|
Thread Number: 15725
Whirlpool, Kenmore, GE, Norge, Maytag, Westinghouse Filters & overflow Rinses |
[Down to Last] |  |
| Post# 263900 2/8/2008 at 06:08 (5,919 days old) by vcontreras () | ||
|
What happened to all the lint filters & overflow rinses? | ||
|
| Post# 263909 , Reply# 1 2/8/2008 at 07:47 (5,919 days old) by lederstiefel1 () | ||
|
what happened... They're all gone - like all good things nowadays! Didn't you know, we're living in the "pseudo-era" where things are no longer what they pretend to be! It's all design covered rubbish in truth! Ralf | ||
Post# 263932 , Reply# 4 2/8/2008 at 10:43 (5,919 days old) by kenmoreguy64  (Charlotte, NC) |
||
About Whirlpool and Kenmore anyway....
I agree with everything posted above but I think I can add a bit more. The only washers I am highly familiar with are the WP products so I'll contain my comment to those.... In the 60s they had either the cabinet mounted self-cleaning filter, or they had the wonderful waterfall manual clean filter. I remember LOTS of lint coming from them and the machines weren't that big, capacity wise. Later the manual filters were revised to those tooth & prong inserts which don't catch what the waterfalls did, and the original cabinet mount filters were revised into a smaller unit, only to be changed again by the mid 70s and became tub mounted. Both designs had fewer parts and were less complicated but also trapped less lint. They were less costly to make I'm sure. In the case of the cabinet mount self-cleaner, they were supposed to be less prone to clogging as well. From the 80s on, the manual clean filters dissappeared altoghter and the tub-mount filter gave way to the under-basket "filters" that were mentioned above - they hardly catch any lint as compared to the 60s stuff. Frankly, I'd rather my washer have a good, efficient filter, regardless or whether or not I use a dryer. There are more cottons (lint producers) in today's laundry as compared to the 70s and early 80s when we were downsizing the importance of filters. The lint is going to come off the clothes at some point - the less I put into the dryer before it comes off, the better in my opinion. I always assumed, since my background is in manufacturing, that the filters were "de-emphasized" for costing reasons. By the time the last belt-drive WP machines were made, they had a 2-port pump and only a couple hoses underneath - FAR less complication than the hoses/plumbing needed for any type of old-fashioned filter. Less filter, less hoses, clamps, and a cheaper pump mean more profit. I hope that doesn't sound cynical of me but I think it all came down to the mightly dollar. | ||
|
Post# 263942 , Reply# 5 2/8/2008 at 11:59 (5,919 days old) by volvoguy87 (Cincinnati, OH) |
||
Lint filters.
I like lint filters and I miss them. When I was growing up, we had a MW (Norge) Burpalator, circa 1981. No extra plumbing, no recirculating pump, but very effective. My grandmother had (and still has) a GE Filter Flo. I think the GE FFs were the last machines to be sold with an effective lint filter. My Maytag A208 has a lint filter, and it is pretty effective, but not as good as the GE FF. I like the agitator-mounted lint filters because they tend to get all the lint into a small ball, which is easy to remove. Without a lint filter, a washing machine does not live up to its name (a machine that washes) because the clothes are not clean until they are run through a dryer. Sometimes, I like to hang my clothes out on the line to dry. I hardly think washing is automatic or complete when I must use a lint brush on everything I washed after they are dry on the line. I believe that the disappearance of effective washing machine lint filtration is just another example of consumers getting screwed by manufacturers. Just my thoughts, Dave | ||
| Post# 263999 , Reply# 7 2/8/2008 at 20:37 (5,919 days old) by timonator () | ||
|
Now Heres a Great Reason to have a Filter Take a look at this mess! 
| ||
|
Post# 264004 , Reply# 8 2/8/2008 at 21:23 (5,919 days old) by frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
 | ||
| Post# 264015 , Reply# 10 2/8/2008 at 23:07 (5,919 days old) by rickr (.) | ||
I agree with Rinso | ||
| Post# 264016 , Reply# 11 2/8/2008 at 23:08 (5,919 days old) by mickeyd (Hamburg NY) | ||
Rinso, you said it all | ||
| Post# 264018 , Reply# 12 2/8/2008 at 23:14 (5,919 days old) by rickr (.) | ||
|
. | ||
| Post# 264024 , Reply# 13 2/8/2008 at 23:50 (5,919 days old) by mickeyd (Hamburg NY) | ||
|
Postus Interruptus | ||
| Post# 264026 , Reply# 14 2/9/2008 at 00:03 (5,919 days old) by rickr (.) | ||
|
| ||
|
Post# 264037 , Reply# 15 2/9/2008 at 01:51 (5,919 days old) by washerlover (The Big Island, Hawai’i) |
||
 | ||
| Post# 264061 , Reply# 16 2/9/2008 at 10:09 (5,918 days old) by mickeyd (Hamburg NY) | ||
|
Rick. it IS a blast with the top off and the mini in--like t
Reading what Gene and Gordon (Welcome!) were saying, I'm wondering if the invisible or Magic Clean Filter rinses the lint away, which would explain why our pal Rinso can't find any lint. Then I remembered the WP sent me a thick packet of info about 10 years ago, explaining all of WP's functions. I'm going to find it and get back to you all later.
| ||
|
Post# 264775 , Reply# 18 2/13/2008 at 10:57 (5,914 days old) by kenmoreguy64 (Charlotte, NC) |
||
|
All - I agree with rickr. The most lint I've ever seen coming out of the five Kenmores I've used over the years came from our 1961 with waterfall. Ironically, that machine had the smallest tub. Our second Kenmore had a cabinet mounted self cleaning filter, which my mom enjoyed. It would dump a decent amount of lint into our laundry sink (where the washer was permanently set to drain) but not as much as we'd get out of the '61. Mom's next machine, as well as my first (a late '86) and my '93 DD hardly catch any - a well known fact it seems here at AW.org. They have the underbasket disk design, which I have always thought was a sad excuse for a filter. To see how much lint that disk caught, I put an old stocking on the end of a drain hose, and left it there thru one full normal cycle which was full of white cottons. There was a few tufts of stuff in the stocking, but probably half of what would come out of the previous self cleaner and maybe 1/5 of what we got out of the waterfall '61, and again, that machine held less laundry. I have never complained about lint removal with my laundry until recently....moron me washed my gym towels with a new pair of cream colored dockers....the pants were covered in white lint from the towels and even the dryer didn't get it off. OOOPS. Soon I will have a machine with the waterfall up and going. Can't wait to see what I get. Cheers! | ||
|
Post# 264793 , Reply# 20 2/13/2008 at 14:08 (5,914 days old) by kenmoreguy64 (Charlotte, NC) |
||
|
I have two Kenmore dryers, one from 1986 and one from 1977 - they both have the long lint filter you're talking about. 29" Whirlpool products still use that filter to this day, though the 27" is drum mounted, at least it was. If I don't empty either machine for two loads, I get a decent handful of lint out of each filter, and I agree, they work really well. How much lint a dryer collects depends very much on how well it's vented, but WPs seem to collect a lot as compared to models with smaller filters, etc. | ||
| Forum Index: |
| Other Forums: |
|
|
|
|
|
Comes to the Rescue!
