Question for Robert..

[powerfin64]

What cu.ft capacity is your '57 Lady K Dryer? I know its going to be the same as my '64 kenmore 70 high speed. Its smaller than the standard large cu.ft dryers that are still being made. curious minds want to know..

Rich

 

[Unimatic1140]

Hi Rich, sorry but I have no idea because in 1957 things were not measured in cu.ft they were measured in lbs. I believe this was a 10lb dryer.

 

[gmmcnair]

5.9 Cu Ft

...that is...if the drum volume is the same as the 60's models, which is the same as the ones from the 70's. I remember helping my grandmother shop for one when I was a kid, and that's what the Sears catalog said about their standard capacity dryers.

A friend of mine also has a 1965 Kenmore dryer that's still going with only a couple of repairs...she's quite proud of it. Other than the control panel, it's very similar to the late 70's model in my grandmother's house (which is still going strong with only one minor repair).

 

[gmmcnair]

I hope...

...I didn't come across as a know-it-all. I didn't mean to (and I certainly don't know it all), just happened to remember that from the specifications. I'm blessed and cursed with a sporadic photographic memory.

 

[Unimatic1140]

Hi Mike, thanks for that info and no, you certainly did not come across as a "know it all". I wonder if the Sears catalog mentions Cubic Feet for dryers back in 1957? I will check and let everyone know when I have a chance.

 

[gansky1]

Just a measuring tape and the internet...all the answers anyone needs!

http://www.rcs.k12.va.us/csjh/vol_calculator.htm

 

[jetcirclefill]

In 1958 Spring & Summer the Lady K was listed as 10lb.

 

[powerfin64]

narrower?

the back of my '64 Kenmore 70 High speed drum is enclosed, with grated holes that rotate with the dryer drum, the heating box and exhaust fan are BEHIND the enclosed back portion of the drum. To me, the drum itself, seems narrower, not as deep as the 5.9cu.ft large capacity drums that are common now days. Am I wrong?

Rich

 

[spinout]

Dryers prior to 1965 were all about 5.0 cu. ft..

The earlier or 10lb. dryers refered to above are about 5.0 cu. ft.. The drums on the early dryers are 3" shallower than the later fixed back models introduced during 1965. (15" vs 18" deep.) The early style dryers stayed in production for some time thereafter (a year or two) so there is some production overlap for the two designs.

It is interesting to note that Sears claimed a 20# WET capacity for the 5.9 cu. ft. dryers.

 

[gansky1]

Usually, 10# of clothes would be about 20# wet in advertising terms. Perhaps they were trying to make them sound larger or just a sutble way of disclosing their washers could only spin at 525 rpm ;-)

 

[tomturbomatic]

Wet Capacity

It was common before drum volume was measured in cubic feet for dryers to have the capacity rating expressed in pounds of wet wash since that is what was loaded into them. Given the water extraction of most machines, doubling the dry weight of the fabrics in a full washer load of cottons amounted to around 20 pounds. Norge was early in giving drum size in cubic feet and claiming the biggest, but industry specifications in tables of dryer brands and models like in the National Appliance and Radio Dealers Association Blue Book of trade-in values, used the wet pound weight to rate dryer capacity.

 

[gmmcnair]

Wet Capacity from the Late 70's Early 80's

They didn't rate lb. capacity by the time I got interested, but I do remember that the large capacity machines from that era were about 3" deeper than the standard capacity machines and had an advertised 6.9 cubic ft. drum.

The salesman at Sears showed me the difference between the two back in 1980 when my granny bought her dryer. Her dryer is the large model and has that little ?outcrop? of about three inches from the back. The standard capacity dryers didn't has that little extra bit of space and were advertised as 5.9 cubic ft.

Evidently, my friend's dryer is a 1965 model or so. Would love to see a pic of a 50's or pre 65 model.

 

[irishwashguy]

So would I. What year did they have the Ovals?