Thread Number: 67360  /  Tag: Modern Automatic Washers
New Maytags are shipping!!!
[Down to Last]'s exclusive eBay Watch:
scroll >>> for more items
Post# 900730   9/28/2016 at 00:06 (208 days old) by jkbff (Gladstone, ND)        

jkbff's profile picture
I am really surprised no one has posted this??!?

I sold my first pair today. The MVWB765 and MVWB766 are the same machine except the 766 will have a 5 year parts and labor warranty and a 10 year parts only warranty on the motor and tub. Oh, and the 766 is available ONLY at local dealers, not big box retailers!!!!!!

So you have a top load machine, dual action agitator and a glass lid.... Kinda awesome. Oh and the 5 year warranty! 899/949 for the 765 and 766.

Another model is MVWC416 for 649.

  Photos...       <              >      Photo 1 of 5         View Full Size

Post# 900732 , Reply# 1   9/28/2016 at 00:18 (208 days old) by jkbff (Gladstone, ND)        

jkbff's profile picture
Another interesting model is the MVWB955. It will have the powerspray which is a recirculating spray. That machine is expensive though at 1399.00

  Photos...       <              >      Photo 1 of 5         View Full Size
Post# 900752 , Reply# 2   9/28/2016 at 04:24 (208 days old) by Spacedogb (Lafayette, LA)        

Looks very nice!!!! Not a fan of a top load but they seem to have the aesthetic appeal down. Interesting profile pic jkbff

Post# 900754 , Reply# 3   9/28/2016 at 04:44 (208 days old) by brucelucenta (tulsa, oklahoma)        

brucelucenta's profile picture
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "dual action" agitator appears to be all one piece. How would that possibly be "dual action" if it cannot move freely to pull the clothes down as it washes? Looks like just an impeller with a post down the center, so actually no better than anything already out there in the way of top loading machines.

Post# 900763 , Reply# 4   9/28/2016 at 07:01 (208 days old) by wishwash (Illinois)        

Those are good looking machines.

I would like to see how that one piece corkscrew handles a large load of laundry though. Wouldn't it slow rollover?

Post# 900811 , Reply# 5   9/28/2016 at 10:15 (207 days old) by mrb627 (Buford, GA)        

mrb627's profile picture

Both of those models look very nice.
Wonder about performance, too...


Post# 900816 , Reply# 6   9/28/2016 at 10:42 (207 days old) by jkbff (Gladstone, ND)        

jkbff's profile picture
From what i am understanding, its dual action because the plate moves independently from the tub, and both are moving all the time. We have a live demo unit coming on the floor, so i will post a video when it arrives this week.

Post# 900831 , Reply# 7   9/28/2016 at 12:25 (207 days old) by murando531 (Huntsville, AL)        

murando531's profile picture
They're such gorgeous machines, especially the flagship low-profile wash plate design. That black chrome look is beautiful, so long as it holds its shine with age. I love the design refresh of the shape of the control panel and where the lid meets the cabinet. Very sleek and minimal.

But my FAVORITE change is that the dispensers are back on the cabinet, rather than that dreaded drawer. I knew when the VMAX designs first came out they'd have some bugs to work out, but this go around looks greatly improved. It looks like a nice update to the Bravos XL-Oasis of mine. Though I'm still very happy it.

My issue would be the "corkscrew" agitator. I'm not sure why they wouldn't have designed it as a true dual-action, but with the auger turning in reverse. Even in deep water mode for these new machines, the clothes still roll from the middle to the outside, so having the auger rotate to pull the clothes up from the center would aid greatly for large deep water loads. With the stationary auger, rollover will just be impeded the same way the first LoadSensor agitators in the Atlantis/Performas did because they were too stiff, and only a heavy load and/or hot water would allow them to turn freely.

Post# 900836 , Reply# 8   9/28/2016 at 13:06 (207 days old) by vacerator (Macomb, Michigan)        
Looks like

the lid lock is relocated to the center also, and only the T.O.L. one doesn't have a rear dispenser drawer. It never bothered me. It's easier to clean. It also has a circulation pump. This may aid in stain removal for low water level washing.
It's no super surgilator that's for sure.
It costs money to make a real dual action agitator with a ratcheting mechanism, and they take up more diameter in the basket.

Post# 900851 , Reply# 9   9/28/2016 at 14:22 (207 days old) by murando531 (Huntsville, AL)        

murando531's profile picture
The lid lock has always been in the center on these MOL and TOL machines since the original Oasis. The latch was only off to the right on low end models. Unless they're now changing the low ends to have that same latching system, then you'd be right. But so far the low ends still use the VMW drive system with the latch to the side.

Post# 900852 , Reply# 10   9/28/2016 at 14:41 (207 days old) by RevvinKevin (Between Mickey Mouse & the Queen Mary (So. Cal.)        

revvinkevin's profile picture

Yes these are nicely styled machines, but if you put a nice dress and lipstick on a pig, it's still just a pig.

Those "agi-pellers" with the fake D/A corkscrew, are completely ineffective at moving clothes around. There are a few reasons for this. 1. The water level is never high enough for the auger to do anything, let alone get wet. 2. The length / reach of the auger blades aren't long enough to really do anything. 3. The auger moves the same distance either direction, so if it did push anything down, it could also pull it back up.

Earlier this year a friend bought a new Whirlpool washer to replace the 40 year old Westinghouse that rusted out. It was a low end model (w/o the dress and lipstick), but pretty much the same machine as this one underneath, with the exact same "agi-peller" inside it too. I was there for the "first load" and I loosely filled it with 6 or 7 pairs of shorts and a couple T-shirts as one would for any normal top load washer. The auger did absolutely nothing to move anything around in the tub. 5 minutes into the wash cycle, the clothes on top were still on top and dry, I started pushing them down by hand. I won't even go into how totally, completely and utterly useless the 1 minute, 1/4 full of water, "rinse cycle" is on his washer.

Personally I would never buy a top load HE washer, regardless of brand. I'll stick to my front loader, thank you very much.


Post# 900856 , Reply# 11   9/28/2016 at 15:04 (207 days old) by jkbff (Gladstone, ND)        

jkbff's profile picture
Oh, did anyone notice the deep-fill option?

On powerwash, the deep-fill fills to just under the plastic rim of the inner tub.

Post# 900858 , Reply# 12   9/28/2016 at 15:07 (207 days old) by vacerator (Macomb, Michigan)        
Kevin nailed it!

Mine still do look nice too. All shiny clean metallic silver with fancy buttons and a glass lid. Oink oink!
Now it's Samsung top loaders exploding the LG's a few years back.

Post# 900867 , Reply# 13   9/28/2016 at 15:42 (207 days old) by RevvinKevin (Between Mickey Mouse & the Queen Mary (So. Cal.)        

revvinkevin's profile picture

A deep fill option would be great, but it all depends on just how effective (or ineffective) the wash-plate will be with moving garments around a tub full of water. If they programmed the agi-peller to spin longer each direction with a tub full of water, than it may just work well.

Post# 900874 , Reply# 14   9/28/2016 at 16:40 (207 days old) by murando531 (Huntsville, AL)        

murando531's profile picture
Except that the models with the agipeller and the low-end Cabrios like vacerator's aren't even the same machines under the hood as the flagships such as the MVWB955 or 855, or the WP 8500. So, more like a lion in comparison, also with lipstick and a nice dress.

Honestly, a quick search of the parts diagrams for comparing model numbers would go a long way. My only complaint is that WP uses three different designs that all share similar cosmetics so that when one person has one problem with one design, they pile every machine the company ever made into one bucket and complain about it endlessly. Foolishness put to music.

Post# 900883 , Reply# 15   9/28/2016 at 17:19 (207 days old) by jkbff (Gladstone, ND)        

jkbff's profile picture
That 'bait and switch' of everything wearing the same clothing is done to benefit the big box stores...

"Why should I pay more here when I can go down to ABCSuperMartBoxCenter and get the same thing for nearly half the price?"

"Well, because the machine may look the same, but is totally different. I can sell you the same machine, at the same price, but I have to order it. There is a reason we don't have it in stock. It is a pos!"

Volume keeps the lines moving and the unions happy.

This post was last edited 09/28/2016 at 17:51
Post# 900885 , Reply# 16   9/28/2016 at 17:35 (207 days old) by vintage1963 (Ohio)        

vintage1963's profile picture
I do like the looks of that first machine. I might have considered this if I hadn't gotten a front loader.

Post# 900886 , Reply# 17   9/28/2016 at 17:38 (207 days old) by murando531 (Huntsville, AL)        

murando531's profile picture
That makes sense, though it also seems to cannibalize the higher-end machines that actually work well, which is what has caused problems with WP's three HE TL designs. The Oasis, VMW, and VMAX designs are all labeled Cabrio, Bravos, and Oasis, so no wonder there's so much confusion between the things.

Post# 900908 , Reply# 18   9/28/2016 at 19:38 (207 days old) by vacerator (Macomb, Michigan)        
They used charcteristics of

the past three drive systems in the latest ones. Direct drive for all in favor of a belt for the smaller capacity VMW's, but has nothing in common with the original DD machines, nor the old belt drives. The recurculating pump harkens back to the days before the self cleaning filters when the filter was in the top under the lid.
The world washer was the first to use a reversing motor instead of a sector gear for agitation. These are based on that, with no clutch, thus no brake. Static drain has always been a whirlpool feature. The compact world machines didn't spin rinse even.
It's all about production cost.
I wasn't aware Whirlpool employees in Clyde Ohio were even union. Is it the IBEW?
Well I would support them again, but with a front loader perhaps.
I believe in livable incomes for them. The parts are made cheaply in Mejico.

Post# 900925 , Reply# 19   9/28/2016 at 21:27 (207 days old) by combo52 (Beltsville,Md)        
New Washer Models

combo52's profile picture

Well I am glad that Speed Queen is getting them worried and WP is extending the warranty.


A real factory warranty is always better than stupid service contracts, and yes virtually all major appliances built in North America are built in Union Plants, except junk like Bosch that are built in South Carolina.

Post# 900935 , Reply# 20   9/29/2016 at 00:54 (207 days old) by MattL (Flushing, MI)        

Got to agree with Kevin,  having used a new top loader I'd never own one.  FL is the only way to go anymore.  I seriously think wash plates are a joke.  As others have said  stuff on the top of the load stays on the top of the load.  Tried  loading stuff all kinds of ways, always a disappointing result.

Post# 900938 , Reply# 21   9/29/2016 at 01:41 (207 days old) by askolover (South of Nash Vegas, TN)        

askolover's profile picture

After owning a FL for the past 19 years I can say the same thing...I will NEVER go back to a top load! 

Post# 900956 , Reply# 22   9/29/2016 at 08:27 (207 days old) by joeypete (Concord, NH)        

joeypete's profile picture
Very cool! Looks like WP is using these to target Speed Queen..and using features of the new GE machines, with the deep fill option. They are def working the kinks out of these new washers. I'm impressed.

Post# 900978 , Reply# 23   9/29/2016 at 10:25 (206 days old) by mark_wpduet (Lexington KY)        
Question about the same look/different machines

mark_wpduet's profile picture
So people shopping for a washer and think all models are the same underneath because they look the same, but you are saying they are not? Which leads me to me next question.

If one machine that is a pig in lipstick that has an agipeller vs the machine that has an agipeller that is a lion in a dress. Will the lion in the dress agipeller wash better than the pig in lipstick agipeller? I guess what I'm saying is that if they are different underneath, but both agipellers, what would make one move clothes better than the other one?

Post# 900988 , Reply# 24   9/29/2016 at 10:57 (206 days old) by henene4 (Germany)        

One platform has the recirculation and the direct drive motor which is way more versatile then the basic belt drive version which only has 2-3 wash motions.

Post# 901034 , Reply# 25   9/29/2016 at 16:40 (206 days old) by Combo52 (Beltsville,Md)        
Wash motions ????

combo52's profile picture
It doesn't make any difference whether it's a direct drive or belt drive mechanism in a high-efficiency top load washer, the impeller can turn In either direction as many turns in either direction or as few turns in either direction or in just one direction it's up to the engineers to design the programming.

However with either of these designs it's not possible to have the impeller jumping up-and-down like a Frigidaire so it is limited to just a back-and-forth motion,but there's no difference in the two types of drive mechanisms in this regard

Post# 901048 , Reply# 26   9/29/2016 at 18:18 (206 days old) by washman (Butler, PA)        

washman's profile picture
for Frigidaire stuff.......I think their plants in SC are non union as SC is a non union right-to-work-for-less state.

SQ is union, has been for a number of years.

This thread is amusing to me. Again, it proves that you really do need water to properly clean the laundry. FL excepted, they have always gotten by with less, but a TL machine needs water to do the job effectively.

Hi Frig!

Post# 901130 , Reply# 27   9/30/2016 at 07:33 (206 days old) by henene4 (Germany)        
Wrong, Combo52

The more basic VMW designs had a limited amount of wash motions (normal, slow, the short distribution strokes).

The more TOL Oasis once always had a more advanced motor controler using various more agitation speeds and arcs. Heck, alone the fact that the Oasis designs had a motor sensing routine for basket disingagement and could actively slow down the tub (which the VMW can't as far as I am aware) shows the Oasis DDs were more advanced in that matter.

I think murando can chime in there. He owned both and even stated that fact in one of the older posts.

Post# 901132 , Reply# 28   9/30/2016 at 07:41 (206 days old) by joeypete (Concord, NH)        

joeypete's profile picture
The DD version does use the F&P SmartDrive system that detects load/fabric differences and adjusts accordingly. The VWM system I believe was intended for use with an agitator, which it works fine with. I'm not sure why they offer an impeller version with that drive system...probably for a cheaper alternative. It seems to work ok but the DD system is def better.

Post# 901133 , Reply# 29   9/30/2016 at 07:47 (206 days old) by vacerator (Macomb, Michigan)        

I was under an impression that Whirlpool is no longer using the Fisher&Paykel smart drive c-sinus Hall sensor motor design, but mounted the motor from the belt drive VMW directly to the gear case.
As there are no online service manuals yet, can some none clarify please?

Post# 901145 , Reply# 30   9/30/2016 at 08:18 (206 days old) by joeypete (Concord, NH)        

joeypete's profile picture
I believe they just changed how the motor is mounted...that's why it sounds a little different. Andrew will know...he's the Whirlpool guru haha.

Post# 901177 , Reply# 31   9/30/2016 at 10:07 (206 days old) by RevvinKevin (Between Mickey Mouse & the Queen Mary (So. Cal.)        

revvinkevin's profile picture



Henrik, did you NOT read what Combo52 wrote?


The design (direct drive vs belt drive) makes NO difference as to what it's capable of doing, "motions" etc, it's ONLY a matter of how the engineers PROGRAMMED the motor controller for each cycle.


Also, I think it's safe to say that John (Combo52) is more of an expert than you are, being he has been selling and repairing appliances A LOT longer than you have been alive.



Post# 901190 , Reply# 32   9/30/2016 at 11:11 (205 days old) by murando531 (Huntsville, AL)        

murando531's profile picture
I always feel it would be easier to explain these things if I had a presentation board and a pointing stick, haha.

I do have to agree with Henrik and respectfully disagree with John. Yes, the two designs have full theoretical range of motion, but the behavior of the two drive systems are entirely different, which explains why there is such a contrast in the performance of the two.

And yes, vacerator, you are partly correct in that they added a "gearbox", but it is still the same BPM motor used in the Oasis/F&P design. The gearbox is simply there for torque conversion for the same reason it is used in the belt-drive VMW machines.

The VMW belt-drive has only three common agitation profiles: Normal - 360 degree oscillations, Short-strokes for distribution - ~90 degree oscillations, and Long stroke, usually ~2-3 rotations each direction, used primarily in the Bulky/Deep Fill cycle. The speed in which the motor spins to generate the agitation strokes doesn't change, only the duration in which it "pulses" each direction. On the other hand, the Oasis and VMAX designs with the BPM "pancake" motor have quite a few profiles. On a Normal cycle, it will frequently alter its behavior, for example, it can start out with aggressive oscillations at 450 degrees or so, then step down to medium 360 degree osc., then a slower version of 360 degree osc, then a quick short 90 degree, then back up to medium 360. Even if it were to stay at 360 degree agitation the entire time, it can change the behavior of those oscillations by rotating more aggressively or gently. In addition to more variety in its agitation behavior, it can also "sense" the load and adjust accordingly. For example, a light load of typical fabrics will result in gentler agitation, never really going into the aggressive ~360 and ~450 degree, but settling between the medium and gentle strokes. A heavy load with mixed fabrics and things like sweaters and jeans tends to alternate those more vigorous strokes in to help move the load properly, with short gentle strokes throughout to help distribute and keep balance.

Joeypete is right, the belt-drive VMW design is perfect for the traditional fill agitator machines, because the standard back and forth motion throughout the cycle is perfect for that type of washer, but for the HE washplate, it's not quite as effective, and results in lethargic rollover and tangling/balling the load to one side.

In all of this, drive systems aside, the biggest game changer is the addition of a recirculation pump in the flagship Oasis and VMAX machines. The VMW has no recirculation system at all, and in my opinion, a recirc pump makes or breaks an HE top-loader.

The best way to see the difference is just watching videos of the three. As far as parts diagrams, I'll do my best to find each of them and post when I have time.

In regards to the newest design, the VMAX, I finally found a technical education manual that explains exactly how they work and how they differ from its Oasis predecessor. I also have the diagram and a photo for the new machines in question for the thread's original subject.


  Photos...       <              >      Photo 1 of 2         View Full Size
Post# 901193 , Reply# 33   9/30/2016 at 11:19 (205 days old) by murando531 (Huntsville, AL)        

murando531's profile picture
And no RevvinKevin, I'm sorry, but by combo52's logic, that's the same as having a Dodge Charger SE sitting side by side with a Charger SRT HellCat, and saying that there's no difference in performance because "they both have engines and wheels". It makes no sense. Seeing the VMW operating next to the Oasis or VMAX clearly differentiates the two machines and how they work.

Here's an example. This is a video of the VMW belt drive Cabrio, same as the equivalent model Kenmore and Maytag Bravos X. Notice the pulsing to turn the tub rather than a smooth fluid rotation, and the same repetitive agitation throughout the entire cycle.

Also, photos of the drive system underneath.

  Photos...       <              >      Photo 1 of 2         View Full Size
Post# 901196 , Reply# 34   9/30/2016 at 11:26 (205 days old) by murando531 (Huntsville, AL)        

murando531's profile picture
And here is a video of a flagship model Oasis machine with the recirculation pump and direct drive BPM motor. Skip to about 26:00 for the start of the agitation if so desired. Note how the agitation changes frequently throughout the wash portion.

Here's another with a full heavy load of towels. Agitation begins around 17:00. The agitation changes from aggressive to medium a few times, and there is no way to deny the drastic difference in rollover performance as opposed to the video with the VMW belt drive.

Photos of the drive system. Note that with the Oasis design, there is no square metal panel directly under the BPM motor as there is on the VMAX. The Oasis has no gearbox whatsoever, as the rotor is directly attached to the agitator, and the basket floats to disengage/rengage for agitate and spin. The pumps are also placed a bit differently, with the recirculator at the front of the machine on the VMAX, where on the Oasis they're both at the rear.

  Photos...       <              >      Photo 1 of 2         View Full Size
Post# 901200 , Reply# 35   9/30/2016 at 11:56 (205 days old) by joeypete (Concord, NH)        

joeypete's profile picture
See I knew Andrew would have the answers hahaha.

I can tell you what, at 41 years old I'm probably considered young by many people here and old by others...but in my 41 years I've discovered that age does NOT always mean more knowledge. My nephew will be 24 this December and by age 8 he was dissecting all kinds of electronics and could tell you how they worked inside and out. We were all astonished (and worried that the FBI would be coming to the house hahaha). It was amazing how much knowledge filled that little head of his.

Same is true for a lot of things. Every time I've bought a car, I've had vastly more knowledge about the vehicles than the salesman did...yes even ones that had been selling a particular brand for decades. Sure they knew all the options, etc but I knew the history of the model...the engines/transmissions and so on. I'm finding this with appliances too. My coworker's husband was an appliance repairman for 20 years and I was helping them pick out new appliances. Just because you sell and repair things doesn't mean you know every detail about them...or how they are designed and why.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful...nor is anyone here. Combo52 is very knowledgeable about appliances but Andrew and Henrick both are thinking more along the lines of engineering aspects of these machines...more so than just on how they work or don't. More facts than just opinion.

Post# 901202 , Reply# 36   9/30/2016 at 12:11 (205 days old) by RevvinKevin (Between Mickey Mouse & the Queen Mary (So. Cal.)        
Yes, the two designs have full theoretical range of motion

revvinkevin's profile picture



Thank you, that is EXACTLY my point!


I'm NOT talking about the performance of the machines, or how they wash clothes here,  (or a 300HP car versus a 700HP car).   I am talking about how both the belt drive and direct drive designs are capable of doing the exact same things, functions, motions, etc.     Again, it's only a matter of how the motor controller is programmed!   


If Whirlpool engineers programmed a direct drive machine to operate/function/perform like a belt drive machine, it would.   And vise versa, if they programmed the belt drive design to have the same motions as a direct drive design, again it would.


This is my point, not how the machines wash or how the clothes move or how one has recirculation and the other doesn't.




Post# 901208 , Reply# 37   9/30/2016 at 13:24 (205 days old) by johnb300m (Chicago)        
Direct vs Belt

johnb300m's profile picture
This is not entirely true.
It fully depends on the actual designs and capabilities of the motors.
It's possible that the motor used in the belt driven VMW just simply CANNOT respond to the actions if it were simply plugged into a direct drive motor controller.
Plus you have a belt in between, so you'll have movement losses due to the damping of a belt. Torque loss, grip loss etc.
BPM motors are usually more responsive and able to be tighter controlled. That's why they can do such quick and powerful variables of motion, over the types of motors usually applied to a belt.

NOW, only if WP connected a pancake style BPM motor with a belt to a VMW tub could the VMW possibly have the same mannerisms as the direct drive machine. But you'll still have the lossy springiness of a belt in between. With the increased possibility of belt slip. The motors that drive belts are usually less torque, or dialed down to not tear up the belt.
With the direct drive motor, you can have 100% torque, right away, to control wash motion.
It's a huge difference.

In NO way does it matter that you can turn a shaft the same way with either a direct drive motor or a belt link.
It doesn't matter. That's not how WP designed the machines.
The theoretical does not matter.

That's what us engineers have to fight with everyday.
All you regular people out there. Y'all don't get it's NOT JUST THAT SIMPLE.

Post# 901209 , Reply# 38   9/30/2016 at 13:37 (205 days old) by murando531 (Huntsville, AL)        

murando531's profile picture
Exactly what johnb300m said.

To say that the two designs are exactly the same just "because they can turn back and forth" is foolish. The two motors are entirely different devices with entirely different capabilities. The single-phase motor in the VMW operates at set speeds. The BPM rotor/stator motor has infinitely variable speeds and torque. To say that they'd work exactly the same way just because of a programming change makes no logical sense.

And if the two COULD work the same exact way just from changing programming, why would they have two entirely different designs in the first place? They could just use the cheaper-to-manufacture VMW design for everything and save the cost of the higher end BPM system.

Post# 901211 , Reply# 39   9/30/2016 at 13:57 (205 days old) by johnb300m (Chicago)        
Dual Action???

johnb300m's profile picture
Ok I was looking at this again. I know many of us were wondering.
Is this pole agitator a true 'dual action' or a fake?

I'm still not sure but it looks like they might be two pieces.
See the pic.
Any ideas?

  View Full Size
Post# 901215 , Reply# 40   9/30/2016 at 14:18 (205 days old) by logixx (Germany)        

logixx's profile picture
Single piece

  View Full Size
Post# 901240 , Reply# 41   9/30/2016 at 15:32 (205 days old) by vacerator (Macomb, Michigan)        
Excellent Andrew!

That's what I've been wondering all along. They've changed the hub design and eliminated the basket drive inner and outer flotation hub, and replaced it with a clutch. No gears (splutch) either??????, but they sure sound like they have gears.

Post# 901256 , Reply# 42   9/30/2016 at 16:58 (205 days old) by mrb627 (Buford, GA)        
Wash action.

mrb627's profile picture
Maybe the impeller spins in a longer arc in the clockwise direction?
Like 720* CW then 360* cow?


Post# 901455 , Reply# 43   10/2/2016 at 04:02 (204 days old) by henene4 (Germany)        

Yeah, then your point is totaly and utterly useless for this discussion.

Then, each and every V-achis TL washer except for some more exotic desingns (Frigidaire -matic series, Calypso, Neptune TL) can theoreticly do the same if they'd be designed to. But they aren't.

Sure, if I'd design a microwave to dry my socks, it sure could. If I'd design a VMW to be a Oasis or vise versa, it sure would be.

But it isn't.

Everything is possible; most of it hasn't been done yet and thus is not matter of discussion until its tried to be done.

Post# 901473 , Reply# 44   10/2/2016 at 07:53 (204 days old) by vacerator (Macomb, Michigan)        

Zee Snap!

Post# 902050 , Reply# 45   10/6/2016 at 17:29 (199 days old) by jkbff (Gladstone, ND)        

jkbff's profile picture

I guess I was told wrong about the dual action agitator.

Post# 902381 , Reply# 46   10/9/2016 at 13:04 (196 days old) by joeypete (Concord, NH)        

joeypete's profile picture
There's a video on the product descriptions. This looks like a great washer (the one with the agitator). Looks like they are really targeting both Speed Queen with the 5 year warranty model only sold by appliance stores...and the regular warranty one is towards GE and their new machines, with boasting the ability to add as much water as you want...and largest capacity.

Post# 902393 , Reply# 47   10/9/2016 at 16:13 (196 days old) by Murando531 (Huntsville, AL)        

murando531's profile picture
They need to place an asterisk foot note about that capacity, if they haven't already. 4.7 may be technically the largest capacity top load washer with an "agitator", but it's most certainly not the largest capacity in general.

Correction*** I completely missed where they did indeed back their claim as "largest capacity agitator washer". Even if it is just a washplate machine with a pole, but that's none of my business. Carry on!

Post# 904050 , Reply# 48   10/23/2016 at 21:38 (182 days old) by wishwash (Illinois)        

Here's one in action.


Post# 904053 , Reply# 49   10/23/2016 at 22:08 (182 days old) by askolover (South of Nash Vegas, TN)        

askolover's profile picture

no thanks, not for me.

Post# 904056 , Reply# 50   10/23/2016 at 22:52 (182 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.)        

dadoes's profile picture
Seriously??  That's way, wayy, wayyyyyyy too much water for that little load.

But interesting to see the Deep Water Wash option fills it FULL.

Post# 904058 , Reply# 51   10/23/2016 at 23:05 (182 days old) by appnut (TX)        

appnut's profile picture

What a joke.  A huge waste of water for that small load with it filling up all the way toward middle of the wash cycle.  And then poor rinsing.  I'd set it for fabric softener rinse all the time.  Plus not use normal.  I'll stick with my superior performing front loader tyvm. 

Post# 904059 , Reply# 52   10/23/2016 at 23:08 (182 days old) by jkbff (Gladstone, ND)        

jkbff's profile picture
Is that one direct drive? The ones we just put on the floor are direct drive with the glass lid.. as soon as I get it hooked up, I'll post a video.

Post# 904061 , Reply# 53   10/24/2016 at 00:35 (182 days old) by tolivac (greenville nc)        

I will stay with my old Hotpoint with its rampted agitator.The washer shown has lame agitation!If its going to fill that full-give the machine a REAL agitator-not one of those impeller things with the dual action spiral on it.And the spiral parts turns both ways-reducing its effectiveness.At least the machine is quieter than some.

Post# 904066 , Reply# 54   10/24/2016 at 02:25 (182 days old) by brucelucenta (tulsa, oklahoma)        

brucelucenta's profile picture
This is an excellent example of why new front load machines are so superior to top loaders. I was already convinced of this, but this makes me even more sure.

Post# 904074 , Reply# 55   10/24/2016 at 05:10 (182 days old) by retro-man (nashua,nh)        

I don't understand why are manufacturers so reluctant to put a normal style type of agitator in any machines. It makes no sense to me.


Post# 904076 , Reply# 56   10/24/2016 at 05:38 (182 days old) by mrb627 (Buford, GA)        
I said it years ago...

mrb627's profile picture

We will slowly be turned away from top loaders to front loaders.
It's a government conspiracy.


Post# 904080 , Reply# 57   10/24/2016 at 07:07 (182 days old) by joeypete (Concord, NH)        

joeypete's profile picture
OMG you guys are killing me. LOL. The new BOL Amana and Roper machines use the old WP surgilator. As does 2 of the WP branded machines that offer the Deep Fill option.

It is now safe to buy a cheap washer again. Using the "extra rinse" option on all these machines gives you a full deep rinse where you can use fabric softener. The machines that don't have a dispenser can use a Downy Ball or you can buy the dispenser as an accessory if you choose.

Things are getting better at least.

Post# 904093 , Reply# 58   10/24/2016 at 09:38 (182 days old) by brastemp (Brazil)        

I found a video with a Whirlpool version of this agitator. The guy used the Deep Wash function for little amount of clothes.
The agitator is only one piece, no "dual action" movement.

Post# 904121 , Reply# 59   10/24/2016 at 13:22 (181 days old) by mtn1584 (USA)        
Could someone tell me why.............

why does this machine agitate while filling up then stop agitating? That has to be rough on clothing? FIFTEEN MINUTES TO FILL for a DEEP FILL?
Blink and you'll miss the one spray for a "rinse" without softener?
Although I am amazed at how HIGH the deep fill is. I suppose if you had a huge load or a comforter it may come in handy. The machine seems more quiet when agitating with a deep fill.

Post# 904125 , Reply# 60   10/24/2016 at 13:56 (181 days old) by johnb300m (Chicago)        

johnb300m's profile picture
So much melodrama.
Joey, thanks for that Amana link!
I bet my parents would love that Amana when their current machine kicks the bucket.
It's about as traditional as you can get today.

And I still don't see an issue with those other machines.
The newer wash plate machines can agitate while filling still, because the wash plates have much lower ribs that can scrub against the clothes during partial fills and still be gentle on them compared to a traditional DD ShredPool.

The others were likely using the deep fill as a demo, even though the loads were too small.
The Deep Fill is a great idea, but I think they should've done it more incrementally like GE did, unless GE patented it....
Theirs does only 6" fill increments up to the top. More versatile I think.
And with true HE detergents, they rinse very quickly.
90% of the time, my laundry is suds free in the Maxima after the 1st rinse anyway.
And don't most of us use fabric softener in the washer anyway. So a majority of loads will be done with the deeper Softener Rinse anyway.

Post# 904170 , Reply# 61   10/24/2016 at 21:16 (181 days old) by Joeypete (Concord, NH)        

joeypete's profile picture
I'm very intrigued by these machines, so much that I think I need to hide my credit cards! Hahaha. The glass top 4.7 Maytag IS a direct drive model like their impeller ones...just with an agitator. I'm really liking that one. The BOL models pull me too. I could probably have a dozen washers. Lordy.

I thought the rollover was excellent in that Maytag 4.2 video. And yes I think the deep fill was used just to show how it works. These are all big improvements over previous machines seen in the last couple of years.

Post# 904172 , Reply# 62   10/24/2016 at 21:50 (181 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.)        

dadoes's profile picture
Seems a glitch in the deep-fill angle is that the choice is for the machine to auto-sense an HE level or for the user to choose the maximum Deep Wash option ... nothing between.

Post# 904173 , Reply# 63   10/24/2016 at 21:55 (181 days old) by washerdude (Canada )        

These new Maytags remind me of something Whirlpool has made in the past. Their Cabrio toploaders with an agitator. I'm not exactly sure what model numbers they were but to me, these new Maytags are a clear resemblance from the older Cabrios with the agitator. If its another thing I'm starting to notice its Whirlpool mixing their old design together with a modern one and spitting out something like this.

As for the video of the 4.2 Maytag washing away. I'm impressed. Same goes to the Amana. Rollover does look good and the machines overall sound levels seem lower with deep fill. But this is a major improvement from my view seeing how much of a mess it was a couple years ago and by watching the videos, despite me being all out for front loaders, i think I MIGHT consider another toploader if our current one was to go.

As for the fill times, I remember you could remove the flow restrictor on these units which would allow for a quicker fill. Are these restrictors still in place for the newer machines as well?

  View Full Size
Post# 904181 , Reply# 64   10/25/2016 at 01:38 (181 days old) by tolivac (greenville nc)        

I would take that Amana washer as shown in the video over the Maytag one shown earlier----Of course the top choice for TL fans would be-----The Speed Queens!!!the Amana agitator at least works properly-the auger moves in one direction.

Post# 904195 , Reply# 65   10/25/2016 at 05:58 (181 days old) by joeypete (Concord, NH)        

joeypete's profile picture
Yes, the Cabrio and Bravos both had agitator models! Jamie posted a video a few years ago:

I agree with DADoES that GE still has the upper hand with the incremental Deep Fill feature. The WP is a huge improvement but could be an overkill. However from what I noticed, their AutoSense feature does a decent job of judging the loads.

Don't start with the Speed Queen rant Tolivac! hahaha

Post# 904226 , Reply# 66   10/25/2016 at 09:47 (181 days old) by wishwash (Illinois)        
Agitated Cabrio

I used to own one of those agitated Cabrios. It was a really nice washer, but the agitation was too anemic for my taste. There are definitely machines that wash better for the price. I kind of want them to try the agitated models again with the current direct drive Cabrio architecture, only with a long agitation profile. Would definitely be a nice upgrade from my VMW.

Post# 904229 , Reply# 67   10/25/2016 at 10:36 (180 days old) by mark_wpduet (Lexington KY)        
wait a minute, hold up, wait, what?

mark_wpduet's profile picture
That Amana, with the porcelain tub, deep water wash, and, what looks to me like an old school Whirlpool agitator - this almost looks essentially like an old school TL washer. I'm kind of shocked at the moment.

Post# 904410 , Reply# 68   10/26/2016 at 19:33 by Gyrafoam (Roanoke, VA)        
Too much narishkeit

for me. I am glad I got a set of SQ's from Jason and John five years ago. Only washer I own that doesn't offer a "warm" rinse.
I am out of my realm here on "Deluxe"! Too funny.

Post# 907705 , Reply# 69   11/20/2016 at 07:39 by Wishwash (Illinois)        

This one is really quiet. I'm impressed.


Post# 907706 , Reply# 70   11/20/2016 at 07:43 by joeypete (Concord, NH)        
Hey, that's me!

joeypete's profile picture
Yes, it's very quiet compared to the VMW machines. I'm loving it so far. I'll keep posting new videos too. :-)

Post# 907746 , Reply# 71   11/20/2016 at 12:27 by chetlaham (United States)        
Agiate while filling

People need to realize that manufactures will do what ever they can to quietly compel users to swallow front load washers. The agitators in these newer HE washer as designed around low water levels and will actually clean worse with full tub of water despite the gimmick glued to the top if that impeller, but still can't outdo a traditional top load high or low. They agitate while filling so clothes will have the same level of wear as when used high or low. In short of these machines we will soon have consumer reports (and the like) articles reading like this:

"It has always been of great debate among precious Americans whether you can get that same level of laundry-day clean with less water. Critics argue new proven high efficiency earth saving bunny loving machines ruin clothes and have fewer cleaning abilities while they stubbornly cling to old, loud, noisy, grandma era machines which take away yearly supplies of clean, safe drinking water from 1 billion people all over the globe. Proponents who have made the switch claim their new humanity saving machines not only clean better, but keep clothes like new load after load after load. Some users actually report that their machines make new clothes while other find piles of cash in them every morning.

Well, at consumer reports we actually put all these claims to the test hoping to settle this age old debate thats perpetuated by infamous bigots living in the 50s. Our world renowned PhD level Scientists and Engineers made a monumental discovery. GE, Hotpoint, Maytag, Whirlpool, Roper, Aamana, Kenmore and many other highly respected companies actually offer a "deep water" wash feature across multiple models and line ups to help calm the irrational, delusional beliefs held by energy star hating extremists. When deep water wash is selected (we know folks, its stings just to read it) these machine will physically morph, reverting to a different set of factory installed programs which change the anatomical structure of the machine (and universe) into an autonomous binary secondary set of dormant traits becoming active during the stimulus expression process of trans human interface mobility. To break down this language only understood by our research panel (sorry you haven't been blessed with our superior cognitive abilities), these machines can turn from a normal high efficiency top load to an identical 70s top load- mass global droughts included- with the simple push of a button.

36 models were tested with identical fabrics cut into identical sizes with
identical soils. 9 base fabric types were used: cotton, rayon, polyester, nylon, wool, spandex, hemp, cashmere and silk, all of which were further dived up into make types, ie cotton denim and loose cotton. Soils were placed into 45 individual pair types sorted by color, chemical makeup, hardness, water solubility and the like. This lead to well over 50,000 variant combination of soil, fabric and weaving type.

Of these 50,000 variants, each was multiplied twice, then twice again and then again by 36 to cover each model. It is important to note that testing was done by cycle recommended for said fabric and washed in 6 pound dry loads.

After each fabric was washed leaving only half behind, all were then examined via a battery of tests for soil retention. Over 5000 ratting points scales were used to determine which machine scored best in clean ability in impeller wash vs deep water wash.

The second set of fabric were run continuously, 24 hours a day, for 2 months to determine accumulated wear. Each swatch was then examined for overall wearing, pitting, milling, tearing, linting and so forth on a 150 point-scale check list.

After over 500,000 accumulated data score points, the results were tallied up. Surprisingly to some, and as we expected, the impeller low water wash cleaned 25 to 60% better, and did best with grass, ketchup and other organic stains. Dirt was close, with only grease removal being similar to the deep fill option. One theory being that more water actually dilutes detergent, reducing its organic stain fighting power. Pet hair was only slightly better in the deep wash- but- we are aware that most users prefer machine dry over line dry so this issue may not be of issue.

Final results: impeller wins hands down.

Clothing durability. This is was surprise for us. Out of all the results, 93% were equal in wear, 4% less for deep water and 3% more for impeller. The slight increase in impeller may actually have been from washing swatches on casuals instead of delicate, however this small deviation is not one where the clean-ability, let along probability likens favor for a deep water wash.

In short, traditional deep fill washers and options actually clean worse, if not far worse; while only giving the same wear and tear as high efficiency machines. A total opposite of what the developmentally repressed crowd has been screaming. So, everyone with an ounce of common sense can happily switch that knob to HE, while others can junk their stone age arsenal buying a real washer giving real results without mass genociding the environment.

And we know our readers are smart and thus wonder, 'hey, why did you waste all that water for those deep fills?' Well, not to worry, we aren't sick like the energy hog lovers. 80% of the water was recycled by a system devolved by our NASA and CERN engineers working side by side to make sure no water went down the drain wasted. The other 20% came from rain water collected in our weather to water recovery system.

Bob Smith,

PhD and noble prize winner in everything"

Yet come reality do the same with a real agitator top load and the results will be polar opposites. The power of propaganda and deceptive manufacturing. :(

Post# 907747 , Reply# 72   11/20/2016 at 12:30 by chetlaham (United States)        

The above is not directed at anyone here or meant to bully, just a parody of manufacture driven propaganda.

Post# 907855 , Reply# 73   11/21/2016 at 05:26 by retro-man (nashua,nh)        

Six pound loads. Ok lets go back to the late 40's early 50's. lol


Post# 907858 , Reply# 74   11/21/2016 at 07:16 by foraloysius (Groningen, the Netherlands)        

foraloysius's profile picture
Our tiny European frontloaders get tested with a bigger load than 6 pounds!

Post# 907871 , Reply# 75   11/21/2016 at 10:02 by chetlaham (United States)        
6 pounds

LOL, yahhh, I know. Wanted to make it look like top load users were still clinging to the 50s.

Post# 907872 , Reply# 76   11/21/2016 at 10:35 by murando531 (Huntsville, AL)        

murando531's profile picture
This is getting beyond ridiculous. Chetlaham, how many HE top-loaders have you owned and used for an extended period of time? My machine washes loads twice what the 3.6 cuft tub of the Whirlpool DirectDrives did, proven by actually loading the DD properly to the lip of the tub, then transferring that load to the BravosXL which filled it to just over half, then adding clothes the rest of the way to the rim of THAT tub, and it cleans, rinses, and extracts them brilliantly, and with no wear or even so much as a pulled string in two years. You're formulating all this baloney from speculation and word of mouth, and god knows the internet is more full of trolls bashing products just on principal and looking for a reaction than there are people giving their honest and experienced opinions.

Post# 907876 , Reply# 77   11/21/2016 at 11:12 by joeypete (Concord, NH)        

joeypete's profile picture
I've found over the last 2 years of using both HE and traditional washing machines, that the HE impeller models do a much better job of stain removal (without pretreatment even) than regular washers. As far as wear and tear goes...I think that really depends on the machine and how it's loaded/cycle selected. I never overloaded my Filter Flo...and having such a small capacity that it does, made for lots more laundry doing. I haven't noticed any more wear after using that machine for a year, than I did using both the Hydrowave and the Kenmore Oasis machine I had after that.

I feel Andrew's frustration but at this point having so much hands on experience with various machines, there's really no argument for me. Both types of machines do the job, but I definitely lean towards HE impeller machines for better stain removal...with less work on the operators part. Sure the cycles take longer but the results are better.

I was ecstatic to see WP put agitators in these machines, like the MVWB765 that I just purchased. Honestly my biggest complaint with my Kenmore and other plain impeller machines, was that for large bulky items like blankets and comforters, there was a lot more "babysitting" so to speak, of the items to ensure they didn't get balled up or tangled. For most loads in these machines, the impeller will do a lot of the cleaning...admittedly before it fills completely with water. But once full, the agitator does keeps things moving freely and more productive.

Post# 907943 , Reply# 78   11/21/2016 at 18:23 by chetlaham (United States)        
Please remember,

That its just a parody. ;) Its was meant for laughs and giggles. Things are exaggerated greatly.

My point is that I don't see the newer impeller post agitators being as effective in a deep water wash as the older traditional agitators. Simply put they are designed around being used as just that: an impeller. The posts are just to attract customers who are used to having an agitator. But lets face it, whether we like it or not I predict that in 10 years time all washers will be front load.

As for the number of HE top load machines Ive used: Calypso, Maytag (old style) and a Maytag impeller. Yes these fit way more clothers, but for speed and clothing wear I am for toploads. This is not to say I'd reject a good front load like Speed Queen.

Post# 907944 , Reply# 79   11/21/2016 at 18:25 by chetlaham (United States)        

* by wear I mean wear and tear. Front loads are the most gentle, followed by traditional toplaods then HE toploads in my experience.

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.

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