitchenAid 'one rinse' and it's done approach. None of ours ever were, we always had to second rinse.
But then - I absolutely refuse to pre-rinse, never mind wash the dishes. Ever. Nor will I use the luke-warm water which passes for 'hot' these days. What's the point of having a dishwasher if you pre-rinse?
I know that our Twenty-Eight Hundred uses just over 13 gallons for the most thorough was cycle programmable.
That is indisputably a lot of water.
On the other hand, every study shows that people who hand wash or pre-rinse use far, far, far more than that.
So - you can use a vintage Maytag or GE Potscrubber and skip the pre-rinsing and pre-washing you had to do for a KitchenAid or Whirlpool (and which didn't help with the awful D&M) or you can pre-rinse/wash for those and end up using more water, even in the best dishwashers today, than those two used and still use.
Oh, and, yes - that filter basket over the sump will keep an aircraft carrier out of the pump, I know it will. Anything smaller, though.....
One can add a pump to any GE which ran the solenoid the entire time (some did) it was draining, and with the low-profile sump and SIEMENS motor, you've got a machine which actually can skip two pre-washes and still wash perfectly.
I'd not skip the rinses though. I've NEVER understood the KitchenAid 'one rinse' and it's done approach. None of ours ever were, we always had to second rinse.
But then - I absolutely refuse to pre-rinse, never mind wash the dishes. Ever. Nor will I use the luke-warm water which passes for 'hot' these days. What's the point of having a dishwasher if you pre-rinse?
13 gallons
That would be a 70s machine. In the early 80s GE came out with a redesigned sump and inlet with their permatuffs which held less carry over (compared to the plastisols) allowing them to reduce water usage by a few gallons. In fact between 1979 and 1986 most GEs had 2 final rinses instead of the typical 3 associated with most before and after that time period. Though I guess that was still insufficient because GE latter took some water out of the pre-wash and added a quick 3 rinse (which was basically a purge) after the main wash raising the water from 11.4 to 12.1 gallons.
But Panthera, you are spot on. The only reason why GE has historically used so much water IMO to acheive the same results as others has been sump and pump carry over. If someone took an identical 80's 1,200 or 2,800 adding a redesigned sump, motor, and aux drain pump I have no doubt 11 or 13 gallons could be reduced to about 8- which GE did do in the 2000s, but that was marred by going backwards on the filter and wash arm.
Speaking of carry over and one rinse- Kitchenaid and Whirlpool frequently got away with it due to the reduced carry over. The power clean module left not even a half cup of water in its bowels, so a single purge was enough to flush out the little remaining dirty/soapy water. The rest was only meant to rinse the dishes and tub walls, rather than in-addition to that diluting the carrying over water. In fact, Id go on a limb and say newer machines hold more carry over water than their predecessors due to the horizontal design instead of the vertical module frequently seen on non-tall tubs. Though one could argue the increased loading over shadows that.
That would be a 70s machine. In the early 80s GE came out with a redesigned sump and inlet with their permatuffs which held less carry over (compared to the plastisols) allowing them to reduce water usage by a few gallons. In fact between 1979 and 1986 most GEs had 2 final rinses instead of the typical 3 associated with most before and after that time period. Though I guess that was still insufficient because GE latter took some water out of the pre-wash and added a quick 3 rinse (which was basically a purge) after the main wash raising the water from 11.4 to 12.1 gallons.
But Panthera, you are spot on. The only reason why GE has historically used so much water IMO to acheive the same results as others has been sump and pump carry over. If someone took an identical 80's 1,200 or 2,800 adding a redesigned sump, motor, and aux drain pump I have no doubt 11 or 13 gallons could be reduced to about 8- which GE did do in the 2000s, but that was marred by going backwards on the filter and wash arm.
Speaking of carry over and one rinse- Kitchenaid and Whirlpool frequently got away with it due to the reduced carry over. The power clean module left not even a half cup of water in its bowels, so a single purge was enough to flush out the little remaining dirty/soapy water. The rest was only meant to rinse the dishes and tub walls, rather than in-addition to that diluting the carrying over water. In fact, Id go on a limb and say newer machines hold more carry over water than their predecessors due to the horizontal design instead of the vertical module frequently seen on non-tall tubs. Though one could argue the increased loading over shadows that.
Interesting -
Our GSD 2800D02 is from 1984, but then a little bit more every fill would add up to a lot at the end.
Yes, carryover can be a problem. There's no reason they couldn't have solved the problem way back then, after all - those seals which had to be kept from drying out were awful - the real reason the shaded-pole motors would jam was the seals, not the motors, themselves. I've seen SIEMENS motors locked up for the same reason in later years.
Still - I like lots of rinsing. It just doesn't seem possible to me that the minuscule amounts of water used by some machines to rinse can possibly we carrying all the residue away. In fact, the 'beer' test with real German beer, not American dog-piss shows it.
But, heck, had to install a new Amana in an apartment this morning. Old Estate had bit the dust (timer blew) and they were just barely OK machines at best so, the property manager has been replacing them when they blow out. Let's me fix the GE Potscrubbers, though. She knows her stuff.
Anyhow, the Amana has very good ratings for cleaning, despite being bottom of the barrel at $400. Got it on sale at The Homeless Despot for just under $300. Ran it twice while doing other stuff nearby, I noticed it's putting enormously more water through both arms then dishwashers I'd been putting in just a few years back. Also notice there was no energy star to be found on it. Maybe the manufacturers are learning? Finally.
Kicker: Like all modern dishwashers, the drain loops up over a few clips to prevent siphoning. Local code requires that we still have to pull the drain hose OVER the height of the garbage disposal knock-out, so I did. What silliness. Seems like a good way to overwork a pump.
Our GSD 2800D02 is from 1984, but then a little bit more every fill would add up to a lot at the end.
Yes, carryover can be a problem. There's no reason they couldn't have solved the problem way back then, after all - those seals which had to be kept from drying out were awful - the real reason the shaded-pole motors would jam was the seals, not the motors, themselves. I've seen SIEMENS motors locked up for the same reason in later years.
Still - I like lots of rinsing. It just doesn't seem possible to me that the minuscule amounts of water used by some machines to rinse can possibly we carrying all the residue away. In fact, the 'beer' test with real German beer, not American dog-piss shows it.
But, heck, had to install a new Amana in an apartment this morning. Old Estate had bit the dust (timer blew) and they were just barely OK machines at best so, the property manager has been replacing them when they blow out. Let's me fix the GE Potscrubbers, though. She knows her stuff.
Anyhow, the Amana has very good ratings for cleaning, despite being bottom of the barrel at $400. Got it on sale at The Homeless Despot for just under $300. Ran it twice while doing other stuff nearby, I noticed it's putting enormously more water through both arms then dishwashers I'd been putting in just a few years back. Also notice there was no energy star to be found on it. Maybe the manufacturers are learning? Finally.
Kicker: Like all modern dishwashers, the drain loops up over a few clips to prevent siphoning. Local code requires that we still have to pull the drain hose OVER the height of the garbage disposal knock-out, so I did. What silliness. Seems like a good way to overwork a pump.
Maybe yours does fill more, but heck, arguments aside I like that 
Seals-
Oh yes! Maytag even mentions it in their service manuals that some models fill for a few seconds after the final rinse. And we all know that GE's drain flappers opened only 2/3 with water pressure having to overcome a very strong spring in order to stay open. "Water here is normal" said the Hotpoints lol.
That loop you mention may not be for siphoning. I read somewhere in some service manual (forgets which one) that tall tubs use are so shallow and use so little water that a long drain hose can significantly lower the water level.
I'd still keep the loop over the disposal though. Yes some DW have check valves, but I've seen cases where the disposal clogs and as the sink basin fills water enters the DW.
Glad to here your keeping the Potscubbers in service Have you tried the new GE DWs? Is the Amana that much better?
Seals-
Oh yes! Maytag even mentions it in their service manuals that some models fill for a few seconds after the final rinse. And we all know that GE's drain flappers opened only 2/3 with water pressure having to overcome a very strong spring in order to stay open. "Water here is normal" said the Hotpoints lol.
That loop you mention may not be for siphoning. I read somewhere in some service manual (forgets which one) that tall tubs use are so shallow and use so little water that a long drain hose can significantly lower the water level.
I'd still keep the loop over the disposal though. Yes some DW have check valves, but I've seen cases where the disposal clogs and as the sink basin fills water enters the DW.
Glad to here your keeping the Potscubbers in service
Have you tried the new GE DWs? Is the Amana that much better?
Rinsing
And oh, Panthera, I believe you. Tall tubs hold more dishware, and have more internal surface area. More water to rinse that away is a given. I double rinse my tall tub Maytag all the time.
And oh, Panthera, I believe you. Tall tubs hold more dishware, and have more internal surface area. More water to rinse that away is a given. I double rinse my tall tub Maytag all the time.
I hadn't considered that
Very good point about the garbage disposal backing up.the Amana's all have
Check valves, but, yeah.
Every new GE I've seen except the BOL mechanicals had already failed under warranty. This can't be good.
Very good point about the garbage disposal backing up.the Amana's all have
Check valves, but, yeah.
Every new GE I've seen except the BOL mechanicals had already failed under warranty. This can't be good.
Ouch, that is just painful to hear. 
At least I hope the mechanicals hold up. Believe it or not I am looking at replacing my daily driver (2014 Maytag) and on of the options I am considering is a BOL GE. With these finally equipped with a filter I have to admit they are a lot better at not leaving yibblets behind.
At least I hope the mechanicals hold up. Believe it or not I am looking at replacing my daily driver (2014 Maytag) and on of the options I am considering is a BOL GE. With these finally equipped with a filter I have to admit they are a lot better at not leaving yibblets behind.
I've only scanned this thread and intend to go back through and fully read, but...
<span style="text-decoration: underline; color: #000080;">"So - you can use a vintage Maytag or GE Potscrubber and skip the pre-rinsing and pre-washing you had to do for a KitchenAid or Whirlpool (and which didn't help with the awful D&M) or you can pre-rinse/wash for those and end up using more water, even in the best dishwashers today, than those two used and still use."</span>
At no time, from the present going backwards, have I ever known of a Whirlpool or KitchenAid (Hobart or WP built) dishwasher needing pre-rinsing and pre-washing. They really didn't even require scraping. I remember many a time I'd open my aunt Robin's PowerClean to see cheese and tomato based sauces splattered all over the door and actual chunks of cooked ground beef and noodles in the bottom of the tank, and not a bit of it remained after a normal-no options cycle. And that was even before the Voyager design was out, so I'm sure people back then viewed the PowerClean as a "eco-monster hunk of plastic that pees on dishes with a cup of water".
And how can an older Maytag (I'm assuming JetClean Reverse-Rack era) or the GE, which both used ~12 gallons or more for typical cycles, use less water than the best dishwashers today when paired with pre-rinsing, when I myself will use not one drop of water to rinse a single dish that goes into my current dishwasher, and with the filthiest of loads, a Normal cycle will use between ~3-5 gallons and dishes emerge spotless without a trace left in the filter?
I love vintage appliances too and give my blessing to anyone that chooses to stick with older machines, because I have my own soft spot for them, but a lot of this thread seems to be discounting anything modern just on principal without even giving them a chance.
<span style="text-decoration: underline; color: #000080;">"So - you can use a vintage Maytag or GE Potscrubber and skip the pre-rinsing and pre-washing you had to do for a KitchenAid or Whirlpool (and which didn't help with the awful D&M) or you can pre-rinse/wash for those and end up using more water, even in the best dishwashers today, than those two used and still use."</span>
At no time, from the present going backwards, have I ever known of a Whirlpool or KitchenAid (Hobart or WP built) dishwasher needing pre-rinsing and pre-washing. They really didn't even require scraping. I remember many a time I'd open my aunt Robin's PowerClean to see cheese and tomato based sauces splattered all over the door and actual chunks of cooked ground beef and noodles in the bottom of the tank, and not a bit of it remained after a normal-no options cycle. And that was even before the Voyager design was out, so I'm sure people back then viewed the PowerClean as a "eco-monster hunk of plastic that pees on dishes with a cup of water".
And how can an older Maytag (I'm assuming JetClean Reverse-Rack era) or the GE, which both used ~12 gallons or more for typical cycles, use less water than the best dishwashers today when paired with pre-rinsing, when I myself will use not one drop of water to rinse a single dish that goes into my current dishwasher, and with the filthiest of loads, a Normal cycle will use between ~3-5 gallons and dishes emerge spotless without a trace left in the filter?
I love vintage appliances too and give my blessing to anyone that chooses to stick with older machines, because I have my own soft spot for them, but a lot of this thread seems to be discounting anything modern just on principal without even giving them a chance.
Whirlpool that needs pre-rinsing
The Durawash mechanism is one that comes to mind. It had a soil settler, at least the latter versions, and to be honest in my experience it did a lousy job with settling anything. Wasn't the best at rinsing either. It also did not have a grinder, so practically everything would collect at the small sump inlet. You had to clean it after every cycle if you were the powerclean loading type of guy.
Also, I could be very wrong here (I'm really guessing) as I've never actually washed dishes in one- just experimented with a few in my garage for the sake of it- but the 80s BOL Whirlpools might have required some pre-rinsing. These are the ones I have in mind:
http://www.automaticwasher.org/cgi-bin/TD/TD-VIEWTHREAD.cgi?47997
The Durawash mechanism is one that comes to mind. It had a soil settler, at least the latter versions, and to be honest in my experience it did a lousy job with settling anything. Wasn't the best at rinsing either. It also did not have a grinder, so practically everything would collect at the small sump inlet. You had to clean it after every cycle if you were the powerclean loading type of guy.
Also, I could be very wrong here (I'm really guessing) as I've never actually washed dishes in one- just experimented with a few in my garage for the sake of it- but the 80s BOL Whirlpools might have required some pre-rinsing. These are the ones I have in mind:
http://www.automaticwasher.org/cgi-bin/TD/TD-VIEWTHREAD.cgi?47997
We never prerinsed for our KDI-17a (15 gals for Soak or Full Cycle), and often didn't scrape all that well beyond tipping-off the chunks.
DuraWash
I had a DuraWash WP dishwasher in two of my apartments.
And yes, while you could not really dump food into them, they did NOT need pre-rinsing at all.
However they did need scraping. But only because anything you did not scrape, was then trapped in the dish-like grate at the back of the machine, that you then had to manually scoop out. Which is terribly annoying.
But for not having any type of active filter, the settler system worked pretty darn good. Far FAR better than any GE system without the passive filter.
When using a DuraWash, you simply had to make sure it wasn't crammed too tightly, and to yield to the soil cycle selection.
Heavy for actual heavily soiled loads.
Normal for no more than usual, daily soils.
And Light for actual, pre-rinsed, or lightly soiled dishes and cups.
Follow those simple rules, and a reject would hard be found from a DuraWash.
Agreed with Andrew.
This is yet again....another tangent on dissing modern machines simply by principle; a regular occurrence on AW these days.
I had a DuraWash WP dishwasher in two of my apartments.
And yes, while you could not really dump food into them, they did NOT need pre-rinsing at all.
However they did need scraping. But only because anything you did not scrape, was then trapped in the dish-like grate at the back of the machine, that you then had to manually scoop out. Which is terribly annoying.
But for not having any type of active filter, the settler system worked pretty darn good. Far FAR better than any GE system without the passive filter.
When using a DuraWash, you simply had to make sure it wasn't crammed too tightly, and to yield to the soil cycle selection.
Heavy for actual heavily soiled loads.
Normal for no more than usual, daily soils.
And Light for actual, pre-rinsed, or lightly soiled dishes and cups.
Follow those simple rules, and a reject would hard be found from a DuraWash.
Agreed with Andrew.
This is yet again....another tangent on dissing modern machines simply by principle; a regular occurrence on AW these days.
