For one year, I think 1990, Whirlpool offered a water saving recycling washing machine. It was direct drive. I have one and it's still going strong. The only thing I've had to replace is one plastic knob. I don't use the recycle function very often but do when we are in drought. You can get water saving recycling machines now, but in this, I think Whirlpool was decades ahead of their time.
When was Whirlpool ahead of their time?
- Thread starter gelaundry4ever
- Start date
Help Support :
There’s been some debate as to when Whirlpool started to decline, but I’d argue the decline began once they went to the direct drives. The direct drives have (and still have) issues with the transmission and slipping into spin when it’s cold or the neutral drain pack fails, the belt drives could never slip into spin because of the design.
Belt drives could have issues with the transmission, but was seldom compared to the direct drives.
The biggest gripe about the direct drives is the rinsing performance since they don’t do multiple spray rinses on the first spin to rinse away the soapy water and detergent. Another thing that affects the rinsing performance as well on the direct drives is the pump runs in either direction vs the belt drives which have it only run on a single direction. My hypothesis is on the direct drives is the soapy water that’s left in the drain hose gets pumped back into the tub when it begins the agitation for rinse. Since the pump aerates, it can kick up some suds in the rinse.
The belt drives on the other hand only have a pump running in a singular direction, since there’s multiple spray rinses on the first spin, it essentially pushes away the soapy water away as much as possible. There will be some of the soapy water in the pump, drain hose that will make it’s way back into the tub but will be pumped away for a second or so before the transmission engages for the rinse agitation. Since there’s even more spray rinses on the final spin, it pushes away even more of the soapy water (what little there is left in the rinse) away. Just an observation I’ve made over the years.
The whole premise of a thread entitled when did whirlpool start to decline is ridiculous.
Yes, you can go on endlessly about this or that was worse, but you’re not looking at all. The things that are better, by any major whirlpool is building better appliances today than they have ever built and they’re building more of them.
They have a significant presence in more than 60 countries, building millions of appliances a year.
Brands, like whirlpool KitchenAid and Maytag or some of the most highly respected appliance brands today.
It’s really better to talk about specific problems and appliances here and there but to start a thread saying when did whirlpool start to go bad or Maytag or GE or anybody else for that matter is really not getting anywhere or helping anybody understand appliances better
Yes, you can go on endlessly about this or that was worse, but you’re not looking at all. The things that are better, by any major whirlpool is building better appliances today than they have ever built and they’re building more of them.
They have a significant presence in more than 60 countries, building millions of appliances a year.
Brands, like whirlpool KitchenAid and Maytag or some of the most highly respected appliance brands today.
It’s really better to talk about specific problems and appliances here and there but to start a thread saying when did whirlpool start to go bad or Maytag or GE or anybody else for that matter is really not getting anywhere or helping anybody understand appliances better
I agree.
But some people here are OpinionATED
LOL! This whole thread is just “opinion”
And noooo data.
Hot take.
I don’t even consider the Direct Drive “technologically advanced.” There’s nothing “advanced” about it. If anything it was cheaper for WP to make vs. the belt drive. We customers were just lucky it was also durable.
The Maytag helical is I think more technically advanced, just for the inventiveness and sheer simplicity of the helix engagement and NO clutch. Just using the slipping belt as a clutching mechanism.
Marketing-wise, I guess you could argue Whirlpool’s self cleaning filters were nifty technology.
Performance is mostly in the cycle programming, which WP had was pretty good. Sans the poor spray rinsing.
The Dual Action agitator launched via Kenmore was pretty revolutionary I’d also say. But those were launched on the belt drives, so….
I don’t even consider the Direct Drive “technologically advanced.” There’s nothing “advanced” about it. If anything it was cheaper for WP to make vs. the belt drive. We customers were just lucky it was also durable.
The Maytag helical is I think more technically advanced, just for the inventiveness and sheer simplicity of the helix engagement and NO clutch. Just using the slipping belt as a clutching mechanism.
Marketing-wise, I guess you could argue Whirlpool’s self cleaning filters were nifty technology.
Performance is mostly in the cycle programming, which WP had was pretty good. Sans the poor spray rinsing.
The Dual Action agitator launched via Kenmore was pretty revolutionary I’d also say. But those were launched on the belt drives, so….
Sean, I have definitely found that my Whirlpool belt drive has the clearest rinsing. With the KitchenAid the water seems cloudy a lot. Oddly enough, it clears up if I use some fabric softener, but the belt drive the rinsing for the most part is clean with a little bit of suds on top, but that also gets sprayed off during the spin.
The Kenmore belt drive on the other hand always has foam in the wash when you hear the pump running. Sometimes it foams up and other times it doesn't. All because it's an active filter I assume.
What about their futuristic looking control panels on their high end models including in the Kenmore line?
I wish all washers would do this. I remember my GE filter-flo would spray rinse before the deep rinse. My model T GE wouldn't do a spray rinse until the final spin. We used softener anyway.
I like how the pump aerates during high speed agitation on direct drives.
