The only thing New Generation on that machine was the control panel and, possibly, the tub. It did not have the Power Fin agitator, which you can see from the picture, and, because of that, I think it still used the slower stroke transmission. I know from personal experience that the high finned agitator put in one of the washers meant to have the Power Fin Agitator made for terrible tangling which lead to unbalanced loads.
POD 9-9-16 MAYAG AD IS A LIE
- Thread starter tomturbomatic
- Start date
Help Support :
vacerator
Well-known member
Like politicians,
it's what marketers do to get you to buy new. Say it's all new, improved, or better than the older, when all they did was update a few styling cues or add one new feature. An advertising and selling mainstay. Politicians also have to sell them selves, and talk is cheap.
it's what marketers do to get you to buy new. Say it's all new, improved, or better than the older, when all they did was update a few styling cues or add one new feature. An advertising and selling mainstay. Politicians also have to sell them selves, and talk is cheap.
I believe all Maytags did a full one minute timer increment for the spray rinse....not 30 seconds...
but all in all, back then, whether you got a BOL or TOL, the base unit was a solid built dependable machine......not dubbed down versions with ply tubs, cheap plastic, lower quality metals......lower price=lower standards.....
even this 106 was available with a suds saver option!...
of course too, they make no mention that the lint filter functions best with higher water levels...
but all in all, back then, whether you got a BOL or TOL, the base unit was a solid built dependable machine......not dubbed down versions with ply tubs, cheap plastic, lower quality metals......lower price=lower standards.....
even this 106 was available with a suds saver option!...
of course too, they make no mention that the lint filter functions best with higher water levels...
Half-truths in advertising
Or maybe Maytag did what GE did a zillion times which was to publish a product brochure ahead of the new line's production and then made some changes that didn't appear until the next year. I prefer those early proto-power fin agitators with the attached fins that shot the lint water out of the underside; they seemed to provide more vigorous washing action and I maintain that the power fins snagged a lot of clothing.
Or maybe Maytag did what GE did a zillion times which was to publish a product brochure ahead of the new line's production and then made some changes that didn't appear until the next year. I prefer those early proto-power fin agitators with the attached fins that shot the lint water out of the underside; they seemed to provide more vigorous washing action and I maintain that the power fins snagged a lot of clothing.
mrb627
Well-known member
But...
Didn't the washer cabinet and top change shape with this series?
And the pump is the newer polymer material?
Malcolm
Didn't the washer cabinet and top change shape with this series?
And the pump is the newer polymer material?
Malcolm
Changes.
Well, the suspension is quite different, the polypump is different, the cabinet is slightly different, and the control panel is very different. The basic design of the guts was a carry-over, as was the slower stroke transmission and old agitator design. I believe the inner tub was a carry-over from the old design and was updated when the Power Fin agitator was introduced.
Dave
Well, the suspension is quite different, the polypump is different, the cabinet is slightly different, and the control panel is very different. The basic design of the guts was a carry-over, as was the slower stroke transmission and old agitator design. I believe the inner tub was a carry-over from the old design and was updated when the Power Fin agitator was introduced.
Dave
I think it was a nailed down model to get people in to show them the bigger tub and sell them that. Maytag kept beefing up their suspensions since the late 50s leaners. The power fin was introduced in the large capacity machines before it was put in the short tub models so it's very possible that the short tubs machines used up the older inner tub. It sure gives hellacious washing with a power fin.
I have a 106 and I can't tell the difference between the performance of that machine and my A-300 Highlander which is much older. Both do a terrific job of washing. No complaints.
My 511 has peformed pretty much flawlessly. I had my guy come today because it stopped pumping, 2nd repair ever. He looked at it and said nothing wrong with the pump, but after 35 years the pump moved left. He pulled and secured it right to where it should be and it pumps like new. He said dont ever get rid of this washer because you wont ever get another washer as good as this.[this post was last edited: 9/9/2016-19:45]
My mom had this model. It could well of been mfr. during a change over period in the mid 1960's. There was no light bulb behind the lens over the timer. The User guide was the typical booklet of the time in a sturdy clear plastic envelope. There was also a separate heavy paper with the "Maytag Washpower" features, like it was added to the packet at the last minute. The washer lasted long, was moved 700 miles, never required a repair and was working when it was time to upgrade.
My mom had the even more newer A-106 washer, similar but slightly different--though it did have the all-white plastic timer dial... The entire agitator was blue...
Simple machine, and even with the choice of water levels and variety of wash temperatures, still being something that washes right, after you simply just set and forget, every time!
The dryer she'd bought a mere couple months later abandoned the Halo-Of-Heat design, so it had a larger door w/ the lint filter right in the threshold... And it was a model, or two, up as well...
-- Dave
Simple machine, and even with the choice of water levels and variety of wash temperatures, still being something that washes right, after you simply just set and forget, every time!
The dryer she'd bought a mere couple months later abandoned the Halo-Of-Heat design, so it had a larger door w/ the lint filter right in the threshold... And it was a model, or two, up as well...
-- Dave
This has nothing to do with the quality of the machine. It simply was not completely redesigned as is implied by the ad along with the line of newer deep tub models.
Of course this washer would have the same washing action as your A-300 Highlander; the agitator, tub and transmission were the same.
My point was that the agitator in this machine remained the same black Bakelite high fin agitator design with accompanying transmission as before and not the "new" machine design seen with the deeper tubs.
Of course this washer would have the same washing action as your A-300 Highlander; the agitator, tub and transmission were the same.
My point was that the agitator in this machine remained the same black Bakelite high fin agitator design with accompanying transmission as before and not the "new" machine design seen with the deeper tubs.
puzzled......
and keeping out the design of the AMP....
there were two pitman transmissions created for the Maytags?......
I thought it was the same design through out the series until the Orbital was created....
and keeping out the design of the AMP....
there were two pitman transmissions created for the Maytags?......
I thought it was the same design through out the series until the Orbital was created....
Martin---
There was a difference in agitation speed when the Power-Fin was introduced (1966 as I recall), however, I think it is the same tranny. The Power-Fin having a slightly faster occilation. I always did favor the long, slow stroke. Just 'sayin.
There was a difference in agitation speed when the Power-Fin was introduced (1966 as I recall), however, I think it is the same tranny. The Power-Fin having a slightly faster occilation. I always did favor the long, slow stroke. Just 'sayin.
Someone on here posted a link to a similar year as the P.O.D as Maytag 906 extravaganza, that is on You-tube. Even though mine is newer the insides and underneath are exactly the same as is the agitation speed on that video.
Maytag transmissions.
Between the AM / AMP series and the Orbital, there were 3 similar, but different Maytag transmissions. Working backwards they are:
Large capacity tub (short transmission).
This transmission's guts are the same as the taller regular capacity transmission used with the later Power Fin equipped washers. I believe the agitation speed on regular speed is 63 OPM.
Regular Capacity tub with Power Fin agitator.
I believe the agitation speed on regular is 63 OPM.
Regular capacity tub, pre-Power Fin.
This is the transmission used on the early A106 & A206 washers (before the Power Fine), as well as Highlanders, A700, A702, and others.
I believe the agitation speed of this transmission is 54 OPM. The case is the same as the later regular capacity tub model, but the gears inside have different tooth-counts.
Dave[this post was last edited: 9/12/2016-10:21]
Between the AM / AMP series and the Orbital, there were 3 similar, but different Maytag transmissions. Working backwards they are:
Large capacity tub (short transmission).
This transmission's guts are the same as the taller regular capacity transmission used with the later Power Fin equipped washers. I believe the agitation speed on regular speed is 63 OPM.
Regular Capacity tub with Power Fin agitator.
I believe the agitation speed on regular is 63 OPM.
Regular capacity tub, pre-Power Fin.
This is the transmission used on the early A106 & A206 washers (before the Power Fine), as well as Highlanders, A700, A702, and others.
I believe the agitation speed of this transmission is 54 OPM. The case is the same as the later regular capacity tub model, but the gears inside have different tooth-counts.
Dave[this post was last edited: 9/12/2016-10:21]
The change to the 63 OPM standard capacity transmission in the A106 and A206 occurred in November of 1967, which correlates to the change to the Powerfin agitator. Prior to this, the Powerfin agitator was only used in the Large Capacity machines.
Even if the transmission and agitator were carry over from the pre-New Generation or '06' machines, almost everything else was different with the new generation (with the exception of the lid/motor/poly pump and a few other items). I'd much rather have an 06 std or large capacity machine than the previous generations, with the suspension changes being the most important improvement.
There is a reason why we are still finding 1966 through mid 70's Maytags, still in use. They apparently got something right.
Ben
www.automaticwasher.org
Even if the transmission and agitator were carry over from the pre-New Generation or '06' machines, almost everything else was different with the new generation (with the exception of the lid/motor/poly pump and a few other items). I'd much rather have an 06 std or large capacity machine than the previous generations, with the suspension changes being the most important improvement.
There is a reason why we are still finding 1966 through mid 70's Maytags, still in use. They apparently got something right.
Ben
Documented Maytag A806 Series 1 & Series 2 changes
Hey Gang - Quite a few of us have wondered exactly what the heck happened in the mid 70's - well, in Newton anyway. I did some digging through the archives last month and came up with some pretty juicy material from both Parts manuals, and LTS publications. First up: I actually stumbled upon...
www.automaticwasher.org
vintagekenmore
Well-known member
Being new to the Maytag owners club, I still kick myself for not getting one sooner. My A412 cleans so much better and runs so much more smoothly than other machines I have owned in the past. I will do everything I can to keep this one running for years to come. If only we could have gotten it through the design engineers not to mess with a good thing!!!
Similar threads
