I just changed one on an eight series washer, oddly, also a 2015. $250 minutes cost for the board. Extortion for a machine that is supposed to last 30 years?
Speed Queen inverter board failure
- Thread starter allwashedup
- Start date
Help Support :
I think it’s absurd people will get rid of machines for simple repairs that don’t cost that much but of course people never look into why it stopped working and just assume because “it’s old”. I picked up a Kirby vacuum that was thrown out at my sister’s apartment complex, turns out it was just a broken belt but sadly people are too moronic to look into why it stopped working and assume it’s age when in reality they didn’t take the time to fix it which simply was a belt. People really should be educated on how things work so when a problem arises, it can be fixed and not for much and won’t be out of hundreds or thousands.
"I think it’s absurd people will get rid of machines for simple repairs that don’t cost that much but of course people never look into why it stopped working and just assume because “it’s old”"
Don't knock it! Have scored many great (some nearly new) appliances from people rubbishing things for simple reasons. Majority were free (Miele vacuum, AEG top loader, vintage Hoover vacuum...). Others were picked up for very little money. In fact shipping often cost far more than what one paid for actual item.
Those who simply chuck such things out IMHO are better than those who think they can sell such appliances on, often at vastly inflated prices.
Don't knock it! Have scored many great (some nearly new) appliances from people rubbishing things for simple reasons. Majority were free (Miele vacuum, AEG top loader, vintage Hoover vacuum...). Others were picked up for very little money. In fact shipping often cost far more than what one paid for actual item.
Those who simply chuck such things out IMHO are better than those who think they can sell such appliances on, often at vastly inflated prices.
Keeping in mind SQ domestic washing machines aren't that much different under bonnet than their commercial cousins.
In an industrial, commercial, laundromat, or OPL setting either owners do repairs themselves, have someone on staff, or rely upon independent service/repair persons. Depending upon geographic location the latter maybe difficult to find. Have seen SQ washers at local laundromat sit "Out Of Order" for weeks or months until service person finally shows up.
As noted already in this tread SQ washers true to their commercial heritage are designed to be repaired and or even totally rebuilt. This often right where they are in customer's place of business or whatever. This as opposed to say Miele where certain repairs mean washer must be shipped back to Princeton, NJ, overhauled or repaired, then shipped back.
In an industrial, commercial, laundromat, or OPL setting either owners do repairs themselves, have someone on staff, or rely upon independent service/repair persons. Depending upon geographic location the latter maybe difficult to find. Have seen SQ washers at local laundromat sit "Out Of Order" for weeks or months until service person finally shows up.
As noted already in this tread SQ washers true to their commercial heritage are designed to be repaired and or even totally rebuilt. This often right where they are in customer's place of business or whatever. This as opposed to say Miele where certain repairs mean washer must be shipped back to Princeton, NJ, overhauled or repaired, then shipped back.
panasonicvac
Well-known member
Hmm
I'm now beginning to question the reliability of SQ's electronic control boards, at least their panels. They claim that they're more reliable than their mechanical controls and I believed that. But seeing this is like the second or third time that I've seen these panels have issues, makes me think that I'm likely better off to get a mechanical SQ set instead. Or hopefully the TC5 and DC5 wouldn't have any issues on me cause they're electronic too. I think consumers were very lucky to ge a SQ while they were offering their 10 year limited parts and labor warranty a couple of years ago cause they're gonna need it!
https://speedqueen.com/electronic-vs-mechanical-controls/
I'm now beginning to question the reliability of SQ's electronic control boards, at least their panels. They claim that they're more reliable than their mechanical controls and I believed that. But seeing this is like the second or third time that I've seen these panels have issues, makes me think that I'm likely better off to get a mechanical SQ set instead. Or hopefully the TC5 and DC5 wouldn't have any issues on me cause they're electronic too. I think consumers were very lucky to ge a SQ while they were offering their 10 year limited parts and labor warranty a couple of years ago cause they're gonna need it!
https://speedqueen.com/electronic-vs-mechanical-controls/
Fully electronic controlled front loaders replaced mechanical timers (in whole or part driven) washers for very good reasons.
Leaving aside ability to create far more numerous cycles than could be had on mechanical timer, fully electronic allow greater and fine tuned control of tub movements, motor and other bits.
Much as one loves our vintage Miele W1070 with electronic/mechanical controls, the more modern AEG front and top loading washers are my usual go to choices for much daily washing. They handle out of balance, excess froth, and other situations far better than the Miele.
Watching modern SQ front loaders at local laundromat benefits again of full computer controls are apparent. Machine slowly ramps up to full spin speed, and or gentle pulse spins resulting in far less OOB situations.
With SQ top loaders Alliance moved to full computer board controls for several reasons. Chief among them again was ability to offer far more cycles than a set mechanical timer would allow.
Above includes SQ able to exploit so called energy regulations "loophole" which allows them to create a "Normal" cycle that uses enough water to drive tree huggers up the wall. https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/speed-queen-review/
Leaving aside ability to create far more numerous cycles than could be had on mechanical timer, fully electronic allow greater and fine tuned control of tub movements, motor and other bits.
Much as one loves our vintage Miele W1070 with electronic/mechanical controls, the more modern AEG front and top loading washers are my usual go to choices for much daily washing. They handle out of balance, excess froth, and other situations far better than the Miele.
Watching modern SQ front loaders at local laundromat benefits again of full computer controls are apparent. Machine slowly ramps up to full spin speed, and or gentle pulse spins resulting in far less OOB situations.
With SQ top loaders Alliance moved to full computer board controls for several reasons. Chief among them again was ability to offer far more cycles than a set mechanical timer would allow.
Above includes SQ able to exploit so called energy regulations "loophole" which allows them to create a "Normal" cycle that uses enough water to drive tree huggers up the wall. https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/speed-queen-review/
The whole reason why they put electronic controls in machines is because of planned obsolescence and for the technology junkies out there. Many people claim electronic controls to be “flexible” and yes there’s one exception which is Speed Queen but the rest out there won’t let you and you’ll have to cancel the cycle and start all over again wasting water or detergent. Nice thing about the Maytag A806 for example is you can manipulate the controls to what you want but is impossible to customize any settings once the wash has started as mentioned in the previous sentence since I’ve dealt with a few HE machines where you can’t change anything once it’s started.
Sigh
No, you can design a mechanical timer with the exact same life time to the exact same precision as an electronic control.
I think SQ admitted the earlier gens of the inverter boards had a higher failure rate and thus redesigned the board - I think there are only the newer versions available - they should have a replacement parts number.
It is a very bad sign though that you have to pay 500$ for part on such a machine.
But yeah, happens, even if it's just a plug and play repair basically, it's annoying.
No, you can design a mechanical timer with the exact same life time to the exact same precision as an electronic control.
I think SQ admitted the earlier gens of the inverter boards had a higher failure rate and thus redesigned the board - I think there are only the newer versions available - they should have a replacement parts number.
It is a very bad sign though that you have to pay 500$ for part on such a machine.
But yeah, happens, even if it's just a plug and play repair basically, it's annoying.
panasonicvac
Well-known member
Geez
After scrolling through different prices between this electronic control panel and the SQ mechanical timers, the electronic ones are more expensive to replace! Not to mention that you could possibly easily service the mechanical timer but you would likely have a harder time messing with the electronic panel.
After scrolling through different prices between this electronic control panel and the SQ mechanical timers, the electronic ones are more expensive to replace! Not to mention that you could possibly easily service the mechanical timer but you would likely have a harder time messing with the electronic panel.
What do the timers do? Switch stuff.
This board does an f ton more that just switch this switch that.
Comparing apples and oranges sure does work, right?!?
This board does an f ton more that just switch this switch that.
Comparing apples and oranges sure does work, right?!?
EKelectronics.gr
New member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2025
- Messages
- 1
Hello everyone,
I'm an electronics technician from Greece working on repairing a Speed Queen control board, part number **807175P**, which seems to trigger error code **ED44** (Drive Brake Fault).
Unfortunately, I only have the board and not the full machine, but I’ve managed to do several tests:
- The 220 V AC input is correctly routed, and I’ve verified that the board outputs:
- **+12 V**
- **+5 V**
- **+3.3 V**
- All these voltages seem stable.
- I’ve also traced the inputs that signal the relays to activate the door lock, and they respond correctly.
- However, the board’s power LED does **not** light up, even though all the voltages are present and clean.
- When powered on the bench, the board does **not** fully boot, and I suspect that ED44 may appear due to either:
- lack of communication with other modules (motor or interface board), or
- an actual internal fault (possibly firmware-related or a damaged driver IC?).
I’ve inspected both 803949P and 807175P boards and they seem **identical in components**. Does anyone know if the only difference is software/firmware?
**My questions:**
- Can ED44 appear simply because the board is not connected to the rest of the system (motor, inverter, etc.)?
- Is there any known failure point (e.g. a blown gate driver or feedback issue) that commonly causes this?
- Does anyone have a partial schematic or pinout of the motor/inverter communication lines?
Any help or insight would be greatly appreciated. I’m trying to fix this for educational purposes and to help others locally with these boards.
Thanks in advance!
I don't think you'll find board level schematics for such a device - that's way to close to "trade secret" for any manufacturer not to go after.
However, SQ is pretty upfront about what the fault is.
I'm not an electrical engineer, just an engineer, but given the fault appears to be with the current sensing circuit, I highly doubt it's down to being connected to a machine or not.
But regardless: There is a boot up communications sequence. If the boards do not communicate, there will be a fault detected.
Thus, troubleshooting a board without a machine present is kind of a thing of impossibility.
Even if you managed to somehow convince the board that the other board is present, I will not power up any of the motor drive components unless certain safety criteria are met.
And if it doesn't power the inverter, it probably won't do current sensing either.
However, SQ is pretty upfront about what the fault is.
I'm not an electrical engineer, just an engineer, but given the fault appears to be with the current sensing circuit, I highly doubt it's down to being connected to a machine or not.
But regardless: There is a boot up communications sequence. If the boards do not communicate, there will be a fault detected.
Thus, troubleshooting a board without a machine present is kind of a thing of impossibility.
Even if you managed to somehow convince the board that the other board is present, I will not power up any of the motor drive components unless certain safety criteria are met.
And if it doesn't power the inverter, it probably won't do current sensing either.
Attachments
Forgot to add:
- Even if components look the same, suppliers or specs of certain components as well as PCB manufacturing specs or even stuff as invisible as solder profiles might be enough to warrant a technical revision and part number change. Currently working on some areospace data and stuff as simple as different underfill for certain chips warrants new part numbers there...
- Given the fault is in a sensing circuit, it could be as simple as the shunt being out of spec or the solder points in that circuit being somewhat bad. But it could be IC internal as well.
- Even if components look the same, suppliers or specs of certain components as well as PCB manufacturing specs or even stuff as invisible as solder profiles might be enough to warrant a technical revision and part number change. Currently working on some areospace data and stuff as simple as different underfill for certain chips warrants new part numbers there...
- Given the fault is in a sensing circuit, it could be as simple as the shunt being out of spec or the solder points in that circuit being somewhat bad. But it could be IC internal as well.
