Hi,
I just started checking into this discussion board today. It is great! I know very little about appliances, but am trying to learn a bit in order to make a decision about an inherited washer and dryer set.

I have an older Maytag washer/dryer set that was my grandfather's. Both the washer and dryer appear to be in very nice condition. As far as is known, the only problem is that the washer doesn't automatically(!?!) cycle through - you need to do it manually. The washer is model A806 with serial number 73986300 QO. The dryer is model 7400 (i think) with serial number 679829 NS. Both are white. If helpful I can supply a photo tomorrow.

I am trying to decide whether to hang on to the set or not. Currently we are using a washer and dryer that is about ten to fifteen years old. My wife would like to buy a new set. I would like to make any needed repairs and use the Maytag set. She wonders if the old set will be any less efficient. Does anyone have any experience with this?

The dryer is a gas dryer. Is this common for the older ones?

Thank you for any advice you can lend!

You can still get timers (new or rebuilt) for those old Maytags that you have, so get one. Those washers and dryers were one of the most efficient top loaders of their day. The new machines have NOT proved themselves in any way, shape or form, so stay away. Get your old one repaired and enjoy it! Mark

The "efficency" of a new washer has to be weighed still with the cost to the enviroment to produce it. The metal, paint, energy to create it, light the factory, the wires, components.
This is something that is somewhat untangible but certainly there is a hidden cost above the price of new someone pays for a new product versus fixing an old one that is perfectly good and would last another 10 years.

The problem with our society is that labor is more expensive in the USA to have someone fix something than to buy new.

Fortunately, if you are even quasi-handy, the Maytag is the easiest washer to self repair.

Self repair saves money and preserves classic appliances for use, and sometimes they become an art form. This is the jist of this site.

Dryers are not rated for efficency, and still pretty much use the same power/fuel today as 50 years ago. A gas dryer is generally the more efficent, depending on your utility costs. It is almost always cheaper to make heat with gas than electricity. In a lot of states, they burn natural gas to turn turbines to create electricity, so having a gas dryer, or a stove, cuts out that middle process and is eco friendly too. Electricity leaks power through transmission, to make matters even worse. Very inefficent heat source.

Go for the Maytags, they are fun and easy to keep up, parts readily available for most models can be interchanged.

The date list I have doesn't have " O " on it, perhaps yours
has a "C" or "G" for the second letter that is worn and appears to be an O. Year of production for a "Q" center dial Maytag is 1972. According to my list the dryer would have
been manufactured August 1984. FYI , Darrel

That washer is a gem of a workhorse. If it's the model with a lighted back panel, I would definitely have it repaired.

As for efficiency, yes, modern front loaders are more water and energy efficient than the 806. They are more energy efficient mainly because it takes less energy to heat five gallons of wash water than 15 to 20 gallons of wash water. They can hold more laundry, and will do better with large bulky items like rugs and comforters. However, there is a lot of affection here for washers like the Maytag you have, because of the dramatic action of all that water sloshing around, making suds. A top loader like that may also handle lint and pet hair better than a modern front loader that is quite frugal with water.

You might want to consider getting the best of both worlds: repair the 806 and use that for linty/hairy items, and then get a modern frontloader (I currently like the high end Frigidaire Affinity washer) for large items and bigger loads. That is, if your laundry area has the room.

Yes, there is an environmental impact whenever a new appliance is manufactured, vs. holding on to an old one. But that is an issue different from energy efficiency. The old washer can be sold to a collector, or donated to a needy home. And for those washers that are not worth fixing, the sheet metal can be recycled. Most people here prefer that old washers be repaired or at least kept away from the "crusher".

Pturo, your points are well made about the pro's and con's of maintainging our vintage machines. However, you stated that electricity is an inefficient heat source. Please don't forget that an elelctric heating element is as close to 100% efficient in giving up its heat energy as you can get, whereas any other fuel be it gas, oil or coal has many byproducts of their combustion which do not impart any transfer of heat to the material needing it.

I DO beleive that you meant that the inefficiency of electricty over the transmission lines would make it appear to be a less desireable means of drying clothes in this case, but there are definite inefficiencies in the way Natural gas is delivered to our homes in loses due to leaks that exist in the pipelines and losses in the streets under our neighborhoods. All of these factors are figured into the prices we pay for any given fuel. I can clearly remember a gas company employee who stated that in a particular instance on one block alone in the neighborhood I lived in that the loss of gas thru leaking joints at that location was estimated to be 25-30% of the volume passing thru that section of pipe. This was a 1000 ft stretch of residential street that had nearly every joint dug up and resealed for the whole length of the block. I have to wonder if there was a similar loss of power thru the electrical lines above the street.

Personally, I would take the gas dryer over the electric since they seem to dry more gently and the clothes just seem to be softer with no additional help from dryer sheets or fabric softeners. I still think electric dryers scorch rather than dry the clothes.

Unfortunately, when ITT planned out Palm Coast in Florida back in the 70's they never thought of having gas lines installed.Therefore, we are big users of all electric appliances. Anyone who has gas here has LP gas and it is actually gaining in popularity as a cooking fuel, pool heating fuel as well as fuel source for standby generators. This actually helps keep the prices down due to competition.

Steve,

25% loss of gas due to leaks in a single block isn't just a waste, it's a public hazard. Perhaps the sandy soil and subsoil in Florida, combined with the sinkhole problem, was responsible for the leaky lines? I understand that gas companies are busy replacing or lining existing lines with strong and somewhat flexible plastic pipe, which is less likely to leak than older iron pipes. I also recall seeing a figure of about 5% or less for the amount of energy it takes to pipe natural gas - there is little friction and gravity isn't an issue either (natural gas is lighter than air, since it's mostly methane).

Around here, if someone smells a gas leak in the street, the local utility crews are very quick to show up and fix it.

A dark side of natural gas delivery here is that in years past, PG&E injected PCB waste oil into the pipelines to combat corrosion inside the metal pipes. Some of that PCB wound up in customer's gas flames. PG&E maintained that the process of combustion would render the PCB's harmless, but not everyone buys that story. I could see problems when a gas appliance isn't jetted right, and the flame doesn't get enough (or too much) oxygen, and combustion is incomplete. Supposely the PCB's have now all been absorbed into the walls of the pipes and is no longer showing up in customers' homes. I like natural gas but I think PG&E was criminally negligent for injecting a known toxin into natural gas lines.

Thanks for the comments. This is a great resource.
I definitely would like to keep the washer and dryer. It sounds like I could handle most of the repairs...especially with a little help from this site!
Daryl, thanks for checking out the serial numbers. Where did you get the list from? I googled my heart out trying to find one. All I came up with was a wringer washer list. I'm going to try to get a couple photos up and check the model and serial numbers. The 'Q' may be an 'O'. I wasn't sure if the squiggle at the bottom of the Q was a scratch or not. And you're right, the 'O' may be something else.
Pturo, I agree wholeheartedly with you about considering the costs to produce something new versus reusing. I forgot to use that in my sales pitch to my wife. It sounds like I may have to concede to her that a new washing machine and dryer would use less water and gas/electricity day to day, but over a longer period of time, the old Maytags will(may) have a lower total cost if we have to buy a new set in five years. Plus as mentioned we preserve some great design and manufacturing.
If anyone else has any thoughts I would love to hear them...and when I get better info up it would be great to know a little more about them!
Thanks again...

One does not use a classic washer and dryer and worry about efficiency... To do so completely misses the point...

crt, I got the list from a fellow aw.oite and also a lessser
one from a maytag dealer in the past. I'll do my best to send you the file if you'd like , just say the word!

I think this thread is in an area of distinguishing the difference of the cost to run something and the cost to the environment to produce it and run it.

Clearly, the individual consumer pays the cost to acquire and run a machine and that can be measured, pro-rated and compared based on utility rates. Thats why we have energy efficency ratings.

I am suggesting we reach a little further and assign a cost to the environment to produce something new. The individual consumer does not pay this cost directly, but the planet does.

I agree that electricity at its end point is very efficent for heat in that gives back 100% of what you put into it.

The point is that the generation of electricty can be a dirty process, coal, nuclear,burning gas. It seems dumb to me to use fossil fuels to produce electricity where the fossil fuel can be used for the same purpouse on the spot, ie cooking, heating, drying clothes, even running air conditioning coolers can be done with natural gas. Would you buy the car carrier that shipped your new car too, put your car on it and drive it around?

Until we have a good way to measure environmental efficiency/cost of a given product or service, we are not able to readily make choices with the environment as a factor. Perhaps someday there will be an environmental rating system like the government energy efficency rating of appliances.

We really have to re-think beyond the immediate individual costs if there is any chance to save this planet, IMHO.

This website is certainly aesthetic in it's slant, but it is unwittingly green in it's endevors to restore and reuse things that can last another lifetime, curbing the demand for new production of appliances. We get to have great art and a cleaner planet.

Who was it that said "I don't want life to imitate art, I want life to be art"?

Hi and welcome on board.
Maytags of that era are among the best machines you can buy, regardless of age.
The decision is really very simple. If you want a Top Loader (TL) then the Maytag is worth repairing, regardless of what it may need (probably just the "dogs" have gone, but that part is no longer available, so you will need the timer motor. 'Bout $15 or so. Do not take the timer apart, just replace the motor.
If energy and water savings are a must, then a FL would be a better choice.
Me? This is one of the very few TLs I would take over a front loader. High speed spin, super cleaning action, beautiful piece of reliable machinery.
Do go through this site and the archives, just about every aspect of that machine has been discussed which might possibly interest you.
Either way, hope you stick around - we've got a lot of interesting ideas here.
panthera(Keven)

Thanks for your reply, Sudsmaster, but this actually happened many years ago on my Uncle's block in WOodhaven, NY(Queens). There was always a smell of gas when the air was still and while Brooklyn Union Gas swore that Natural gas doesnt kill trees, it was very coincidental that nearly every tree on the side of the block with the gas main on it was either dead or in seriously weakened condition. They fixed all the leaks in the main and now that street has lots of new and beautiful tress on it.
It was thier supervisor who gave the estimate of loss of gas on that block alone.

Steve,

I don't doubt that what you described actually happened, it just hasn't been my experience here out on the West Coast. I noticed a gas odor on the street where I used to live about 15 years ago. I called the gas company, and they had trucks out there digging things up in short order. OK, they did seem a bit flakey on the phone - like they didn't understand what I meant by the words "I smell gas on the street" but apparently once they got the concept they dealt with it promptly.

Last time I checked, both Florida and New York are on the same coast, but no matter. Perhaps the gas pipes in Queens were put in around the same time the Dutch settled Manhattan.

Hello everybody - back from holiday again...
Well, actually there is something to keep in mind concerning the sources of energy you use for heating (water, air, cooking, etc.)!!
Stevet, you are right to say that the emitted heat of an electric heater element is almost 100% given to the medium that surrounds it (water, air, solid material) and therefor SEEMS to be a good source for heat. But didn't you forget something in your calculation? You say, the leakage of gas-pipes is a waste - correct and dangerous as well and MUST be shut down immediately and also is to be put under the light of publicity! BUT you seem to forget certain points namely that power-stations use the same leaking gas-pipes as well!
Gas-burners nowadays usually have an average efficiency of some 90-95%, coal furnaces, when modern, 75-85% as well as oil-burners with about 85-90%, both in private places as well as in power-stations. BUT Electricity gives only 33-35% of the in-put energy back when re-transmitted into heat, so it is the WORST way to produce heat at all. Not to mention all the bad effects power-station have generally on the environment, especially when it comes to nuclear-power and coal-power! The only really "good" way to produce electricity is actually by wind, sun, water & bio-fuel (with restriction of some kind). The best way is to avoid the use of electricity at all wherever it is possible! And the non-plus-ultra wisdom of any kind of energy usage is? Not to use any kind of energy at all, where possible, except muscle-power! Sounds so easy - but we all do it diametrically the other way round!
One example: orange-juice.
The normal and natural way is to take a few oranges (ok, bought by car mostly) which need not to be kept in the fridge, cut them, squeeze them by hand and drink the juice - that's it! There's just one glass that needs to be washed and a squeezer that can easily be rinsed with even cold water under the tap.
Instead we buy (with the car) preserved (heated) juice in plastic bottles (petrol), which was produced in huge factories (with electricity - effectivity: 30-35%!) and then transported to the shops (lorries), keep it in the (electric) fridge, drink it from the same glass as mentioned above and throw the bottle away when empty (to be carried away with lorries to the garbage)!
We use electric can-openers, electric knives, electric coffee-mills, electric lawn-mowers, electric hedge-trimmers, etc. instead of our muscles and then drive by car to the fitness center to train our weakened muscles again to avoid to become ill.... SICK!
Actually it should be forbidden or very restricted to use electricity as any kind of a heat-source at all!

Ralf

I really don't think the difference in energy consumption of different washers makes much (if any) real difference in the scheme of things. Besides many modern front loaders are not as effective at washing or, in particular, rinsing as they could be if they used a little more electricity and water. At the end of the day even the most eco-consious person must admit that a washng machine still needs to use enough resources to do it's job properly.

I have to disagree with the claim that top loaders rinse better than front loaders. Technically, multiple rinses are superior to single or double deep rinses in removing traces of soap/detergent/dirt. Granted, they may not be as good at removing lint and hair. But four rinses in a front loader are as good as the typical single deep rinse and multiple spray/spin rinses of a traditional top loader. Plus, they use less water.

Way back in the middle ages I had a summer job at UC Davis in the Nutrition department lab. My job was to wash lab glassware. I was carefully instructed not to skimp on the number of rinses - had it drilled into my head the benefit of multiple rinses. I have carried this lesson over into my everyday life, and found that in nearly all cases, it's true.

thanks for all of the advice. i've decided to make any needed repairs and use this set.
i'm hoping to identify when these machines were produced.
i've got some photos of the washer and dryer below.
previously, i posted the model numbers and serial numbers. the info for the washer was incorrect. the correct number for the washer is: model A806; serial 739863 QU.
the dryer is: model 7400; serial 679829 NS.
any thoughts?

the list I am using dates your washer as having been
manufactured September 1972.
I'm not 100% sure that the list I have also covers dryers ;
I was looking at the more recent designations when I made the
August 1984 claim.
However, seeing it makes a difference ; according to the
codes I have, the dryer was produced December 1957 (Happy 50th,
crt's dryer!)
(Fun Facts) At this time my daily driver dryer is mdl DE806,
ser 398447 SM ; hence produced June 1973; I think it's the exact mate to your Washer. It's a good thing that you're
keeping them in service. A very nice pair!!!

Oh yes, and it's a gas dryer! My little early 70's Maytag gas model was the most consistently quiet and absolutely reliable and efficient dryer I've ever owned. That thing just purred regardless of what kind of load you'd throw at it. Even at 50 years old, I wouldn't expect anything less from yours. And the washer needs no additional PR than what has already been posted here--it is likely as quiet and efficient as the day it left the factory. Slap that new timer motor in and enjoy your pair! Even if they're not perfectly matched on the surface, they are soulmates underneath.

That A806 is a quite a desirable washer. Anything with a lighted control panel is a plus, and the 06 line has some added flexibility in terms of wash/rinse temps that later, "eco" versions don't have (like hot wash/warm rinse, I understand).

The dryer is nice too - but it would probably be happier paired with a 700 series washer.

I'm so glad to hear you're going to keep them and make the needed repairs. they are keepers!!!

Hey folks!
Is the dryer one of the ventless models?
Bobby in Boston

Bobby, it can't be ventless if it's a gas dryer.

I think everyone here will agree with me when I say that it just does not get any better than an older Maytag. I doubt you'll ever regret keeping these. Quite a few of our members have these sets as their daily drivers, and can attest to the fact that they still offer bulletproof reliability, even into their 30+ years old. There's nothing like an older Maytag!!

Andrew, I have two 30 year old Maytag washers and one dryer and they are the best built thing America ever produced. Brillantly simple in design, and when repairs are required, why even a Cave Man could do it.

Bobby, Maytag gas dryers have the telltale trap door on the bottom up until about 1995. Gas dryers are now required to be vented to the outside, but I cant say that was the case in 1957. I looked at the labeling inside the door of my DG906 and it said"This dryer should be vented to the outdoors", circa 1967. Carbon Monoxide was not a big issue in the 50's, homes were not weathertight as they are now. We had a cabin in the Adirondacks that had an unvented gas heater in it, but it was a cabin. I don't know of a condensing dryer that was gas fired and unvented, however. It's a good question.

Back in 1957, asbestos was a miracle fiber, too, so times change.

That dryer is the last of the non-Halo of Heat dryers that has a glow-coil ignition system instead of a standing pilot. The gas system is accessed through the door on the dryer top and the lint screen-drawer in the lower right corner. A little larger drum than the HOH, lower air-flow with a 3" vent. I've only seen a couple of these, one was a '56 model at an estate sale and the other was a pink version of this 57 model at a shop in Newton, Iowa.