POD 7/24/2016

[brucelucenta]

I remember when the new Frigidaire 1-18 washers became available. It was a machine like nothing Frigidaire had ever had before. The capacity was almost twice what the last solid tub models were. They were pretty impressive looking too. They didn't hold up very well with heavy usage though and were difficult to work on. They had gone from a totally belt and gear free mechanism to one that used one belt. If and when that belt broke, you were stuck with a tub full of water and no way to get rid of it easily. Many held up fairly well for quite a while, but some ended up at the used appliance place I worked at in the early to mid 70's. No one other than the Frigidaire dealers liked to work on them either. That made it a bit more difficult too, since they were sold by at least one big retail store here too. I know the tub seal was a big problem on the washer and the drum rollers on the dryer with the dryer. I know the ones I have had in the past were kind of trouble prone and kind of a pain in the ass to keep running properly. They sure did wash a huge load of clothes though and did it quite well. I know the year before they sold to WhiteWestinghouse, consumer reports listed them as the #2 recommended machine, just under Maytag! I believe that they could have come up with a little better design that was easier to work on, had they really tried. The suspension system was terrific! That same suspension system was used through the years on many models including the skinny mini.

 

[frigilux]

I'm also a fan, Bruce.  Used to live in a warehouse apartment across the street from the local Frigidaire/Maytag dealership.  One of the gems I dragged home from the junk pile outside by the alley was a Frigidaire 1-18.  It worked perfectly, although the front right foot had been broken off.  A block of wood took care of that.  This was in the mid-1990s.  Turns out the washer had belonged to my doctor and his wife!

 

Anyway, it was my first and only real Frigidaire and it was pretty awesome.  Loud, though, man.  The very nature of a warehouse apartment is that it's a giant, wide-open space so sound travels everywhere.  

 

But I digress.  It was a fun machine to play with and I was impressed with the capacity, even though the highest water level didn't go to the top of the tub. But if one loaded it per instructions there was enough water to effectively roll over the load, even though it didn't look like there would be when agitation started.  Loved the circle-fill spray. The wide tub meant the G-force during spins extracted more water than expected, as well. 

 

Had it for about a year (as a second washer to my daily-driver front-loader) then sent it on to a new home.  Idiot!

 

[mrb627]

POD Talk

Seems like every POD should have a discussion thread linked to it.
Every time the POD rotates back in to the limelight, the thread discussion it also turns up.

Sorry to hijack.

Return to discussion.

Malcolm

 

[brucelucenta]

I just thought it a shame that they didn't develop the mechanism a little bit better. The machines right before those were some of the best machines they ever made as far as durability. I felt like having a belt drive again was like going backwards.

 

[panthera]

I have read,

for what it's worth, that the belt was better able to cope with the high inertial moment of such large loads (more water) than the rollers, alone.

 

 

[cornutt]

Isn't the 1-18 mechanism just the Rollermatic with the motor moved to the corner of the tub? Were there other differences?

 

[gregingotham]

1-18s

I picked up 1973 1-18 last year and we're using it as one of two daily drivers. So far no problems and as far as I know its running on the original belt, tub seal, etc. Spins quietly and agree the jet spray and jet action are wonderful. Quiet its not though. On normal agitation speed you can hear it washing on the second floor when its in the basement!

 

[brucelucenta]

I don't suppose it's that big a deal about having a one belt drive to operate it. It just seems kind of a step backward from advertising "no belts, no gears" for their machines with the first roller matic transmissions. In some ways the belt drive was probably better, but not as far as servicing with a tub full of water. You had to disconnect the hoses to the pump to get a new belt on. Still, that wasn't a major problem with these machines. One of the weak points was the tub seal, somewhat like the early speed queen perforated tub models. When the seal failed, it got water into the bearings and usually the spin clutch. It was a very troublesome and expensive fix unless caught early. Most people didn't catch it early or didn't want the expense of a service call and continued using the machine while it leaked, thus ruining the bearings and usually getting the clutch wet and the machine would stop working correctly. Makes me sort of think that if Frigidaire had continued with a large solid tub machine, it might have worked better for them. At least then, the tub seal would not be constantly holding a tub full of water and not as apt to fail. The washers made for coin op use still had solid tubs and seemed to hold up a little better. The perforated tub really didn't help much for sand and sediment removal in those machines anyway. Just think that as many really good machines as GM made, they could have done better with this one. The dryer too had problems with the drum rollers, which could have been a better design in my opinion.