Thread Number: 17034
1950s-1960s era Speed Queen or Maytag ? |
[Down to Last] |
Post# 280583   5/17/2008 at 23:59 (5,794 days old) by mrcleanjeans (milwaukee wi)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Which is better and why in your opinion? And which is purtier? |
|
Post# 280593 , Reply# 2   5/18/2008 at 01:09 (5,794 days old) by danemodsandy (The Bramford, Apt. 7-E)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
"Built like a tank, they seem to last forever. However, I believe they were a bit lacking in the feature department." That may have been true in the '50s and the early '60s, but by the time of the New Generation models of the mid-'60s, they had much better features. The TOL 906s were so chock-full of features and so pre-programmed, the only machines I know of that could match them were contemporary Lady Kenmores (it must be said that the LKs offered more flexibility; 906s were set up so that you couldn't modify any of their preset cycles). Later, in the '70s, Maytag extended features even deeper into the line. I have an LA108 from the latter half of the decade; it's a one-speed model that was nearly the bottom of the line. Yet- courtesy of Maytag's almost unbelievably simple engineering- it has three cycles (Regular, Permanent Press, and Delicate), four water temp selections (Cold/Cold, Warm/Cold, Hot/Cold, and Warm/Warm), as well as three water level selections (Small, Medium and Large). In addition, it has a bleach dispenser and a softener dispenser. This is a one-speed machine, so the Delicate cycle is Fabric-Matic, meaning that the machine agitates a bit, stops a while, then agitates a bit more, then stops, etc. All of this is done with some of the simplest, most elegant technology I've ever seen. It is absolutely all the washer I need. Other brands produced in the same time frame didn't have this many features, because their engineering was too elaborate. For instance, softener dispensers were often solenoid-controlled on other makes, instead of the Maytag's simple reliance on centrifugal force. That meant that such dispensers were too expensive to put on every model. Maytag could afford to give one of theirs with most every machine. In their time, Speed Queens were supposed to be exceptionally robust machines; they were promoted as such and people who bought them believed that to be true. But from what I can see (and I am willing to be corrected on this point), the survival rate on vintage 'Tags is higher than that for SQ's from the same time frame. Can you tell I loves me some Maytags? ;-) |
Post# 280594 , Reply# 3   5/18/2008 at 01:18 (5,794 days old) by danemodsandy (The Bramford, Apt. 7-E)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
...You asked about purtier. My vote would be for Maytag there, too. Maytag styling was highly professional, very sleek and beautifully done. For my money, SQ styling always had that "alternative product" look, with styling that was a little stodgy and a little out-of-date. I don't mind that, actually; my 1980's TriStar vacuum cleaner has styling derived from the Compact vacuum cleaner of 1940, updated only in small details. "Niche" manufacturers offering a product that was supposedly better than the big brands often had outdated or slightly clunky styling (think American Motors vs. General Motors). In cases where the product really was terrific (like my TriStar), "alternative" styling can actually be somewhat endearing. I think that SQs were good machines, don't get me wrong. I just happen to like Maytags a lot. |
Post# 280595 , Reply# 4   5/18/2008 at 01:21 (5,794 days old) by danemodsandy (The Bramford, Apt. 7-E)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 280620 , Reply# 8   5/18/2008 at 11:31 (5,793 days old) by gansky1 (Omaha, The Home of the TV Dinner!)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 280621 , Reply# 9   5/18/2008 at 11:34 (5,793 days old) by rickr (.)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
I like the1950's and early 1960's Speed Queens styling, and the fact that they had the stainless solid tub and stainless dryer drum. I also like the simplicity of the mechanical design of the Maytag, plus the quality of workmanship, right down to the superb metal prep and rust proofing job that was done on the cabinets. The first design centre dial Maytags are in a class all their own. Very pleasing styling, right down the base model Highliner. While I do not want a basement full of Maytags, I think that no collection should be without at least one. That being said, I would LOVE to find a 1950's to early 1960's Speed Queen for my collection also. <: |
Post# 280624 , Reply# 10   5/18/2008 at 13:49 (5,793 days old) by danemodsandy (The Bramford, Apt. 7-E)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
That I always admired about Maytags of the centre-dial era was that most washers and dryers in the lineup could be paired, and appear to match. The all-pushbutton 906s were an exception, of course, and lighted console models didn't appear to be a dead match with lower-series models that didn't have that feature. But by and large, you could put together exactly the models you wanted, and they'd match. Other manufacturers' machines didn't come anywhere close to matching from series to series, so if you bought a TOL washer and skimped on the dryer (as many people did), your attempt at thrift really stuck out like a sore thumb. Sears was particularly devious in this regard; while most of their machines had a "family" resemblance, a Lady Kenmore and a MOL or BOL machine didn't look right together. So, that's one more reason I like 'Tags. My own Maytag pair is an LA108 that is nearly a BOL machine (not that I need anything more). But my dryer is an MOL, electronic sensor LDE608- a more upscale machine than the washer. They match perfectly. It just adds more value, y'know? |
Post# 280647 , Reply# 12   5/18/2008 at 18:10 (5,793 days old) by frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 280656 , Reply# 14   5/18/2008 at 18:46 (5,793 days old) by stainfighter (Columbia, SC)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
this is Mark (Lighted Control's) Speed Queen - it has some turnover! But I think Maytag was a purtier design
CLICK HERE TO GO TO stainfighter's LINK |
Post# 280664 , Reply# 16   5/18/2008 at 21:08 (5,793 days old) by jons1077 (Vancouver, Washington, USA)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 280679 , Reply# 17   5/18/2008 at 23:04 (5,793 days old) by volvoguy87 (Cincinnati, OH)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
I have used the following top-loaders in my life regularly enough to remember: 1981 Wards (Norge) 1993 Kenmore 80 Series DD 1999ish Whirlpool DD 1978ish GE FF 2005 Speed Queen Coin-Ops 1999ish Maytag Coin-Ops 1st gen. Maytag Neptune Coin-Op (HATED IT!!!) early 1990s Maytag GE (Whirlpool) Portable DD Kenmore (WCI) stacked top-loader with plastic indexing tub 2004 Amanatag (Hated it too) 1980 Maytag A208 The Maytag A208 wins hands down. It has the quietest operation, the least vibration, and the best results. The GE FF is better at lint removal, but the Maytag just PERFORMS! It always balances the load and spins up to 618 RPM without shaking the house. It is a low-end machine, but the best featured-regular capacity washer available of the era. I can't say enough good things about it. Center Dials age gracefully and will still beat their contemporary competition. Dave |
Post# 280681 , Reply# 18   5/18/2008 at 23:37 (5,793 days old) by roto204 (Tucson, AZ)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Yes, Mark's machine is awesome with that agi, but my experience with the Speed Queens at Greg's was that they were a little lacking in the turnover department. Fun, dramatic, and gorgeous, but a standard capacity Maytag would knock the socks off of one. Of course, the "scoop-and-squirt" lint filter on the SQ was pure entertainment...I have to give it that. |
Post# 280686 , Reply# 19   5/19/2008 at 00:06 (5,793 days old) by eddy1210 (Burnaby BC Canada)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 280697 , Reply# 20   5/19/2008 at 08:22 (5,793 days old) by toggleswitch (New York City, NY)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 280703 , Reply# 21   5/19/2008 at 09:02 (5,793 days old) by gansky1 (Omaha, The Home of the TV Dinner!)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Nate is right - a standard capacity Maytag next to a Speed Queen would be a rather unfair "fight". The Speed Queen machines ranked near or at the very bottom of the ratings for years - until they went to a perforated tub design in 1980 and even then, their ratings didn't improve much. Some of the constants were poor extraction, average or less-than-average washing ability and especially in the case of the 70's reversing motor machines, rather poor reliability ratings. It was curious that SQ continued to use the reliable solenoid design in it's commercial line, but changed to the reversing motor and helical shifting mechanism in the domestic line which were regarded as mostly garbage when they were first introduced in 1970. Not that I don't love the SQ's - I've had quite a few of them but my favorites were the solenoid machines by far. Maytag never fared much better in CR ratings for washability, scoring mostly average ratings but their reliability reputation made them an obvious winner in that area. CR consistently rated them at or near the top - not because they were so much better than any other make, but because they had fewer disadvantages and fewer lower scores than other makes. |
Post# 280710 , Reply# 22   5/19/2008 at 10:06 (5,793 days old) by peterh770 (Marietta, GA)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 280733 , Reply# 23   5/19/2008 at 12:56 (5,792 days old) by mulls ()   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
PeterH770, Many of us were "born late"as far as our tastes go-I bet you would have been in heaven if you had been a mat owner 40 years ago with 30 SQs all running in unison! Tom |
Post# 280734 , Reply# 24   5/19/2008 at 13:48 (5,792 days old) by laundromat (Hilo, Hawaii)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
The Speed Queens had a solid tub that was horrible when it came to doing anything from the beach.They not only left sand in their solid tub but it also got into the fabrics of the wah done in that load.The Maytag's perferated tubs were much more practicle as well as larger in capacity.The Maytag's Power Finn Agitators were also much better.Being flexible instead of solid and molded into the actual frame of the agitator,made the Maytags have a much more assured turn over of the clothes.For example,some agitator washers would cause air to build up in pieces like bedsheets and dress shirts.The Maytag's turn over ,more or less,did away with that problem by the vacuum build up in the wash and rinse water created by the flexible finns.That was one of the first positive features I saw in the older Maytags as aposed to the Whirlpools and GE's. I noticed too the difference the spinning with the water in the tub caused.I already miss the original machines they made to last.I need to get one for keeps.
|
Post# 280755 , Reply# 26   5/19/2008 at 15:30 (5,792 days old) by laundromat (Hilo, Hawaii)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
I wasn't that fond of the GE's.The water coming out through the Filter Flo spray nozel was always dirty and sudsy.I liked the clear rinses I had with the Laundromat,Maytag and 1-18 FRIGIDAIRE models.I am not saying I didn't like Speed Queens.They are great and I liked the old Fluid Drive transies as well as their overflow rinse.But the capacity as well as the solid tub design just didn't cut it for me.I know that FRIGIDAIRE"s tubs were also solid but the up and down agitation as well as the Rapidry Spin made up for that.
|
Post# 280763 , Reply# 27   5/19/2008 at 15:50 (5,792 days old) by gansky1 (Omaha, The Home of the TV Dinner!)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 280789 , Reply# 30   5/19/2008 at 18:18 (5,792 days old) by peterh770 (Marietta, GA)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 280806 , Reply# 31   5/19/2008 at 20:14 (5,792 days old) by gansky1 (Omaha, The Home of the TV Dinner!)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 280807 , Reply# 32   5/19/2008 at 20:15 (5,792 days old) by gansky1 (Omaha, The Home of the TV Dinner!)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 280810 , Reply# 33   5/19/2008 at 20:26 (5,792 days old) by gansky1 (Omaha, The Home of the TV Dinner!)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 280813 , Reply# 34   5/19/2008 at 20:32 (5,792 days old) by mulls ()   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
PeterH770, I thought you were more of a SQ nut than a Frigidaire nut!I am looking at buying my first mat-Speed Queens of all sizes! Tom |
Post# 280823 , Reply# 35   5/19/2008 at 20:53 (5,792 days old) by mulls ()   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Oh Gansky-that was a stacked deck!Now hows about a TOL GE pic-anyone? Tom |
Post# 280824 , Reply# 36   5/19/2008 at 20:59 (5,792 days old) by stainfighter (Columbia, SC)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
1968 - when we were vacationing at West Beach Haven, NJ we went to a 'mat, it was filled with only Frigidaires - the sounds coming out of that place, the smells - the hot sudsy water, bleach - ahh... I remember how there were several units that had the angry red light glowing 'unbalanced'. I wanted to rebalance them but Mom said to leave 'em that way. I was only 7 years old. What a place!!!
|
Post# 280891 , Reply# 37   5/20/2008 at 09:05 (5,792 days old) by peterh770 (Marietta, GA)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 280901 , Reply# 38   5/20/2008 at 10:23 (5,792 days old) by unimatic1140 (Minneapolis)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 280962 , Reply# 40   5/20/2008 at 19:21 (5,791 days old) by polkanut (Wausau, WI )   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 280969 , Reply# 41   5/20/2008 at 20:09 (5,791 days old) by alr2903 (TN)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
I wonder how much larger the large solid tub SQ is compared to the small one? Thanks. alr2903 |
Post# 280970 , Reply# 42   5/20/2008 at 20:11 (5,791 days old) by hydralique (Los Angeles)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Robert, that Speed Queen with the goldtone panel just ROCKS . . . thanks for posting! |