|
Thread Number: 33627
New machine? Admiral ATW4475XQ |
[Down to Last] |  |
|
| Post# 505602 , Reply# 1 3/21/2011 at 12:48 (4,783 days old) by runematic (southcentral pa) | ||
 The V model should be disappearing. The X code means that it is the newer version of the washer. The X also means that the washer will not fill nearly as high as the previous V coded machines. The tub size hasn't changed, just the way it is measured. This probably will be the last of the DD machines. The world washer replacement marches ever closer. In fact, the Crosley brand has already been switched over and I believe Amana will be switched sometime this summer. | ||
Post# 505909 , Reply# 2 3/22/2011 at 16:49 (4,782 days old) by kenmoreguy64  (Charlotte, NC) |
||
Something to add to this...
I noticed on Sunday night the same thing on HD's site. BUT looking at a magnified picture of the control panel, it appears that the new version has just three water levels, vs. the four levels of the older version. This is either a cheaper switch, or it goes along the lines of what was said above, that if there is a lower tub fill, that three levels would spread-out the remaining divisions of the tub sufficiently without having four.
Personally, I am surprised that these lower tub fills are actually fooling anyone. I have heard the same thing happening with Speed Queen's top loaders, but it flies directly in the face of what we heard in the 1980s and 1990s about machine efficiency, and from local utilities today - that running your machine FULL is by far the best way to be energy efficient. If you deliberately set the machine to fill with less water, which in turn makes you run more loads each year then how is that efficient? Makes no sense to me unless someone thinks that consumers are going to put the same amount of clothes into the machine regardless of the amount of water in it. Gordon | ||
| Post# 506049 , Reply# 3 3/23/2011 at 06:10 (4,781 days old) by mrb627 (Buford, GA) | ||
A Trick is a Trick Gordon,
I believe it is just that. A trick. They expect the casual user to load a full tub of clothing, add detergent, start the machine and walk away until it is done. Never knowing that the machine is using less water than they expect. Some people will know the difference right off the bat, but the majority of users may not. Isn't this how most Governments work?
Malcolm | ||
|
Post# 506102 , Reply# 6 3/23/2011 at 08:55 (4,781 days old) by kenmoreguy64 (Charlotte, NC) |
||
|
If the capacity measurements are about to change....
It will be very interesting to see how the dust settles. Here's what I think are a couple interesting notes:
My 1980 built Kenmore 500 washer still has it's consumer checklist on the side, or most of it, as some print has worn off. It states the machine's standard capacity basket to be 2.35 + - some tiny percentage, cu. ft. The first standard cap. DD was quoted to be 2.4 and is now said to be 2.5. BUT, keeping that in mind, the 1976 - 1978 large capacity Kenmores, which were cavernous as compared to the standard, claimed to have a 2.6 cu. ft basket, so only .25 cu. ft. larger than the venerable standard tub in the 1980 machine. Something is amiss.... Then, the late 1981 and later large capacity machines were always quoted to be 2.8 cu. ft., or larger than the 1976 - 1978 models, which is bull. The 2.8 DOES fill higher toward the top of the machine in fact there is less distance between the tub ring bottom and the rim of the basket, but the older basket will not even fit inside a 2.8 machine's tub, so how could it be smaller???? More measurement hoky if you ask me.... I believe that in 1979 or so the large capacity machine was re-stated to be 2.95 cu. ft, but I haven't seen that in print in a while, since I sold a particular machine that still had an intact consumer checklist back in the 90s. Anyway, I guess we can conclude that whatever 'measurement magic' is going on with manufacturers today with their 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.5 and 4.0 cu ft. tubs which are all the same, it apparently is not new and was happening 30 years ago too. Probably as universal as the exaggerated (or wishful thinking) claims of men on certain websites and in C/L ads!!! LOL G | ||
| Post# 506138 , Reply# 7 3/23/2011 at 12:04 (4,781 days old) by laundromat (Hilo, Hawaii) | ||
Bye Bye agitator washers--- | ||
| Post# 506150 , Reply# 8 3/23/2011 at 14:07 (4,781 days old) by pierreandreply4 (St-Bruno de montarville (province of quebec) canada) | ||
 | ||
| Post# 506196 , Reply# 9 3/23/2011 at 17:02 (4,781 days old) by laundromat (Hilo, Hawaii) | ||
|
| ||
|
Post# 506228 , Reply# 10 3/23/2011 at 19:32 (4,781 days old) by rp2813 (Sannazay) |
||
 | ||
|
Post# 506232 , Reply# 11 3/23/2011 at 19:54 (4,781 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
Wringer Washers
Vanished for several reasons. The two main ones were limited sales and product liability.
Even when packed with safety devices a wringer washer just is plain dangerous if one is not careful, especially for small children. Given the "I'll sue" happy culture of the United States you can bet between the legal and bean counting departments of appliance makers, the word was clear. Even on the other side of the pond loud voices were being raised to get shot of wringers and spin driers. Without fail every so often there would be reports regarding children being maimed or even met their demise from these devices. In the UK spin dryers had to be fitted with tub brakes, and starting methods that were more involved than simply closing the lid (a la Hoover and other early twin tubs). Again this all added to costs and when demand waned in terms of production, things came to an end. By the time SQ (or was it Maytag?) stopped production of wringer washers, the things were a niche product. Outside of the Amish and a few others there was only export to keep sales going, and that simply wasn't enough these days to justify keeping plant in production. Much as many of us here *love* wringer washers, consumer groups and or publications railed against them for safety reasons. Most felt there was no good reason to have one once automatic washing machines became plentiful, and advised housewives to avoid the things like the plague | ||
| Forum Index: |
| Other Forums: |
|
|
|
|
|
Comes to the Rescue!
