mrcleanjeans
New member
This model had 6 water changes, w-r-r-w-r-r-dry,each fill used almost 3 gallons of water,hense the high water usage for a dishwasher. It was a great machine!
UNUSED GE Pot scubber Dishwasher
- Thread starter gepotscrubber
- Start date
Help Support :
Thanks David. Wow!!
mrcleanjeans
New member
Sure Bob!
PSII water usage
David,
Was the sump larger in the PSII? Just wondering, as it looks as if the PSII uses the same tub as the other PS's. They used less than 1 1/2 gallons per fill, and the water level, at full fill, comes up maybe half way of the lower front lip of the tub. With the extra 1 and a half gallons in the PSII fill, it seems as if the water level would be periously close to the edge of the lip, if not over, and in danger of outflowing from the tub.
David,
Was the sump larger in the PSII? Just wondering, as it looks as if the PSII uses the same tub as the other PS's. They used less than 1 1/2 gallons per fill, and the water level, at full fill, comes up maybe half way of the lower front lip of the tub. With the extra 1 and a half gallons in the PSII fill, it seems as if the water level would be periously close to the edge of the lip, if not over, and in danger of outflowing from the tub.
PS2 TUB
The tub in these machines were a completely new design and not the same as anything before or later. The pump and motor were mounted differently and there was a large circular sump in the middle of the machine. This was a very interesting machine and it was neat that they finally tried a real upper wash arm [ that all DWs have today ]. The PSII only was made a few years and thier were quite a few problems with this machine. If you read the service manuel for this machine thier a large number of items that are listed that were improved and other service notes that describe how to fix all sorts of problems that occurred
The tub in these machines were a completely new design and not the same as anything before or later. The pump and motor were mounted differently and there was a large circular sump in the middle of the machine. This was a very interesting machine and it was neat that they finally tried a real upper wash arm [ that all DWs have today ]. The PSII only was made a few years and thier were quite a few problems with this machine. If you read the service manuel for this machine thier a large number of items that are listed that were improved and other service notes that describe how to fix all sorts of problems that occurred
PS2 TUB!
It would have been great if they worked out all the kinks and continued to make them!
It would have been great if they worked out all the kinks and continued to make them!
Paulo
I have to come down on the side of Tom's comments. I do agree with you that design is the most important thing never to skimp on but when it comes down to it there is a physical limit to what you can get out of one gallon of water, it will only carry away so much soil and that is it.
I think Tom is correct the low low water usage will not heat the machine nor the soiled dishes so a heat boost must be used.
And if you take the total historical perspective, which you must do, in order to be accurate, from the 1940's forward the switch from dishwashing by hand to machine washing has saved millions of gallons of water and millions of tons of coal. So to argue about the efficiency of machines made from as late a 1996 to the squirt gun machines of the early 2000's is artificial, it is splitting hairs. We've done the best we can by 1996, because water has a physical limit.
My 1997 KA was the last year of the power module machines, it cleans time and time again as good as my KDS-14. It uses less water than my KDS 14.
But when they went to the tall tub design KA blew it big time and they have been scrambling ever since. If you look at CL today you will see many many 2 and 3 year old machines out there for sale because the owners want them gone! And they want to recoup some of their $1000 spent to get these horrible machines.
Yes the idea you need to buy special cleaning agents to keep the "cleaning machines" clean is a blatant ROAD SIGN something has gone really wrong somewhere. The idea you need to start using TEASPOONS to measure your detergent in order to avoid sudslock for a load of clothes that is just as dirty as a 1950's load of clothes is looney at best!
Which tells me this is all due to some government idiot WHO never does dishes nor washes clothes and has to create their job everyday in order to keep it. None of these "government regulations" is based in real science or real experience.
They are all bojack regulations!
I have to come down on the side of Tom's comments. I do agree with you that design is the most important thing never to skimp on but when it comes down to it there is a physical limit to what you can get out of one gallon of water, it will only carry away so much soil and that is it.
I think Tom is correct the low low water usage will not heat the machine nor the soiled dishes so a heat boost must be used.
And if you take the total historical perspective, which you must do, in order to be accurate, from the 1940's forward the switch from dishwashing by hand to machine washing has saved millions of gallons of water and millions of tons of coal. So to argue about the efficiency of machines made from as late a 1996 to the squirt gun machines of the early 2000's is artificial, it is splitting hairs. We've done the best we can by 1996, because water has a physical limit.
My 1997 KA was the last year of the power module machines, it cleans time and time again as good as my KDS-14. It uses less water than my KDS 14.
But when they went to the tall tub design KA blew it big time and they have been scrambling ever since. If you look at CL today you will see many many 2 and 3 year old machines out there for sale because the owners want them gone! And they want to recoup some of their $1000 spent to get these horrible machines.
Yes the idea you need to buy special cleaning agents to keep the "cleaning machines" clean is a blatant ROAD SIGN something has gone really wrong somewhere. The idea you need to start using TEASPOONS to measure your detergent in order to avoid sudslock for a load of clothes that is just as dirty as a 1950's load of clothes is looney at best!
Which tells me this is all due to some government idiot WHO never does dishes nor washes clothes and has to create their job everyday in order to keep it. None of these "government regulations" is based in real science or real experience.
They are all bojack regulations!
PSII
I wonder what problems GE was having with the PSII??
Jon, I couldn't have said it better. You hit the nail on the head. Some government leaders don't have enough common sense to think about the REAL implications of theses arbitrary Energy Star regulations, but are looking at THEORETICAL savings only. Theory and Reality often differ.
I remember a Consumer Report article (late seventies or early eighties, I believe) and in their dishwasher test, they had commented on which brands could gobble up lasagna noodles. Can you imagine some of todays, poor excuses for dishwashers, trying to eat up a lasagna noodle?
Most don't even have openings in th sump grate or filter large enough to take care of something that large. When I had a GE Tall Tub, the owners manual warned against leafy items, such as lettuce, being left on the dishes.
Can you imagine a dishwasher that can't rid itself of a piece of lettuce. And GE was right I often had pieces of lettuce, and evrything else, flattened up against the small openings in the sump grate after the cycle. Once I had a cooked egg white that somehow did manage to slip through one of the grates and clogged the anemic little toy drain pump opening, and the dishwasher couldn't drain.
Many government regulators, and even Consume Reports don't take into account the water and electrical usage needed to scrape and/or rinse dishes before loading them into these newer dishsplashers, some of which cannot even rid themself of a garden pea.
So if you compare the REAL cost of running, let's say a 1973 GE Tower Wash, which could rid itself of most any garbage on dishes, with it's soft food disposer and wide sump grates with one of these modern dishsplashers, I think you will find there is a whole lot more water usage in these new machines which require you to prep dishes. You have the water used by the machine itself + the water used to rinse the dishes and dispose of the food down the disposal.
If you have one of the newer machines that have no disposal system whatsoever, you also have the water usage added in for removing the filter in the bottom of the machine and washing it by hand to remove residual garbage. And personally, I don't want every drop of wash and rinse water to be filtered through garbage. I just have an aversion to dishes washed and rinsed in garbage water. Which is what these filter only machines do.
Any machine that cannot rid and dispose of normal food wastes is not a dishwasher but only a machine that splashes water on dishes. That's why I often call some of the newer machines "dishsplashers" because they don't even come close to being a dishwasher.
It's also been mentioned, on this site, that people are leary of chemical residue left on dishware with only a single final rinse offered by many of the newer Dishsplashers. So, if you are concerned that you don't want to injest chemicals, then you have to manualy set the dishwasher for an additional rinse. And if that dishwasher is a disposer free model, you are just going to rinses the dishes again in garbage water unless you remove the filter and wash it by hand first.
What about cleanability. How many newer dishwasher can handle dried oatmeal on bowls in the upper rack? I have had GE tall tubs and a Whilrpool tall tub that left oatmeal, consistently, on dishes. And, of course, after the dry cycle, it was baked on.
What about the water required for you and me to pull these out and wash them by hand? Shouldn't that be used in the government rating for energy efficiency??
My older GE Tower Wash and my Maytag reverse rack don't even raise a sweat in removing dried oatmeal.
Yes Jon, lets have some of these congresspeople, who are trying to impress the world with their evergy saving legislataions,and make themself look important go home and wash a load of dirty dishes in their Energy Star machines.
With their six figure salaries, I am sure they havae maids to rinse and wash food off before they put dishes into their machines.
Let's let the President and the congress people do their own dishes for a week. Let them scrape and rinse and wash the wasted down the disposer to just to prep them for their Energy Star Dishsplasher. Let them wait almost three hours for dishes, that were virtually prewashed, to come through just one cycle. And let them find out they have chemical residue on them, from incomplete rinsing, in their modenr Energy Star Dishsplasher. Let them give dishes another rinse or two and add more time to that three hour cycle. Let them pull out dirty bowls with dried oatmeal and take a srubbing pad and try to get the oatmeal off that the modern dishplasher dried onto the bowls.
So now they have spend their time scraping, rinsing, running a disposer, running a dishwasher, and rewashing by hand dishes with residual dried on oatmeal and egg yoke. Let's see how much they like their Energy Star machines then, after spending four hours total on something a thirty or forty year old machine could have done better in 45 minutes.
I think we would have some new legislation fast.
Instead of government legislation for energy, I think we would would start seeing government legistation for machine competance and we would all of of a sudden have "Performance Star" rated machines. And as a result, we would also be saving the environment a lot energy in the process.
I wonder what problems GE was having with the PSII??
Jon, I couldn't have said it better. You hit the nail on the head. Some government leaders don't have enough common sense to think about the REAL implications of theses arbitrary Energy Star regulations, but are looking at THEORETICAL savings only. Theory and Reality often differ.
I remember a Consumer Report article (late seventies or early eighties, I believe) and in their dishwasher test, they had commented on which brands could gobble up lasagna noodles. Can you imagine some of todays, poor excuses for dishwashers, trying to eat up a lasagna noodle?
Most don't even have openings in th sump grate or filter large enough to take care of something that large. When I had a GE Tall Tub, the owners manual warned against leafy items, such as lettuce, being left on the dishes.
Can you imagine a dishwasher that can't rid itself of a piece of lettuce. And GE was right I often had pieces of lettuce, and evrything else, flattened up against the small openings in the sump grate after the cycle. Once I had a cooked egg white that somehow did manage to slip through one of the grates and clogged the anemic little toy drain pump opening, and the dishwasher couldn't drain.
Many government regulators, and even Consume Reports don't take into account the water and electrical usage needed to scrape and/or rinse dishes before loading them into these newer dishsplashers, some of which cannot even rid themself of a garden pea.
So if you compare the REAL cost of running, let's say a 1973 GE Tower Wash, which could rid itself of most any garbage on dishes, with it's soft food disposer and wide sump grates with one of these modern dishsplashers, I think you will find there is a whole lot more water usage in these new machines which require you to prep dishes. You have the water used by the machine itself + the water used to rinse the dishes and dispose of the food down the disposal.
If you have one of the newer machines that have no disposal system whatsoever, you also have the water usage added in for removing the filter in the bottom of the machine and washing it by hand to remove residual garbage. And personally, I don't want every drop of wash and rinse water to be filtered through garbage. I just have an aversion to dishes washed and rinsed in garbage water. Which is what these filter only machines do.
Any machine that cannot rid and dispose of normal food wastes is not a dishwasher but only a machine that splashes water on dishes. That's why I often call some of the newer machines "dishsplashers" because they don't even come close to being a dishwasher.
It's also been mentioned, on this site, that people are leary of chemical residue left on dishware with only a single final rinse offered by many of the newer Dishsplashers. So, if you are concerned that you don't want to injest chemicals, then you have to manualy set the dishwasher for an additional rinse. And if that dishwasher is a disposer free model, you are just going to rinses the dishes again in garbage water unless you remove the filter and wash it by hand first.
What about cleanability. How many newer dishwasher can handle dried oatmeal on bowls in the upper rack? I have had GE tall tubs and a Whilrpool tall tub that left oatmeal, consistently, on dishes. And, of course, after the dry cycle, it was baked on.
What about the water required for you and me to pull these out and wash them by hand? Shouldn't that be used in the government rating for energy efficiency??
My older GE Tower Wash and my Maytag reverse rack don't even raise a sweat in removing dried oatmeal.
Yes Jon, lets have some of these congresspeople, who are trying to impress the world with their evergy saving legislataions,and make themself look important go home and wash a load of dirty dishes in their Energy Star machines.
With their six figure salaries, I am sure they havae maids to rinse and wash food off before they put dishes into their machines.
Let's let the President and the congress people do their own dishes for a week. Let them scrape and rinse and wash the wasted down the disposer to just to prep them for their Energy Star Dishsplasher. Let them wait almost three hours for dishes, that were virtually prewashed, to come through just one cycle. And let them find out they have chemical residue on them, from incomplete rinsing, in their modenr Energy Star Dishsplasher. Let them give dishes another rinse or two and add more time to that three hour cycle. Let them pull out dirty bowls with dried oatmeal and take a srubbing pad and try to get the oatmeal off that the modern dishplasher dried onto the bowls.
So now they have spend their time scraping, rinsing, running a disposer, running a dishwasher, and rewashing by hand dishes with residual dried on oatmeal and egg yoke. Let's see how much they like their Energy Star machines then, after spending four hours total on something a thirty or forty year old machine could have done better in 45 minutes.
I think we would have some new legislation fast.
Instead of government legislation for energy, I think we would would start seeing government legistation for machine competance and we would all of of a sudden have "Performance Star" rated machines. And as a result, we would also be saving the environment a lot energy in the process.
Barry
"Dishsplashers" - love that! its way better than squirt gun dishwashers!
Next they'll come out with dry cleaning dishwashers with swiping arms and handiwipe attachments for them!!
"Dishsplashers" - love that! its way better than squirt gun dishwashers!
Next they'll come out with dry cleaning dishwashers with swiping arms and handiwipe attachments for them!!
NEW DWs
I also think the consumer is partly to blame for the poor state of new dishwashers today. The first thing that every customer asks me when recommending a new DW is, is it quiet. This cupeled with the move to save water and hold larger dishes has pretty much destroyed DWs as we knew then. DWs reached thier perfection by the 1980s-most of the 1990s [ some earlier and some continued longer but the afore mentioned criteria doomed this product from being anywhere nearly as effective as before.
So now we are stuck with machines where we break our backs bending over an extra couple inches to load every last item in the lower rack and have to load every piece of flatware separately because if they touch there isn't enough water force to dislodge a particle stuck between them. We now have machines that don't dry worth a darn and stink inside if you really dare to put lots of really dirty dishes in. To say nothing of all the food bacteria in the messy filters that the average person probably uses 3 gallons of water to wash in the sink. And these newer machines are basically running on cold water if you have a large home where the water heater is far from the DW so you are drawing mostly cold water in as the cycles are so long and then heating it with electricity instead of cheaper and more environmentally friendly gas, heat-pump electric or solar.
These tall tub machines are also difficult if not impossible to install some existing kitchens and even harder to repair. The European machines are even worst to service and install as you basically have to remove the entire machine and lay it on its back to even began working on it because the whole machine is enclosed on the bottom to contain some leaking and noise. Usually by the time the European machines need to be pulled out we just throw them away.
I also think the consumer is partly to blame for the poor state of new dishwashers today. The first thing that every customer asks me when recommending a new DW is, is it quiet. This cupeled with the move to save water and hold larger dishes has pretty much destroyed DWs as we knew then. DWs reached thier perfection by the 1980s-most of the 1990s [ some earlier and some continued longer but the afore mentioned criteria doomed this product from being anywhere nearly as effective as before.
So now we are stuck with machines where we break our backs bending over an extra couple inches to load every last item in the lower rack and have to load every piece of flatware separately because if they touch there isn't enough water force to dislodge a particle stuck between them. We now have machines that don't dry worth a darn and stink inside if you really dare to put lots of really dirty dishes in. To say nothing of all the food bacteria in the messy filters that the average person probably uses 3 gallons of water to wash in the sink. And these newer machines are basically running on cold water if you have a large home where the water heater is far from the DW so you are drawing mostly cold water in as the cycles are so long and then heating it with electricity instead of cheaper and more environmentally friendly gas, heat-pump electric or solar.
These tall tub machines are also difficult if not impossible to install some existing kitchens and even harder to repair. The European machines are even worst to service and install as you basically have to remove the entire machine and lay it on its back to even began working on it because the whole machine is enclosed on the bottom to contain some leaking and noise. Usually by the time the European machines need to be pulled out we just throw them away.
here, here, John!
I don't thin the average consumer knows any better. Consumer reports doesn't help as they don't test dishwashers as they used to. Remember when they gave separate ratings for cleanliness for dishes, glassware and flatware? And as I aforementioned they used to expect a machine to wash off and rid itself of normal solid food waste.
Their ratings now don't even mention solid food wastes, they give an overall "washing ability" score, with very little variance between machines and include energy use in the overall performace score and rankings.
How is the consumer to know that one machines will gobble up food waste while another leaves putrifying garbbage in a filter that needs, as you say John, three gallons of water to wash it out.
They mention that some machines are filtered and some have disposers, but they don't expound upon it or even remotely use this information to affect ratings.
Consumer Reports, I feel, is just a shadow of what it once was and no longer gives the purchaser true performance ratings in a meaningful way.
How is it a machine that washes and rinses dishes in putrifying garbage filtered water and leaves a chemical residue, and cannot even take dried oatmeal off of bowls, be given a higher rating than a machine with a true food waste disposer that thoroughly cleans thoroughly cleans dried on food, rinses completely, and doesn't leave a pile of bacterial infested garbage in the bottom of the machine?
The overall score rating for a competent machine (the few that are still out there), and by competent, I mean one that actually washes dirt off dishes and disposes of it, should not be lowered because it uses a little more energy.
Because in reality it doesn't. The overall energy use for a non-disposered, garbage collecting filtred machine with an anemic kids toy motor actually is using a lot more energy because of the pre-rinsing of dishes, and washing of the filter and the 3 hours use of electricity.
So the consumer has no real source of information to rely on other than salespeople. When they buy a newer non-disposered tall tub machine they really don't know what it's capabilities (or lack of are) until they get it home and start using it. In short order they will be frustrated with three hours to wash only one load, dried on starchy foods on the dishes and having bacteria breeding garbage laying in the bottom of the machines and having the machine eventually develop odors and molds because it can't even clean itself over time.
I don't thin the average consumer knows any better. Consumer reports doesn't help as they don't test dishwashers as they used to. Remember when they gave separate ratings for cleanliness for dishes, glassware and flatware? And as I aforementioned they used to expect a machine to wash off and rid itself of normal solid food waste.
Their ratings now don't even mention solid food wastes, they give an overall "washing ability" score, with very little variance between machines and include energy use in the overall performace score and rankings.
How is the consumer to know that one machines will gobble up food waste while another leaves putrifying garbbage in a filter that needs, as you say John, three gallons of water to wash it out.
They mention that some machines are filtered and some have disposers, but they don't expound upon it or even remotely use this information to affect ratings.
Consumer Reports, I feel, is just a shadow of what it once was and no longer gives the purchaser true performance ratings in a meaningful way.
How is it a machine that washes and rinses dishes in putrifying garbage filtered water and leaves a chemical residue, and cannot even take dried oatmeal off of bowls, be given a higher rating than a machine with a true food waste disposer that thoroughly cleans thoroughly cleans dried on food, rinses completely, and doesn't leave a pile of bacterial infested garbage in the bottom of the machine?
The overall score rating for a competent machine (the few that are still out there), and by competent, I mean one that actually washes dirt off dishes and disposes of it, should not be lowered because it uses a little more energy.
Because in reality it doesn't. The overall energy use for a non-disposered, garbage collecting filtred machine with an anemic kids toy motor actually is using a lot more energy because of the pre-rinsing of dishes, and washing of the filter and the 3 hours use of electricity.
So the consumer has no real source of information to rely on other than salespeople. When they buy a newer non-disposered tall tub machine they really don't know what it's capabilities (or lack of are) until they get it home and start using it. In short order they will be frustrated with three hours to wash only one load, dried on starchy foods on the dishes and having bacteria breeding garbage laying in the bottom of the machines and having the machine eventually develop odors and molds because it can't even clean itself over time.
It is interesting to read the reports on dishwashers in the early 50s. They told of things like soil trapped between the edges of plates and the tub wall and how prerinsing dishes cut that way down. They said how adding the extra rinse to the one wash & one rinse cycle on the Apex improved performance by carrying away more soil and not leaving residue on items in the load.
The testing of appliances is done at the Department of Energy which was created in the 70s to wean the US off foreign oil and we see what a roaring success that mission has been. I have seen pictures of their testing and they don't test dishwashers with dirty dishes. That's at least one step away from reality. They have really taken us back to the early 50s in dishwasher performance. As has been discussed here previously, manufacturers who get the energy use down to a certain point or below get some kind of reward, like money for more research or something. Under Bush, manufacturers could test their own appliances and do their own Energy Star certification which is why some energy star certified appliances used more energy than models without the certification. The detergents are much more advanced, or WERE until idiots pulled phosphates out of them, but the amount of dish preparation needed is back to the levels of the early days of dishwashers. One of the statements in the rankings of dishwashers in Consumer Reports for the group that included the KDS-14, I think, was something to the effect that these machines should prove satisfactory if the user is willing to devote a bit more effort to preparing the dishes before loading.
I remember when John installed that KA tall tub in his kitchen. It had a little mesh bag near the silver basket like you would use for washing nylons and delicates and after a load of dishes loaded like they left the table, it looked like someone had barfed on one of those bags you used to get oranges in. It was insane. Plus there was food stuck to the tank walls and the racks, yet the WP on the other side of the kitchen would handle all of that except for the few stray pieces that would get trapped in that in-door silver rack, but it had a real pump and was meant to wash dishes. Both were very quite, but with me quiet is not the priority. I have more than one room in my house where I can watch television or read while the crusher is running and if these pampered, put-upon people cannot take the noise of a dishwahser, I'd like to invite them back to the 50s when the sound generated by a dishwasher meant that you were not having to wash dishes by hand. One thing about the 50s dishwshers was that they were not running for an hour and a half or more to do the job that a modern machine does.
We long thought that CU totally missed the boat by not testing DWs with bowls and pans in the lower rack to see what effect it had on washing in the upper rack in machines without an upper wash arm.
The testing of appliances is done at the Department of Energy which was created in the 70s to wean the US off foreign oil and we see what a roaring success that mission has been. I have seen pictures of their testing and they don't test dishwashers with dirty dishes. That's at least one step away from reality. They have really taken us back to the early 50s in dishwasher performance. As has been discussed here previously, manufacturers who get the energy use down to a certain point or below get some kind of reward, like money for more research or something. Under Bush, manufacturers could test their own appliances and do their own Energy Star certification which is why some energy star certified appliances used more energy than models without the certification. The detergents are much more advanced, or WERE until idiots pulled phosphates out of them, but the amount of dish preparation needed is back to the levels of the early days of dishwashers. One of the statements in the rankings of dishwashers in Consumer Reports for the group that included the KDS-14, I think, was something to the effect that these machines should prove satisfactory if the user is willing to devote a bit more effort to preparing the dishes before loading.
I remember when John installed that KA tall tub in his kitchen. It had a little mesh bag near the silver basket like you would use for washing nylons and delicates and after a load of dishes loaded like they left the table, it looked like someone had barfed on one of those bags you used to get oranges in. It was insane. Plus there was food stuck to the tank walls and the racks, yet the WP on the other side of the kitchen would handle all of that except for the few stray pieces that would get trapped in that in-door silver rack, but it had a real pump and was meant to wash dishes. Both were very quite, but with me quiet is not the priority. I have more than one room in my house where I can watch television or read while the crusher is running and if these pampered, put-upon people cannot take the noise of a dishwahser, I'd like to invite them back to the 50s when the sound generated by a dishwasher meant that you were not having to wash dishes by hand. One thing about the 50s dishwshers was that they were not running for an hour and a half or more to do the job that a modern machine does.
We long thought that CU totally missed the boat by not testing DWs with bowls and pans in the lower rack to see what effect it had on washing in the upper rack in machines without an upper wash arm.
Dried on oatmeal in bowls in the top rack
Well Barry, I for one do not have an issue at all with that problem with my Kenmore elite Tall tub (WPKA in disguise). But then again, I have always put my cerea, bowl in the bottom befcause that's where all my GEs allowed them to be placed with that saucer rack as well as my D&N produced Kenmore from 1980. The last time I put cereal bowls in the top rack was the 1968 Waste King because the center section actually excelled at keeping the bowls upright and separated rather than falling all over themslves. Also, I prefer putting them in thje bottom because they eat up valuable real estate in the top rack needed for glasses, mugs, cups, and plasticware. And I don't prerinse anything. I don't even scrape all that we4ll either.
Well Barry, I for one do not have an issue at all with that problem with my Kenmore elite Tall tub (WPKA in disguise). But then again, I have always put my cerea, bowl in the bottom befcause that's where all my GEs allowed them to be placed with that saucer rack as well as my D&N produced Kenmore from 1980. The last time I put cereal bowls in the top rack was the 1968 Waste King because the center section actually excelled at keeping the bowls upright and separated rather than falling all over themslves. Also, I prefer putting them in thje bottom because they eat up valuable real estate in the top rack needed for glasses, mugs, cups, and plasticware. And I don't prerinse anything. I don't even scrape all that we4ll either.
dish placement
I understand, Bob. With my two GE tall tubs and the Whirlpool tall tub I ended up putting dried oatmeal bowls in the bottom rack. Usually (but not always) the came clean here. My bowls were dried on maybe more than most because at the time, I only ran the dishwasher once to two times per week. So I admit I am probably more demanding on my machines than most.
However, my GE tower washes and the Maytag reverse rackers never had a problem with it.
I guess my point is that, is it too much to ask to have dishes come clean in both racks? Many modern machines just do not have the power to do what they are supposed to. Why? Because the manufacturer's are trying to get ratings from the U.S. government based on arbitrary setpoints for water and energy usage that have little meaning in the real world.
Even pots and pans come out clean in either rack of my Tower Wash GE's and Maytags. A dish or pan has to have a really baked-on mess to require lower rack placement in the TW GE and RR Maytag, Normally, it's not a consideration and I can load for maximum utilization of space, which of course, is energy saving in itself as there are fewer loads.
In previous postings I have mentioned my "small mouth jar" test.
Take a very small mouthed jar with residual jelly, mayonaisse, peanut butter, etc. and place it in the top rack. Almost always the tall tubs, I had, would leave residue.
The Maytag usually got it all and my Tower Wash's GE always returned a spotless jar. (at least if there was an exception with the GE's, I don't recall it)
,
Now taking labels off the jars, that's a different story. hehe
I understand, Bob. With my two GE tall tubs and the Whirlpool tall tub I ended up putting dried oatmeal bowls in the bottom rack. Usually (but not always) the came clean here. My bowls were dried on maybe more than most because at the time, I only ran the dishwasher once to two times per week. So I admit I am probably more demanding on my machines than most.
However, my GE tower washes and the Maytag reverse rackers never had a problem with it.
I guess my point is that, is it too much to ask to have dishes come clean in both racks? Many modern machines just do not have the power to do what they are supposed to. Why? Because the manufacturer's are trying to get ratings from the U.S. government based on arbitrary setpoints for water and energy usage that have little meaning in the real world.
Even pots and pans come out clean in either rack of my Tower Wash GE's and Maytags. A dish or pan has to have a really baked-on mess to require lower rack placement in the TW GE and RR Maytag, Normally, it's not a consideration and I can load for maximum utilization of space, which of course, is energy saving in itself as there are fewer loads.
In previous postings I have mentioned my "small mouth jar" test.
Take a very small mouthed jar with residual jelly, mayonaisse, peanut butter, etc. and place it in the top rack. Almost always the tall tubs, I had, would leave residue.
The Maytag usually got it all and my Tower Wash's GE always returned a spotless jar. (at least if there was an exception with the GE's, I don't recall it)
,
Now taking labels off the jars, that's a different story. hehe
REAL DW TEST
Try putting a ketchup bottle over a tine in the lower rack of a DW and see how clean it gets, I always wash out my bottles for recycling this way and my 1987 WP and 1984 KA KDSS-20 usually passes test my tall tub KA often left the bottle looking untouched..
Try putting a ketchup bottle over a tine in the lower rack of a DW and see how clean it gets, I always wash out my bottles for recycling this way and my 1987 WP and 1984 KA KDSS-20 usually passes test my tall tub KA often left the bottle looking untouched..
Oooo good test
I'll try that one!
I'll try that one!
I can't stand these machines today,My G.E. Monogram with that Pure Clean wash system sucks bad.G.E. made the holes very small in the wash arms and there is more of them, but sense it only filters part of the water on it's way to the top wash arms they get stopped up all the time.They also took away the grinder plate at the pump inlet but they left the blade there for some reason.The Machines that are made today just don't last compared to the ones that used more water.So you have a ton more machines going to the landfill.Dishwasher's used to last for 13 or more years, Now days if I get 4 years out of it I will be shocked.I have gotten chewed out by people cause I love these old water hogs and hurricanes in a box.They mistake me for somebody who cares what they think but it seems like a on going thing,"How could you use a machine like that when my Asko cleans wonderful on a cup of water,I guess we are more cosmo here about things like that". I have had several comments like that but I don't care I like them cause they work like hell and I love the roar of water blasting things clean in 50 mins. What is worse dishwasher's going to the landfill every 5 years or one that last over twice that but uses more water? My question is where does the water go its not like gasoline is it??? P.S. I love that G.E. I have never seen one like that I am going to find me one now.
)
)
I can load an oatmeal (with raspberry jam mixed in) bowl like this one into my dishwasher ...
and have it come out like this (it was still warm when the clean pic was taken) ...
I don't know if that's considered reasonable performance ... perhaps someone can tell me.
The bowl in this case was washed within a couple hrs of the boilover occurring, but I routinely leave them sitting for a couple/three days and come clean with no trouble.
Barry, minie can actually sit for 5-7 days before the machine is ever tuirned on in the wintertime. Glenn, I really cannot tell you on that. And Wes, Greg had no complaints when he had his Asko and he routinely pushed it to the max with the different kind of loads he put in there.
It's unfortunate we've been saddled with this government standards that just simiply don't deal witgh reality very well. That being said, we're also saddled with our electrical voltange vs. our european counterparts. The Europeans have led ahead f us for YEARS when it comes to efficiency. But their electrical support allows relatively quick heating of water. Greg very rarely had any debris in the filter of his Asko, including lasagna noodles thrown at eat, meat from said dish, and many other thihngs. The solution was that the cycle he used heated the water to 160 and 170 degrees practically emulsifiing just about anything. Whereas, our new machines that have saddled us with filters, "high-temp" wash water is now considered 120 to 130 degrees. A sanitize rinse option is still 155 degrees. But that's still no comparison to European designs. I'm sure I haven't made the most clear and cobncise argument here, but I think y'all get the gist of my intentions.
It's unfortunate we've been saddled with this government standards that just simiply don't deal witgh reality very well. That being said, we're also saddled with our electrical voltange vs. our european counterparts. The Europeans have led ahead f us for YEARS when it comes to efficiency. But their electrical support allows relatively quick heating of water. Greg very rarely had any debris in the filter of his Asko, including lasagna noodles thrown at eat, meat from said dish, and many other thihngs. The solution was that the cycle he used heated the water to 160 and 170 degrees practically emulsifiing just about anything. Whereas, our new machines that have saddled us with filters, "high-temp" wash water is now considered 120 to 130 degrees. A sanitize rinse option is still 155 degrees. But that's still no comparison to European designs. I'm sure I haven't made the most clear and cobncise argument here, but I think y'all get the gist of my intentions.
GE Tall Tubs
Wes,
Both of my GE Tall Tubs had upper arm clogging problems as well as my sister and brother-in-law's, GE Tall-Tub.
Apparently GE's Monogram line must use the same chassis, or similar one, to their lower line Profile models.
In the GE tall tubs, if you take the grate of the sump, you will see there is a plastic separator with preforations in it. It separates the sump in half. One side having the recuculating pump intake and the other side with the darin pump intake.
This separator filters out food wastes so they cannot get sucked into the cirrculating pump and sent through the washarms. The "hard food waste" disposer blade is behind this separator so it is absolutely useless. Food can't get to it to be ground up. Food waste go to the side of the sump where the anemic little toy drain pump is. That's where the egg white flattened itself out over the drain pump inlet and prevented the dishwasher from draining.
The reason GE didn't put a grater screen behind the disposer blade is that it wouldn't make any difference, food can't get to it anyway. The only reason they put a blade there is to advertise it has a food disposer.
In reality, some food waste (and other objects) seem to often covertly slip past the perforated screen and make their way to the top wash arm where they promply clog it up. It is especially hard to get the packed in material out of the two rotation jets at the bottom end of each side of the arm. these always seem to clog first.
If they had put in a grater screen, like their normal tub machines, any waste that slipped by the separator screen would be ground up. Just a small piece of metal spinning out in the open on the end of a shaft will not grind up wastes.
No GE's statement that their tall tub machines have a hard food waste disposer is a bold faced lie. I wrote Consumer Reports to tell them this, as in their ratings they indicate that the Tall Tub GE's have a built-in food waste disposer.
I explained the whole thing to them, in detail and told them about the separator screen, an open blade with no grater and that food wastes couldn't get to the blade anyway.
You know what their response was to me (at least I got one). They told me if I was having a problem with a machine I should contact the manufacturer, and they gave me the hotline number for GE.
They totally ignored the fact GE was lying and purposefuly, and fradulently, mistating capabilities of their machine. And of course, ignored the fact that they were perpetuating GE's lie in their ratings.
Wes,
Both of my GE Tall Tubs had upper arm clogging problems as well as my sister and brother-in-law's, GE Tall-Tub.
Apparently GE's Monogram line must use the same chassis, or similar one, to their lower line Profile models.
In the GE tall tubs, if you take the grate of the sump, you will see there is a plastic separator with preforations in it. It separates the sump in half. One side having the recuculating pump intake and the other side with the darin pump intake.
This separator filters out food wastes so they cannot get sucked into the cirrculating pump and sent through the washarms. The "hard food waste" disposer blade is behind this separator so it is absolutely useless. Food can't get to it to be ground up. Food waste go to the side of the sump where the anemic little toy drain pump is. That's where the egg white flattened itself out over the drain pump inlet and prevented the dishwasher from draining.
The reason GE didn't put a grater screen behind the disposer blade is that it wouldn't make any difference, food can't get to it anyway. The only reason they put a blade there is to advertise it has a food disposer.
In reality, some food waste (and other objects) seem to often covertly slip past the perforated screen and make their way to the top wash arm where they promply clog it up. It is especially hard to get the packed in material out of the two rotation jets at the bottom end of each side of the arm. these always seem to clog first.
If they had put in a grater screen, like their normal tub machines, any waste that slipped by the separator screen would be ground up. Just a small piece of metal spinning out in the open on the end of a shaft will not grind up wastes.
No GE's statement that their tall tub machines have a hard food waste disposer is a bold faced lie. I wrote Consumer Reports to tell them this, as in their ratings they indicate that the Tall Tub GE's have a built-in food waste disposer.
I explained the whole thing to them, in detail and told them about the separator screen, an open blade with no grater and that food wastes couldn't get to the blade anyway.
You know what their response was to me (at least I got one). They told me if I was having a problem with a machine I should contact the manufacturer, and they gave me the hotline number for GE.
They totally ignored the fact GE was lying and purposefuly, and fradulently, mistating capabilities of their machine. And of course, ignored the fact that they were perpetuating GE's lie in their ratings.
to sum up after reading thru these entries--the govt regs on appliances should be scrapped-use your DISPOSER to shred food wastes,NOT the dishwasher-and most new dishwashers are just trash truck and landfill food.At this stage buy an Ol" KA from your nearby Habitat For Humanity store--save money-you are recycling---finding an old working machine a new home--and you are rewarded with CLEAN dishes.From dishwasher ad copy-new and old-they suggest you DUMP off large peices of food into your sink for your disposer to take care of-then load the unrinsed dish into the washer.
Yes there the same exact dishwasher for the most part.Mine has lights in it and is very quite something like 48 D.b.There is one Model and I did not see this one or I missed it that is made by Gaggenau I think.I was wondering about that Potscrubber 2 and all these other old G.E. dishwasher's from the late 70s and early 80s..The pump design is not much different than the one in mine is there?I know the motor in mine is more efficient 1.8 Amps compared to 5 Amps.I thought that motor in the older ones was a shaded pole type.I have always wondered why my friends Magic chef G.E. made it sounds like a wall of water hits that door and smashes plates turns things over.There is that big metal arm with the huge holes and a tower,plus a overhead arm.Was that old motor more powerful or is it something else?
What I wanna know is this--why is it our dishwasher manufacturers have saddled us with lower wash water temps with these new HE wash systems (with filters) that have a normal wash temp of 105-115 degrees and high-temp is now 120 degrees and final rinse temp is 130, unless sani-rinse his selecteed. AND european models offered here are still able to offer cycles with much higher temperatures and still remain Energy Star Qualified?
EUROPEAN DISHWASHERS
Are much smaller on the inside and outside and you will have to prove to me that they use as little or even less energy.
Are much smaller on the inside and outside and you will have to prove to me that they use as little or even less energy.
that's just it John!!!!
brisnat81
Well-known member
Hi John,
I've completed your Sauce bottle Test in a Miele, please see the results below.
No Specks or Yibblets to be found
Cheers
Nathan
I've completed your Sauce bottle Test in a Miele, please see the results below.
No Specks or Yibblets to be found
Cheers
Nathan
small mouth bottle test
to do the small mouth bottle test, one wants to be sure to let the material in the bottle dry a day or two. Otherwise, the liquid content runs out on its own and its no challenge for any dishwsher to get the small remaining amount. Just the heat from the machine will cause the remaining liquid to get runny and evaculate the bottle.
Try it again, Nathan, with two day old dried ketchup remains in the bottle. If you have to a new bottle and dump out the contents in a bowl, you can replace it later in the (hopefully) clean bottle. hehe
to do the small mouth bottle test, one wants to be sure to let the material in the bottle dry a day or two. Otherwise, the liquid content runs out on its own and its no challenge for any dishwsher to get the small remaining amount. Just the heat from the machine will cause the remaining liquid to get runny and evaculate the bottle.
Try it again, Nathan, with two day old dried ketchup remains in the bottle. If you have to a new bottle and dump out the contents in a bowl, you can replace it later in the (hopefully) clean bottle. hehe
stevet
Well-known member
COLLECT DATA!
Why dont we be scientific about this?
With all the different machines some guys have in their collecxtions from old to new, why not set up a test with one of those "Killawatt" testers for sale at HD or Lowes and see just how much energy the dishwasher alone consumes in the course of a regular cycle. No dishes or detergent, just set the cycle and let it rip!
Try to insure that the inlet water temp is the same so you may have to run the consecutively or after the water heater has finished cycling. If you cannot measure the actual incoming temp to each machine, maybe running them both with a strictly cold fill would prove the point. Like maybe a vintage KA 20 thru 23 vs a new K/A OR KENMORE/WHIRLPOOL?
This can show definitively which machine uses the least POWER to complete its job, and then we can go from there to figure what it may cost to heat the water.
But I think most people forget the added cost of heating the water and just feel if they have an Energy Star rated machine that is the extent of the savings in energy. So let's leave that out for now.
Since the big question seems to be what is more efficient, washing longer with a weaker pump or shorter wash time with a more powerful pump why not give it a go?
My only problem would be that the newer machines would have a built in default time where they will advance the cycle regardless of how hot or cool the water was at that point.
If you remember maybe 2 years ago, I had the 1990's Bosch machine that would delay and keep washing til it hit the proper temp as it was purely electro mechanical and I ran it with hot water fill cycle and when I switched it to all cold fill, it only took 20 minutes more to go thru the complete cycle. If I had measured the actual KW consumption including the water heated by electricity, The extra 20 minutes would not have consumed that much more energy. There has to be a reason why European machines come with cold fill only? Or have they changed that?
Why dont we be scientific about this?
With all the different machines some guys have in their collecxtions from old to new, why not set up a test with one of those "Killawatt" testers for sale at HD or Lowes and see just how much energy the dishwasher alone consumes in the course of a regular cycle. No dishes or detergent, just set the cycle and let it rip!
Try to insure that the inlet water temp is the same so you may have to run the consecutively or after the water heater has finished cycling. If you cannot measure the actual incoming temp to each machine, maybe running them both with a strictly cold fill would prove the point. Like maybe a vintage KA 20 thru 23 vs a new K/A OR KENMORE/WHIRLPOOL?
This can show definitively which machine uses the least POWER to complete its job, and then we can go from there to figure what it may cost to heat the water.
But I think most people forget the added cost of heating the water and just feel if they have an Energy Star rated machine that is the extent of the savings in energy. So let's leave that out for now.
Since the big question seems to be what is more efficient, washing longer with a weaker pump or shorter wash time with a more powerful pump why not give it a go?
My only problem would be that the newer machines would have a built in default time where they will advance the cycle regardless of how hot or cool the water was at that point.
If you remember maybe 2 years ago, I had the 1990's Bosch machine that would delay and keep washing til it hit the proper temp as it was purely electro mechanical and I ran it with hot water fill cycle and when I switched it to all cold fill, it only took 20 minutes more to go thru the complete cycle. If I had measured the actual KW consumption including the water heated by electricity, The extra 20 minutes would not have consumed that much more energy. There has to be a reason why European machines come with cold fill only? Or have they changed that?
european cold fill machines
Steve, remember that european households have normal current that we would consider to be 220/240 volt and that gives them the ability to heat water from cold much faster than our anemic 120 volt power in homes in the U.S. I think European brands are designed to heat to a particular temperature set point and won't "time out" as would a comparable American brand.
Steve, remember that european households have normal current that we would consider to be 220/240 volt and that gives them the ability to heat water from cold much faster than our anemic 120 volt power in homes in the U.S. I think European brands are designed to heat to a particular temperature set point and won't "time out" as would a comparable American brand.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
1959 Lady Kenmore, freshly restored- Latest: kenmoreguy64
-
Whirlpool BD center post help- Latest: kenmoreguy89
-
Whirlpool dishwasher motors update
- Latest: phillymatt53
