Second rinsing in SQ TL - calling on combo52


Forum Topics & Rules Manuals & Literature	New users Click-here to sign-up

Thread Number: 64389 / Tag: Modern Automatic Washers
Second rinsing in SQ TL - calling on combo52

[Down to Last]

Post# 870044 3/1/2016 at 20:29 (2,969 days old) by helicaldrive (St. Louis)
Checkrate/Likes Hi John L, Numerous times you have warned us that second rinsing results in SQ TL tub seal failure due to rinsing away a protective residue that detergent leaves behind. Inquiring minds desire your expertise: - Is this true even if there is a water softener in use? - Is this true of the SQ FL as well? - Is there a workaround for those of us who like second rinsing? One person suggested putting fabric softener in the second rinse. What do you think of that? Thanks! P.S. : Is it rude or gauche to call on someone unsolicited like this? If so, please tell me and I apologize in advance

Post# 870402 , Reply# 1 3/4/2016 at 01:42 (2,967 days old) by washer111 ()
Checkrate/Likes *I am not John/Combo52. However...* Personally, I was never even aware detergents contained "protective residues," given that adding anything like this might cause skin irritations or allergic reactions. I can understand its place say in motor oil (additives that condition seals or cause them to swell), which needs to keep many seals in good condition despite time and temperature fluctuations - but motor oil doesn't wash clothes, and the results don't come in contact with one's skin. Personally, this seems like a good enough analogy. Maybe there are additives in detergent I don't know about. However no post that I've seen has ever specifically named the chemicals that are responsible, so who knows? 1. A water softener often makes rinsing more difficult. So more rinses may not have such an adverse affect, although this will result in the unit regenerating more often and cost you more, particularly in salt if you use extra rinse a lot. There is also the added environmental burden of the salt if the unit is not sized appropriately for the water usage requirements of a household (almost any home equipped with a Sears or equivalent "el-cheapo" model). 2. From what I can gather from my time here, this isn't something limited to just SQ TL machines (<- although they are frequently cited due to "poor tub teal design"). Excessive rinsing can supposedly have effects on all machines - particularly in regards to bearings, seals and drum-supports/spiders. 3. Fabric softener wouldn't be of much help, and (particularly) given hard water, very cold rinses in the winter time or cold/cool/lukewarm washes may cause an accumulation known as "Scrud" to buildup. This accumulation may also promote the growth of mould and mildew. Its also worth noting that too much detergent can also be detrimental - although I think this then becomes like with pre-rinsing your dishes where the detergent begins attacking the machine's components. So in this situation, an "extra rinse" would be prudent to ensure too much detergent isn't left behind in your clothes or machine. Too much detergent is an issue that can be easily determined by the amount of suds or the feeling of the water. RE your PS. I do not believe calling on the expertise or opinion of one member and publicly discussing is rude. I assume you are inviting public discussion of this topic, hence why I (Washer111) am the one posting.

Post# 870409 , Reply# 2 3/4/2016 at 04:24 (2,966 days old) by brucelucenta ()
Checkrate/Likes 2 It doesn't make much sense to me that detergent would have something in it that stops seal failure. First time I have ever heard that myself. Sorry, but speed queen has had tub seal failures from the very introduction of their perforated tub design machine. In the beginning, it was a major problem and many many many machines had a tub seal failure early on, within probably the first five years or less. It is much better now, but still happens. The only thing extra rinsing would do is to put a little more use on the seal, making it that much closer to failure. I cannot imagine something in detergent that would help prevent that, but who knows? Anything is possible I guess.

Post# 870411 , Reply# 3 3/4/2016 at 04:29 (2,966 days old) by nickatnight ()
Checkrate/Likes *Washer 111.......* Outside of this forum, we haven't run across much anecdotal evidence of sub-standard tub seals on the SQ top loaders. Please, advise. Thanks!

Post# 870412 , Reply# 4 3/4/2016 at 05:07 (2,966 days old) by washer111 ()
Checkrate/Likes 2 *@nickatnight* The "frequent citations" I mentioned were here on AW.org. Never heard of the issues elsewhere. The other thing I take issue with is the fact these are in laundromats all over the show. If SQ TL's were really as bad as they are purported to be, unless Alliance is offering very competitive servicing contracts through dealers then I doubt they'd still be one of the kings of the commercial business.

Post# 870620 , Reply# 5 3/5/2016 at 04:20 (2,965 days old) by nickatnight ()
Checkrate/Likes *Thanks, Washer........* Believe we're thinking along the same lines.

Post# 870654 , Reply# 6 3/5/2016 at 08:48 (2,965 days old) by brucelucenta ()
Checkrate/Likes 1 Since you asked, I will tell you where the evidence of "sub standard" tub seals comes from. I worked on washing machines and dryers from the beginning of the 70's thru the new millennium. From the very beginning of the perforated tub speed queen washers, there were many problems. The tub seal was a MAJOR problem among other problems with the pump and some transmission problems. I has seen and worked on many of the machines made in the late 70's and 80's when the tub seal failed and ruined the bearing and a good many of them rusted out around where the tub seal mounts. The replacement seals were made differently and fit differently in hopes they would last longer. There were many machines no more than 1-5 years old that people just junked because the inner tub had rusted away around where the tub seal mounts. It may have been the kind of detergent they used, might have been the way it was cared for, could have been a number of things. But the tub seal was a very weak point in those models up thru the 80's and 90's. Perhaps they have changed them to a point where they are ok now. I don't know. I only know that the ones I have seen and worked on had this problem and most of them had to always have that tub seal replaced when rebuilding them, if the inner tub had not rusted out. So years of experience is what I base the statement of the tub seal being a problem in speed queen top loaders. When I look at the design they have now, it looks very much like the same design they had from the beginning. As far as the ones they had in laundromats, the old speed queen washers with the solid tubs were work horses. They are the ones that got them into most laundromats back from the 50's on. The machines in the 80's on were always breaking down and having problems. There is a laundromat here now that has some and many are out of service. But the reason they were in laundries all over the US is because the early models were very dependable. You certainly don't see many today. This post was last edited 03/05/2016 at 09:03

Post# 870669 , Reply# 7 3/5/2016 at 09:59 (2,965 days old) by helicaldrive (St. Louis)
Checkrate/Likes *Maytag had the same problem* In the 1990s. Maybe it was an industry wide rubber sourcing quality problem. I bought a Maytag in 1989 and another in 1998. Both had tub seal failures within a couple years that cost over $300 to fix, and I'm sure most people would have just junked both machines. In both cases, the replacement seals lasted the lifetime of the machine. I was not a double rinser at the time of the tub seal failures. But the second rinsing issue might be different with Maytag because their tub seal is not exposed to water? Don't know. Speaking of the lifetime of those machines, I am getting off track. I always loved the smooth quiet sound of our 1976 Maytag when growing up. I was SO disappointed with the 1989. It was the first orbital transmission. Didn't have that Maytag sound, or that Maytag agitation. The short strokes couldn't pull down the clothes and roll over many loads, and the rinse cycle was seemingly not even a minute, definitely not long enough to roll over a set of new full size 400 thread sheets or anything but a light load. The inner tub had to be replaced due to a rust spot, and the lid rusted. I gave it to a lady at work who had 5 kids. She used it without a repair until just recently. I bought the 1998 model as soon as Maytag added the Whirlpool style corkscrew agitator. It washed much better, though it had issues too, like sometimes twisting sheets into a tight rope so they didn't get clean. I used it for 17 years, replacing the tub seal, the water valve, and a pump or two. And the inner tub had to be replaced once if not twice due to rust spots. After the first 5 years, the problems stopped and it ran and ran. I thought I would use it for the rest of my life. Then suddenly one day recently the motor sounded really loud, and like it was cycling on and off really rapidly. It got really hot and just quit. New motor was available but not the motor start switch. When I saw how many parts were NLA, it hit me: this machine could have started a fire, it is at the end of its intended life span, I don't want to go through siphoning out this thing again with any more breakdowns, parts are NLA and of questionable quality, and Maytag is no more, and really hasn't been since the late 1980s. I want it out of here! I need a reliable daily driver and it's time to move on. So I got a SQ. I like it better. It does a better job. And it has nostalgia too, of the laundromat before I could afford a washer.

Post# 870676 , Reply# 8 3/5/2016 at 11:26 (2,965 days old) by kb0nes (Burnsville, MN)
Checkrate/Likes 1 My hunch is that John's point is that the detergents lend a degree of lubricity and help prevent mineral deposits in the seal running track, both of which help extend the life of the seal. Excessive rinsing may reduce seal life. It wouldn't be an immediate type failure, just something that as a trend could be seen to shorten life span. I would imagine that if the water was truly soft, that at least reduces the mineral buildup issue to a degree. The front load seals seem like they live by slightly different rules to me since they are protecting from incidental splash, they aren't immersed holding back a tub of water.

Post# 870746 , Reply# 9 3/5/2016 at 21:56 (2,965 days old) by nickatnight ()
Checkrate/Likes *Thanks, Everyone..........* This is exactly the kind of insight we were looking for.

Post# 870771 , Reply# 10 3/6/2016 at 00:58 (2,965 days old) by gansky1 (Omaha, The Home of the TV Dinner!)
Checkrate/Likes 2 Laundry and machine dishwashing detergents contain corrosion inhibitors (often sodium silicate) to prevent corrosion of machine and metal parts.

Post# 870788 , Reply# 11 3/6/2016 at 05:44 (2,964 days old) by washer111 ()
Checkrate/Likes 1 Phil touched on something that I was very close to (albeit in a different sense). Lubrication. Anyone who has ever wrung out items being soaked in modern detergents will undoubtedly know about the "slick" feeling you get from the detergent, even after thorough rinsing. I can see potential for lubrication there - but the idea slipped past my mind (pun intended). LOL

Forum Index:

Other Forums:

Comes to the Rescue!

The Discuss-o-Mat has stopped, buzzer is sounding!!!
If you would like to reply to this thread please log-in...
Discuss-O-MAT Log-In

New Members Click Here To Sign Up.

automaticwasher.org home
Discuss-o-Mat Forums
Vintage Brochures, Service and Owners Manuals
Fun Vintage Washer Ephemera
See It Wash!
Video Downloads
Audio Downloads
Picture of the Day
Patent of the Day
Photos of our Collections
The Old Aberdeen Farm
Vintage Service Manuals Vintage washer/dryer/dishwasher to sell?
Technical/service questions?
Looking for Parts?
Website related questions?
Digital Millennium Copyright Act Policy
Our Privacy Policy