What is the real story regarding GM/Frigidaire Washers?

[launderess]

Do not think there is or was a washer more hated by Consumer Reports than the "thumper" or Jet Action washing machines by GM/Frigidaire. Almost every report one has read form the 1950's and 1960's CR trashes the units for one particular fault or another. Tangling is the biggest beef, but there were other niggles as well.

From the way some go on here about the units I thought they were the best thing since sliced white bread in a plastic bag. *LOL*

 

[frigilux]

Insert emoji of a horse head in a bed here, LOL.

 

[launderess]

Mr. Frigilux, you is bad.

*LOL*

 

[frigilux]

Tangling was a problem with the Unimatics. The Olsons, two doors down from us, had a TOL '58 pair and both husband and wife absolutely hated the washer for that reason. I explained that it needed to be loaded in quadrants to minimize tangling, but they refused to do that. I even tried to talk my parents into trading our '60 Kenmore Model 80 pair for the Olsons' Frigidaires, but there was no convincing them.

Actually, I believe the 58's were top-rated by CR, weren't they?

Before and after that, not so much.

 

[philr]

I use my Frigidaire washers daily and I never had tangling issues but I have seen some people load them incorrectly, get no turnover and unbalanced spin...

 

Earlier this week, I replaced the spider, seals and bearings in my parent's 2006 LG WM2077 front load washer and even if I am bored with these machines, I have to admit they are almost fool proof! They are also easier to service than many old machines. As long as you don't overload them or put too much or the wrong type of detergent you'll get constant results. They don't need to be monitored

 

Their machine doesn't have a water heater or very high spin speed but when I did a test load after the repairs were done, I had to appreciate how a mechanically simple machine, with a direct drive DC motor and very few moving parts just with the help of sensors and electronics could balance it's load so effectively and achieve the same 1000 RPM speed as my Rollermatics. It's just more boring to see the load-balancing process...

 

I don't care much about my clothes, I never wear fancy clothes and never iron them so I really don't need a machine that's very delicate on clothes and I won't complain if I get wrinkles on my $15 jeans or my $5-$10 T-shirts! As long as stains are mostly gone and the clothes smell clean, I'm fine!

I never use the Wash-N-Wear, Delicate or Permanent Press cycles other than to test them, everything needs to spin fast. I do like the extra-rinse and soak/pre-wash cycles but I mostly use the Regular Colorfast or non Colorfast cycles and sometimes use the "special" cycle.

 

So I am more concerned about the action from the machine than with the results on clothes but I think the results are OK with old Frigidaire thumpers! 

 

My only other concern is the capacity, I never need a big capacity to wash my clothes but for some things like bedspreads, the 12 pounds or less solid-tub machines don't do too well. And even in a 1-18, loading some kinds of bedspreads all around the agitator isn't very effective... These machines work best with towels

 

 

 

[alr2903]

There are remembrances posted here by member's that were lucky enough to use or attend with their parents  a coin op Frigidaire store.  IIRC, none of these accounts report  failure and confusion, just really clean laundry in (23?) minutes and many items spun so dry they were "ready to iron".

I think it was a brave move for manufacturers to put their equipment in a coin op store.  It might be time to repeat a good idea.  It would be good  for manufacturers to put up a few coin  stores so people could try expensive machines for themselves before they go out and buy one.  CU never had much nice to say about the older ST SQ's either. It was kind of hard to sway the public, chances were most people had used a ST SQ washer. _A

 

[tomturbomatic]

If CU's hate of the Frigidaires was irrational...

so was their devotion to Maytag washers. The only times they spoke less than glowingly of Maytag washers were when they talked of the capacity in the AMP being only 5 pounds and then that report in the mid 70s showing the standard tub Maytag next to the large capacity Whirlpool. Three laundry baskets were beside the Maytag while only two baskets were beside the Whirlpool indicating that the Maytag took three loads to wash what the Whirlpool could wash in two. After that, they never tested the small tub Maytag washer again. During the early years of the capacity wars, CU even went so far as to claim that the Maytag washer in the 1960s was not overloaded with a 12 pound load while the Kenmore was. It is obvious that nobody in the testing labs ever held in the lid switch to watch the agitation, nor did they care to see what was happening. They also intensely disliked front loaders to the point of not testing them for almost a decade until after a letter from a subscriber asked if, in light of concerns over energy efficiency, front loading washers were still available. CU could not find much of anything bad to say about the machines except that the capacity was not as great as the largest top loaders.

To some extent, people with knowledge of the various products tested could usually find faults with CU's testing methods and ratings. One example was their bias against 4 cylinder engines in Japanese cars. Their reported noise and roughness were never present in either of my Toyotas with 4 cylinder engines.

 

[launderess]

Actually, I believe the 58's were top-rated by CR...

Couldn't find anything in my 1958 buying guide about washing machines. However in the 1956 issue such appliances were covered and no, Frigidaire's washers didn't get a "red check" rating.

CR tested the WO-65-2 and rated it average in cleaning ability but tangled clothing "horribly". They did give it high marks (better than average) for extraction ability.

 

[arbilab]

I used a 3-ring (not 'cone'/astronaut) at a rent property in 1967. Recall absolutely nothing wrong with it. It ran like a 62 Pontiac drove.

Do believe hydraulic force vs. mechanical force wears fabric less.

Also believe CR regularly gets bloviant without catching it within editorial channels.

 

[norgeway]

CU also said in the 60s

That a Norge couldn't handle as large a load as many could and that a Maytag had better washing ability,a TAG was more reliable yes, but a Norge in the 60s would wash twice as much cleaner than a Maytag,As for Frigidaires tangling, yes...BUT if clothes are really tangled, it means they REALLY have been moved around!

 

[frigilux]

Once upon a time there were some vintage CR articles here. I'm sure that one year Frigidaire was on top. Maybe it wasn't '58, but it was before the Deep Action space capsule agitators, so pre-1964. The tangling issue was eased with the introduction of the Deep Action agitator, which turned the load over at a more moderate pace.

 

I had a 1-18 for awhile back in the early 90's (a behind-the-appliance-store rescue that came from my physician's house) and I don't recall any serious tangling issues with its Jet Cone agitator.

 

My sister and brother-in-law lived in an apt. building in 1967-69 with one of the early Frigidaire coin-ops. It had a Deep Action agitator but no cap. Thought someone had misplaced it; found out later that the coin-ops didn't have caps. Always felt the agitator had to be losing some of the 'lint-away' power since water was shooting out the top of the agitator instead of pushing outward from the holes that were supposed to chase lint over the top of the tub. (Note: An incorrect assumption looking at Photo 1.)  I stayed with them during the summer and may have stolen a cap from a dealership's washer to use whenever I did laundry with the coin-op.  Two dimes bought 20 minutes of viewing pleasure!

 

Photo 1: A repost of something PhilR put up a couple of years ago, showing how water entered/exited the Deep Action Agitator. Interestingly, it's called a Jet Cone on the page, which I assume was designed for dealers. Was that the terminology used in Canada? The classic space-capsule agitator caps said "Deep Action Agitator" in the US. I thought Jet Cones were on the 1-18's---or is this a case of interchangeable names?

 

Photo 2: Deep Action, courtesy of joelippard.

 

Photo 3: Cap of a 1-18 agitator. If you pull out your magnifying glass, you'll see it says Jet Cone.

 

Link: Robert's thread about his coin-op washer. Notice that it is pointed out the original agitator on Unimatic coin-ops was one of the rubber ring pulsators.  The machine I used was definitely a Unimatic but it had a Deep Action; must have been changed out, as well. Also noticed I mistakenly posted it was two quarters per wash; I'm sure that's wrong, as I recall hoarding dimes for weeks before going to my sister's for the summer.

 

A Collective Pat On The Back To Our Members: It's amazing how photos from AW dominate any Google search about American washing machines. We rock!

[this post was last edited: 7/31/2015-09:22]

Work Begins on the 1960 Coin-op

I've begun working on the 1960 Coin-op, it appears that the washer mechanism is working perfectly with no issues. It probably could some oil, but otherwise its fine. The only problem I can find with the machine is the water temperature switch is defective. So I wired in a 3 position toggleswitch...

www.automaticwasher.org

 

[launderess]

This is a WO-65-2?

Seems pretty impressive roll-over action compared to later Jet Cone designs.

 

[launderess]

Just for giggles and leffs.... A Snorge

I mean Norge....

 

[cuffs054]

I didn't know the Norge thru that much water and that forcefully through the agvavator. I would think the lint filter would have been very effective, certainly equal to the GE.
I have always loved the thumpers. My "aunt" always had them and I would beg her to let me play with them, facinating design.

 

[frigilux]

(This post was me freaking out due to some glitch that occurred while I was correcting usage in the three-volume novel-length post above.  The entire thing crunched into one huge text block. I tried again a few minutes later and was able to divide everything back into paragraphs. Smelling salts not required after all, LOL.)

 

While I'm here...thanks for the videos, Launderess.  Love that spitting' Montgomerynorge.  Awesome.

 

And... Couldn't find an emoji of a horse head in a bed, but here's something for the tree next Christmas!

[this post was last edited: 7/31/2015-09:47]

 

[tomturbomatic]

Actually it was the Frigidaire that was top-rated for 1958. The Frigidaire was one of 4 top rated machines, along with the Maytag, the Norge and the Lady Kenmore. This confidence in the Frigidaire was reinforced in the January, 1959 report on the 1959 models of the 4 top-rated machines from 1958. Of course, what CU did not know was that the machine had been radically redesigned with a new mechanism and a smaller motor that lasted only a short time in the field forcing Frigidaire to replace all of the motors in the redesigned machines. I also remember from either a Consumer Reports or Consumer Research Bulletin the statement that once Frigidaire started putting the loading directions on the underside of the lid with the tub pictured as if divided into 4 sections, the tangling seen in previous models was greatly reduced. A friend's mom used to roll up sheets with her two arms to prepare them for loading into their '57 machine.

 

[bwoods]

Phenominal machnes, but hated by many

My personal experience with my two 1-18's is that they are a very capable machine. From my experience, they clear the tub of suds and rinse better than any machine I ever had, my GE filter-flo comes close but not quite the equal of the Frigidaire.

I don't think any machine gets clothes much if any cleaner, AS LONG AS IT'S NOT OVERLOADED.

My ramped agitator General Electric Filter-Flo can be packed with clothes until I physically cannot get any more in. And it will always have rollover, albeit sometimes a little slow. And things always get clean.

My biggest fault with the Frigidaire, is I have to do smaller loads. Rollover is phenomenal but there seems to be this point where if you exceed it, rollover doesn't slow--it just stops. Jeans are horrible for this. The agitator is going up and down and the clothes are just sitting there, what's on top stays on top. Oftentimes an item or two even works itself on top of the agitator.

When I had the large fabric softener on the agitator, this prevented that from happening and it actually seemed to help push the clothes down into the water. However, the tabs eventually gave way on the fabric softener from the constant force of the clothes on the underside of it pushing upward.

So if you are careful to not exceed the rollover capacity, I think the 1-18 is almost without equal in cleaning and rinsing ability.

But if you are like me and abuse your machine regularly try to save time and resources by putting as much as you can to cut down on the number of loads, then the Frigidaire is not for you.

I never had a problem with tangling. I did get holes/rips in towels more often than I cared to. My former girlfriend's family had a 1-18 in the seventies and her mom complained of holey towels as well.

Every machine has some type of limitation, but overall I think the 1-18's are a uniquely wonderful machine and don't deserve the bad reputation that the seem to have gotten.

My dad hated them just because of bad word of mouth from his cronies where he worked, and wouldn't buy one. My brother-in-law worked for Frigidaire in Dayton, Ohio from 1966 on. Apparently the 1-18's had a bad rep even among the Frigidaire employees and he and my sister bought a GE Filter-Flo for their first full-sized W/D set (they did previously have a Frigidaire "Skinny-Mini" compact) even though he would have gotten the Frigidaire/GM discount on the 1-18's. Go figure.

If you want really clean clothes, super rinsed clothes then the 1-18 is for you. Just watch your load size and enjoy. And as a bonus, they are a FUN machine. They were made back in the days when the government wasn't coming into your home and telling you how much water, and the temperature of the water you can use, to wash and rinse your clothes and dishes.

 

[philr]

Eugene, I think the document showing the "Jet Cone" agitator is from 1964-65 and shows 1965 models. Frigidaire did call their agitators Jet Cone before they had it written on the 1-18 agitator caps. I think the image I previously posted and the image below were originally posted by Ken (Bajaespuma). 

 

Barry, If I recall correctly, I got one of my fabric softener dispensers from you and it's in very good shape. I guess you had bought a spare for your machine!

 

For traditional top-loading machines, I think they are also more water-efficient than many as they work great with low water levels. The 1-18 models even better as you can set the level much lower on these.  

 

[bwoods]

softener

Yes, Phil, you bought that softener dispenser from me. As you say, it was a spare and had never been used. I was happy to sell it to another Frigidaire Jet Action Washer fan.

I wish Frigidaire had carried over the "Rapid Dry 1000" spin to their 1-18 line. That would have made them close to being a virtually perfect washer.