Thread Number: 21827
Maytag vs Whirlpool 1970's Washtubs |
[Down to Last] |
|
Post# 343345 , Reply# 1   4/18/2009 at 15:31 (5,485 days old) by kenmoreguy64 (Charlotte, NC)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Hi Harry, I saw the pics of the '76 Whirlpool. Very cool washer by the way... That's about consistent with the Kenmores of that time which stated they had 2.68 or 2.69 cu. ft (I can't remember which). The whirlpool agitator most definitely takes up less space in the same basket than a Penta-Swirl, which is actually a space hog. There is a huge gap of space under that agitator from the five wide vanes. I'm going to attach a few pics which may show you what I mean more clearly... |
Post# 343346 , Reply# 2   4/18/2009 at 15:34 (5,485 days old) by kenmoreguy64 (Charlotte, NC)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 343347 , Reply# 3   4/18/2009 at 15:37 (5,485 days old) by kenmoreguy64 (Charlotte, NC)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 343348 , Reply# 4   4/18/2009 at 15:39 (5,485 days old) by kenmoreguy64 (Charlotte, NC)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 343349 , Reply# 5   4/18/2009 at 15:41 (5,485 days old) by kenmoreguy64 (Charlotte, NC)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 343351 , Reply# 6   4/18/2009 at 15:47 (5,485 days old) by kenmoreguy64 (Charlotte, NC)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
I always knew that some newer large capacity machines had two rows of holes (perfs) on the bottom of the tub, while older versions had four. What took me a while to notice, basically until I had two machines side by side for sale way back when was that the Dual-Action in one machine sat much lower into the tub ring than the other. To satisfy myself, I got out a yard-stick and measured. The newer machines are about 3/4 of an inch less deep than the older, and 5/8 of an inch narrower. The two machines DO NOT use the same outer tubs. A 1968 to early 1981 basket will not fit into the outer tub of a late 1981 thru 1986 machine. |
Post# 343381 , Reply# 8   4/18/2009 at 18:23 (5,485 days old) by kenmoreguy64 (Charlotte, NC)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Thanks Melvin! The part I think you're talking about is called a 'tub outlet hose', which is sandwiched in between the baseplate and outer tub. It runs through a hole in the baseplate, and secures to the manifold trap, aka 'button trap' and 'reservoir' as you called it. If that item is leaking, I ALWAYS throw it away, but you have to remove the outer tub to get at it. There were two different parts used in non-portable belt drive machines since 1960 or so. The first one is part number 93553 and fits all standard capacity machines and the later large capacity machines (with the two rows of bottom tub holes). The extra big machines use part 96386, which has been discontinued by Whirlpool, but some online sites have them, and last I checked Sears did online too. Never let a tub leak from this hose if you can avoid it. The area stays wet due to lack of air flow in the area, and the baseplate can rust and distort, making a new seal later on very difficult to seat properly. I'll help you replace one if you need to! Gordon |
Post# 343451 , Reply# 11   4/19/2009 at 05:45 (5,484 days old) by kenmoreguy64 (Charlotte, NC)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Melvin and Harry: Yes I did rebuild all these machines. The worst was the 1986 machine, with severe trauma to the transmission and bearings due to water in tne centerpost. The transmission was full of a thick, gooey water & oil mixture that resembled molasses. The 1980 machine has been in the family since 1989 when I bought it for my sister from a refurbisher for her first apartment after college. She retired it in 2000 and gave it back to me. It went into storage immediately until March of 2008. The 1982 machine came out of Arizona and looked like a high-mileage unit so I fully rebuilt it including new centerpost bearings. The 1977 machine I have owned since 1990 when it was traded into Sears for something new. It had been used for some time as an industrial mop-head washer and needed a replacement basket and outer tub as whatever the users washed with completely ate away the porcelain on both surfaces. I had found that replacement basket while scavenging at a used appliance store years ago. I don't have any videos, but do intend to take some at some point when I get a camera capable of it. I will however get some console shots. None of these have the features checklists still attached. Removing the outer tubs WILL NOT make the leak issues worse if you replace the outlet hose and the centerpost gasket. Care needs to be taken to guard the tub lip where the centerpost gasket mounts. Previously leaky machines that have sat for 5 years, etc. are probably likely to leak worse when they are reintroduced into service. It is NOT possible to put a 1980 washer's tub and basket into another style belt-drive machine unless it has the baseplate designed for the largest capacity machines. The tub outlet hose and the tub mounting screws won't match-up. The suspension rods of the later 1981 and newer machines are too short also. As well, the short centerpost of the 1978 and later models makes a 1980 machine's basket limited to a 1978 to 1981 machine. Essentially interchangeable components are limited as follows: - 1960-1978 standard capacity - 1968-1978 18 lb. capacity Little to nothing above the baseplate is interchangeable between these two capacities. Commonality continues to 1981 for the above if you exclude the basket and centerpost components. - Later 1981-1987 standard capacity (Whirlpool and commercial Kenmore only) - Later 1981-1986 large capacity Commonality is much greater with these two capacities in that they use the same baseplate and only different suspension rod lengths. A benefit of the mild 1981 re-design is the interchaneability of most parts between these two machines. Even the tub rings are the same. Standard capacity machines of this era are less common, but noteable in that they have the three "patches" of lower perfs like the large capacity machines instead of the previous continuous circle of perfs. I'm guessing that's clear as mud now.... Gordon |