Thread Number: 36532
UNUSED GE Pot scubber Dishwasher
[Down to Last]

automaticwasher.org's exclusive eBay Watch:
scroll >>> for more items --- [As an eBay Partner, eBay may compensate automaticwasher.org if you make a purchase using any link to eBay on this page]
Post# 543944   9/16/2011 at 14:26 (4,576 days old) by gepotscrubber ()        

I have an unused GE Pot scrubber dishwasher dated 1978. This unit still has all of the paper work inside as will as original cardboard and styrofoam. If you or you know anyone interested - please let me know. thanks





Post# 543945 , Reply# 1   9/16/2011 at 14:26 (4,576 days old) by gepotscrubber ()        

one more picture

Post# 543947 , Reply# 2   9/16/2011 at 14:46 (4,576 days old) by peteski50 (New York)        
Potscrubber11

peteski50's profile picture
Real awsome looks like the model 950


Post# 543951 , Reply# 3   9/16/2011 at 15:05 (4,576 days old) by KenmoreGuy64 (Charlotte, NC)        

kenmoreguy64's profile picture
My Mom had that machine in our new construction house which we built in summer 1977. We LOVED it. We previously had a BOL Hotpoint ultra-POS from 1967-1974/5 until replaced by a KDS-17A. When we moved to Denver, we wanted another KDS but the builder's appliance supplier didn't handle KitchenAid, so they talked us into the GSD-950. It was MUCH MUCH better than the basic GE machines the builder was putting in all the other houses - the model with the timer in the door itself vs. the control panel.

What we liked most about the GE was the forced-air drying I think that coupled with the dry air in Denver never left any water even on the bottoms of glasses. It may have been lesser a machine than the KA in many people's opinions, but we liked it and it led to several other GE dishwashers for my family, including Mom's GSD900 which she used daily from 1987 to 2004. She had a 1983 GSD-900 as well, and I had a GSD-2200 and a GSD-1200.

Thanks to John/Combo, I just got a NICE GSD-1200 to replace my GE TT (tall-tub, TT = Totally Terrible). It is getting installed tomorrow!

I've got that same brochure leftover from the trip to the appliance store in April, 1977. I would be very interested in this machine!

Gordon


Post# 543953 , Reply# 4   9/16/2011 at 15:14 (4,576 days old) by Iheartmaytag (Wichita, Kansas)        

iheartmaytag's profile picture

Talk about ask and ye shall receive.  I just wished for one of those over on the Petition Hotpoint thread.

 

I do, however, believe that GE didn't have a forced air dry system.  At least the ones that we owned didn't

 


Post# 543956 , Reply# 5   9/16/2011 at 15:34 (4,576 days old) by turquoisedude (.)        

turquoisedude's profile picture

Hmmm.  We had a Canadian Potscrubber (a 1978 model) and it definitely did not have forced-air drying.  My late mother missed that about the 60s Viking/Westinghouse whose impeller ran during the dry cycle to act as a fan!

 

 


Post# 543960 , Reply# 6   9/16/2011 at 15:46 (4,576 days old) by KenmoreGuy64 (Charlotte, NC)        
Forced air drying....

kenmoreguy64's profile picture
Some did, some didn't, but our GSD-950 most definitely did - you could hear the fan rattling ever so slightly when it was running. It was in the left front corner of the machine. None of the rest of the GEs we had featured this.

One of the things my Mom complained about in our two successive GSD900s was that they didn't have this feature and we expected them to. She would say "Didn't that dishwasher in Denver have a fan in it that ran during drying?" We first thought the 1983 model was faulty because it was quiet during drying.

I know ours had a blower in it as well because when I put a couple tablespoons of Palmolive dishwashing liquid in the machine in the 8th grade, to dry it all properly I had to take the lower panel off and dry the floor underneath from the resulting flood. The blower was right there in front of me. MUCH TOO FUNNY an experience looking back, but not at all amusing when you're a 13-year old panicing as to what the folks are going to say when they come home to a dishwasher belching suds.

Gordon




This post was last edited 09/16/2011 at 16:11
Post# 543974 , Reply# 7   9/16/2011 at 16:59 (4,576 days old) by bwoods ()        
cycle progression

Interesting, the literature said water usage 17.5 gallons. Much more than the recent Potscrubbers. Do you have the cycle progression chart in the Owner's Manual?

It should have a chart of cycle functions like prewash, rinse, main wash, final rinse, etc.

I am curious if the Potscrubber II had the normal GE 7 water changes, and just used more water per fill, or if it actually had additional fills.


Post# 543987 , Reply# 8   9/16/2011 at 19:35 (4,576 days old) by appnut (TX)        

appnut's profile picture
That was the model that was put in the kitchen in the house that was built next door to our lake house in 1973 or 1974. The laundry room had the matched set of the Gordon coppertone Kenmore washer and the copperton dryer that's elsewhere in the country that Gordon is trying to get. That's the only other dishwasher I ever wanted in our house of all the other neighbors houses around there.

Post# 543993 , Reply# 9   9/16/2011 at 20:33 (4,576 days old) by arbilab (Ft Worth TX (Ridglea))        

arbilab's profile picture
The one Potscrubber I got timer documentation on showed that with the PS button in, main wash went fill-splash-dispense-splash-pause until thermostat was satisfied (145F)-continue. Lengthened the cycle considerably starting with 120F water like mine. Seldom used it, I tend to brush-rinse before loading.

Post# 543994 , Reply# 10   9/16/2011 at 20:44 (4,576 days old) by peteski50 (New York)        
Potscrubber11

peteski50's profile picture
It is really ashame they didnt continue with this great design. Seems like they could never get away from that tower! For years I have been trying find out why the concept was dropped but nobody seems to have the answer. Even the tower machines used a lot of water. Most of these machines had 7 full water changes.
w r r w r r r dry
You cant help but get dishes clean and as far as I am concerned screw the fact it uses all that water. These energy saver gurus should find better things to do in this problem world.
Just another Great design gone astray!
Peter


Post# 543998 , Reply# 11   9/16/2011 at 21:04 (4,576 days old) by bwoods ()        
PS II

How long did GE make the Potsrubber II?? Was it only one or two years before they went back to the tower wash in the PSIII?

It is odd they quite producing it so soon. I wonder if they had a problem with the small spray holes in the upper wash arm clogging, as there was no filtration system back then.


Post# 544000 , Reply# 12   9/16/2011 at 21:13 (4,576 days old) by peteski50 (New York)        
Potscrubber11

peteski50's profile picture
They made this from 1975 - 1978 about 3 years. But only the 2 TOL models were like this the rest of the models were the tower system.

Post# 544001 , Reply# 13   9/16/2011 at 21:25 (4,576 days old) by appnut (TX)        
Use & Care Guide

appnut's profile picture
Here is a use & care guide from this series, but it doesnt' have a cycle sequence chart :0(

CLICK HERE TO GO TO appnut's LINK


Post# 544007 , Reply# 14   9/16/2011 at 22:00 (4,576 days old) by norgeway (mocksville n c )        
I would love!

For the energy nuts to explain how 5 or 6 gallons of extra water is less economical than 1 1/2 extra hours of electricity!!

Post# 544011 , Reply# 15   9/16/2011 at 22:28 (4,576 days old) by MaytagA710 ()        

How long did the upper rack have a spray arm for? I damn near had a heart attack when I saw that, I thought GEs always had "power towers"/wash towers.

Post# 544012 , Reply# 16   9/16/2011 at 23:22 (4,576 days old) by arbilab (Ft Worth TX (Ridglea))        

arbilab's profile picture
The ones without the overhead arm were notorious for depositing knurr in the bottoms of cups and mugs. And the tower hasn't the angle to clean inside items at the corners of the upper rack. Literally, cutting corners. Bottom line, you can't bullshxt dishwashing to save a buck and get away with it.

Post# 544015 , Reply# 17   9/16/2011 at 23:43 (4,576 days old) by washerlover (The Big Island, Hawai’i)        

washerlover's profile picture
Looks very much like what we replaced our '66 Hotpoint dishwasher with around 1976. I remember here in California, we were experiencing our first drought, and my Dad was reluctant to replace the old (dead) dishwasher. But I remember when we did, I used to play with the old bakelite Hotpoint washer arms in the bathtub...

Post# 544024 , Reply# 18   9/17/2011 at 01:28 (4,576 days old) by earthling177 (Boston, MA)        

Hans said: "I would love! For the energy nuts to explain how 5 or 6 gallons of extra water is less economical than 1 1/2 extra hours of electricity!!"

Well, I'm not an energy nut ;-) but the explanation is that it takes a lot of energy to heat water. And not a lot of energy to run the pump motor. As a matter of fact, if you look up how much energy it takes to raise the temperature of a pound of something (water, metal(s), air etc), you'll find that water is at the top of the list of heat capacity -- it takes almost 4 times more energy to heat one pound of water one degree than it takes to heat one pound of glass. It takes even less energy to heat one pound of iron.

So, even if you kept the same pump and motor, if you use half the water, you basically use half the energy. If you keep in mind that newer machines specifically redesigned to use less water have a smaller water path and can use smaller/less powerful pumps to do the same job, it makes sense that the motor can run for an extra hour and half and still use less energy than the older 1/2 HP motors. If you then consider that if you are taking a longer time you may be able to do the same job with 120F water instead of 140/150F water, the energy requirements get even lower.

More is not necessarily better. You will remember not all impeller dishwashers cleaned better than KitchenAid dishwashers, despite the claims that the impellers used more water and created "walls of moving water" etc. Many people back then looked at KitchenAid machines with disdain, they did not believe that a "wimpy spray" would clean any better than a "wall of water". Same thing today, many people look at modern machines and think "that thing can't be better than my KitchenAid, which pumps a billion gallons per minute with a 1/2 HP pump". But remember, everything depends on a good design. Just like there were a few good impeller machines and a few good spray arm machines, there were plenty of machines that used more water and had more gallons/minute flowing etc that didn't do as good a job. While they may be rare, there are machines that clean really well and use way less water/energy than we are used to in America.

The other side of the coin is what happens if no one is volunteering to save energy and/or water. Where will all the resources come from? Should we locate all the power plants and water/sewage treatment plants in the middle of Wyoming, Montana, Arizona, New Mexico etc, then route them to our homes (which would require kicking some people out of their properties through eminent domain to make space for the wires and ducts)? Or are people who are against conservation offering their back yards for the utilities to build their plants on so the rest of us can waste?

Here's what I'd like to hear people talk about: conservation does not imply a worse job and American companies are showing how inept and incompetent they can be -- there's plenty of stuff that comes from other countries that do the job with a fraction of the resources, but those countries have had a much higher population density than we do and much fewer resources, so they've been working on the problem for way longer. The staggering thing is that a lot of the companies in Europe and Asia are also the same companies here. We won't name names, but it's astounding that the same company that sells reasonably good stuff in Europe seems to be "incapable" of making something as good here. That goes for toilets, detergents, major appliances, cars, you name it. We are paying more for crappier stuff and instead of saying "hey, cut it out, I deserve better than this!" people are falling for the propaganda and complaining that they want to go back to the old days. So the companies can cut even more corners and sell you something with an even higher profit margin.

They could easily make the good stuff for another couple of bucks. But they don't -- they tell you folks to complain until Congress reverses the law.

You should not be complaining that stuff "doesn't use enough water/energy". That's totally irrelevant. You should be complaining that stuff doesn't clean well enough. It really doesn't matter what the implementation is if it works well and fast enough. I would never say "please make my dishwasher use more water so it can clean better and take less time". When I call to complain (and I do), what I say is "it takes too long and it doesn't clean well enough". It's their job to design something that works well with the constraints and resources that don't force my city to build yet another power plant, water and sewage treatment plants near my home, because that'll make the value of my home plummet.

If you think manufacturers have your best interest in mind, you are wrong. We are not the clients, we are the product, we are sold to the investors, the investors are the clients. I've used toilets that were 5 gallons/flush, 3.5 gallons/flush and 1.6 gallons/flush. Every single one of those had examples that worked most of the time and examples that kept clogging frequently because the toilets were not well designed. The only toilets I've used that I never needed the plunger for were the toilets in an apartment complex I used to live in: they were Toto's 1.6 gallons/flush (gravity, not power assisted). The only plunger in the apartment (we had 3 toilets) stayed in the corner gathering dust, we never used it in 2.5 years, and people commented on the dust. I never cleaned it, it was proof for all the nay sayers that we never used it. Why can that toiled work and the other ones clog? Because Toto didn't just reset the new tanks to use 1.6 gallons/flush, they redesigned the entire thing to actually work. The other companies just told us that "that's an impossible goal, so we won't even try it, we'll just pretend we tried -- go complain to your representatives to repeal the law". That's dumb.

What made America great was that we used to be the country to emulate, where people got bleeding edge technology from. Now we're a country of lazy asses and people who believe propaganda from the manufacturers so the investor can have an extra cent at the end of the quarter, we're not only not exporting technology anymore, we need to import high tech stuff from other countries.

Truth is, there are machines that clean really well and finish a cycle in one hour or less, made in Europe, using a fraction of the energy/water as the "energy star" machines made here that take over 2 hours and don't clean as well. It's high time we stop bitching about high-efficiency appliances already and start calling our representatives and manufacturers and demanding that they start making stuff as good as the stuff we've been importing into US. It's not the low energy/low water consumption that is the problem, it's the manufacturers that can't be bothered to make something good.

If the population keeps growing and the resources keep shrinking at the rate we've been seeing, before you know it they'll be actually coming to our homes and prying our older collectible things (read, "not high efficiency") away and forcing us to buy the crap the manufacturers can only hope we'll be forced to buy.

The much better alternative is to force the manufactures to improve their products, so people buying new will automatically save enough resources that we'll be left alone in peace and quiet with our collections.

Cheers,
-- Paulo.


Post# 544095 , Reply# 19   9/17/2011 at 11:40 (4,575 days old) by joe_in_philly (Philadelphia, PA, USA)        

joe_in_philly's profile picture
Very well said, Paulo.

I have to say my FL washer cleans better, uses less water, energy, and additives, all while being much more gentle on my clothing than my old TL washer. While I like TL washers and enjoy playing with them, I find that well designed new appliances can do a great job while saving resources.

I have never used a dishwasher that cleaned better while conserving water and energy than my Bosch. Every time I unload it I am amazed how even baked on pots and pans are spotless, while the glasses are crystal clear and the silverware is bright and shiny.


Post# 544111 , Reply# 20   9/17/2011 at 12:24 (4,575 days old) by swillis ()        
What is the price for the dishwasher?

It definately has sparked my attention and I am curious as to how much is the asking price.

Post# 544176 , Reply# 21   9/17/2011 at 20:13 (4,575 days old) by tominla ()        
Disagree.

Newer is NOT better. I am on my second "new" dishwasher. Yes, the new ones use less water. Yes they are on longer. Yes, the net net they may use less "energy". However, I can't count how many times I have had to rewash because of dirt issues. And the new stuff constantly breaks. How much "energy" is expended for the production of new parts, new parts distribution, more service trips, gas and energy to service the unit. And then after the 2nd $300 repair, we throw the thing away. How much energy to pick the thing up, disassemble it, scrap it.

To save a few gallons of water and a bit of electricity.

Yep, we'll save the world doing that.


Post# 544188 , Reply# 22   9/17/2011 at 21:03 (4,575 days old) by Tomturbomatic (Beltsville, MD)        

Paulo, it was the KitchenAid dishwashers of the 10 through 14 series, not impeller machines, that used, at one point in their advertising, "6 moving walls of water", perhaps with the 14 series advertising. Having dishwashing performance handicapped by miniscule amounts of water so that pumps cannot develop high pressure is bullshit engineering and selling them is bullshit marketing. Tall tub machines have reduced the depth of the sump to where the machines cannot hold much water and that means that once circulation starts, the depth of the water over the pump is reduced to the point that if you were able to fit a powerful pump under the tub, it would suck as much air as water because there is not enough depth over the pump to keep it constantly supplied with water. Reducing the rinsing to only one after the main wash is also bullshit engineering. In 1952, the Apex dishwasher only used one after rinse and CU said its performance was improved by resetting the timer to give another rinse. It does not matter how well a machine filters the water; you have to use enough rinse water to carry off the residue of detergent and food and one rinse is inadequate in most cases. Those long wash cycles have to have the heater operating also since not enough hot water is used to warm up the machine before the main wash so even though the amount used during the wash is small it has to be heated which costs money. I know that some will tell us about dishwashers that do not need much more than warm water to wash dishes just like all of these HE washers that don't really need much water to wash clothes. When the Bendix Automatic Home Laundry appeared on the market there was a list of things the machine did all by itself. The last two things were: It cleans itself and shuts itself off. Same for dishwashers, even before they were automatic; they at least cleaned themselves. Now there are products marketed to clean our dishwashers and HE washing machines. Three times this weekend I have seen ads come on the TV for some Tide washing machine cleaning product with women talking about how their front loaders got stinky and stunk up the laundry room and even the "clean" clothes they were taking out of the washer. In the animation of the cleaning process, it shows all of the crap that accumulates on the outside of the drum being washed away. When washers and dishwashers do not even use enough water to clean themselves out, how can we expect clean clothes and dishes from them? The other way these products are biting us in the ass is that our sewer systems depend on a certain volume of water to function. Without enough water, solids don't move and subterranean constipation ensues.

Post# 544194 , Reply# 23   9/17/2011 at 21:45 (4,575 days old) by bwoods ()        
Right On!

Right on Thomas and Tom with your observations about newer dishwshers.

I thought I was alone in my disdain for many of these new machines with only one final rinse.

Yes, proper filtration may take most of the visible suspended solids out of the final rinse water, but does nothing for the chemical residue from the detergents. You can often smell the dw detergent residue on the dishes coming out of some the newer tall tub machines (and smell it strongly). I don't know about you, but I get enough chemicals from the environment already without having to worry about ingesting them from my dishes.

Improper rinsing can also accelerate etching of glassware, from what I hear, and also promote a build-up of white residue on dishes and machine internals over time. Especially if the water is hard.

Give me the GE tower wash anyday, with it's three final rinses.

That's why I was asking if anyone knew the cycle progression of this PS II. Since the water usage is higher than the normal tower wash of the era, I was wondering if there might not be an extra rinse in there somewhere.


Post# 544210 , Reply# 24   9/17/2011 at 23:32 (4,575 days old) by arbilab (Ft Worth TX (Ridglea))        

arbilab's profile picture
You REALLY don't want to eat detergent. It all contains benzene compounds, highly toxic. I'm not a washaholic but I AM a rinseaholic.

No way a single rinse is sufficient. Specially when 'drain' leaves at least a cup of the previous fill behind, as all GEs do. The drain solenoid is not positive action. More like a 'suggestion'. It's only held in the drain position by pump output. The instant the pump begins cavitating the drain valve closes, even if the solenoid is still on. Must have saved them at least 75c on the solenoid.

Gawd, I hate the trend toward gutless appliances. Know what GE? You could have skipped the reversing motor and timer and paid for a standalone pump that actually pumped the whole time it was on like my BOL Frigiwhite frontloader does.


Post# 544218 , Reply# 25   9/18/2011 at 01:11 (4,575 days old) by earthling177 (Boston, MA)        

Yes, I've seen those ads in the picture of the day, with KitchenAid dws talking about the walls of water. But those are not unique to KA ads. The PODs have shown at least another machine, I think the James, talking about using a wall of water, not to mention dissing the other machines and telling people to buy it now because the other machines could only be as advanced when James' patents expired 15 years in the future (that machine was not an impeller machine, but was not a conventional spray arm machine either). Back in the 60's and 70's I knew plenty of people dissing spray arm machines and expressing skepticism about not having impellers. It was a common, often repeated thing back then, that the impeller machines washed with walls of water and the "newer" machines just pissed on the dishes with a lawn sprinkler, completely ignoring the pressure and force of the sprays against the dishes. The line "that's weaker than a lawn sprinkler" when people watch badly set up demos of dishwashers is at least 40 years old.

Again, good design matters. I still remember when KitchenAid used to diss other brands as wasteful in water and energy. And many people used to consider KA machines better cleaners than machines like this model GE, which used more water/energy. There are plenty of machines that drain properly and leave just a few tablespoons of water in the sump and provide 2 or 3 rinses and have plenty of power to clean, and yet, use way less water/energy than the tall tubs (and even conventional tubs) people have been complaining about here.

Just for reference, I've complained about a non-tall tub dw here some time ago, that used only one purge and one rinse after the normal cycle and didn't clean well. I had to use the heavy duty/pots-n-pans cycle to get the load cleaned and rinsed properly. That machine has been praised by people who used it in hard-water areas (I have natural soft water).

After that machine, I've used dws that use way less water/energy, rinse multiple times and don't need much more than a normal cycle to clean -- I only need to use heavy duty/pots-n-pans when I have stuff that is in fact heavily soiled and/or have stuck-on or burnt food on them. The difference is that some machines are designed from scratch to work properly with less water/energy instead of the machine designs that have only been adapted to use less water by cutting rinses and having sumps that make the pumps starve for water.

Again, it's not the amount of water or energy: I've used dishwashers that used 10-12 gallons per cycle (pots-n-pans) that cleaned well and some that cleaned pretty poorly. And I've used machines that use less than 6 gallons on the PnP cycle and clean way better. They also do better in the Normal (3-5 gallons) cycle than all the other machines I've used. The machines need to be well designed for the task, and just like one person from a country does not represent the entire country, a handful of ill-designed tall-tub dws don't represent the entire universe of High Efficiency dishwashers.

Also, water quality and the way it gets used matters. I hated a couple of machines that some people here loved and vice-versa.

Just look at this site and the opinions all around it: some people prefer KA, WP or GE (which used to have huge holes in the spray arms) and some people liked Maytags, which advertised to clean better with smaller holes in the spray arms because that would increase the water pressure. There were satisfied customers for both systems. But there were also plenty of other brands, some with large holes and some with small holes in the spray arms that did very poorly in the cleaning and/or rinsing department. Some of the machines that did poorly did poorly despite using more time, water and energy than a KA. Amount of water and/or energy does not correlate with cleaning ability. Good design does.

I understand the frustration, I would not be able to pick a new dishwasher currently without talking to people who own several different brands and models and asking for their experience, because it's not easy to tell which design is good and which one is bad just by looking at the machines. For example, KA were famous for drying well because they had a drying fan. But I had two Maytags with drying fans that not only did not do so well, but in fact I had a GE Potscrubber that dried better than the Maytags and did not have a drying fan, just a vent. The KA I used cleaned better than the Maytags and GE and used less water and energy.

I think the only conclusion I can arrive to is that the design mattered more than the amount of water/energy used.

I will agree to disagree, but I'd prefer if people at the very least took a dispassionate look at the hard facts first, and the hard facts do not support the theory that one needs more of anything. It's cleaning ability we're after, not who has the highest utilities bill. ;-)

Cheers,
-- Paulo.


Post# 544256 , Reply# 26   9/18/2011 at 09:00 (4,574 days old) by firedome (Binghamton NY & Lake Champlain VT)        

firedome's profile picture
I'm interested in the dishwasher if still available. I don't have a PM option here,
Please eMail me at: firesweep"at"verizon"dot"net
Roger in NY


Post# 544263 , Reply# 27   9/18/2011 at 09:14 (4,574 days old) by bajaespuma (Connecticut)        
Earthling177

bajaespuma's profile picture

You are my new best friend. Call me every 5 minutes.


Post# 544269 , Reply# 28   9/18/2011 at 09:35 (4,574 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

frigilux's profile picture
Well said, Paulo!

My washer (which uses less water than any other US machine on the market), my dishwasher (3.5-5 gallons on regular cycle) and low-flow pressure-flush Gerber toilet all work flawlessly. I have CFL's (spiral compact fluorescent lights) throughout my house. The notion that water-saving/energy-saving appliances produce inferior results is simply not correct.

HOWEVER, as with anything you buy, you should check out ratings via Consumer Reports and get opinions from people who already own the item. I buy EcoSmart CFL's and they are awesome. I received a CFL (different brand) from my utility company and it was awful.

I agree there are some terrible low-flush toilets out there. Again, check the ratings and purchase one that actually works.



Post# 544318 , Reply# 29   9/18/2011 at 13:22 (4,574 days old) by appnut (TX)        

appnut's profile picture

I don't think this model has any additional water exchanges beyond the 7 that were on my GSD1200 Potscrubber, MAYBE one extra rinse at best.  However, I imagine back then, each fill used much more water than my GE from 1987. 


Post# 544407 , Reply# 30   9/18/2011 at 22:49 (4,574 days old) by mrcleanjeans (milwaukee wi)        

This model had 6 water changes, w-r-r-w-r-r-dry,each fill used almost 3 gallons of water,hense the high water usage for a dishwasher. It was a great machine!

Post# 544420 , Reply# 31   9/18/2011 at 23:14 (4,574 days old) by appnut (TX)        

appnut's profile picture

Thanks David.  Wow!! 


Post# 544421 , Reply# 32   9/18/2011 at 23:16 (4,574 days old) by mrcleanjeans (milwaukee wi)        

Sure Bob!

Post# 544480 , Reply# 33   9/19/2011 at 09:20 (4,573 days old) by bwoods ()        
PSII water usage

David,

Was the sump larger in the PSII? Just wondering, as it looks as if the PSII uses the same tub as the other PS's. They used less than 1 1/2 gallons per fill, and the water level, at full fill, comes up maybe half way of the lower front lip of the tub. With the extra 1 and a half gallons in the PSII fill, it seems as if the water level would be periously close to the edge of the lip, if not over, and in danger of outflowing from the tub.


Post# 544784 , Reply# 34   9/20/2011 at 20:30 (4,572 days old) by combo52 (50 Year Repair Tech Beltsville,Md)        
PS2 TUB

combo52's profile picture

The tub in these machines were a completely new design and not the same as anything before or later. The pump and motor were mounted differently and there was a large circular sump in the middle of the machine. This was a very interesting machine and it was neat that they finally tried a real upper wash arm [ that all DWs have today ]. The PSII only was made a few years and thier were quite a few problems with this machine. If you read the service manuel for this machine thier a large number of items that are listed that were improved and other service notes that describe how to fix all sorts of problems that occurred


Post# 544807 , Reply# 35   9/20/2011 at 22:32 (4,572 days old) by peteski50 (New York)        
PS2 TUB!

peteski50's profile picture
It would have been great if they worked out all the kinks and continued to make them!

Post# 544834 , Reply# 36   9/21/2011 at 04:59 (4,572 days old) by Jetcone (Schenectady-Home of Calrods,Monitor Tops,Toroid Transformers)        
Paulo

jetcone's profile picture

I have to come down on the side of Tom's comments. I do agree with you that design is the most important thing never to skimp on but when it comes down to it there is a physical limit to what you can get out of one gallon of water, it will only carry away so much soil and that is it.

I think Tom is correct the low low water usage will not heat the machine nor the soiled dishes so a heat boost must be used. 

And if you take the total historical perspective, which you must do, in order to be accurate, from the 1940's forward the switch from dishwashing by hand to machine washing has saved millions of gallons of water and millions of tons of coal. So to argue about the efficiency of machines made from as late a 1996 to the squirt gun machines of the early 2000's is artificial, it is splitting hairs. We've done the best we can by 1996, because water has a physical limit.

My 1997 KA was the last year of the power module machines, it cleans time and time again as good as my KDS-14. It uses less water than my KDS 14. 

But when they went to the tall tub design KA blew it big time and they have been scrambling ever since. If you look at CL today you will see many many 2 and 3 year old machines out there for sale because the owners want them gone! And they want to recoup some of their $1000 spent to get these horrible machines.

 

Yes the idea you need to buy special cleaning agents to keep the "cleaning machines" clean is a blatant ROAD SIGN something has gone really wrong somewhere. The idea you need to start using TEASPOONS to measure  your detergent in order to avoid sudslock for a load of clothes that is just as dirty as a 1950's load of clothes is looney at best!

 

Which tells me this is all due to some government idiot WHO never does dishes nor washes clothes and has to create their job everyday in order to keep it. None of these "government regulations" is based in real science or real experience.

 

They are all bojack regulations!


Post# 544875 , Reply# 37   9/21/2011 at 08:26 (4,571 days old) by bwoods ()        
PSII

I wonder what problems GE was having with the PSII??

Jon, I couldn't have said it better. You hit the nail on the head. Some government leaders don't have enough common sense to think about the REAL implications of theses arbitrary Energy Star regulations, but are looking at THEORETICAL savings only. Theory and Reality often differ.

I remember a Consumer Report article (late seventies or early eighties, I believe) and in their dishwasher test, they had commented on which brands could gobble up lasagna noodles. Can you imagine some of todays, poor excuses for dishwashers, trying to eat up a lasagna noodle?

Most don't even have openings in th sump grate or filter large enough to take care of something that large. When I had a GE Tall Tub, the owners manual warned against leafy items, such as lettuce, being left on the dishes.

Can you imagine a dishwasher that can't rid itself of a piece of lettuce. And GE was right I often had pieces of lettuce, and evrything else, flattened up against the small openings in the sump grate after the cycle. Once I had a cooked egg white that somehow did manage to slip through one of the grates and clogged the anemic little toy drain pump opening, and the dishwasher couldn't drain.

Many government regulators, and even Consume Reports don't take into account the water and electrical usage needed to scrape and/or rinse dishes before loading them into these newer dishsplashers, some of which cannot even rid themself of a garden pea.

So if you compare the REAL cost of running, let's say a 1973 GE Tower Wash, which could rid itself of most any garbage on dishes, with it's soft food disposer and wide sump grates with one of these modern dishsplashers, I think you will find there is a whole lot more water usage in these new machines which require you to prep dishes. You have the water used by the machine itself + the water used to rinse the dishes and dispose of the food down the disposal.

If you have one of the newer machines that have no disposal system whatsoever, you also have the water usage added in for removing the filter in the bottom of the machine and washing it by hand to remove residual garbage. And personally, I don't want every drop of wash and rinse water to be filtered through garbage. I just have an aversion to dishes washed and rinsed in garbage water. Which is what these filter only machines do.

Any machine that cannot rid and dispose of normal food wastes is not a dishwasher but only a machine that splashes water on dishes. That's why I often call some of the newer machines "dishsplashers" because they don't even come close to being a dishwasher.

It's also been mentioned, on this site, that people are leary of chemical residue left on dishware with only a single final rinse offered by many of the newer Dishsplashers. So, if you are concerned that you don't want to injest chemicals, then you have to manualy set the dishwasher for an additional rinse. And if that dishwasher is a disposer free model, you are just going to rinses the dishes again in garbage water unless you remove the filter and wash it by hand first.

What about cleanability. How many newer dishwasher can handle dried oatmeal on bowls in the upper rack? I have had GE tall tubs and a Whilrpool tall tub that left oatmeal, consistently, on dishes. And, of course, after the dry cycle, it was baked on.

What about the water required for you and me to pull these out and wash them by hand? Shouldn't that be used in the government rating for energy efficiency??

My older GE Tower Wash and my Maytag reverse rack don't even raise a sweat in removing dried oatmeal.

Yes Jon, lets have some of these congresspeople, who are trying to impress the world with their evergy saving legislataions,and make themself look important go home and wash a load of dirty dishes in their Energy Star machines.

With their six figure salaries, I am sure they havae maids to rinse and wash food off before they put dishes into their machines.

Let's let the President and the congress people do their own dishes for a week. Let them scrape and rinse and wash the wasted down the disposer to just to prep them for their Energy Star Dishsplasher. Let them wait almost three hours for dishes, that were virtually prewashed, to come through just one cycle. And let them find out they have chemical residue on them, from incomplete rinsing, in their modenr Energy Star Dishsplasher. Let them give dishes another rinse or two and add more time to that three hour cycle. Let them pull out dirty bowls with dried oatmeal and take a srubbing pad and try to get the oatmeal off that the modern dishplasher dried onto the bowls.

So now they have spend their time scraping, rinsing, running a disposer, running a dishwasher, and rewashing by hand dishes with residual dried on oatmeal and egg yoke. Let's see how much they like their Energy Star machines then, after spending four hours total on something a thirty or forty year old machine could have done better in 45 minutes.

I think we would have some new legislation fast.

Instead of government legislation for energy, I think we would would start seeing government legistation for machine competance and we would all of of a sudden have "Performance Star" rated machines. And as a result, we would also be saving the environment a lot energy in the process.


Post# 544886 , Reply# 38   9/21/2011 at 09:14 (4,571 days old) by Jetcone (Schenectady-Home of Calrods,Monitor Tops,Toroid Transformers)        
Barry

jetcone's profile picture

"Dishsplashers" - love that! its way better than squirt gun dishwashers!

 

Next they'll come out with dry cleaning dishwashers with swiping arms and handiwipe attachments for them!!

 

 


Post# 544888 , Reply# 39   9/21/2011 at 09:19 (4,571 days old) by bwoods ()        
dishwipers

You shouldn't post that, Jon. One of legislators in Washington might see it and require that dishwashers use no water to get an Energy Star rating!!

Post# 544892 , Reply# 40   9/21/2011 at 09:35 (4,571 days old) by combo52 (50 Year Repair Tech Beltsville,Md)        
NEW DWs

combo52's profile picture

I also think the consumer is partly to blame for the poor state of new dishwashers today. The first thing that every customer asks me when recommending a new DW is, is it quiet. This cupeled with the move to save water and hold larger dishes has pretty much destroyed DWs as we knew then. DWs reached thier perfection by the 1980s-most of the 1990s [ some earlier and some continued longer but the afore mentioned criteria doomed this product from being anywhere nearly as effective as before.

 

So now we are stuck with machines where we break our backs bending over an extra couple inches to load every last item in the lower rack and have to load every piece of flatware separately because if they touch there isn't enough water force to dislodge a particle stuck between them. We now have machines that don't dry worth a darn and stink inside if you really dare to put lots of really dirty dishes in. To say nothing of all the food bacteria in the messy filters that the average person probably uses 3 gallons of water to wash in the sink. And these newer machines are basically running on cold water if you have a large home where the water heater is far from the DW so you are drawing mostly cold water in as the cycles are so long and then heating it with electricity instead of cheaper and more environmentally friendly gas, heat-pump electric or solar.

 

These tall tub machines are also difficult if not impossible to install some existing kitchens and even harder to repair. The European machines are even worst to service and install as you basically have to remove the entire machine and lay it on its back to even began working on it because the whole machine is enclosed on the bottom to contain some leaking and noise. Usually by the time the European machines need to be pulled out we just throw them away.


Post# 544904 , Reply# 41   9/21/2011 at 10:42 (4,571 days old) by bwoods ()        
here, here, John!

I don't thin the average consumer knows any better. Consumer reports doesn't help as they don't test dishwashers as they used to. Remember when they gave separate ratings for cleanliness for dishes, glassware and flatware? And as I aforementioned they used to expect a machine to wash off and rid itself of normal solid food waste.

Their ratings now don't even mention solid food wastes, they give an overall "washing ability" score, with very little variance between machines and include energy use in the overall performace score and rankings.

How is the consumer to know that one machines will gobble up food waste while another leaves putrifying garbbage in a filter that needs, as you say John, three gallons of water to wash it out.

They mention that some machines are filtered and some have disposers, but they don't expound upon it or even remotely use this information to affect ratings.

Consumer Reports, I feel, is just a shadow of what it once was and no longer gives the purchaser true performance ratings in a meaningful way.

How is it a machine that washes and rinses dishes in putrifying garbage filtered water and leaves a chemical residue, and cannot even take dried oatmeal off of bowls, be given a higher rating than a machine with a true food waste disposer that thoroughly cleans thoroughly cleans dried on food, rinses completely, and doesn't leave a pile of bacterial infested garbage in the bottom of the machine?

The overall score rating for a competent machine (the few that are still out there), and by competent, I mean one that actually washes dirt off dishes and disposes of it, should not be lowered because it uses a little more energy.

Because in reality it doesn't. The overall energy use for a non-disposered, garbage collecting filtred machine with an anemic kids toy motor actually is using a lot more energy because of the pre-rinsing of dishes, and washing of the filter and the 3 hours use of electricity.

So the consumer has no real source of information to rely on other than salespeople. When they buy a newer non-disposered tall tub machine they really don't know what it's capabilities (or lack of are) until they get it home and start using it. In short order they will be frustrated with three hours to wash only one load, dried on starchy foods on the dishes and having bacteria breeding garbage laying in the bottom of the machines and having the machine eventually develop odors and molds because it can't even clean itself over time.


Post# 544934 , Reply# 42   9/21/2011 at 12:23 (4,571 days old) by Tomturbomatic (Beltsville, MD)        

It is interesting to read the reports on dishwashers in the early 50s. They told of things like soil trapped between the edges of plates and the tub wall and how prerinsing dishes cut that way down. They said how adding the extra rinse to the one wash & one rinse cycle on the Apex improved performance by carrying away more soil and not leaving residue on items in the load.

The testing of appliances is done at the Department of Energy which was created in the 70s to wean the US off foreign oil and we see what a roaring success that mission has been. I have seen pictures of their testing and they don't test dishwashers with dirty dishes. That's at least one step away from reality. They have really taken us back to the early 50s in dishwasher performance. As has been discussed here previously, manufacturers who get the energy use down to a certain point or below get some kind of reward, like money for more research or something. Under Bush, manufacturers could test their own appliances and do their own Energy Star certification which is why some energy star certified appliances used more energy than models without the certification. The detergents are much more advanced, or WERE until idiots pulled phosphates out of them, but the amount of dish preparation needed is back to the levels of the early days of dishwashers. One of the statements in the rankings of dishwashers in Consumer Reports for the group that included the KDS-14, I think, was something to the effect that these machines should prove satisfactory if the user is willing to devote a bit more effort to preparing the dishes before loading.

I remember when John installed that KA tall tub in his kitchen. It had a little mesh bag near the silver basket like you would use for washing nylons and delicates and after a load of dishes loaded like they left the table, it looked like someone had barfed on one of those bags you used to get oranges in. It was insane. Plus there was food stuck to the tank walls and the racks, yet the WP on the other side of the kitchen would handle all of that except for the few stray pieces that would get trapped in that in-door silver rack, but it had a real pump and was meant to wash dishes. Both were very quite, but with me quiet is not the priority. I have more than one room in my house where I can watch television or read while the crusher is running and if these pampered, put-upon people cannot take the noise of a dishwahser, I'd like to invite them back to the 50s when the sound generated by a dishwasher meant that you were not having to wash dishes by hand. One thing about the 50s dishwshers was that they were not running for an hour and a half or more to do the job that a modern machine does.

We long thought that CU totally missed the boat by not testing DWs with bowls and pans in the lower rack to see what effect it had on washing in the upper rack in machines without an upper wash arm.


Post# 544954 , Reply# 43   9/21/2011 at 14:47 (4,571 days old) by appnut (TX)        
Dried on oatmeal in bowls in the top rack

appnut's profile picture
Well Barry, I for one do not have an issue at all with that problem with my Kenmore elite Tall tub (WPKA in disguise). But then again, I have always put my cerea, bowl in the bottom befcause that's where all my GEs allowed them to be placed with that saucer rack as well as my D&N produced Kenmore from 1980. The last time I put cereal bowls in the top rack was the 1968 Waste King because the center section actually excelled at keeping the bowls upright and separated rather than falling all over themslves. Also, I prefer putting them in thje bottom because they eat up valuable real estate in the top rack needed for glasses, mugs, cups, and plasticware. And I don't prerinse anything. I don't even scrape all that we4ll either.

Post# 545004 , Reply# 44   9/21/2011 at 18:44 (4,571 days old) by bwoods ()        
dish placement

I understand, Bob. With my two GE tall tubs and the Whirlpool tall tub I ended up putting dried oatmeal bowls in the bottom rack. Usually (but not always) the came clean here. My bowls were dried on maybe more than most because at the time, I only ran the dishwasher once to two times per week. So I admit I am probably more demanding on my machines than most.

However, my GE tower washes and the Maytag reverse rackers never had a problem with it.

I guess my point is that, is it too much to ask to have dishes come clean in both racks? Many modern machines just do not have the power to do what they are supposed to. Why? Because the manufacturer's are trying to get ratings from the U.S. government based on arbitrary setpoints for water and energy usage that have little meaning in the real world.

Even pots and pans come out clean in either rack of my Tower Wash GE's and Maytags. A dish or pan has to have a really baked-on mess to require lower rack placement in the TW GE and RR Maytag, Normally, it's not a consideration and I can load for maximum utilization of space, which of course, is energy saving in itself as there are fewer loads.

In previous postings I have mentioned my "small mouth jar" test.

Take a very small mouthed jar with residual jelly, mayonaisse, peanut butter, etc. and place it in the top rack. Almost always the tall tubs, I had, would leave residue.

The Maytag usually got it all and my Tower Wash's GE always returned a spotless jar. (at least if there was an exception with the GE's, I don't recall it)
,
Now taking labels off the jars, that's a different story. hehe


Post# 545006 , Reply# 45   9/21/2011 at 19:17 (4,571 days old) by combo52 (50 Year Repair Tech Beltsville,Md)        
REAL DW TEST

combo52's profile picture

Try putting a ketchup bottle over a tine in the lower rack of a DW and see how clean it gets, I always wash out my bottles for recycling this way and my 1987 WP and 1984 KA KDSS-20 usually passes test my tall tub KA often left the bottle looking untouched..


Post# 545009 , Reply# 46   9/21/2011 at 19:28 (4,571 days old) by Jetcone (Schenectady-Home of Calrods,Monitor Tops,Toroid Transformers)        
Oooo good test

jetcone's profile picture

I'll try that one!

 

 


Post# 545012 , Reply# 47   9/21/2011 at 19:39 (4,571 days old) by volsboy1 (East Tenn Smoky mountains )        

volsboy1's profile picture
I can't stand these machines today,My G.E. Monogram with that Pure Clean wash system sucks bad.G.E. made the holes very small in the wash arms and there is more of them, but sense it only filters part of the water on it's way to the top wash arms they get stopped up all the time.They also took away the grinder plate at the pump inlet but they left the blade there for some reason.The Machines that are made today just don't last compared to the ones that used more water.So you have a ton more machines going to the landfill.Dishwasher's used to last for 13 or more years, Now days if I get 4 years out of it I will be shocked.I have gotten chewed out by people cause I love these old water hogs and hurricanes in a box.They mistake me for somebody who cares what they think but it seems like a on going thing,"How could you use a machine like that when my Asko cleans wonderful on a cup of water,I guess we are more cosmo here about things like that". I have had several comments like that but I don't care I like them cause they work like hell and I love the roar of water blasting things clean in 50 mins. What is worse dishwasher's going to the landfill every 5 years or one that last over twice that but uses more water? My question is where does the water go its not like gasoline is it??? P.S. I love that G.E. I have never seen one like that I am going to find me one now.:))

Post# 545021 , Reply# 48   9/21/2011 at 20:09 (4,571 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.)        

dadoes's profile picture
 
I can load an oatmeal (with raspberry jam mixed in) bowl like this one into my dishwasher ...



and have it come out like this (it was still warm when the clean pic was taken) ...



I don't know if that's considered reasonable performance ... perhaps someone can tell me.

The bowl in this case was washed within a couple hrs of the boilover occurring, but I routinely leave them sitting for a couple/three days and come clean with no trouble.



Post# 545025 , Reply# 49   9/21/2011 at 20:23 (4,571 days old) by appnut (TX)        

appnut's profile picture
Barry, minie can actually sit for 5-7 days before the machine is ever tuirned on in the wintertime. Glenn, I really cannot tell you on that. And Wes, Greg had no complaints when he had his Asko and he routinely pushed it to the max with the different kind of loads he put in there.

It's unfortunate we've been saddled with this government standards that just simiply don't deal witgh reality very well. That being said, we're also saddled with our electrical voltange vs. our european counterparts. The Europeans have led ahead f us for YEARS when it comes to efficiency. But their electrical support allows relatively quick heating of water. Greg very rarely had any debris in the filter of his Asko, including lasagna noodles thrown at eat, meat from said dish, and many other thihngs. The solution was that the cycle he used heated the water to 160 and 170 degrees practically emulsifiing just about anything. Whereas, our new machines that have saddled us with filters, "high-temp" wash water is now considered 120 to 130 degrees. A sanitize rinse option is still 155 degrees. But that's still no comparison to European designs. I'm sure I haven't made the most clear and cobncise argument here, but I think y'all get the gist of my intentions.


Post# 545030 , Reply# 50   9/21/2011 at 20:45 (4,571 days old) by bwoods ()        
GE Tall Tubs

Wes,

Both of my GE Tall Tubs had upper arm clogging problems as well as my sister and brother-in-law's, GE Tall-Tub.

Apparently GE's Monogram line must use the same chassis, or similar one, to their lower line Profile models.

In the GE tall tubs, if you take the grate of the sump, you will see there is a plastic separator with preforations in it. It separates the sump in half. One side having the recuculating pump intake and the other side with the darin pump intake.

This separator filters out food wastes so they cannot get sucked into the cirrculating pump and sent through the washarms. The "hard food waste" disposer blade is behind this separator so it is absolutely useless. Food can't get to it to be ground up. Food waste go to the side of the sump where the anemic little toy drain pump is. That's where the egg white flattened itself out over the drain pump inlet and prevented the dishwasher from draining.

The reason GE didn't put a grater screen behind the disposer blade is that it wouldn't make any difference, food can't get to it anyway. The only reason they put a blade there is to advertise it has a food disposer.

In reality, some food waste (and other objects) seem to often covertly slip past the perforated screen and make their way to the top wash arm where they promply clog it up. It is especially hard to get the packed in material out of the two rotation jets at the bottom end of each side of the arm. these always seem to clog first.

If they had put in a grater screen, like their normal tub machines, any waste that slipped by the separator screen would be ground up. Just a small piece of metal spinning out in the open on the end of a shaft will not grind up wastes.

No GE's statement that their tall tub machines have a hard food waste disposer is a bold faced lie. I wrote Consumer Reports to tell them this, as in their ratings they indicate that the Tall Tub GE's have a built-in food waste disposer.

I explained the whole thing to them, in detail and told them about the separator screen, an open blade with no grater and that food wastes couldn't get to the blade anyway.

You know what their response was to me (at least I got one). They told me if I was having a problem with a machine I should contact the manufacturer, and they gave me the hotline number for GE.

They totally ignored the fact GE was lying and purposefuly, and fradulently, mistating capabilities of their machine. And of course, ignored the fact that they were perpetuating GE's lie in their ratings.


Post# 545051 , Reply# 51   9/22/2011 at 00:26 (4,571 days old) by tolivac (greenville nc)        

to sum up after reading thru these entries--the govt regs on appliances should be scrapped-use your DISPOSER to shred food wastes,NOT the dishwasher-and most new dishwashers are just trash truck and landfill food.At this stage buy an Ol" KA from your nearby Habitat For Humanity store--save money-you are recycling---finding an old working machine a new home--and you are rewarded with CLEAN dishes.From dishwasher ad copy-new and old-they suggest you DUMP off large peices of food into your sink for your disposer to take care of-then load the unrinsed dish into the washer.

Post# 545054 , Reply# 52   9/22/2011 at 00:47 (4,571 days old) by volsboy1 (East Tenn Smoky mountains )        

volsboy1's profile picture
Yes there the same exact dishwasher for the most part.Mine has lights in it and is very quite something like 48 D.b.There is one Model and I did not see this one or I missed it that is made by Gaggenau I think.I was wondering about that Potscrubber 2 and all these other old G.E. dishwasher's from the late 70s and early 80s..The pump design is not much different than the one in mine is there?I know the motor in mine is more efficient 1.8 Amps compared to 5 Amps.I thought that motor in the older ones was a shaded pole type.I have always wondered why my friends Magic chef G.E. made it sounds like a wall of water hits that door and smashes plates turns things over.There is that big metal arm with the huge holes and a tower,plus a overhead arm.Was that old motor more powerful or is it something else?

Post# 545198 , Reply# 53   9/22/2011 at 18:49 (4,570 days old) by appnut (TX)        

appnut's profile picture
What I wanna know is this--why is it our dishwasher manufacturers have saddled us with lower wash water temps with these new HE wash systems (with filters) that have a normal wash temp of 105-115 degrees and high-temp is now 120 degrees and final rinse temp is 130, unless sani-rinse his selecteed. AND european models offered here are still able to offer cycles with much higher temperatures and still remain Energy Star Qualified?

Post# 545199 , Reply# 54   9/22/2011 at 18:57 (4,570 days old) by combo52 (50 Year Repair Tech Beltsville,Md)        
EUROPEAN DISHWASHERS

combo52's profile picture

Are much smaller on the inside and outside and you will have to prove to me that they use as little or even less energy.


Post# 545200 , Reply# 55   9/22/2011 at 19:04 (4,570 days old) by appnut (TX)        

appnut's profile picture
that's just it John!!!!

Post# 545413 , Reply# 56   9/23/2011 at 14:44 (4,569 days old) by brisnat81 (Brisbane Australia)        

Hi John,

I've completed your Sauce bottle Test in a Miele, please see the results below.

No Specks or Yibblets to be found

Cheers

Nathan


Post# 545486 , Reply# 57   9/23/2011 at 20:08 (4,569 days old) by bwoods ()        
small mouth bottle test

to do the small mouth bottle test, one wants to be sure to let the material in the bottle dry a day or two. Otherwise, the liquid content runs out on its own and its no challenge for any dishwsher to get the small remaining amount. Just the heat from the machine will cause the remaining liquid to get runny and evaculate the bottle.

Try it again, Nathan, with two day old dried ketchup remains in the bottle. If you have to a new bottle and dump out the contents in a bowl, you can replace it later in the (hopefully) clean bottle. hehe


Post# 545498 , Reply# 58   9/23/2011 at 21:14 (4,569 days old) by stevet (West Melbourne, FL)        
COLLECT DATA!

Why dont we be scientific about this?

With all the different machines some guys have in their collecxtions from old to new, why not set up a test with one of those "Killawatt" testers for sale at HD or Lowes and see just how much energy the dishwasher alone consumes in the course of a regular cycle. No dishes or detergent, just set the cycle and let it rip!

Try to insure that the inlet water temp is the same so you may have to run the consecutively or after the water heater has finished cycling. If you cannot measure the actual incoming temp to each machine, maybe running them both with a strictly cold fill would prove the point. Like maybe a vintage KA 20 thru 23 vs a new K/A OR KENMORE/WHIRLPOOL?

This can show definitively which machine uses the least POWER to complete its job, and then we can go from there to figure what it may cost to heat the water.

But I think most people forget the added cost of heating the water and just feel if they have an Energy Star rated machine that is the extent of the savings in energy. So let's leave that out for now.

Since the big question seems to be what is more efficient, washing longer with a weaker pump or shorter wash time with a more powerful pump why not give it a go?

My only problem would be that the newer machines would have a built in default time where they will advance the cycle regardless of how hot or cool the water was at that point.

If you remember maybe 2 years ago, I had the 1990's Bosch machine that would delay and keep washing til it hit the proper temp as it was purely electro mechanical and I ran it with hot water fill cycle and when I switched it to all cold fill, it only took 20 minutes more to go thru the complete cycle. If I had measured the actual KW consumption including the water heated by electricity, The extra 20 minutes would not have consumed that much more energy. There has to be a reason why European machines come with cold fill only? Or have they changed that?


Post# 545505 , Reply# 59   9/23/2011 at 21:29 (4,569 days old) by appnut (TX)        
european cold fill machines

appnut's profile picture
Steve, remember that european households have normal current that we would consider to be 220/240 volt and that gives them the ability to heat water from cold much faster than our anemic 120 volt power in homes in the U.S. I think European brands are designed to heat to a particular temperature set point and won't "time out" as would a comparable American brand.

Post# 545507 , Reply# 60   9/23/2011 at 21:34 (4,569 days old) by Jetcone (Schenectady-Home of Calrods,Monitor Tops,Toroid Transformers)        
You're on!

jetcone's profile picture

I will go get a watt miser when I get back on Sunday and hook it up and run a dirty ketchup bottle thru for a complete Combo52 test!

 

 


Post# 545534 , Reply# 61   9/23/2011 at 23:12 (4,569 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.)        

dadoes's profile picture
 
I've already done some KillaWatt tests with my dishwasher, reported the results some while ago.


Post# 545930 , Reply# 62   9/26/2011 at 15:01 (4,566 days old) by joe_in_philly (Philadelphia, PA, USA)        

joe_in_philly's profile picture
My dishwasher is hard wired - I thought that was the norm for the USA, but perhaps not.

Even though my dishwasher is connected to wimpy 120 US current, it heats the water pretty fast. It heats the water, machine, and dishes about 2 degrees a minute. I have measured a full load starting at 100F just before the heater starts, it is up to 140F in 20 minutes. I believe the heater is 1200 watts.


Post# 545942 , Reply# 63   9/26/2011 at 17:23 (4,566 days old) by stevet (West Melbourne, FL)        
Results again please,DADoEs?

Any chance of reposting the results or perhaps a link we plebians can access?

And Joe in Philly, what make and model machine do you have? Sounds pretty near to a vintage KA machine!


Post# 546403 , Reply# 64   9/28/2011 at 22:26 (4,564 days old) by joe_in_philly (Philadelphia, PA, USA)        

joe_in_philly's profile picture
It is a Bosch SHU43C.


Post# 546483 , Reply# 65   9/29/2011 at 18:42 (4,563 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.)        

dadoes's profile picture
 
SteveT, the original thread in which I cited figures should be in the archives, probably a couple years back.  Search for my username and dishdrawer and kwh usage.

I ran a load this afternoon and checked the figures afresh.  I did not turn the household water heater off as on the previous tests.  Relevant factors are:
- The current setpoint is 102°F.
- The DD takes 0.8 gals per fill.
- At least one fill is required to purge the line ... probably more like 1.5 gals to reach ~100°F.
- Being that it's a tankless water heater, there's a bit of the "cold sandwich" factor comes into play between fills.  Per a tap-check a half-hour or so after the cycle finished, I'd estimate the fills were average 85°F, maybe approaching 90°F.  Weather is still hot here and there's some solar heating via the attic plumbing.  Setting the water heater down to 50°F would have had a negligible effect on the results.

So ... the numbers.

Normal cycle.  1 hr 55 mins (115 mins) default/estimated. Cycle time is extended as required to reach the target temps.  I did not check the time exactly so can't say what was the final run-time but it typically is not much over the estimate.  Even winter-cold fills don't extend the time by an agonizing amount, unless maybe I just don't notice.

5 water changes.  W - R - W - R - R - D

140°F main wash.

150°F final rinse.

0.54 KWH power used.  Including water heating.  Like five 100-watt light bulbs and a 40-watter on for an hour.

Reasonable?

Excessive?


Post# 546489 , Reply# 66   9/29/2011 at 19:28 (4,563 days old) by Toggleswitch (New York City, NY)        

toggleswitch's profile picture
Just remember guys that "cold" tap temperature differs greatly from (TX, FL, NV, AZ) than from (MN, ND, ME, MI)................


For our international friends read as: in southern states near the equator than form northern states near Canada.


Post# 546632 , Reply# 67   9/30/2011 at 13:06 (4,562 days old) by wireman (Lansing, MI)        

wireman's profile picture
VERY interesting thread! We replaced out old dishwasher about 6yrs. ago with a Bosch designed Kenmore Elite tall tub. Once Greg heard how quiet it was ( we have a 50's cape cod brick house, and you could hear the old 70's model running everywhere in the house!) he wouldn't settle for anything less! We almost always run the pots and pans cycle as it is shorter, though still pretty long at 112 min. I like the idea of that shorter cycle and hotter water. Everything almost always comes out clean! Even oatmeal on the upper racks. It dries pretty well, too, esp. if opened up soon after the drying cycle ends and the dishes are still hot. I think we lucked into one of the better modern designs. I clean the screens when I am home and remember to, but rarely find much. Hearing your horror stories makes me hope it'll last for awhile!

Only one issue with it is a rusted through spot on the upper rack. Any ideas for a repair? The stainless tub still looks great.

I'll have to explore when back home many washes/rinses it does.

My dad, however, has a less expensive Kenmore with the soil "sensor" also about 5-6yrs old. That damn thing can run for 3 NOISY hrs on almost any cycle but the "quick" one, and that is still about an hour! I suspect that sediment from his well water may be tricking the sensor into thinking there is still grime in the water. Doesn't dry the dishes worth a crap either... It was NOT a cheap machine, think it was well over $400 on sale. Like many older folks, he REALLY rinses everything, and has taken to running the short cycle.

On the vintage front, our "gay grandpa" lived in a Chicago high-rise with a Kitchen Aid DW; I believe a Suberba from somewhere in the 70's. The building was a Mies van der Rohe design from the mid-60's, but doubt the dishwasher was that old. Think it did have some buttons and a dial. I loaded and emptied it many times and everything always came clean! That thing soldiered on forever and was reasonably quiet. Cannot recall what it was replaced with, but recall him saying it was NOT up to the performance of his KA!

Again, it DOES come down to good design. I have MANY issues with the poor design of many current American products. EVERYTHING is about marketing hype these days, NOT real performance.


Post# 546667 , Reply# 68   9/30/2011 at 16:22 (4,562 days old) by combo52 (50 Year Repair Tech Beltsville,Md)        
KM ELITE DW

combo52's profile picture

Duane is your KM DW made by Bosch or WP you can tell by the model # ?.


Post# 546677 , Reply# 69   9/30/2011 at 17:57 (4,562 days old) by yogitunes (New Jersey)        

yogitunes's profile picture
John.....what a great test.....I'm gonna do that one, dried as mentioned.......


I have a Convertible Kenmore UltraWash from 1988.....I got it with the stipulation, bake a cake and frost it, place the whole cake and plate in the dishwasher on the Normal cycle, if anything was left the dishwasher was FREE!

You KNOW how many damn cakes I baked and stuck in there? ? ?....too freakin many, and all washed away!...dammit!

but in hindsite....who wants a FREE dishwasher if it won't clean dishes?.....just a gimmick....but nice to know I could!....LOL


Post# 546900 , Reply# 70   10/2/2011 at 11:33 (4,560 days old) by wireman (Lansing, MI)        
Kenmore Elite = Bosch

wireman's profile picture
John,

Our Kenmore Elite is a Bosch design with stainless tub. It is a tall one, but is about 3" shallower than the domestic designs (we learned this is to make it flush with European cabinets). The control panel has the same settings as the Bosch, but has small circular buttons rather than the large, familiar "rocker" switches of the Bosch. Really has been a good performer, with almost daily use. I don't hesitate to stack things over one another, esp. on the lower rack.

Perhaps it would be wisest just to replace the upper rack(it is adjustable, a WONDERFUL thing!)rather than attempt some kind of patch to the rusty spot. NOT getting any rust spots on dishes...

Duane


Post# 549458 , Reply# 71   10/15/2011 at 06:32 (4,548 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.)        

dadoes's profile picture

Cross-posted from Deluxe, being that heating time is of relevance to this thread.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I ran a load this afternoon and monitored the cycle. The Kill-a-Watt meter is still connected, but I didn't check it before starting so I can't say how much power was used. This info is only in regards to time.

I cranked the water heater down to 50°F so the fills were tap-cold.

Kitchen faucet temp read about 82°F.

Normal Eco cycle.
88 mins initial time.
Wash (or prerinse), Wash 125°F, Rinse, Rinse 125°F, Dry.

88 Mins = Start

81 Mins = first drain. That makes the prewash 7 mins (no delay for heating).

78 mins = start of main wash fill

46 mins = main wash drain. That makes the main wash approx 32 mins. In my previous instances of monitoring the temp in the tub, the heated cycle phase ends within a couple mins of the target temp being reached. I assume there's a minimum time involved in case of a really HOT fill, but don't know what is it.

43 mins = first rinse fill.

39 mins = first rinse drain.

36 = final rinse fill

25 = final rinse drain. That makes the final rinse approx 11 mins, including water heating ... which was apparently aided by residual heat from the wash, even with a cold-fill rinse preceding. Still, 11 mins is much less than I'd expect.

Remaining time is drying.

Timing the cycle separately via the minute timer on my microwave, the full cycle was extended by only 3 minutes. At 25 mins remaining time on the dishwasher display, the microwave had 22 mins left. The dishwasher had 3 mins dry time left when the minute timer ended.


Post# 869419 , Reply# 72   2/27/2016 at 13:59 (2,951 days old) by chetlaham (United States)        
Holly...WOW!

chetlaham's profile picture
Anyone know what happened to this machine? How did it turn out?

Post# 869469 , Reply# 73   2/27/2016 at 18:25 (2,951 days old) by vacerator (Macomb, Michigan)        
Unused???

It's filthy, also around the door gasket.

Post# 870006 , Reply# 74   3/1/2016 at 17:20 (2,948 days old) by mark_wpduet (Lexington KY)        
OMG

mark_wpduet's profile picture
just came across this thread....An UNUSED 1978 GE Dishwasher? I mean, how freaking RARE is that? I wonder how something like this would FARE over the years of just sitting? Sure, it has never been operated, but since it's almost 40 freaking years old, I wonder how it would sound when running or have any problems with seals or things like that.....I just LOVE the look of it. I do like some of the modern dishwashers, but I really really wish they still made dishwashers like they did in the 80s/90s...

One thing I've never understood about energystar and being green and saving the planet is the fact that a lot of these new appliances end up in a landfill in 5 years. I've been lucky with my modern appliances so far......2004 range, fridge, microwave all still working.....but the dishwasher died at 9.2 yrs.


Post# 870099 , Reply# 75   3/2/2016 at 08:39 (2,947 days old) by panthera (Rocky Mountains)        
appliance lifespan

panthera's profile picture

I have to agree - there's no way in hell anyone can convince me that building major appliances to last for 3-5 years is good for the environment.

Or the pocketbook.

Except for microwave ovens, I can't think of a single, solitary kitchen appliance which works better today than the really good appliances of the 1960's to mid-70s.

Not one.

As to dishwashers - why would I want something which requires me to pre-rinse my dishes and can't even self-clean?

We spent more restoring our Twenty-Eight Hundred than a 'good' modern dishwasher costs. We'll get another thirty years out of the GSD 2800 without major work. That's at least five if not six of the bacteria, slime mold and garbage spreading current trash on the market.


Post# 870107 , Reply# 76   3/2/2016 at 09:52 (2,947 days old) by vacerator (Macomb, Michigan)        
Panthera,

I also agree. It is not good for the environment, but is keeping Mexico and China employed. American factories just assemble the cheesy parts.

Post# 870113 , Reply# 77   3/2/2016 at 10:42 (2,947 days old) by johnb300m (Chicago)        

johnb300m's profile picture
WOW!
I've never seen a GE machine like that before!
Fascinating!
Why on earth did they ever abandon the middle wash arm like that???
The towers were pretty good, but I have no idea why they didn't at least offer both for all these decades.
At least not until their Triton line.

And I just don't know what to say about all the whining about new energy efficient machines.
There's a lot of ignorance in this arena, both unintentional and chosen.

There's A LOT of truth behind EU vs US and our electrical ratings.
There's also a lot to say about EU machines heating their water with actual flow-through heaters which are more efficient. US machines mainly rely on heating water in a random fashion with an exposed coil, compounded by lower voltage. So of course our US machines won't be good at heating water.
Also, importantly, EU nations have very hard water and so all their dishwashers have built in water softeners. Soft water, I've learned the hard way (giggity!) is a HUGE performance variable.
If you're saddled with hard water, the best of the best dishwashers won't do squat.
Many many US locations also have hard to very hard water, yet we're not accustomed to always softening our water, NOR do ANY of our appliances have built in water softening characteristics. So we're screwed right off the bat.

With that said, I hope there are plenty of posts by now in the Blue section to disprove a lot of these myths.
We now have plenty of discussion, testing and video evidence to show that modern machines are not nearly as horrible as people think.
Sure, they were pretty bad in mid-2000's, but I think a lot of the kinks have been worked out.
Not to mention, the relatively speaking, torrent of water that a certain Whirlpool is able to throw around with what looks like a pond pump. Albeit with separate rack washing.

I too am not thrilled with the demise of hard food disposers. But it IS partly consumers' faults.
Disposers require larger pumps and power, which are louder. And people when they're standing in Menard's with a pimple-faced sales dude, will look, and only really look at price, and db levels of the machines.
When the price and db levels align to the lowest amounts, that's usually what people will pick. And they'll only complain about wash-ability later. Yet further complain if the machine is "too loud" despite it washing well.
It's a no-win.

Pertaining to energy. It's incredibly counter-intuitive, especially in our society where basic science knowledge is panned and ridiculed.
But when you split the wash action between racks, reduce the water fill, and further reduce the water flow paths and jets, you can create still a forceful spray with a small efficient DC magnetic pump with a higher RPM to build up your pressure force. These little motors can often run twice as long or more and still use the same or often LESS electricity than their older induction motor ancestors.

YES, I have sporadic washability issues in my modern GE Profile machine, mainly on the top rack. But the bottom rack has been flawless since inception. I've NEVER dealt with a machine, vintage or modern, that's actually performed 100% flawless, 100% of the time.
Maybe I'm just unlucky.
But as it was mentioned up-thread, it really comes down to design. There's verifiable evidence that Whirlpool has simply better designed certain aspects of their machine, over my GE, such as better top rack coverage, and filter soil management.
They're both great machines in my opinion though.

With all those combined, these modern machines really do use less resources, even combined with the odd reject, or some brief filter rinsing.
And I'm thankful for that.
The only caveat I see today is time, with longer cycles. And that too, just simply isn't an issue unless you need to do back to back dishwashing, which really is only an issue upon heavy holiday time.

Just my 5 cents. (Inflation sucks)


Post# 870142 , Reply# 78   3/2/2016 at 17:53 (2,947 days old) by panthera (Rocky Mountains)        
The electrical is true

panthera's profile picture

I miss my three-phase power in Munich. I miss plain old 230V power.

It's not that big of a deal, though, for a washing machine. Any of our Potscrubbers can raise the temp about 1.5-1.8 degrees/minute/F.

Our inlet water is 145F, so by the time the potscrubber cycle is over, they've either limited water to 165F or it's gone up to about 170F, dependent upon unit.

(The GSD 2800, of course, cuts the heat at the appropriate point for each chosen cycle.

If these 40 year old machines can manage that with 900 Watts, then there' simply no excuse for the trash being sold to Americans today. It's worse than worthless, it's just a breeding ground for illness causing microbes.

 

As to the Potscrubber II, anyone who wants a laugh should read the GE Service Bulletin on it here in the archives. Ye gods and little fishies, no wonder they abandoned it and it's middle washarm. By the time they had the problems worked out (and they did, in the end), their reputation was shot.


Post# 870148 , Reply# 79   3/2/2016 at 18:39 (2,947 days old) by delaneymeegan (Midwest)        
Even Grace Adler's mother thought GE was best.

delaneymeegan's profile picture

 

 

 

The TOL 1978 GE with the added panel indicator, showing at what point the dishwasher was at in the cycle.

 

.

 


Post# 870149 , Reply# 80   3/2/2016 at 18:45 (2,947 days old) by delaneymeegan (Midwest)        
I wonder however.....

delaneymeegan's profile picture

 

 

 

 

The original poster of this thread, may have had the date wrong.  The mol dw looks more like 1977, than 1978.

 

Here is the TOL from 1977.  Notice how the vent is in the middle on both this ad, and the dw shown at the beginning.  The 1978, featuring the new GE TUFF tub that was with us for many years, has the vent in the upper left corner of the door.

 

Also, the console on the 1977 was real chrome metal that had removable ends, whereas the 1978 is a one piece plastic escutcheon covered in a chrome finish.

 


Post# 870150 , Reply# 81   3/2/2016 at 18:49 (2,947 days old) by delaneymeegan (Midwest)        

delaneymeegan's profile picture

 

The 1977's had a burl wood background behind the graphics, whereas on the 1978 it was wood grained.

 

The 1977's had a dark colored access panel, whereas the 1978 had a color matched panel that matches the door.

 


Post# 870152 , Reply# 82   3/2/2016 at 18:57 (2,947 days old) by combo52 (50 Year Repair Tech Beltsville,Md)        
Water Heaters In DWs

combo52's profile picture

Plumbed in Flow-Through style waters are not one bit more efficient in heating water or in cost of operation than an exposed coil in the bottom of a US style DW, if there is any difference the coil in the bottom of a DW would be more efficient because ALL the heat is IN the DW with the dishes and water with no radiant loss from the tube style heater under the DW, but in either case we would be splitting hairs as there is truly no difference.


Post# 870161 , Reply# 83   3/2/2016 at 19:15 (2,947 days old) by vacerator (Macomb, Michigan)        
John, re; heating coils

I would think that a submerged calrod would be more efficient.
When my dad used to service DM and Whirlpools, he told me in the sanitize rinse cycle, the heater coil only raise the water temp 1 degree f. every five minutes or so.
My GE does have a thicker calrod than my former Whirlpool from the 90's did.
It completes a sanitized cycle in 86 minutes, less in summer. It is on an outside wall, and I keep my water heater on one mark above warm, about 130 f.


Post# 870181 , Reply# 84   3/2/2016 at 20:01 (2,947 days old) by combo52 (50 Year Repair Tech Beltsville,Md)        
Submerged Heaters In DWs

combo52's profile picture

Its Not more efficient, do your research, just because you assume it is better does not make it better.


Post# 870200 , Reply# 85   3/2/2016 at 21:49 (2,947 days old) by panthera (Rocky Mountains)        
I'm a bit curious

panthera's profile picture

As to why the decisions were made to cut those phosphates which don't cause eutrophication. 

Why the decision was made to remove chlorine bleach (which rapidly becomes harmless salt).

Why the decision was made to lower temperatures to the exact right level to breed microbes while cleaning nothing.

Why the decision was made to 'save' so much water that one must now pre-rinse with gallons and gallons (and pre-wash, often as not).

Why food-choppers (they're not really disposals) were removed in nearly all systems.

Was any thought given to this or was it just a case of idiot politicians plus clueless corporations? And, I do mean clueless - look at the rinse-aide, control board and heating-coil fires of the last few years and compare them to all the fires of the fifty odd years previously.

Not to mention the Whirlaide motors with their designed-to-fail seals.


Post# 870207 , Reply# 86   3/2/2016 at 22:56 (2,947 days old) by combo52 (50 Year Repair Tech Beltsville,Md)        
I'm a bit curious

combo52's profile picture

Well I guess if you can't figure any of these questions yourself you don't know much about appliances, you should read more and post less , LOL.


Post# 872064 , Reply# 87   3/12/2016 at 13:09 (2,937 days old) by chetlaham (United States)        
Reasons...

chetlaham's profile picture
What are those reasons? Ive been reading and reading and I am still as mystified as the day I heard about such.


I see no reason why self cleaning filters needed to be removed from DW.


Post# 872104 , Reply# 88   3/12/2016 at 16:43 (2,937 days old) by Johnb300m (Chicago)        

johnb300m's profile picture
1. Uhhh, phosphates are a leading cause of algal blooms in lakes, rivers and streams, which are a detriment to the environment.
2. Some detergents still use chlorine bleach. Others use oxygen bleaches.
3. 120 degrees is more than efficient to clean a normal load of dishes with good detergent and a good wash/spray system. If you don't want bacteria (which is such a low risk it's almost humorous) then use your Sanitize cycle/option.
4. Eco water saving machines took a few years to work out the kinks, but if you look in the Blue section of the forum, there's mounting evidence of new dishwashers using mere 2-6gal of water per cycle, with NO pre-rinsing, and coming out perfectly clean. If you choose to disregard actual user experiences.....then nobody can help you.
5. Food choppers were removed in the hunt for more efficient, smaller motors in order to use less water and energy. I'm a food chopper fan, but with a new filter dishwasher, I've not missed it at all. Millions of chopper-free dishwashers run in Europe every day, and make perfectly clean dishes. It's just not a feature that enough consumers demand anymore.
6. I think your impression of modern, Energy Saving appliances is grossly overstated. Are you even paying attention to the looming global water crisis of dwindling fresh ground/lakewater and encroaching saltwater? If my appliances can save me money on my utility bills and use less coal and less water and still perform to my satisfaction, awesome. If you can't find ANYTHING out there that meets your satisfaction, then I'm sorry. Market forces with nudges from government agency have produced the market we have today. And consumers seem to be generally OK with it. If they were not? You'd see more revolts in purchasing pressures and complaints to BBB and Federal Trade Commission on fraudulent goods in the market.

In summary: Whaaaaaaahhhhhhhh :'(


Post# 872128 , Reply# 89   3/12/2016 at 17:09 (2,937 days old) by joeypete (Concord, NH)        
John!

joeypete's profile picture
lol. OMG. You're killing me. Sassy pants :-P

  View Full Size
Post# 872144 , Reply# 90   3/12/2016 at 18:25 (2,937 days old) by washer111 ()        

I don't hold the opinion 120ş is enough for washing.

For most loads, its perfectly adequate, although used frequently enough, I found previously that odours can and would buildup in our machine.
Also was nowhere near impressed on plenty of occasions the way the dishes came out after a greasy load went through at this sort of temperature, both in terms of odour and "feel" of the dishes. 'Clean,' but you could tell something was amiss.

Quite happy to keep hotter washing temperatures. It can be attained in environmentally-friendly means - solar water heating is installed in a lot of people's homes in the world... Although everyone seems to ignore this when discussing "environmental and monetary benefits of washing in frigid water."

And on water usage, even the average vintage machine uses less water than it generally takes to wash a capacity load by hand - especially people like me who start by rinsing everything, filling the sink with hot water, rinsing all the soap off afterwards and replacing sink water as it gets dirty.
Those YouTube peanuts who claim they can wash with less water than a dishwasher evidently haven't tried washing a full set of 12 place settings, encrusted pots and pans, utensils and the like. Plenty of things like that need good running water and huge amounts of effort to achieve anything.

The main place water is wasted, as I see it, is in industrial processes. The average home user contributes so much less than many industrial operations not only to pollution, but water usage and damage to waterways (i.e. from phosphates) that it isn't funny. Whats happened is like plugging a pin prick hole in a dyke when there is a huge leak just a km away threatening to flood a town.


Post# 872174 , Reply# 91   3/12/2016 at 22:15 (2,937 days old) by panthera (Rocky Mountains)        
Johnb300m

panthera's profile picture

1. Uhhh, phosphates are a leading cause of algal blooms in lakes, rivers and streams, which are a detriment to the environment.
Depends on the 'phosphates'.  Neither TSP nor STTP contribute one iota to algal bloom.
2. Somedetergents still use chlorine bleach. Others use oxygen bleaches.

Good to know, thank you. 
3. 120 degrees is more than efficient to clean a normal load of dishes with good detergent and a good wash/spray system. If you don't want bacteria (which is such a low risk it's almost humorous) then use your Sanitize cycle/option.

I have not seen that to be true. Then again, I don't prewash and I do expect spotless performance, including on oatmeal and baked on eggs/starch. As to the bacteria and mold, 120F isn't enough, not by a long shot.
4. Eco water saving machines took a few years to work out the kinks, but if you look in the Blue section of the forum, there's mounting evidence of new dishwashers using mere 2-6gal of water per cycle, with NO pre-rinsing, and coming out perfectly clean. If you choose to disregard actual user experiences.....then nobody can help you.

My last European dishwasher (I'm German) was a 2014 TOL Miele. It did, indeed, clean well. Took four hours, nearly. Unacceptable. Still needed the 75C program to really clean naked on food.
5. Food choppers were removed in the hunt for more efficient, smaller motors in order to use less water and energy. I'm a food chopper fan, but with a new filter dishwasher, I've not missed it at all. Millions of chopper-free dishwashers run in Europe every day, and make perfectly clean dishes. It's just not a feature that enough consumers demand anymore.

Yeah, I spent nearly my entire adult life cleaning those damn filters. Unacceptable. 
6. I think your impression of modern, Energy Saving appliances is grossly overstated. Are you even paying attention to the looming global water crisis of dwindling fresh ground/lakewater and encroaching saltwater? If my appliances can save me money on my utility bills and use less coal and less water and still perform to my satisfaction, awesome. If you can't find ANYTHING out there that meets your satisfaction, then I'm sorry. Market forces with nudges from government agency have produced the market we have today. And consumers seem to be generally OK with it. If they were not? You'd see more revolts in purchasing pressures and complaints to BBB and Federal Trade Commission on fraudulent goods in the market.

Consumer water use is nothing compared to the damage done by fracking. It's politically correct, but just plain irrelevant. I want my dishes clean, my machine reasonably sanitary and I refuse to waste my time and hot water pre-rinsing.

In summary: Whaaaaaaahhhhhhhh :'(

 

My questions are not whinging, they're relevant.


Post# 872197 , Reply# 92   3/13/2016 at 00:25 (2,937 days old) by tolivac (greenville nc)        

Phospates----We EMIT more when we use the bathroom-and runoff from lawns and such from rain and watering-another phosphate source.Used in fertilizers and lawn,plant treatments.What comes from detergents is really minor-not worth the ballyhoo.And there are phosphate mines in my area and other places in the South.

Post# 872219 , Reply# 93   3/13/2016 at 06:23 (2,937 days old) by joeypete (Concord, NH)        

joeypete's profile picture
I have to agree on phosphates from detergent usage. Now that they are not used at all (or in minimal trace amounts) in the US, I really don't feel guilty using STPP in my laundry or dishwasher use. The percentage of people using phosphates as an additive is extremely small. Hell, my good friend is very environmentally conscious and she didn't even know anything about STPP. So I'm not worried.

I'm all for conserving energy and saving water if needed. But in my opinion, it depends on where you are. Here in the northeast we do not have a water shortage, and rarely do. So I don't feel guilty either about using older appliances that use more water...especially when I don't pay for my water usage. It's just not an issue for me. Reducing hot water usage is strictly a money thing. I mean if people are willing to pay more, why not let them use as much hot water as they want? But I do know that modern appliances that restrict hot water usage still clean exceptionally well. I'm not wearing a blindfold when it comes to reality.

So I can see both sides of the spectrum. Of course, me Mr. Moderate. LOL


Post# 872250 , Reply# 94   3/13/2016 at 10:08 (2,936 days old) by panthera (Rocky Mountains)        
Joeypete

panthera's profile picture

You're right.

There's also the not so minor fact that modern water treatment facilities recover organically accessible phosphate compounds.

I find it a bit ironic that those arguing I should abandon vintage appliances, hot water and real detergents for 'modern' appliances would use water treatment technology from the mid-20th century as the basis for their argument in the 21st.

We had guests this summer who are the personification of pre-scrubbing and rinsing every single dish which goes into the dishwasher.

They used up nearly 90 gallons of hot water 'saving' the 'environment' from my evil, twisted GSD Twenty Eight Hundred and it's horrid, wasteful ways.

I'm not opposed to genuine advances in technology, as a discussion here over 10 years ago thoroughly explored. Just no patience with faux-science and plastic-fantastic trash sold to clean which has to be cleaned itself, it's so anemic.


Post# 872259 , Reply# 95   3/13/2016 at 11:27 (2,936 days old) by chetlaham (United States)        

chetlaham's profile picture
I can agree with some of those statements but I call BS in terms of manufactures. I get less water and electricity is better for the planet, but a machine breaking down every few years as apposed to 30 years... something is not right with that picture.

Post# 872283 , Reply# 96   3/13/2016 at 13:57 (2,936 days old) by logixx (Germany)        
Panthera

logixx's profile picture
Did you have your Miele checked? I did look at the manual of the latest (and thus most efficient) model and the Intensive cycle is 2:40 hrs. - not almost four hours. I wonder if something ws wrong with yours.

I can attest that the 45°C Eco Intensive cycle of my Siemens cleans even baked on baking dishes / BobLoads just fine in 2:20 hrs. with Aldi powdered detergent. However, I must admit that I basically use the auto cycle with speed mode all the time, as I run the dishwasher after dinner late in the evening and still want to unload it before going to bed. Cycle time then is identical to, say, Whirlpool Power Clean machines.

I love the idea of food choppers... but the inlet to them on most machines seems too small to let pieces of meat, lettuce leaves, beans etc. pass the through and then you're still "stuck" with having to scrape dishes.


Post# 872382 , Reply# 97   3/13/2016 at 21:44 (2,936 days old) by panthera (Rocky Mountains)        
logixx,

panthera's profile picture
Interestingly enough, I've never encountered a stuck drain hose in a dishwasher with a chopper blade. Must have happened, no doubt, but I've not seen it.
And, I don't pre-rinse at all.
Ever.
Yes, my last Miele took forever. I do think part of it was the way it had been reduced to 10Amp service. Big difference to my beloved 3-phase (which I would have never given up, the idiot movers dropped it down the stairs and THROUGH the glass doors right out onto Klenzestr., where it was promptly hit by a passing truck.
Sigh.
Anyway, I do think it was something like 3.47 hours at it's very worst.
Still miss the chocolate and butter and bread and coffee.


Post# 873598 , Reply# 98   3/21/2016 at 03:03 (2,929 days old) by chetlaham (United States)        
Commercial

chetlaham's profile picture
Apologies if this has been posted before but I was able to find the commercial that went with the pot-scrubber two:










I have to ask, how long is the main wash on the potscrubber two, that looks like an awful baked on mess. Yikes!


Post# 873599 , Reply# 99   3/21/2016 at 03:27 (2,929 days old) by brisnat81 (Brisbane Australia)        

Hi Panthera.

My G5715 SCU XXL takes 1:30-2 hours on the Auto Cycle with 50degC Inlet water. The last 30 minutes of that is drying. Wash temp is 45-65degC, rinse is 60C.

Auto with Turbo option and 50degC inlet water is 55-70 minutes and the last 5 minutes is drying.

Pots and pans usually starts at 2:20 and at worst has taken 2:40, main wash is 70degC, rinse is 60degC

The only cycle on mine that runs more than 2:45 is the Extra quiet cycle which takes 4.35 hours.

If you hook it up to cold fill you add about 10 minutes more to each cycle.

The older G2220 SCI XXL had about the same wash times, just without the turbo option.

You clean the filter once every other month, generally its only hard particles left, all the soft stuff does down the drain.

This is the 15 place setting version tall tub running of a standard Aussie 230v 10 amp socket.

How old was yours the only way I could see it taking that long was if it was a very early model that had 2-3gallon fills and was only heating with less than 1000 watts. I guess that's possible if the heating element was designed to be 2400 watts at 400v, that's only 800watts at 240v. We had a late 70's Dishlex connected to cold water for a while and the 10L fills with an 1100watt element took an eternity to heat.

Regards

Nathan


Post# 873609 , Reply# 100   3/21/2016 at 07:41 (2,929 days old) by panthera (Rocky Mountains)        
Goodness

panthera's profile picture

Four and one-half hours! Nathan, that's quite something.

I guess some detail is in order. I'd sold my condo, was on my way to the US and we hit a bureaucratic snag. The brand new Miele is in a flat belonging to a dear friend in Munich. She's very much an environmentalist and noise sensitive. This generation of Mieles repeats the last program unless you change it, so I'm guessing she had every eco-option and extraleise running. 

I was only there for a month, had neither time nor interest in playing with it.

Unless they're three-phase, German dishwashers were generally derated down to 10 amps after reunification. Munich runs pretty steady at 230V so I doubt it's the heating, despite the cold water and low power heating. Just the way it was programmed.

 


Post# 873817 , Reply# 101   3/22/2016 at 07:52 (2,928 days old) by chetlaham (United States)        
Time

chetlaham's profile picture
I downloaded the Service manual for this machine (Thanks Robert!!!!! :D ) and a normal cycle appears to be 40 minutes with a 21 minute dry and 71 minutes on the pot-scrubber cycle. It seems the next engineering revision, GSD950-02 changes the dry time to 31 minutes and the manual even mentions 9 minutes were added due to short drying.



Over all I am really impressed with potscrubber II machines. Had GE added a filter I think this could easily have been a major hit across us homes.


Post# 873825 , Reply# 102   3/22/2016 at 09:01 (2,927 days old) by panthera (Rocky Mountains)        
Ge Potscrubber II

panthera's profile picture

The service manual on these is hilarious to read. GE flat out admits that they were rolled out too early and the details on all the flaws and how they were fixed/minimized is beyond words funny.

And that's what killed them - by the time GE had them fixed, people had had it with their awful performance, horrible service record and the really bad customer service GE in far too many places had on offer at the time.

Same stupid mentality as Microshrott with their intentionally too small teams and too tight deadlines.

 

 


Post# 873827 , Reply# 103   3/22/2016 at 10:17 (2,927 days old) by chetlaham (United States)        

chetlaham's profile picture
I agree, I got a kick out of reading it lol. Apparently sump boots had been coming off. Word of that spreading would be the ultimate black eye. And the others like no click lock on the push buttons and condensation on critical components are certainly rushed engineering. Changing a timer is a pain as well to gain 9 minutes of dry time or lockable push-buttons. Half the machine needs to be rewired.


I think what ultimately failed GE was starting from the top down rather then from the bottom up. Incorporating a first generation perma tuff design to a BOL would have been far easier then attempting a never before designed or tested wash system with a complex rapid advance timer. Not only did that ruin the honeymoon, but it kept mediocre plastisol tub machines on the market for another 9 years. GE's top priority should have been those since they were bringing down reputation one rust spot at a time.



Post# 874517 , Reply# 104   3/26/2016 at 15:39 (2,923 days old) by volsboy1 (East Tenn Smoky mountains )        

volsboy1's profile picture

Sorry,I don't agree with the water uses and pump designs..The Old K-Aids that have the big motor will last for 20 years or more  but now we have been replacing these new ones every 3 to 4 years..So how does that save anything in the long run?The only people that win are the companies that sell them. The only new dishwasher brand that I trust is Miele .My 1984 Superba just now quit and died after 32 years that is not bad at all and you will not find a new one that will last that long. All these eco wing nuts can build them a out house and just quit bathing and cut there power off but, then nobody would want to be near them because they smell like shit and they would have no purpose in life so hey it would be a win win for us..cool

 


Post# 874542 , Reply# 105   3/26/2016 at 20:04 (2,923 days old) by chetlaham (United States)        
Longevity

chetlaham's profile picture
There was a time when even a BOL machine would last you 20-25 years.

Post# 874584 , Reply# 106   3/27/2016 at 09:08 (2,922 days old) by combo52 (50 Year Repair Tech Beltsville,Md)        
Longevity Of GE Built [ and other ] DWs In The 60s-70s

combo52's profile picture

In families of at least 4 persons and being run at least once a day. These numbers are based on mine and several other technicians that I worked closely with during the 70s and through today.

 

GE Plastisol drop door DWs 62-66 4-10 years, these usually either rusted out or the motor relay stuck and took out the motor.

 

GE Plastisol DD DWs 67-81 5-10 years, usually were replaced because of rust through of the door or tank in the sump area, other trouble spots were timers and motors and pump.

 

Westinghouse DD DWs from 65-70 4-8 years, problem areas were main pump seal and ruined motors, leaks many places, bad door seals and broken door latches.

 

WH 71-74 4-6 years severe pump problems that often took the motor with it, plus it was such a piss poor DW that most people could not wait to replace it.

 

D&M DWs 1964-84 5-10 years, pump problems, bad motors, leaks around door and vent plate, the problems with these poor quality DWs going into the 70s kept getting worse, almost ever part of D&M DWs was substandard right down to the cheap rubber drain hoses that would split if you looked at it wrong, LOL.

 

WP DWs 1964-72 6-8 years, problem areas main pump, detergent dispensers.

 

WP DWs 73-84 8-14 years WP DWs got a lot better through the 70s and into the 80s, they made a huge improvement in pump durability when they started selling DWs to Sears in 1985 in all their DWs.

 

KA DWs 1964-75 these include KD 15 through 17 series DWs 10-20 years, KAs were in a class by them selves, and while they were not the most trouble free DW they were easy to fix and usually worth fixing partly because of the good performance and the high cost of the DW itself.

 

KA KD-18s through KD21s 10-16 years, as KAs became more complex and cycles got longer their longevity got shorter.

 

Most frequent reason for replacement of KAs were bad main motors and generally poor overall condition [ rusted racks etc ].

 

Dishwashers are historically the most replaced major appliance, the same seems true today. About the only major appliance that we are replacing more often today are Over-The-Range MWOs which I strongly advise against having. These are all averages , many many DWs can and did last much longer, just like many many of today's appliances WILL be going strong in 25-35 years from now.

 

We replace a lot of DWs today, but overall they average around 15 years of age when scraped, 75% could be repaired but because of high repair cost most people chose a new DW as the real price of a DW is much less than it was in the 60s-70s.

 

John L.

 


Post# 874586 , Reply# 107   3/27/2016 at 09:30 (2,922 days old) by panthera (Rocky Mountains)        
John,

panthera's profile picture

That was fascinating, thank you!

Over the range microwave ovens seem only one step above BIC pens in longevity. We picked up a stainless steel GE spacemaker II (Japanese) for $5.00 in perfect physical condition. It had 'stopped working' the first day it had been installed because the in-duh-vi-duals had boiled a big pot of water for spaghetti right under it. Imagine that, heat and steam and condensing water being bad for exposed electronics!

 

Replaced a few components, put it under a counter above the trash compactor and it's been happy (slow, but happy, they're all slow) for many years now. 

 

If I had to put a microwave above a stove, I'd go for a purely mechanical timer and the simplest LC circuit to drive the magnetron I could find. With a second fan to divert moisture/grease laden air away from the LCcircuit (transformer, diode, capacitor, tube).

After all, lots of 1970s low-high ranges with microwaves on top are still nuking popcorn.

 

Why do you suppose consumers put up with such poor quality back then? We obviously don't, look how often you get asked arcane questions about how to improve a GE this, that or the other...


Post# 874587 , Reply# 108   3/27/2016 at 09:32 (2,922 days old) by chetlaham (United States)        
80s

chetlaham's profile picture
Didn't DW longevity peak in these times?

Post# 874588 , Reply# 109   3/27/2016 at 09:48 (2,922 days old) by panthera (Rocky Mountains)        
I've done quite a few GE electromechnaical

panthera's profile picture

Dishwashers in the last two years and there's a real improvement in quality between the '74 and the '84 and then a really quick slide into just good enough after that.

YMMV, but much as I dislike Whirlpool in general, GE really went to the dogs during the Welch era.

Sort of like GM in the first decade of the 2000s - all the gains they'd made in the '90s were wiped out completely.


Post# 874608 , Reply# 110   3/27/2016 at 14:23 (2,922 days old) by combo52 (50 Year Repair Tech Beltsville,Md)        
80s Dishwashers

combo52's profile picture

I think performance peaked in the 80s-the 90s and reliability was also good, but overall current DWs are holding up pretty well, I think we will just have to wait another 10-15 years to see how many current DWs survive.


Post# 874637 , Reply# 111   3/27/2016 at 19:50 (2,922 days old) by GELaundry4ever (Nacogdoches, TX, USA)        
GE dishwasher sounds

GE dishwashers had unmistakeable sounds that meant business to me. Everything from the pump motor, to the swashing of the spray arms. I also like how the motor does a vibrating roar when it tries to pick up water force.

Post# 874698 , Reply# 112   3/28/2016 at 10:35 (2,921 days old) by Johnb300m (Chicago)        
Meaning business

johnb300m's profile picture
LOL!
Many others would say (like me) all those shaded pole motor vibrations and roars were consequences of cheapness and poor dampening.
GE also HAD to have large water consumption and large jets because they refused to design any filter systems for their dishwashers.

Like John's fantastic market insight, my family members have had great dishwasher luck over the years with various brands.
The KAs always lasted the longest.
Only one KA was taken out by the high iron content of my aunts' well water and the stainless tub rusted.
Our GEs have all lasted 12-18yrs except for the BOL GE that came with our house, that lasted 7.
The WPs lasted just as long.
One "tall tub" Maytag I know of, lasted the least possibly of user neglect.

I know the modern machines are heavily scorned in this community, and sometimes rightly so. But if you get a good one with good electronics, there's no reason those won't last the average 7-12 years. Just like the seemingly hallowed machines of the 70s.


Post# 874712 , Reply# 113   3/28/2016 at 12:50 (2,921 days old) by jeffb (Lexington, KY)        

Not quite a '78 but...my parents bought their current house new in '85 and they've never used the dishwasher. I'm pretty sure it's a GE, next time I'm there I'll take a pic.

Post# 874750 , Reply# 114   3/28/2016 at 21:31 (2,921 days old) by miele_ge (Danbury, Connecticut)        
they have a built in dishwasher and have never used it??

miele_ge's profile picture

Wow,  i can see not buying one but to not use one that is just sitting there doesn't make sense to me.

 

 


Post# 874754 , Reply# 115   3/28/2016 at 22:18 (2,921 days old) by GELaundry4ever (Nacogdoches, TX, USA)        
Why have one?

Why have one if you don't use it? If I were them, I'd use it to my advantage. I'd take a loud noisy roaring GE dishwasher, or any brand of dishwasher for that matter over washing dishes by hand. I'm not gonna complain.

Post# 874837 , Reply# 116   3/29/2016 at 14:10 (2,920 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.)        

dadoes's profile picture
 
It's surprising how many people have dishwashers but don't use them, presumably on the erroneous assumption that they cost $$$$$$ to run.


Post# 874868 , Reply# 117   3/29/2016 at 17:25 (2,920 days old) by Johnb300m (Chicago)        

johnb300m's profile picture
You're absolutely right DaDos, and age don't matter. Young n old they think it's wasteful to run a machine with a motor for 2-3 hrs and that fills to the TOP with dozens of gallons of water!
Much faster n cheaper to just hand wash (eye roll)


Post# 874869 , Reply# 118   3/29/2016 at 17:37 (2,920 days old) by jeffb (Lexington, KY)        

Lol, yes, my Mom is an odd bird. She never owned a dishwasher until they bought that house in '85 and it was already installed. She's convinced it wouldn't clean as well as she does by hand. She just uses it for storage. She also has a very nice Maytag electric dryer from the early '60's that has seen very little use.

Post# 874870 , Reply# 119   3/29/2016 at 17:43 (2,920 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.)        

dadoes's profile picture
 
I recall 40-ish years ago when relatives were visiting for Thanksgiving or Christmas or some such holiday after we'd gotten the KDI-17a.  We loaded it up after the meal, packed to the brim as typical, and used the Soak cycle.  My mother's aunt sat watching it warily, and remarked "I guess it has to fill" when it stopped spraying for the soak period ... I suppose envisioning that the tub filled like a washing machine and the dishes then whirled and sloshed around.


Post# 874877 , Reply# 120   3/29/2016 at 18:36 (2,920 days old) by joeypete (Concord, NH)        

joeypete's profile picture
hahaha DADoES!! "I hope the spin cycle doesn't break the dishes!!" LMAO


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.



                     


automaticwasher.org home
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