|
Thread Number: 45072
Who's That Lady? |
[Down to Last] |  |
Post# 660788 2/17/2013 at 12:11 (4,079 days old) by turquoisedude  (.) |
||
No, not the song but the machine... LOL
When Phil was visiting last week, he helped me do some re-arranging in the Ogden Laundry. One of the machines that we hooked up is the stunning 1965 Lady Kenmore automatic that I found in Manchester New Hampshire almost a year ago, now. She's making herself quite comfortable here, I think! Oh, and it really didn't need the venting... The dryer vent is left over from a previous configuration of the laundry and I know better than to ask a certain hubby to remove the extra pipe... LOL 
| ||
|
|
Post# 660789 , Reply# 1 2/17/2013 at 12:12 (4,079 days old) by turquoisedude (.) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 660790 , Reply# 2 2/17/2013 at 12:14 (4,079 days old) by turquoisedude (.) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 660791 , Reply# 3 2/17/2013 at 12:16 (4,079 days old) by turquoisedude (.) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 660792 , Reply# 4 2/17/2013 at 12:20 (4,079 days old) by turquoisedude (.) |
||
|
But this Lady has to earn her keep!
This is the first test of acutal laundry in this washer. When I first got this one, I was happy to find that it still worked reasonably well, but that it 'screeched like a banshee' when spinning. I took no chances and did a partial tear-down of the machine last fall, replacing the spin bearings. I also had a couple of issues with the fill valve - it leaked fairly badly on the first tests and it was still giving me trouble last week. Tightening a couple of screws seemed to solve that, though! So, fill 'er up! 
| ||
|
Post# 660793 , Reply# 5 2/17/2013 at 12:22 (4,079 days old) by turquoisedude (.) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 660794 , Reply# 6 2/17/2013 at 12:25 (4,079 days old) by turquoisedude (.) |
||
|
Here's some video proof of the first wash test. I can't believe how quiet this machine is!
CLICK HERE TO GO TO turquoisedude's LINK | ||
|
Post# 660798 , Reply# 7 2/17/2013 at 12:28 (4,079 days old) by turquoisedude (.) |
||
|
And a short demo of the spin - also very quiet (especially compared to what it once was!)
I have to keep my eyes out for the owner's manual for this beauty (I am sure it will turn up in the Automatic Ephemera!!). But more importantly, I have to keep after the person who sold me this washer - there was a matching dryer but his aunt was not ready to part with it last year. Let's hope she's changed her mind... LOL CLICK HERE TO GO TO turquoisedude's LINK | ||
| Post# 660799 , Reply# 8 2/17/2013 at 12:31 (4,079 days old) by JeffG () | ||
|
Paul, gorjus. Is that the original paint? :) I wish current TL's had 3-speed agitators. My parents had a similar LK (mid 60's) and the extra slow agitation was tremendously useful for certain things. | ||
| Post# 660827 , Reply# 9 2/17/2013 at 16:55 (4,079 days old) by danemodsandy (The Bramford, Apt. 7-E) | ||
Quiet Ladies:
Paul:
You have to understand, in their mid-'60s to mid-'70s heyday, Lady Kenmore washers were the Lincoln Continental * of washing machines - quiet, solid, powerful, luxurious in every detail. Then the bean-counters moved in, but that's another story.... * I refer, of course, to Lincoln Continental in its heyday (1961-1971) - not the badge-engineered models that came later. | ||
|
Post# 660833 , Reply# 11 2/17/2013 at 17:44 (4,079 days old) by pulltostart (Mobile, AL) |
||
 | ||
|
Post# 660875 , Reply# 12 2/17/2013 at 21:10 (4,079 days old) by pdub (Portland, Oregon) |
||
Stunning!
Wow Paul, I sure do hope you get the dryer that matches this washer. The color is one of my favorites and I love the clear buttons for the cycles. Thanks for showing it with the lights on as I never knew the blue and green cycle part of the panel lit up. The pair sitting together will be nothing other than show stoppers.
Great collection you have going Paul. Patrick | ||
| Post# 660878 , Reply# 13 2/17/2013 at 21:47 (4,079 days old) by PhilR (Quebec Canada) | ||
 | ||
| Post# 660879 , Reply# 14 2/17/2013 at 22:07 (4,079 days old) by 70series ( Connecticut.) | ||
|
Great job in getting this one back to top performance. It really is a beauty. Enjoy. Have a good one, James | ||
|
Post# 660882 , Reply# 15 2/17/2013 at 22:31 (4,079 days old) by RevvinKevin (Tinseltown - Shakey Town - La-La Land) |
||
**Jealous** | ||
| Post# 660886 , Reply# 16 2/18/2013 at 00:35 (4,079 days old) by westingman123 () | ||
|
She's boo-tee-full I love the contrast of that white interior with the turquoise. Just a gorgeous machine. Listen...do you hear...it's the dryer calling for its mate! | ||
|
Post# 660890 , Reply# 17 2/18/2013 at 05:08 (4,079 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
Great washer--and in such wonderful shape, too. Has the water level been tampered with? There can't be much difference between low and high if the low water level is that...high. The lowest water level on our 1960 Model 80 was just a bit over halfway up the rows of holes. A very stylish console, too.
| ||
|
Post# 660899 , Reply# 18 2/18/2013 at 06:47 (4,079 days old) by Jetcone (Schenectady-Home of Calrods,Monitor Tops,Toroid Transformers) |
||
Thats one | ||
|
Post# 660902 , Reply# 19 2/18/2013 at 07:19 (4,079 days old) by oldskool (Kansas City, MO) |
||
|
Congratulations That is one extremely nice machine! What type of agitator does it have? The turnover and movement of the items being washed is impressive. John | ||
|
Post# 660907 , Reply# 20 2/18/2013 at 08:48 (4,078 days old) by swestoyz (Cedar Falls, IA) |
||
 | ||
| Post# 660926 , Reply# 21 2/18/2013 at 12:11 (4,078 days old) by mickeyd (Hamburg NY) | ||
"A thing of beauty is a joy forever!" The Buddha ~ L
I love it and love how the the vid shows the supreme agility and economy of the Rotoflex with its so slim, stream-lined structure. Bet it yields another pound or two of room for laundry. I so envy and delight in your Lady with the Flex, all the lights, and the fine clear-lacquered fingernails--for me, the most beautiful of all the Ladies K.
Wish I lived next door: we could trade our Ladies back and forth. Everyone says you can turn a screw to lower the LOW. I've left mine, and it's the level I most use. Always get a kick out of the irony that the factory set low is so high on our machines, while on the new machines the high is so low-- ah the contrariness of life; it never ends! ;'D Thanks, Turquoise Man. | ||
|
Post# 660981 , Reply# 22 2/18/2013 at 16:53 (4,078 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
|
The Buddha----you're a riot, mickeyd!
Wow, so that really is the factory-set low water level. I wonder why so high? Is it right above the top row of tub holes? Were they trying to avoid splashing? My mom always ran a Rinse & Spin cycle at the end of wash day to clear out any traces of detergent and bleach. She'd use the low (or 'LO' on our machine) water level and water would splash everywhere, frequently popping the interior's light bulb. Same thing used to happen during the suds return. Eventually, the Sears repairman (who was a frequent visitor to our Model 80) put a foil shield in front of the bulb, which blocked the light and ruined the effect. I always made sure there were several extra appliance bulbs in the house, LOL. | ||
| Post# 660993 , Reply# 23 2/18/2013 at 18:03 (4,078 days old) by mickeyd (Hamburg NY) | ||
|
LOW WL: Was shocked the first time, waiting, waiting, waitin
Infinite water level, my foot! You mean pretty high to very high. And even better, there are a ton of little dots on the slider between low and hi, each dot giving you about another CUP of water. LOL.
Maybe they figured if you're spending the bucks for the Lady, what do you care how much water you're using; and in mine, with the mega-finned super Rotoswirl, there would be less chance of damage to fabrics with high levels of low water, (chuckle). I think John told me something about this, but I can't remember, Gene. I'll ask him again. | ||
| Post# 661009 , Reply# 24 2/18/2013 at 19:08 (4,078 days old) by lebron (Minnesota) | ||
wow | ||
|
Post# 661032 , Reply# 25 2/18/2013 at 21:21 (4,078 days old) by gansky1 (Omaha, The Home of the TV Dinner!) |
||
One of the prettiest LK's, and in turquoise! I knew you had this washer but it's spectacular, such good condition.
I've noticed how high my low setting in the '67 70 series, too. I prefer the high level to be just under the tub cover, full load washing! The Roto-Flex is one of my favorite Kenmore agitators. | ||
|
Post# 661071 , Reply# 26 2/19/2013 at 08:09 (4,078 days old) by combo52 (50 Year Repair Tech Beltsville,Md) |
||
1965 LKM Washer WOW it looks great Paul, glad you can finely have some clean lint free clothing, LOL.
WP & KM used a fairly high minimum water level because it is not only too splashy if the level was any lower but you really can't effectively wash a load of clothing with a smaller amount of water, remember all WPs & KMs were still standard capacity tubs at this point in time and the wash basket was not all that deep to begin with. | ||
|
Post# 661090 , Reply# 27 2/19/2013 at 11:23 (4,077 days old) by Kenmoreguy64 (Charlotte, NC) |
||
On KMs and WP - minimum water levels
I read something very recently which really surprised me. In literature that Kenmore prepared as a service familiarization document to the field repair guys on upcoming new models, there was mention that water levels had been adjusted on certain models. I always thought they were the same for all the standard tubs, but apparently not.
This was a 1967 or 1968 document, I don't recall exactly. It was pointed out that models equipped with certain agitators had their levels adjusted by one-inch either in minimum or maximum, or both. This pertained only to Roto-Flex or Vari-Flex equipped models, but I want to verify that before I say for sure. I do know for sure that the straight-vane and Roto-Swirl equipped machines did not get the adjusted levels. Our 1961 Kenmore 70 with the original Roto-Swirl filled somewhere I'd guess about 2/3 full on the LO setting. Well below the start of the ramps on the agitator, which always was fun to watch as the suds ramped up and down. As John says, these baskets aren't all that deep, so some of the much lower settings that were common in the 1979 and later models (the "Energy-Saver" notated models) would not have been seen in the 1960s. I'll have to see where I got that document, it may have been an ephemera offering. Gordon | ||
|
Post# 661094 , Reply# 28 2/19/2013 at 12:45 (4,077 days old) by Kenmoreguy64 (Charlotte, NC) |
||
|
Oh my gosh, pardon me Paul...
I was really enjoying the water levels discussion and I failed to mention how great the machine looks!
It looks pristine, and it surely landed softly into your collection. Great job on the bearing re-do - looks like its just truckin' along, BD style. We do need to find you that dryer! Congrats on a great re-do! Gordon | ||
| Post# 661122 , Reply# 29 2/19/2013 at 15:19 (4,077 days old) by mickeyd (Hamburg NY) | ||
|
I do know for sure that I have a 1963 Turquoise Lady Kenmore with a Super Roto-Swirl whose LO water level identically matches Paul's. Although the vintage Kenmores I've enjoyed always filled rather high on the LO, this one is way over the top, so to speak.
The Keyboard Lady K I enjoyed for 2 years at the Fleckenschteen filled on LO to the typical 2/3's level reported by other members. It had a Vari-Flex agitator. I'm sticking to the theory of less chance of damage to fabrics as an explanation for this oddity in water levels till we learn otherwise. It also interesting, Paul, that our cycles and lid scripts are identical except for the extra slow on your woolens and position of the 2 PP cycles. By the way, I hadn't heard "Whose That lady,"in years and now it's happily back in my head. ;' D . So Thank You. | ||
| Post# 661125 , Reply# 30 2/19/2013 at 15:36 (4,077 days old) by mickeyd (Hamburg NY) | ||
|
OOPS: WHO'S | ||
|
Post# 661129 , Reply# 31 2/19/2013 at 15:50 (4,077 days old) by pulltostart (Mobile, AL) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 661133 , Reply# 32 2/19/2013 at 16:05 (4,077 days old) by turquoisedude (.) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 661144 , Reply# 33 2/19/2013 at 17:25 (4,077 days old) by Kenmoreguy64 (Charlotte, NC) |
||
|
More on water levels...
I am not sure why I didn't think of this earlier, but most of the owner's manuals I've been collecting for the early through late 1960s Kenmores mention in the controls section how much water is going to be provided with each fill level on the water level switch when the machine has a selectable switch.
LO is usually 11 gallons, MEDIUM being 14 gallons, and HI being 18 gallons. This was so nearly universal in these various manuals that I considered that a common setting in all the 29-inch standard capacity machines until I saw that Kenmore service letter to the field. Machines that had only one level filled to 18 gallons. Machines that had two were usually 11 and 18 gallon settings. Machines that were infinite were selectable anywhere between 11 and 18 gallons. See a trend there? In 1978/1979 max fill dropped to 17 gallons, probably to tweak the rating on the yellow energy guide. The other settings didn't change. Being that the tub is full at 18 gallons, which I think is about an inch below the rim on the inside of the wash basket, an 11-gallon LO setting would would be pretty much right at the 2/3 full mark. One thing I've noticed, and we found it out first-hand with Andy's beautiful '66 Lady Kenmore at the April Wash-In - his level switch, set to the lowest of LO, had the tub 3/4 full or more and still going, and we started to be concerned that the machine would overflow. It didn't, but obviously the switch was not functioning properly. I think after several fills and tweaking of the switch, it was working better. We decided that after a long period of non-use, it had become in-accurate or 'stuck'. I've had the opposite happen, where machines fail to fill all the way, and as time goes on, they fill several inches lower than they did originally. G | ||
|
Post# 661160 , Reply# 34 2/19/2013 at 18:48 (4,077 days old) by Kenmoreguy64 (Charlotte, NC) |
||
|
I found the document I was referring to above, and I'm going to correct a couple things I mentioned. First, its in the 1968 publication for 1969 and 1970 Kenmores, not the earlier models. Also, I think I have a better understanding now why Andy's machine may have filled so high as well...we thought it was a bad pressure switch, but now it seeem not!
Being that this is one of Robert's ephemera documents, I won't quote it in too much detail and thus spoil the fun if people want to purchase it, but it quotes that the water level revision is for models equipped with the Vari-Flex agitator. Max fill is raised from 11" to 12.25". That is more than a ten percent increase. It goes on to state that all models which specify the Vari-Flex have a LO water level of 8", and those that specify the Roto-Flex have a 9" LO level. A nine-inch LO water level on a Roto-Flex is only two inches below the max fill of 11-inches. Very interesting!! There is obviously much less variation in these machines than the more evenly spaced 11, 14, and 18 gallon fills. I always wondered what the reasons where behind the demise of the Roto-Flex afer only four or five years, but this may provide some logical insight. Gordon | ||
| Post# 661203 , Reply# 35 2/19/2013 at 22:09 (4,077 days old) by AutoWasherFreak () | ||
|
Those old WP/KM belt drive machines, were very quiet. I find their sounds quit relaxing.
PS: She's beautiful :-) | ||
|
Post# 661227 , Reply# 36 2/20/2013 at 05:38 (4,077 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
|
Thanks for tracking down the documentation concerning the revamped water levels for Kenmores, Gordon, and thanks for sharing your Kenmore expertise.
I was so used to 1959-1960 water levels that I was taken aback when I saw the water level I knew as medium (or "halfway between LO and HI" as our manual stated) being referred to as low. It's true: You learn something new everyday. This post was last edited 02/20/2013 at 07:33 | ||
|
Post# 669078 , Reply# 37 3/29/2013 at 16:16 (4,039 days old) by turquoisedude (.) |
||
|
Update on the Lady's performance
Not long after the Lady Kenmore moved to the Ogden Laundry, I observed some weirdness with the permanent press cycle. At the cool-down phase of the cycle, the machine just stopped on me. I used another cycle selection to complete the load of clothes but I was not amused. I didn't rush into any immediate repairs ('cause we all know how much I like to jump to conclusions... LOL). I studied the literature I have on the machine and it seemed to me that the 'stall' was because the washer should have been letting in cold water. I tested that theory with the 'cold wash' button - I saw right away that there was no water flowing. I feared that there was yet another issue with the fill valve (I had lots of fun with that in my attempts to keep the original valve intact). Well, I let this all percolate for a few weeks and today, after managing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with the GE Combo last week, I decided it would be worth a careful look.
First thing I did was to test the cold solenoid by powering it with a direct AC cord. Damn thing worked... So I figured the next logical thing to test was the wiring. And there it was - right in my face... When I first got the washer, I had noticed there were two leads in the console that were not connected to anything. I foolishly assumed these were in place for a suds-saver (not on this particular machine). Well, we all know what happens when we assume, right? I had forgotten that I have a schematic wiring diagram for this machine. When I checked it, one of the wires was for the cold solenoid and the other for the fabric softener dispenser solenoid. Reconnecting them to timer took me about 5 seconds. After that, I had my cold water flowing again. YAY! Now, I need to test the full permanent-press cycle. This Lady's about to be "married" to a Baltimore Beau, so she HAS to be perfect, right?? 
| ||
|
Post# 669651 , Reply# 38 4/1/2013 at 14:13 (4,036 days old) by turquoisedude (.) |
||
|
Yay - it worked!
Over the weekend, I did not one, but two loads of permant-press items to try out the latest 'tweaks. I was thrilled to find that the cold solenoid kicked in when it should have AND the fabric softener dispenser fired at the right time!
I will definitely have to make a video of the 'cool down' phase of the wash cycle - my now-dead 66 Inglis had that feature and I forgot how neat it was. Stay tuned! | ||
|
Post# 669655 , Reply# 39 4/1/2013 at 14:30 (4,036 days old) by Jetcone (Schenectady-Home of Calrods,Monitor Tops,Toroid Transformers) |
||
|
Looks to be | ||
| Forum Index: |
| Other Forums: |
|
|
|
|
|
Comes to the Rescue!
