COOL! I always wondered how they did that!! Thank you for that information!
POD - August 12, 2009
- Thread starter turquoisedude
- Start date
Help Support :
I never understood why they abandoned that 3 spray arm desig
My guess is to cut manufacturing costs (isn't that ALWAYS the way it is?)
I also never liked the "pop up tower" on any brand of DW... I just didn't see how it could ever do as good a job as a regular spray arm!
My guess is to cut manufacturing costs (isn't that ALWAYS the way it is?)
I also never liked the "pop up tower" on any brand of DW... I just didn't see how it could ever do as good a job as a regular spray arm!
Greg -
That is very cool, THANKS for the pics. It was January 1983 when I last saw our dishwasher. Ours had a different door liner panel though - that much more closely resembled the later potscrubbers with the round detergent cup. It had a green handle/lever on it that matched the color of the racks. This one looks much more like the detergent cup used in GE's 1970s porcelain tub models, does it not?
All -
The user could depress the China/Crystal cycle at any time during operation, and the sound of the water would change almost immediately to a much softer or gentler operation. My mother loved that too. She had two Potscrubber 900s (the second one lasted 20 years of nearly daily use) that did not have this so her POS GE Tall Tub was mandatory to have it. I think she'd rather have any of the Potscrubbers back. Maybe one day I'll find a nice KDS-17 for her again. I think she'd actually like it.
That is very cool, THANKS for the pics. It was January 1983 when I last saw our dishwasher. Ours had a different door liner panel though - that much more closely resembled the later potscrubbers with the round detergent cup. It had a green handle/lever on it that matched the color of the racks. This one looks much more like the detergent cup used in GE's 1970s porcelain tub models, does it not?
All -
The user could depress the China/Crystal cycle at any time during operation, and the sound of the water would change almost immediately to a much softer or gentler operation. My mother loved that too. She had two Potscrubber 900s (the second one lasted 20 years of nearly daily use) that did not have this so her POS GE Tall Tub was mandatory to have it. I think she'd rather have any of the Potscrubbers back. Maybe one day I'll find a nice KDS-17 for her again. I think she'd actually like it.
I never liked any sort of tower in the bottom rack because it messed with loading flexibility. I had a portable Whirlpool for nearly two years back in the mid-'80s and while it cleaned well, I used to curse the tower in the middle of the lower rack every time I used it.
Interesting, never thought there was an "interim" design between the original Plastisol ones and the full-on plastic Permatuf (round dispenser). This looks like a Plastisol door and Permatuf tub. Also always assumed the china/crystal cycle limited fill (rather than anything more active) so there was cavitation. Wonder if these came from Louisville or Chicago/Milwaukee?
Cool. Didn't realize a thing about the telescoping feed tube for the upper wash arm. Ahtough I briefly saw two of these 950s, never saw either one in much detail other than the door being opened and seeing it had wash arms and adjustable top rack. A friend in Atlanta Texas' mom had one and the house built next door to our lake house had one. I checked to see if there was a manual online for either the 950 or the 1050, but nothing, only a 1070, but it dind't have a cycle sequence chart. I'd love to have a 1050. I'm a sucker for rapid advance timers. Didn't realize they had forced air drying either. I more than toleerated the towers. The rack arrangement with that was just such pure classic GE, I wouldn't know how to deal with the full wash arm version lol.
Very Cool Dishwasher
I owned a 950 a while back, and currently have a 1070-3 (I believe this was the last model produced). While they do a great job at cleaning, they use a tremendous amount of water (even on Light Soil). I used mine as a daily driver for a while, but my green side made feel guilty about the water!
It's a very cool machine though; lot's of moving parts & lights. It's actually very quiet as well.
Does anyone know of a good source for parts? I would like to get a new top rack (mine's rusting) and a new control panel face (there are worn out areas over some of the buttons). I will try to post some pics of it soon.
Thank you Robert for including this in the picture rotation.
I owned a 950 a while back, and currently have a 1070-3 (I believe this was the last model produced). While they do a great job at cleaning, they use a tremendous amount of water (even on Light Soil). I used mine as a daily driver for a while, but my green side made feel guilty about the water!
It's a very cool machine though; lot's of moving parts & lights. It's actually very quiet as well.
Does anyone know of a good source for parts? I would like to get a new top rack (mine's rusting) and a new control panel face (there are worn out areas over some of the buttons). I will try to post some pics of it soon.
Thank you Robert for including this in the picture rotation.
Wow!
Gorgeous! How fun, I had no idea.
Gorgeous! How fun, I had no idea.
Fascinating thread, and a thought I had, brings this back from the abyss. LOL.
I wonder if these Potscrubber II machines had to use so much water because of the much longer and large distribution system.
You're filling three wash arms with water now, in addition to a long, large hose to the top, AND internal conduit in the middle, and across the upper rack, to the arm. And the arms are HUGE, and voluminous.
This dang thing probably needed at least 2.5 gallons per fill just not to simply cavitate once the system was primed.
Alas, it's too bad they didn't stick with it and attempt to improve it.
I wonder if these Potscrubber II machines had to use so much water because of the much longer and large distribution system.
You're filling three wash arms with water now, in addition to a long, large hose to the top, AND internal conduit in the middle, and across the upper rack, to the arm. And the arms are HUGE, and voluminous.
This dang thing probably needed at least 2.5 gallons per fill just not to simply cavitate once the system was primed.
Alas, it's too bad they didn't stick with it and attempt to improve it.
Potscrubber II
These were GE's first attempt at rivaling Maytag, Whirlpool and KA. Both in wash performance and a tub that would not rust. Sadly these were a black eye for GE. GE did not start with their BOL or MOL models, rather they basically tried to re-invent the wheel biting off more than they could chew. It lead to problems, which ultimately gave them incentive to abandon the upper arm. Granted the problems were not in the wash system itself for the most part, but enough to sour the concept. More in this thread:
http://www.automaticwasher.org/cgi-bin/TD/TD-VIEWTHREAD.cgi?64725
Now, do I think GE should have improved on it? You bet. GE could have out done Whirlpool and others without thinking- but in truth GE has always been about the builder's market. The bulk of GE's sales- from what I've heard- were all in BOL builder machines. That is where they concentrated their core assets, and their TOL machines were just slight improvements to a design built around a BOL market. These were certainly the biggest deviation from that at the time.
These were GE's first attempt at rivaling Maytag, Whirlpool and KA. Both in wash performance and a tub that would not rust. Sadly these were a black eye for GE. GE did not start with their BOL or MOL models, rather they basically tried to re-invent the wheel biting off more than they could chew. It lead to problems, which ultimately gave them incentive to abandon the upper arm. Granted the problems were not in the wash system itself for the most part, but enough to sour the concept. More in this thread:
http://www.automaticwasher.org/cgi-bin/TD/TD-VIEWTHREAD.cgi?64725
Now, do I think GE should have improved on it? You bet. GE could have out done Whirlpool and others without thinking- but in truth GE has always been about the builder's market. The bulk of GE's sales- from what I've heard- were all in BOL builder machines. That is where they concentrated their core assets, and their TOL machines were just slight improvements to a design built around a BOL market. These were certainly the biggest deviation from that at the time.
