Maytag vs Whirlpool 1970's Washtubs

Melvin and Harry:

Yes I did rebuild all these machines. The worst was the 1986 machine, with severe trauma to the transmission and bearings due to water in tne centerpost. The transmission was full of a thick, gooey water & oil mixture that resembled molasses. The 1980 machine has been in the family since 1989 when I bought it for my sister from a refurbisher for her first apartment after college. She retired it in 2000 and gave it back to me. It went into storage immediately until March of 2008. The 1982 machine came out of Arizona and looked like a high-mileage unit so I fully rebuilt it including new centerpost bearings. The 1977 machine I have owned since 1990 when it was traded into Sears for something new. It had been used for some time as an industrial mop-head washer and needed a replacement basket and outer tub as whatever the users washed with completely ate away the porcelain on both surfaces. I had found that replacement basket while scavenging at a used appliance store years ago.

I don't have any videos, but do intend to take some at some point when I get a camera capable of it. I will however get some console shots. None of these have the features checklists still attached.

Removing the outer tubs WILL NOT make the leak issues worse if you replace the outlet hose and the centerpost gasket. Care needs to be taken to guard the tub lip where the centerpost gasket mounts. Previously leaky machines that have sat for 5 years, etc. are probably likely to leak worse when they are reintroduced into service.

It is NOT possible to put a 1980 washer's tub and basket into another style belt-drive machine unless it has the baseplate designed for the largest capacity machines. The tub outlet hose and the tub mounting screws won't match-up. The suspension rods of the later 1981 and newer machines are too short also. As well, the short centerpost of the 1978 and later models makes a 1980 machine's basket limited to a 1978 to 1981 machine.

Essentially interchangeable components are limited as follows:

- 1960-1978 standard capacity
- 1968-1978 18 lb. capacity

Little to nothing above the baseplate is interchangeable between these two capacities. Commonality continues to 1981 for the above if you exclude the basket and centerpost components.

- Later 1981-1987 standard capacity (Whirlpool and commercial Kenmore only)
- Later 1981-1986 large capacity

Commonality is much greater with these two capacities in that they use the same baseplate and only different suspension rod lengths. A benefit of the mild 1981 re-design is the interchaneability of most parts between these two machines. Even the tub rings are the same. Standard capacity machines of this era are less common, but noteable in that they have the three "patches" of lower perfs like the large capacity machines instead of the previous continuous circle of perfs.

I'm guessing that's clear as mud now....

Gordon


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

Post# 343281 4/18/2009 at 08:40 (5,477 days old) by scrubflex (bronx, new york)
Checkrate/Likes Hey Gordon, Check out the last Biggest Capacity thread# 21792 and tell me what you think about it. Also, look thread# 21823 it shows a 1976 Whirlpool washer and it suppose to be the largest capacity. But, take a close look at the feature list that has the cu.ft size.

Post# 343345 , Reply# 1 4/18/2009 at 15:31 (5,477 days old) by kenmoreguy64 (Charlotte, NC)
Checkrate/Likes Hi Harry, I saw the pics of the '76 Whirlpool. Very cool washer by the way... That's about consistent with the Kenmores of that time which stated they had 2.68 or 2.69 cu. ft (I can't remember which). The whirlpool agitator most definitely takes up less space in the same basket than a Penta-Swirl, which is actually a space hog. There is a huge gap of space under that agitator from the five wide vanes. I'm going to attach a few pics which may show you what I mean more clearly...

Post# 343346 , Reply# 2 4/18/2009 at 15:34 (5,477 days old) by kenmoreguy64 (Charlotte, NC)
Checkrate/Likes *This is my 1980 Kenmore daily driver....* By the time this machine was built, the capacity was quoted at 2.98 cu. ft. I believe. This is the biggest tub available on a belt-drive machine, and is dimensionally identical to the tub in the gold '76 Whirlpool

Post# 343347 , Reply# 3 4/18/2009 at 15:37 (5,477 days old) by kenmoreguy64 (Charlotte, NC)
Checkrate/Likes *Here is a 1977 Kenmore 70 with Penta Swirl* The only difference between this machine, the 1980 machine above, and the gold 1976 WP is the beige porcelain. This model was quoted as having 2.68 cu ft I believe. You can see how the Penta-Swirl takes up more space than the Super Surgilator.

Post# 343348 , Reply# 4 4/18/2009 at 15:39 (5,477 days old) by kenmoreguy64 (Charlotte, NC)
Checkrate/Likes *This is a 2.8 cu. ft. Kenmore 60 from 1982* It uses a Penta-Vane agitator, but the basket is clearly, at least to me, smaller than the previous models.

Post# 343349 , Reply# 5 4/18/2009 at 15:41 (5,477 days old) by kenmoreguy64 (Charlotte, NC)
Checkrate/Likes *Just to round it out* Here's a 2.8 cu ft. Kenmore from 1986 that I rebuilt last summer and have used extensively since. It has the same basket as the 1982 pictured above but is equipped with a Dual-Action agitator.

Post# 343351 , Reply# 6 4/18/2009 at 15:47 (5,477 days old) by kenmoreguy64 (Charlotte, NC)
Checkrate/Likes I always knew that some newer large capacity machines had two rows of holes (perfs) on the bottom of the tub, while older versions had four. What took me a while to notice, basically until I had two machines side by side for sale way back when was that the Dual-Action in one machine sat much lower into the tub ring than the other. To satisfy myself, I got out a yard-stick and measured. The newer machines are about 3/4 of an inch less deep than the older, and 5/8 of an inch narrower. The two machines DO NOT use the same outer tubs. A 1968 to early 1981 basket will not fit into the outer tub of a late 1981 thru 1986 machine.

Post# 343369 , Reply# 7 4/18/2009 at 17:04 (5,477 days old) by supremewhirlpol ()
Checkrate/Likes Hi Gordon, I must say, You have beautiful Kenmore machines. Did you rebuild all of them? How do you keep the gasket that sets on top of the reservoir chamber to the pump from leaking. Does this gasket have to be replaced. Are they still made?

Post# 343381 , Reply# 8 4/18/2009 at 18:23 (5,477 days old) by kenmoreguy64 (Charlotte, NC)
Checkrate/Likes Thanks Melvin! The part I think you're talking about is called a 'tub outlet hose', which is sandwiched in between the baseplate and outer tub. It runs through a hole in the baseplate, and secures to the manifold trap, aka 'button trap' and 'reservoir' as you called it. If that item is leaking, I ALWAYS throw it away, but you have to remove the outer tub to get at it. There were two different parts used in non-portable belt drive machines since 1960 or so. The first one is part number 93553 and fits all standard capacity machines and the later large capacity machines (with the two rows of bottom tub holes). The extra big machines use part 96386, which has been discontinued by Whirlpool, but some online sites have them, and last I checked Sears did online too. Never let a tub leak from this hose if you can avoid it. The area stays wet due to lack of air flow in the area, and the baseplate can rust and distort, making a new seal later on very difficult to seat properly. I'll help you replace one if you need to! Gordon

Post# 343383 , Reply# 9 4/18/2009 at 18:34 (5,476 days old) by scrubflex (bronx, new york)
Checkrate/Likes *more, more, more...* AWESOME!!! money shots Gordon, love them. Can you post more picture? The control panels and the feature checklist and the model numbers of the machines. You see Whirlpool labeled the 1976 washer (2.71 cu.ft) wrong on the feature guide. What do you think happened? Tell me, what is the actual length of your biggest tub? I think it might be wider than 22 inches. My family used to own a 1985 Whirlpool LA7800XP washer. (It was a beauty.) But, definitely smaller than the 76' and 80' baskets. And, I quoted the tub length wrong, it's 15" deep. I'll be able to figure out the rest, if you'd get me the space (INCHES) between the agitator base and tub sides. Gordon, since you rebuild machines, is it possible to put a inner basket and outer tub from a 1980 machine into a different washer? BTW, have you made any videos of your machines? Harry

Post# 343384 , Reply# 10 4/18/2009 at 18:34 (5,476 days old) by supremewhirlpol ()
Checkrate/Likes A few years ago when I used to get these machines, a large percentage of them would leak in this area besides the tub seal, and those machines I would part out. And in fact I would decide not to try to fix the ones that had this issue because I was afraid that I would make the issue worse by removing the outer tub. I think at some point when I start using the two Whirlpool machines again, I will have to solve a leak issue in this area or the tub/spin tube seals. These machines have not been used in the past 5 years. When I decide to take on this project I will definitely let you know. Thanks Gordon for your support!!

Post# 343451 , Reply# 11 4/19/2009 at 05:45 (5,476 days old) by kenmoreguy64 (Charlotte, NC)
Checkrate/Likes *I'll try to answer all your questions in one post.....* Melvin and Harry: Yes I did rebuild all these machines. The worst was the 1986 machine, with severe trauma to the transmission and bearings due to water in tne centerpost. The transmission was full of a thick, gooey water & oil mixture that resembled molasses. The 1980 machine has been in the family since 1989 when I bought it for my sister from a refurbisher for her first apartment after college. She retired it in 2000 and gave it back to me. It went into storage immediately until March of 2008. The 1982 machine came out of Arizona and looked like a high-mileage unit so I fully rebuilt it including new centerpost bearings. The 1977 machine I have owned since 1990 when it was traded into Sears for something new. It had been used for some time as an industrial mop-head washer and needed a replacement basket and outer tub as whatever the users washed with completely ate away the porcelain on both surfaces. I had found that replacement basket while scavenging at a used appliance store years ago. I don't have any videos, but do intend to take some at some point when I get a camera capable of it. I will however get some console shots. None of these have the features checklists still attached. Removing the outer tubs WILL NOT make the leak issues worse if you replace the outlet hose and the centerpost gasket. Care needs to be taken to guard the tub lip where the centerpost gasket mounts. Previously leaky machines that have sat for 5 years, etc. are probably likely to leak worse when they are reintroduced into service. It is NOT possible to put a 1980 washer's tub and basket into another style belt-drive machine unless it has the baseplate designed for the largest capacity machines. The tub outlet hose and the tub mounting screws won't match-up. The suspension rods of the later 1981 and newer machines are too short also. As well, the short centerpost of the 1978 and later models makes a 1980 machine's basket limited to a 1978 to 1981 machine. Essentially interchangeable components are limited as follows: - 1960-1978 standard capacity - 1968-1978 18 lb. capacity Little to nothing above the baseplate is interchangeable between these two capacities. Commonality continues to 1981 for the above if you exclude the basket and centerpost components. - Later 1981-1987 standard capacity (Whirlpool and commercial Kenmore only) - Later 1981-1986 large capacity Commonality is much greater with these two capacities in that they use the same baseplate and only different suspension rod lengths. A benefit of the mild 1981 re-design is the interchaneability of most parts between these two machines. Even the tub rings are the same. Standard capacity machines of this era are less common, but noteable in that they have the three "patches" of lower perfs like the large capacity machines instead of the previous continuous circle of perfs. I'm guessing that's clear as mud now.... Gordon