Video: Are today's washers made to break?

[maytaga806]

I watched this video just recently funny you bring it up, and it was extremely hard for me to even look at the new design of the belt driven Whirlpools. It’s just so cringe worthy to see how machines are made today VS how nice they used to be, real material and durability, vs all plastic and wires nowadays. We had a Whirlpool cabrio in which the frame rusted out within the FIRST FEW years. It was unbelievable. Performance was bad, the motor gave out on its 11th year which hey could of been at the second or third year, but I’m sure the reason those motors go out is because they are under a much heavier load compared to the direct drive motors, because the washer has much much less water for a big load of heavy wet clothes and it’s trying to agitate them from the very bottom to pull everything down. There is no question that is was certainly being overworked unless you were doing a tiny light load. You could hear the motor working hard to agitate in bigger loads, wasn’t a concerning sound but it was noted. Since then and living on my own I love my water wasting Whirlpool Direct Drive. Nothing compares to it, reliability, simplicity, the beautiful way in which it was designed and built. Same goes for the older Maytags Speed Queens all of them were very well built machines that simply cleaned the most thoroughly. I love his videos though, he knows what he is talking about and shows these components in comparison perfectly.

 

[lowefficiency]

>> The vast, vast majority of people rather junk a cheap machine every so often
>> that to make an investment in high quality.

Part of it too is that machines of today are visibly "electronic", and consumers have become accustomed to basically all other electronic or tech products having a short lifecycle, whereupon they are replaced with something that is basically the same but inherently better because it is newer. Nobody buys a smartphone or computer expecting to keep using it for 20+ years... and many don't even think that way for major purchases like vehicles. That 3-5 year cycle is so ingrained and normalized, it's just part of the assumption at the time of purchase.

 

[lowefficiency]

>> The mechanical tolerances were better in the mid to late 60’s and through the 70’s vs the 50’s and early 60’s. Oils in the 50’s and early 60’s weren’t all that
>> great either which is why engines were a bit tired before reaching 100,000 miles and the engines themselves weren’t bad but the oils were. If they still made cars
>> and engines like they did back then but since the oils have improved greatly since then, they’d easily would last to 150,000 or even 200,000 miles since oils
>> and transmission fluids have improved greatly since then.

Some lubricants of the 50s-60s were actually significantly better (in terms of chemical/mechanical properties) than those of the 70s. For example, sperm whale oil was a prime ingredient in automatic transmission fluid (and others in similar service) up through 1973 when banned by the endangered species act. After that, transmission failures rose by 700% in the following years!

Engine lifespans between eras can't realistically be linked or projected to changes of single variables. Fuel is/was substantially different, the speeds and way we drive is different, materials, tolerances, balancing, vibration allowances, consumer attitudes on preventative maintenance, road types, air and oil filter technologies, emissions and fuel economy requirements, etc, etc. Pouring modern oil into a 1950s engine isn't going to magically make it last to 200,000 miles... Classic car owners would love it if that was true!

 

[kenwashesmonday]

LowEfficiency wrote:
"Pouring modern oil into a 1950s engine isn't going to magically make it last to 200,000 miles"

Over the years, I had 3 Rambler Americans with the little flathead six that Nash designed and debuted in 1941. They ran 200,000 miles without breaking a sweat, with modern oil, and unleaded fuel. I got similar service from 2 examples the OHV version of that engine that debuted in 1956.

The 1962 & up Chevrolet straight six generally ran 500,000 miles in taxi duty. I know of no gasoline engine built today that could do that with any regularity.

The reason most cars didn't last so many miles back then was simply lack of maintenance. Did you know that a '57 Chevy is supposed to have the chassis lubricated every 1000 miles?

Today's cars require very little maintenance, and that's the main reason they last so much longer. Of course they're also safer. If you count inflation and standard equipment, they're also a lot less expensive to buy than the cars of 60/70 years ago.

 

[robbinsandmyers]

Yesterdays oils and greases left much to be desired compared to todays. My 1960 Mercedes owners manual clearly states " Todays oils are just good enough to protect your engine, proper service ensures long life ". Basically what they were saying was oil isnt the old waxy sludge you used in 1938 but it still has a ways to go. Oil changes were much more frequent as was greasing. Car engines dont sludge up anywhere near like they used to unless they're really neglected. Todays bearings and rings are made much better as well. Proof of that is the 50:1 ratio 2 strokes use. Try running 50:1 synthetic in an old 2 stroke engine and it will still fail in short order.

 

[gelaundry4ever]

fancy appliances

Even if I had fancy appliances, I'd still use them for everyday use.