|
Thread Number: 23862
POD - August 12, 2009 |
[Down to Last] |  |
Post# 371463 8/12/2009 at 07:16 (5,367 days old) by turquoisedude  (.) |
||
Wow - we had the same dishwasher when I was a brat, but in a portable model! It replaced the ol' Viking top-loader in 1979 and it was in use right up until my father sold his farm in Western Ontario in 2006... The machine cleaned wonderfully, but I think it may have been one of the noisiest damn dishwashers I have used and that includes the MobileMaid!! lol | ||
|
|
Post# 371478 , Reply# 1 8/12/2009 at 09:47 (5,367 days old) by frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
 | ||
|
Post# 371482 , Reply# 2 8/12/2009 at 10:00 (5,367 days old) by turquoisedude (.) |
||
|
Oh boy, I remember reading about the water usage of the GE Potscrubber in the Consumer Reports magazine - they rated it as the most expensive machine to use in terms of overall energy costs because of how much hot water it went through! I think a KitchenAid model was the 'Recommended Buy' back in '79 but around here, the KA ran like $850 and we were able to pick up the GE from Eatons (thanks to employee discounts) for $480.
| ||
|
Post# 371499 , Reply# 4 8/12/2009 at 11:38 (5,367 days old) by kenmoreguy64 (Charlotte, NC) |
||
We had the machine on the right in our house in Denver, which we built in summer 1977. My mom previously had left a built-in KDS-17 in Michigan, which she loved. The builder's appliance supplier didn't carry KitchenAid and to get another comparable Superba was going to cost too much $$ so my folks went with the Potscrubber 950 instead. We loved it. Surprisingly, even in water stingy Denver, we never complained about that water use, but we never rinsed our dishes and it never failed us. What my mother missed most about that machine was the forced air drying, which we could hear running. When we came to Charlotte and our house had a 1983 Potscrubber 900, we were sure the fan wasn't working, until we learned it didn't have one. Mom still misses fan drying to this day. I enjoyed the machine as every once in a while when nobody else was home, I'd reverse the panels and put the Almond away in favor of Coppertone, Avocado, etc. and see how long it took for anyone to notice. One time we went overnight before someone saw the gold. | ||
| Post# 371502 , Reply# 5 8/12/2009 at 11:57 (5,367 days old) by andrewinorlando () | ||
|
Those were about some of the finest dishwashers GE ever made. To this day, I never understood why they abandoned that three spray arm design in favor of the dopey pop up tower. Those machines could clean anything, and left no deposits behind. | ||
|
Post# 371505 , Reply# 6 8/12/2009 at 12:06 (5,367 days old) by peteski50 (New York) |
||
GE | ||
|
Post# 371523 , Reply# 7 8/12/2009 at 13:07 (5,367 days old) by gansky1 (Omaha, The Home of the TV Dinner!) |
||
But it did have forced air drying! | ||
|
Post# 371524 , Reply# 8 8/12/2009 at 13:11 (5,367 days old) by gansky1 (Omaha, The Home of the TV Dinner!) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 371526 , Reply# 9 8/12/2009 at 13:11 (5,367 days old) by gansky1 (Omaha, The Home of the TV Dinner!) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 371527 , Reply# 10 8/12/2009 at 13:12 (5,367 days old) by gansky1 (Omaha, The Home of the TV Dinner!) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 371528 , Reply# 11 8/12/2009 at 13:14 (5,367 days old) by gansky1 (Omaha, The Home of the TV Dinner!) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 371529 , Reply# 12 8/12/2009 at 13:14 (5,367 days old) by turquoisedude (.) |
||
|
OOH! A China/Crystal cycle! | ||
|
Post# 371530 , Reply# 13 8/12/2009 at 13:15 (5,367 days old) by gansky1 (Omaha, The Home of the TV Dinner!) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 371532 , Reply# 14 8/12/2009 at 13:18 (5,367 days old) by gansky1 (Omaha, The Home of the TV Dinner!) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 371533 , Reply# 15 8/12/2009 at 13:20 (5,367 days old) by gansky1 (Omaha, The Home of the TV Dinner!) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 371534 , Reply# 16 8/12/2009 at 13:21 (5,367 days old) by gansky1 (Omaha, The Home of the TV Dinner!) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 371536 , Reply# 17 8/12/2009 at 13:25 (5,367 days old) by gansky1 (Omaha, The Home of the TV Dinner!) |
||
|
How it works | ||
|
Post# 371537 , Reply# 18 8/12/2009 at 13:28 (5,367 days old) by gansky1 (Omaha, The Home of the TV Dinner!) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 371538 , Reply# 19 8/12/2009 at 13:31 (5,367 days old) by turquoisedude (.) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 371548 , Reply# 20 8/12/2009 at 14:19 (5,367 days old) by revvinkevin (Tinseltown - Shakey Town - La-La Land) |
||
I never understood why they abandoned that 3 spray arm desig | ||
|
Post# 371554 , Reply# 21 8/12/2009 at 14:49 (5,367 days old) by kenmoreguy64 (Charlotte, NC) |
||
|
Greg - That is very cool, THANKS for the pics. It was January 1983 when I last saw our dishwasher. Ours had a different door liner panel though - that much more closely resembled the later potscrubbers with the round detergent cup. It had a green handle/lever on it that matched the color of the racks. This one looks much more like the detergent cup used in GE's 1970s porcelain tub models, does it not? All - The user could depress the China/Crystal cycle at any time during operation, and the sound of the water would change almost immediately to a much softer or gentler operation. My mother loved that too. She had two Potscrubber 900s (the second one lasted 20 years of nearly daily use) that did not have this so her POS GE Tall Tub was mandatory to have it. I think she'd rather have any of the Potscrubbers back. Maybe one day I'll find a nice KDS-17 for her again. I think she'd actually like it. | ||
|
Post# 371556 , Reply# 22 8/12/2009 at 14:50 (5,367 days old) by frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 371588 , Reply# 23 8/12/2009 at 17:31 (5,367 days old) by jamiel (Detroit, Michigan and Palm Springs, CA) |
||
Interesting, never thought there was an "interim" design between the original Plastisol ones and the full-on plastic Permatuf (round dispenser). This looks like a Plastisol door and Permatuf tub. Also always assumed the china/crystal cycle limited fill (rather than anything more active) so there was cavitation. Wonder if these came from Louisville or Chicago/Milwaukee?
| ||
|
Post# 371609 , Reply# 24 8/12/2009 at 20:03 (5,367 days old) by appnut (TX) |
||
Cool. Didn't realize a thing about the telescoping feed tube for the upper wash arm. Ahtough I briefly saw two of these 950s, never saw either one in much detail other than the door being opened and seeing it had wash arms and adjustable top rack. A friend in Atlanta Texas' mom had one and the house built next door to our lake house had one. I checked to see if there was a manual online for either the 950 or the 1050, but nothing, only a 1070, but it dind't have a cycle sequence chart. I'd love to have a 1050. I'm a sucker for rapid advance timers. Didn't realize they had forced air drying either. I more than toleerated the towers. The rack arrangement with that was just such pure classic GE, I wouldn't know how to deal with the full wash arm version lol.
| ||
| Post# 371846 , Reply# 26 8/13/2009 at 18:04 (5,366 days old) by roto204 (Tucson, AZ) | ||
Wow! | ||
| Post# 929440 , Reply# 27 3/28/2017 at 15:31 (2,582 days old) by johnb300m (Chicago) | ||
Fascinating thread, and a thought I had, brings this back from the abyss. LOL.
I wonder if these Potscrubber II machines had to use so much water because of the much longer and large distribution system. You're filling three wash arms with water now, in addition to a long, large hose to the top, AND internal conduit in the middle, and across the upper rack, to the arm. And the arms are HUGE, and voluminous. This dang thing probably needed at least 2.5 gallons per fill just not to simply cavitate once the system was primed. Alas, it's too bad they didn't stick with it and attempt to improve it. | ||
|
Post# 929493 , Reply# 28 3/28/2017 at 21:38 (2,582 days old) by chetlaham (United States) |
||
Potscrubber II
These were GE's first attempt at rivaling Maytag, Whirlpool and KA. Both in wash performance and a tub that would not rust. Sadly these were a black eye for GE. GE did not start with their BOL or MOL models, rather they basically tried to re-invent the wheel biting off more than they could chew. It lead to problems, which ultimately gave them incentive to abandon the upper arm. Granted the problems were not in the wash system itself for the most part, but enough to sour the concept. More in this thread:
www.automaticwasher.org/cgi-bin/T... Now, do I think GE should have improved on it? You bet. GE could have out done Whirlpool and others without thinking- but in truth GE has always been about the builder's market. The bulk of GE's sales- from what I've heard- were all in BOL builder machines. That is where they concentrated their core assets, and their TOL machines were just slight improvements to a design built around a BOL market. These were certainly the biggest deviation from that at the time. | ||
| Forum Index: |
| Other Forums: |
|
|
|
|
|
Comes to the Rescue!
