norgeway
Well-known member
Oh if Speed Queen would make the EXACT SAME MACHINE today
POD
- Thread starter norgeway
- Start date
Help Support :
I've seen this POD before and have always wondered what year this model was... 54 or 55 would be my totally random guess. The cabinet style seemed to endure for a number of years - my '57 washer has the 'bumped out' front section also.
speedqueen
Well-known member
Speed Queen
I love these early models, personally the 1957-1958 style like Paul has is my favorite and the reason I chose my username, not the modern models. If only I could find one for myself, It is my one real dream machine.
I love these early models, personally the 1957-1958 style like Paul has is my favorite and the reason I chose my username, not the modern models. If only I could find one for myself, It is my one real dream machine.
It's a 1954 one. I was fascinated with them at the convention in 2005, Greg had a set. I don't know if he still has it. But it was simply beautiful!
This is what I had in mind when I posted about going back to solid tubs. All the water that would be in the outer tub could be covering my clothes in the inner tub.
Is That Peggy Lee?
The model sure is a dead ringer for Ms. Lee..! And I agree with Norgeway’s sentiment...I had a ‘66 Speed Queen set once (in Coppertone) and they were fun machines. The washer died a sudden death with a cracked transmission case and oil all over the place. Sadly, went to the scrapper.
The model sure is a dead ringer for Ms. Lee..! And I agree with Norgeway’s sentiment...I had a ‘66 Speed Queen set once (in Coppertone) and they were fun machines. The washer died a sudden death with a cracked transmission case and oil all over the place. Sadly, went to the scrapper.
The dryer looks really wide, 30 inches maybe? Did it have a perforated drum and exposed heating element like so many dryers of the time? I remember CU saying that those SQ dryers with all of that heavy metal lint screen assembly in the door were prone to drip from below the door as the hot humid air condensed on all of that metal before it heated up.
I used SQ solid tubs
for years when I was in college.
They were fun to watch and listen to, but they didn’t perform very well. Except that the overflow rinsing was very effective. And they were very fast and efficient, especially with spin draining and spin spraying.
The tub was small. That tended to bunch up things like jeans and pants, which made it difficult for them to roll over even when it wasn’t overloaded. In addition to the tub being too small, the first few minutes of washing splashed a good deal of the water over the top of the tub,so the lowered water level made it even more difficult to roll over. The agitator design didn’t help either. Even if you only put two pair of jeans in it, it would still have difficulty rolling over.
And finally the 210 degree, very fast agitation was very hard on clothes. That was compounded by the fact that they would start agitating when the tub was only half full of water. Corduroy pants came out beaten to hell. And everything was linty.
It was great for things like a load of tidy whities. And the sounds it made were wonderful. Especially the unique water splashing sound it made on agitation.
Robert has said more than once that it rated dead last in CR (although their opinion can be off the beam, that was one instance where it wasn’t).
I think one of the reasons the solid tub SQ could withstand nonstop running 24/7 under college dorm overstuffing conditions was that with the agitator design, an overstuffed tub didn’t really strain it. It would just compress the clothes to make way for the agitator sweep, and the clothes would sit there motionless, so it didn’t really have to labor moving a heavy load around. The only time they btoke down was when overloading would result in a sock going over the top of the tub. The maintenance man would always pull it out with a coat hanger instead of taking the machine apart.
Bottom line - a very fun machine to watch and listen to, but not a good performer.
The 2016 design, though not as fun to watch, performed infinitely better.
for years when I was in college.
They were fun to watch and listen to, but they didn’t perform very well. Except that the overflow rinsing was very effective. And they were very fast and efficient, especially with spin draining and spin spraying.
The tub was small. That tended to bunch up things like jeans and pants, which made it difficult for them to roll over even when it wasn’t overloaded. In addition to the tub being too small, the first few minutes of washing splashed a good deal of the water over the top of the tub,so the lowered water level made it even more difficult to roll over. The agitator design didn’t help either. Even if you only put two pair of jeans in it, it would still have difficulty rolling over.
And finally the 210 degree, very fast agitation was very hard on clothes. That was compounded by the fact that they would start agitating when the tub was only half full of water. Corduroy pants came out beaten to hell. And everything was linty.
It was great for things like a load of tidy whities. And the sounds it made were wonderful. Especially the unique water splashing sound it made on agitation.
Robert has said more than once that it rated dead last in CR (although their opinion can be off the beam, that was one instance where it wasn’t).
I think one of the reasons the solid tub SQ could withstand nonstop running 24/7 under college dorm overstuffing conditions was that with the agitator design, an overstuffed tub didn’t really strain it. It would just compress the clothes to make way for the agitator sweep, and the clothes would sit there motionless, so it didn’t really have to labor moving a heavy load around. The only time they btoke down was when overloading would result in a sock going over the top of the tub. The maintenance man would always pull it out with a coat hanger instead of taking the machine apart.
Bottom line - a very fun machine to watch and listen to, but not a good performer.
The 2016 design, though not as fun to watch, performed infinitely better.
The dryer was wider than the washer, probably close to 30" for sure. It had a solid drum, heat coming in from a perforated back. Built like a tank, there was a heavy metal box that contained the heating element behind the drum near the floor on the lower right side (facing front) and the exhaust fan was at the upper left rear of the machine. The fan pulled air through the door screen, a duct around the opening and then out the back top left corner. The ducting could be directed to a vent to the outside or through the panel top and into the room.
I had the gas version of this POD, it worked for a while before the gas valve went bad. Low air flow made it a slower but fluffy- soft results.
I had the gas version of this POD, it worked for a while before the gas valve went bad. Low air flow made it a slower but fluffy- soft results.
Thank you Greg!
I wonder if slow people have soft, fluffy brains, people with names like Hamilton.
I wonder if slow people have soft, fluffy brains, people with names like Hamilton.
