NIB Kenmore refrigerator.
- Thread starter goatfarmer
- Start date
Wonder what year and how many cubic feet?
Is it really harvest gold or wheat?
Is it really harvest gold or wheat?
KyletheApplianceGuy
Member
Oh my! and it's not far from me... just at the right time when i always have no money... LOL
This is a whirlpool built top freezer refrigerator, it was a good basic reliable top freezer model, the serial number would tell us how old it is. It’s somewhere in the 80s.
The color would be harvest wheat, or whatever they called the non-shaded yellow at that time.
I don’t know if it’s worth $1000, it would use a little over twice as much energy as a new refrigerator the same size otherwise it may run for a long time.
John L
The color would be harvest wheat, or whatever they called the non-shaded yellow at that time.
I don’t know if it’s worth $1000, it would use a little over twice as much energy as a new refrigerator the same size otherwise it may run for a long time.
John L
vacerator
Well-known member
Dave, I think about 18 cubic ft.
Holy frijoles... talk about rare! I'm not certain a grand is actually too much, though it'll probably limit the pool of potential buyers a bit. Seems a shame it's been taken out of the box, I hope they thought to do so carefully, and kept the box to include with the fridge.
They did. And i agree, a thousand is a bit much, I'm sure it will come down, or at least be negotiable.
Attachments
It would in fact be very interesting to compare the power consumption of this brand new well made refrigerator to something made today. I'd bet it is actually more efficient. Better made motor, better made compressor, more efficient refrigerant (R-12) etc, etc.
Older refrigerators that do not have automatic defrost have been demonstrated to be more efficient than modern frost free refrigerators, but that's a less fair comparison.
Keith
Older refrigerators that do not have automatic defrost have been demonstrated to be more efficient than modern frost free refrigerators, but that's a less fair comparison.
Keith
My problem is, the efficency requirements are mostly driven by the DOE. ALL they care about is how much energy it takes to do the job. Never mind the energy and other resources it will take to build and deliver the replacement when the thing fails after 5 years, instead of lasting 20. Same thing with cars. Turbos in nearly everything, stop-start "technology" in nearly everything. Awful combination, sure to kill the engine off in short order...
Cylinder deactivation prematurely wears out lifters, piston rings, piston skirts, and cylinder walls.
vacerator
Well-known member
I haven't read anything with proof of this dan. Possibly if certain cylinders are under load more than the ones not, but modern programming of the fuel and spark with the solenoid controls alternate the sharing of load.
Well even if it's not the case, the bits of metal circulating through the engine once one of those deactivate-able lifters comes apart will trash everything else, though I'm not sure how the stuff gets past the filter... look at what GM is going through right now. Just another case in their litany of garbage engines that go back to the 1970's Vega, & 1990's Northstar with short little "Briggs and Stratton" head bolts into an aluminum block... They seem to make some good models, then decide to invest a billion or so into something that flies apart at the first opportunity. Funny thing, they sold the patents to the silicon-aluminum tech they came up with for the Vega to Mercedes. Basically every modern Benz engine uses the same design, and they often last 250-300k.
cfz2882
Well-known member
My Porsche 928 has that design: aluminum bores with iron-plated pistons 
The Cadillac HT4.1 had iron liners (and like the Vega iron heads)...
The Cadillac HT4.1 had iron liners (and like the Vega iron heads)...vacerator
Well-known member
With any modern engine with variable valve timing, etc, catastrophic failure can be caused when a phaser is out of sink or fails, or a chain or belt stretches. If the valves strike the piston, it's end game. It seems the internal combustion engine is nearing the end of it's finite life. So the more practical choice may be electric, and even they are disposable once the batteries die because replacement is more than the used vehicle values.
It's funny when I hear someone say "but they sorted it out by 1976 when they put sleeves in the aluminum block". GM never did that, you could buy aftermarket rebuilt ones that had them. The 1976 & 1977 engines were actually ok, but by then, the market had tanked because almost everyone had heard the awful story... true to form for GM, fool around fixing the problem until nobody's left to buy one. The engineering that went into them was actually quite interesting. The entire body was dunked in a cathodic primer tank (which didn't help, they rusted worse than the Titanic), they built special rail cars with sides that opened into ramps, drove a bunch up and lashed them down, then hinged the sides up. They were shipped on their noses, hence side terminal batteries and a host of other design features put in to cope with that. Ok, back to washers and dryers and dishwashers!
