Question To Ponder - Could Any Vintage Frigidiare Washer Meet Today's Energy Standards?

Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support :

launderess

launderess

Well-known member
Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2004
Messages
20,655
Location
Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage
Have been racking my brains thinking about this, and tough it was to expose my query to the air. Say some wealthy and tech savvy got it into his head to revive the old "Jet Action" Frigidaire washing machines, could they be made to satisfiy the damn silly US rules on energy use?

Just wondering,

L.
 
Great Question!

I would ask if a Unimatic could meet today's standards with a few changes.
1. No overflow Rinse. Instead, use a recirculating lint filter.
2. Optional cold rinse.
3. Optional second rinse.
4. Suds Saver.

I think a solid tub machine would use less water than a perforated-basket machine of the same capacity. That has to count for something!

Howza bout it?
Dave

Also, if people considered the energy and resources used to dispose of an old machine and replace it with a new POS model every 5-7 years, are they really saving much energy when compared to a good old machine that could last for 20?
 
Jet Action

hmmmmm from experience i use my '65 rollermatic and '75 1-18 washers every week for laundry....my water bill hasn't changed much from when we were using an x-large capacity whirlpool. Also just got the '60 multimatic running so will see what happens when i use all three for the next couple of months.......
Mark
 
It would have to be a machine with a high speed spin, both to compete with the front loaders and to make rinsing with a limited amount of water more effective.

The extra amount of water needed to make a recirculating filter operational would save little to nothing compared to an overflow rinse. Two non-overflow rinses or the option to have two would rinse better than one overflow rinse.

Consumer Reports would bitch about the small capacity. To increase capacity, the Three Ring Agitator would need to be used instead of the space capsule style. At 10 to 12 gallons per fill, it would use more than a front loader, but maybe not more than an HE toploader, but again you have to compare what the Frigidaire holds against the capacity claims of the Cabrio, FP etc.
 
I have wondered about that. Not just Frigidaire, but others as well. Kelvinator (my personal love) had the magic minute. What if one put in a pump and recirculated (sp) the water a la Calypso.
 
The thing about a recirculating pump in a solid tub machine is that you have to fill the tub to overflowing and enough has to overflow to provide a steady intake for the pump. Kelvinators were very poor at water extraction and did not wash a very large load since so much room was taken up by the agitator and that's not at all HE. The agitator, with all of those holes for water circulation jets, was filled with water, unlike old KM, WP, GE etc agitators in which the central column stayed dry because the dome of air inside kept water out. That extra water in the agitator adds to water consumption that cannot be used for fabric capacity and that's not an HE characteristic. In order for the Kelvinator to wash, the tub has to be pretty full of water. If you were trying to use the agitator to move clothes under a stream of water like a Calypso, it would be pretty hard on them. The older agitator with the rubber fins would take buttons off garments even with a full tub of water. Since the Calypso design has been discontinued for many reasons, and the Kelvinator could not be of the solid tub design and work like a Calypso, it's probably not a good candidate for an HE machine.
 
Recirculation in a solid tub:

Here's a thought. Instead of having an overflowing solid tub, how about one with a few holes at the bottom? The trick would be having few enough holes to allow a slow draining of the tub, and a recirculation pump for a lint filter that could put water into the tub as fast as it comes out, or maybe a little faster. The pump would have to run during filling. The machine would also have to spin out the water to achieve a reasonably quick drain.

How did the solid tub GE Filter Flos work, either with a lower water level selected for a small load, or a mini basket?

Also, could a Frigidaire-style solid tub machine be created with a larger capacity by making the tub deeper and/or wider? I know the Super Unimatic 2.0 has a larger tub than was originally shipped on residential Unimatics, but in order to compete today, it would have to have an even greater capacity. Also, could the solid tub be wrapped with some kind of waterproof insulating foam to better retain heat in the water?

Keep the ideas coming,
Dave
 
The solid tub Ge FilterFlo washers had a small hole under the Activator to allow heavy soil to escape with a slow drain of water. On full loads this was no problem, but there was a ring on the Activator indicating the minimum fill level if you used the water saver switch to prevent a full fill. During operation with less than a full amount of water, the recirculattion of water into the filter did not take place. The instructions on the underside of the lid said to add the detergent directly into the washer tub instead of the filter pan. The tub had to be filled to that ring on the agitator to allow for the diminishing level of the water in the tub due to the water that drained out through the sediment hole during wash. All during the wash, there was a loud gurgling sound from the pump, sad that it had no water to play with.

The Mini Basket, not to be confused with hypogonadism, had small holes in the bottom through which heavy soil could pass and holes around the top for overflow circulation during washing and rinsing. Our GE had the first Mini Basket which was very small. During the pause between Activation and spin, most of the water managed to run out through the holes at the base. The washer filled with 6 gallons of water on the Mini setting to provide ample water for circulation and cleaning, but an HE machine could wash, but not rinse, a whole load with that amount.
 
My '60 GE has one hole under the Activator and one hole on the side of the tub about halfway up.

Speed Queen in the early 60's had a TOL model that had a recirculating filter. In addition to the overflow at the top of the washtub, the agitator post had eight holes around the bottom of it to allow water to escape and return via the filter stream. (if you remember my photos this summer of replacing the agitator post kit on the early 70's washer - see link)

To my knowledge, this was the only SQ solid-tub washer that had a recirculating filter system.

 
Capacity at 18lbs shouldn't be a problem if coupled with high rpm speed final spin (>1100 rpms). Water consumption could be lowered if rinses were designed along the F&P model, that is using a series of spray rinses as default instead of deep rinses. Coupled with a sensor, the washer could simply contiune a series of spray rinses until out going water was determined to be "clear".

To really kick things up a notch, for export to countries with 220v power as normal for homes, such as Oz, a heating system could be added, and let them in on the fun as well.

L.
 
Oh yes, forgot.

Would need a powerful motor, something along 1HP or above so washer could start spinning after the wash cycle while draining (no neutral drain). This would give better rinse results as laundry in the tub would not act as a filter for mucky water as it sat sitting while water drained out.

L.
 
The extra amount of water needed to make a recirculating fil

Tom, recirc might need a gallon or less. The overflow rinse uses EIGHT or TEN.

Are you on that pipe again?
 
I think what the real question should be

is..
---And The Dept of Energy never addresses this:
How many POUNDS of clothes per gallon of water can a machine clean. Not as they do it" How many gallons per cycle does the machine use".
So looking at a 1-18 Frigidaire with 60 gallons on regular wash you come up with 18pounds/60gallons = o.3 pounds/gallon.

For a small Frigidaire front loader 12pounds/21 gallons=0.57 pounds/gallon

BUT if you take Robert's FrankenFrigdaire in the lab and you use the last rinse water for the next rinse or wash cycle then this older machine will smackulate the newer ones by a mile.

It's a relative question but the current way the DOE looks at is cockeyed because the standard was created by the current industry. Who cares how many gallons a machine uses in cycle, its how efficient it uses it that is important.
 
The Holy Spirit is up and about--HOW NICE!

Watching the fill in her 20 lb. circa 80's Norge, a friend used to ask: " Where does the water go? " Once I measured and the Norge swallows 2 whole gallons of water before any appears in the bottom of the tub.

For the same amount of water the Frigidaire is ready and able to go with a small load--advancing the dial, of course--with unparalleled washday drama.

And although I agree with your argument, the Frigidaire Irony is that it is one of the very few machines that will take the full, advertised poundage in clothes, and move them ably, and clean them completely.

We've got to get solid tubs back on the market.

Making the overflow optional, without it, you could wash and rinse 10 pounds in a Unimatic in--is it 16 or 20 gallons of water? Can't remember and have no lit on it. Does the full fill take 8 gallons or 10? As has been pointed out many times, with an eleven hundred plus rpm spin, the first rinse water is always clear.

Jon, I found an ancient mahogany Bendix radio, a million years old, in my Aunt Alice's secret storage room. Would you like to have it?
 
A 1955 10lb Unimatic fills at approx 2.5 gallons per minute so it uses:

4 min fill --- 10 gallons
1.5 min overflow wash --- 3.75 gallons
3.5 min rinse fill --- 8.75 gallons
2.5 min overflow rinse --- 6.25 gallons

28.75 gallons total

Earlier Double Rinse Machines had 3 4 minute fills with a total water usage of approx 30 gallons.
 
So the Unimatic "clicks" every half minute,

while the 1962 Multi advances just once per minute, saving space on the dial for the Wash n' Wear Cycle. From your 55 chart, I can tweak out the 62 usage.

4 min fill--10
2 min overflow-- 5....... a really effective cooldown, which I skip when suds-saving
3 min rinse fill-- 7.5
4 minute overflow rinse-- 10.... What a wonderfully decadent extravagance, especially in hot water. Attention GE lovers. The overflow and the water throw from the rinse completely fill the GE. When i do the occasioal hot rinse for a rare bleaching of sheets or towels, the GE just begs for the water to do a huge ramp activated load of blankets--keep those winter dust mites away. YAY.

32.5 Total

Why do you suppose the rinse is so long? It's really overkill. BUT I LOVE IT !!!!!!!
 
Capacity

As for the capacity issue. I like to look at it as how much laundry can you process in a given amount of time. So, if you had 40 lbs. to wash. How long would it take in a Modern machine in comparison to any solid tub?

MRB
 
Hardly anyone cares

The problem with making and selling a washer that properly cleans and rinses is,of course the Feds.The basic idea to save resources is a good one,but in typical fashion it was taken to the extreme.Please check out my final report on my new SQ in the appropriate forum.It will appear later today and addresses this issue.Here is the bottom line-Most people dont know or care nowadays whether their machine does a good job or not.I think,with most folks I know,if the machine just washed the load in cold water long enough to get them wet,with the modern no-suds detergents,then spun them out they would never know the difference.
Tom
 
Hmmm.

Is this a rhetorical question?

As noted in another recent thread, one doesn't get into using vintage washers out of a concern for water or energy efficiency. However, the 1140 rpm Unimatics certainly extracted a lot of water, resulting in less energy needed for mechanical drying. So they were efficient in that regard. And, as noted here, the solid tub machines were more water efficient than the perforated tub machines.

In terms of total water usage, well, 29 gallons for a Unimatic isn't so far from the 25 gallons a solid door Neptune uses. And my Miele 1980 washer uses about 25 gallons per 10 lb load, as well. I am estimating that by how far it fills up a 32 gallon plastic trash can by the end of the cycle and before I have to turn on the sump pump to empty the can.

The question, I suppose, is if someone were to try to manufacture a modern version of the Unimatic, would it pass increasingly stringent water and energy government regulations? I suspect not, at least not without compromising washing and/or rinsing ability. The pump action agitator requires that the laundry be fully submerged for any good results - there is no way one could shower the load ala the Harmony or Cabrio and not have the agitator pumping air instead of laundry. If one were to try to resurrect the Unimatic design I suspect the only way to get around regulations would be to supply it in kit form, for the customer to assemble on their own from a box of "parts".
 

Latest posts

Back
Top