Whirlpool's biggest problem was that the clout Sears had with them forced them to build a "$199 Special" model throughout the belt-drive years, I believe the DD was come up with as a means of reducing costs. Unfortunately, the basic design of the whole belt drive line rested upon that $199 special, gussied up with more options, thicker finishes, and maybe a smidge heavier sheet metal. Those DDs were a real headache when they first came out, but at least they were easy to service. The plastic motor couplers would fail on a regular basis, and the paint was no thicker than absolutely needed, so the base frames would rust pretty quickly. WP worked out the worst issues within the first 5 or 10 years, though.
Whirlpool Design 2000...
- Thread starter gelaundry4ever
- Start date
phillymatt53
Well-known member
I picked up a set of agitator dogs that gave out on me years ago, and also have that motor coupler as a spare just in case.
I will!Tune in this Wednesday and you just might get your wish....
But still I wonder: Back in 1985/6 did any consumers even notice a difference between the belt drive and the direct drive? I kind of think not, though probably notice that the DD agitated furiously. Combo do you know?
1985/6 was the segue from 24" direct-drive to 27" direct-drive for the full-size models ... 2" less width than belt-drive (other than compacts).
Direct-drive has different operational sounds than belt-drive, pauses during the cycle for mode shifting, the machine/motor shuts off completely when the lid is opened during spin which belt-drive doesn't, and a deeper basket so it seems reasonable that there was notice of those differences.
Direct-drive has different operational sounds than belt-drive, pauses during the cycle for mode shifting, the machine/motor shuts off completely when the lid is opened during spin which belt-drive doesn't, and a deeper basket so it seems reasonable that there was notice of those differences.
Whirlpool really was ahead of their time with these. Maytag or GE couldn't even touch them with a 10 foot pole. The technology was advanced, and it was called laundry engineered advanced program.
I don't think any advertising directed to consumers made any mention of a new drive system. People who went to Sears to buy a new Kenmore had no idea the new washer they were going to purchase was much different than the belt driven machine they just put out on the curb. I wonder if some people wanted their belt drive back.
phillymatt53
Well-known member
When I first got the Kenmore/Whirlpool portable washer for my previous apartment, I was stunned at the rapid agitation, but got used to it.
I keep it around as a backup in my home now, just in case my Maytag ever decides to act up.
But since it's 39 now and still going strong, I imagine the poor Kenmore will gather dust.
Some did, others didn't. One thing I like about the DD is that the laundry detergent, bleach, or fabric softener wouldn't drain out even for a second when agitation started.
vacerator
Well-known member
I distinctly remember my dad telling me that Sears training told them the belt drive platform had been sold to Canada. Didn't make much sense since Inglis had been building it for decades already.
^ A clear example of misinformation/misinterpretation.
What exactly was SO advanced in Design 2000 that the Maytags didn’t already do? Neutral drain? Wow….
Dual action agitator? That already existed.
Directly couple the motor to the transmission?
I fail to see how that’s an “advancement” when good Maytag belts could easily last 20yrs.
Design 2000 was good, and it saved WP
money, and saved their repair technicians time and money.
I still don’t see the advantage over Maytag.
Deisgn2000 approached the longevity of a Dependable Care while using less raw materials and being cheaper to build. Better balancing and no need to "fine tune" the suspension in the home. Larger capacity. Superior cleaning with super soiled loads due to the more vigorous agitation. Much easier servicing. Better rinsing when adjusted for water. Fewer leak points.
There are other advantages, but they are not coming to me.
There are other advantages, but they are not coming to me.
Yes, and GE couldn't touch them. Not even with a 10 foot pole.
Whirlpool's design was like nothing that came before or after. It was thought out in all of its long list objectives meant to meet customer and service technician expectations, tested, analyzed, and then re-engineered until all goals were met to satisfaction.
GE on the other hand copied a 60 year old design and hoped there would be just enough immediate show to milk the remaining equity out of their reputation.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2025
- Messages
- 12
You answered your own question. Saving money when manufacturing is what it is all about. Saving on the fix if required is very close behind.
Matching what others have in design and function is part of design. How can we do what "X" is doing because it's a great idea and people want it. What is the cost to copy and is there a better way -- the better way normally another way of -- how do save $$ in manufacture
phillymatt53
Well-known member
Sometimes, something is created/designed, and turns out to be extremely successful.
Smart, well organized corporations should know this well, after all, their bottom line is to stay in business, and attract a healthy customer base, which naturally insures healthy profits.
Am I right in describing this?
I try to stay on the "reality" side and the "logic" side of the road about things.
However, it appears that certain "innovations" have led to stains on corporate reputations.
It could be due to:
Corporate Management, including lack of quality control, Greed, Cutbacks on the quality of materials, Extensive Testing Procedures, Consumer Demans or Pressure, Poor Employee training or choice, and many other things.
It makes no sense to me to design and sell a product that doesn't satisfy the consumer, or fails to be reliable.
I realize that it's a rocky road trying to please everybody.
Just like people who don't always like another person for whatever reasons.
But if you produce something that has previously shown great success, why mess with it by gambling on Innovations?
Smart, well organized corporations should know this well, after all, their bottom line is to stay in business, and attract a healthy customer base, which naturally insures healthy profits.
Am I right in describing this?
I try to stay on the "reality" side and the "logic" side of the road about things.
However, it appears that certain "innovations" have led to stains on corporate reputations.
It could be due to:
Corporate Management, including lack of quality control, Greed, Cutbacks on the quality of materials, Extensive Testing Procedures, Consumer Demans or Pressure, Poor Employee training or choice, and many other things.
It makes no sense to me to design and sell a product that doesn't satisfy the consumer, or fails to be reliable.
I realize that it's a rocky road trying to please everybody.
Just like people who don't always like another person for whatever reasons.
But if you produce something that has previously shown great success, why mess with it by gambling on Innovations?
Similar threads
