Thread Number: 17522
Information On UK Panasonic 40, 50, 400 and 500 Series Please???
[Down to Last]

Vacuumland's exclusive eBay Watch:
scroll >>> for more items
Post# 189130   7/9/2012 at 11:30 (2,825 days old) by AlexHoovers94 (Manchester UK)        

alexhoovers94's profile picture
I just recently got a Panasonic MCE456 in an emerald green colour It has brushroll shut off, bag full indicator, 1500 watt motor and is from around 99/2004
I no very little about Panasonic cleaners but I like them, lol, I can't seam to find any information on this either. I would be grateful if anyone could enlighten me.
Since I am asking for info on the 400 series I thought this would be the opportunity to ask about the 40's, 50's, and 500's as well.

So anyone that knows a lot about these cleaners, I would be very grateful if you can fill me in.

Thanks,

Alex.





Post# 189131 , Reply# 1   7/9/2012 at 11:32 (2,825 days old) by AlexHoovers94 (Manchester UK)        
Wrong model number, LOL

alexhoovers94's profile picture

Sorry, I ment I got a Panasonic MCE465 and not "MCE456" haha


Post# 189135 , Reply# 2   7/9/2012 at 12:29 (2,825 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland)        

jmurray01's profile picture
I am not familiar with those models, but I have a 2004 Panasonic MC-E8011 Twin Bin Bagless Cylinder which, for a bagless, is very good!

Panasonic made things to last.

I'm waiting for a tour and in action video to be uploaded to YouTube!


Post# 189142 , Reply# 3   7/9/2012 at 12:58 (2,825 days old) by Turbo500 (West Yorkshire, UK)        

turbo500's profile picture

The Panasonic 400 series were launched in 1995 to replace the old 40 series. Aside from a longer hose, slightly more sleek design and 50w increase, there wasn't much difference between the 2. 

 

The original line-up consisted of a basic 450, the 451 with variable power and 452 with variable power and headlight. 

 

After the initial line up, Panasonic seemed to release a million varieties of the 400, the final model being the very popular 468 (before being replaced by the chinese made range currently on sale)

 

Bit of a guestimate, but I reckon this is from somewhere between 2000 and 2002 as it's before the "Super Lightweight" logo appeared, but after Panasonic started adding the logo horizontally instead of vertically. It might be an idea to check those pics you have of Argos 2000 to see which model was on sale then and work around that. 


Post# 189148 , Reply# 4   7/9/2012 at 13:52 (2,825 days old) by vintagerepairer (England)        

Actually, to nit pit (sorry) the 400 series was launched in the Autumn of 1994. With a 750 watt motor they were more powerful than the 700 watt 40 series, but were still lower than a good deal of the competitors. They were more robust than the 40 series - I didn't seen quite as many issues with the 400 as I did the 40. But damage to the mains leads where they had been caught in the roller remained a problem, which I was pleased about, as it kept me busy!

Post# 189152 , Reply# 5   7/9/2012 at 14:08 (2,825 days old) by Turbo500 (West Yorkshire, UK)        
the 400 series was launched in the Autumn of 1994

turbo500's profile picture

All the 400 series manuals, up to and including the 468, have the original copyright/patent date of 1995. 

 

Benny, what issues did you come across with the 40 series? I've NEVER seen a broken 40 series and only ever known people get rid of them to upgrade to a newer or bigger cleaner with a longer hose and wider cleaning path. Really, the only major fault I've ever seen is the pivot points where the main head connects to the body of the cleaner wearing out. 

 

Incidentally, my Mum bought a Panasonic MC-E44 brand new in early 1992 and it survived until 2007 when it was retired (yet, still working)


Post# 189180 , Reply# 6   7/9/2012 at 15:25 (2,825 days old) by sebo_fan (Scotland, UK, member AKA ukvacfan, & Nar2)        

sebo_fan's profile picture

Doesn't these models have a single drive belt as opposed to the 2 on later models? 


Post# 189187 , Reply# 7   7/9/2012 at 15:50 (2,825 days old) by Turbo500 (West Yorkshire, UK)        
@Sebo_Fan

turbo500's profile picture

They certainly do. Same with the 50 and 500 series


Post# 189189 , Reply# 8   7/9/2012 at 15:54 (2,825 days old) by vintagerepairer (England)        

Turbo500, I am not doubting your manuals. What manuals are these exactly? But I can tell you these cleaners were on sale in 1994. I cannot prove it, so I will understand if you choose to not believe what I am about to tell you. Either way, I will think no less of you as it is but a detail. My mother was born on 23rd November 1914. For her 80th birthday I bought her a new Matsui colour television set from Currys. Whilst I was there I took a good look around the store as I didn't get chance to go there often. What I immediately noticed was the new Panasonic upright. It's shape was different from anything they had built so far. What concerned me was that it was on sale for 89.99, as I had recently bought three older style Panasonic electronic models from my supplier. They had been on a promotional deal and were a beautiful deep green colour. I intended to let them go for 109.99, or maybe 99.99 at a push, as there was some mark-up to be made. Upon seeing the new Panasonic in Currys I didn't think I would be able to sell them now that a new model was on sale for that price.

As it was, I managed to clear two of them for about 95 just before the Christmas and took the display model home to my mother. I then proceeded to order the new Panasonic cleaners as the replacement during 1995 and the time which followed.

The issues with the original Panasonic 40 series were many. There were at least three types of motor I can think of, one was 600watt, the most common 650watt, and latterly one which was 700watt. Those 650watt motors were prone to getting fluff stuck in the vanes of the fan, and this seriously reduced suction power. Very early models used to lose their edge brushes on the roller. All models were prone to belt slippage and often one would see a cleaner with a hole in the side where the belt had slipped off slightly and worn right through the cleaning head. The rear wheel axle was not a good fit and in every example I came across the wheels had worn further and further into the main body of the cleaner. Sometimes the wheels went right through. However, I still maintain they were relatively well built cleaners.


Post# 189194 , Reply# 9   7/9/2012 at 16:05 (2,825 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland)        

jmurray01's profile picture
That was very informative, thank you for taking the time to post it Benny!

Post# 189196 , Reply# 10   7/9/2012 at 16:09 (2,825 days old) by vintagerepairer (England)        

You are welcome. Lets just say I am not busy. I will allow you to do me a sad face if you will.

Post# 189198 , Reply# 11   7/9/2012 at 16:19 (2,825 days old) by Turbo500 (West Yorkshire, UK)        

turbo500's profile picture

Thanks for the info, Benny. I'm not doubting you either, just a general observation. 

 

I have the very last of the 40 series you mentioned - dark green with gold lettering. Absolutely love it. 

 

It's strange that the 650w motors were more popular as I've seen way more of the 700w models floating around. Both of my 40 series are 700w. 


Post# 189199 , Reply# 12   7/9/2012 at 16:20 (2,825 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland)        

jmurray01's profile picture
Although I like to be kept busy, there are times I wish I could just switch off and live a life where I could relax.

That sounds awfully lazy of me I know and I am not a "layabout", but there are times doing nothing doesn't sound so bad.


Post# 189202 , Reply# 13   7/9/2012 at 16:22 (2,825 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland)        

jmurray01's profile picture
"It's strange that the 650w motors were more popular as I've seen way more of the 700w models floating around." Well from that I'd say that the 650W models were popular when new but they broke down more than the 700W models, hence the latter being more popular on the used market.

I could be wrong though!


Post# 189204 , Reply# 14   7/9/2012 at 16:22 (2,825 days old) by vintagerepairer (England)        

There is nothing wrong in taking time out or keeping busy. It is when one is doing one thing and wishes that they could be doing the other that it gets frustrating.

Post# 189208 , Reply# 15   7/9/2012 at 16:28 (2,825 days old) by vintagerepairer (England)        

Well the 700 watt models were the very last of that style. The 650watt models were in production for a bit longer. As Jamie has suggested, the 650watt models are probably fewer and far between now as they are older. The 650watt motors came into use about 1989 if not sooner and stayed until the 700watt went on sale about 1992.

Post# 189214 , Reply# 16   7/9/2012 at 16:33 (2,825 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland)        

jmurray01's profile picture
What I don't understand fully is what is the point in increasing motor wattages by 50 watts ? Surely there wouldn't really be a noticeable difference unless they changed the design too, in which case was the higher wattage really necessary ?

Sorry to be pedantic...


Post# 189220 , Reply# 17   7/9/2012 at 16:42 (2,825 days old) by vintagerepairer (England)        

It is a fair question. It was a different motor everytime, at least I am sure the 650w and 700w motors were. I know the 600w motors were different from the 650w. As you say, there would be little appreciable difference in suction power. It was certainly something else to brag about, because as I remember it the 700w models had a large circular 'silent salesman' stuck to the front which said NEW and 700W.

Post# 189223 , Reply# 18   7/9/2012 at 16:47 (2,825 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland)        

jmurray01's profile picture
That is a good point.

In consumer's minds the higher the wattage, the better cleaning...


Post# 189233 , Reply# 19   7/9/2012 at 16:58 (2,825 days old) by thekirbylover (Warrington, cheshire )        
its the advertising

thekirbylover's profile picture
the adverts/comercials make out like the more wattage the better , like when they go ''and with 2200 watts of power'' they make out like they are better so dont always blame the consumer also on the vacuums is says 1800 of suction power on alot of them

Post# 189237 , Reply# 20   7/9/2012 at 17:00 (2,825 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland)        

jmurray01's profile picture
Yes indeed, a lot of them refer to the watts as "suction power" which they can get away with, but is erroneous. It is the design that determines the suction power, not the wattage.

Post# 189242 , Reply# 21   7/9/2012 at 17:04 (2,825 days old) by vintagerepairer (England)        

But as has been said before, it seems to be cheaper to make a higher wattage motor than it does a better, more intricate lower wattage motor. And watts sell. Tragic, I say.

Post# 189244 , Reply# 22   7/9/2012 at 17:07 (2,825 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland)        

jmurray01's profile picture
That is undeniably true Benny, watts sell.

To the general consumer, what stands out more ?

"NEW HIGHER POWER!"

Or...

"REDESIGNED MOTOR AND SUCTION PASSAGES!"

Hmm...


Post# 189247 , Reply# 23   7/9/2012 at 17:12 (2,825 days old) by vintagerepairer (England)        

And yet Dyson cleaners have the lowest wattages of all. No one seems bothered by that. Sometimes we need things spelling out. I had a very old computer given to me. I liked it but when it broke a friend took me shopping and he was talking about memory. There is only one memory I need upgrading and that can't be done in a PC World. Well I was told this very basic laptop I have now has an amount of memory. I said do I need more? I was told Benny, this is the lowest on sale, but in context have about 10% of it on your old computer and only use about 10% of that.

Post# 189250 , Reply# 24   7/9/2012 at 17:19 (2,825 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland)        

jmurray01's profile picture
Yep, it is the same with computers.

The new laptops and desktops being advertised these days boast HUGE amounts of hard drive space that even the most active computer user would struggle to fill...

And with that, I shall leave for bed. I need my beauty sleep. It is hard being as hansom as I.


Post# 189345 , Reply# 25   7/10/2012 at 07:37 (2,824 days old) by sebo_fan (Scotland, UK, member AKA ukvacfan, & Nar2)        

sebo_fan's profile picture

Or as daft. Power consumption from vacuums compared to computers have nothing in common Jamie and the hard drive capacity is merely a selling point a bit like the dust bag or bin capacity on a vacuum. Hard drives these days are only getting larger to give the capacity for most computer users these days who are used to downloading films or music, photos or projects. Far easier than carting around external hard drives with the system.

 

Panasonic and other brands have contiunally used the "extra high power" as a sale feature. One of the reasons to why Panasonic increased the wattage on their vacuums was to compete with what was around at the time. Today Panasonic are still churning out the same white upright vacuum with the silly 2 belt method and just increasing the "motor power" by 100 watts each time. Last model I saw was a 2000 watt upright, but I recall when the smoother shape came out with 1000 watts so many moons ago.

 

Dyson was responsible IMHO to allowing consumers to learn about air watts as opposed to motor suction or general suction from vacuums. We'd have been none the wiser if we hadn't been taught about the difference between motor power and air watts. In tandem, all brands use extra suction power as a USP but some brands do it differently.

 

 


Post# 189346 , Reply# 26   7/10/2012 at 07:44 (2,824 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland)        

jmurray01's profile picture
"Or as daft. Power consumption from vacuums compared to computers have nothing in common Jamie and the hard drive capacity is merely a selling point a bit like the dust bag or bin capacity on a vacuum. Hard drives these days are only getting larger to give the capacity for most computer users these days who are used to downloading films or music, photos or projects. Far easier than carting around external hard drives with the system." Oh no, I didn't mean the hard drive space had anything to do with power consumption, I was merely making another point of how things are getting bigger and bigger without valid reason.

Post# 189368 , Reply# 27   7/10/2012 at 12:10 (2,824 days old) by vintagerepairer (England)        

Neither did I. I was saying I need something explaining. That was the only comparison.


Post# 189423 , Reply# 28   7/10/2012 at 22:20 (2,824 days old) by sebo_fan (Scotland, UK, member AKA ukvacfan, & Nar2)        
how things are getting bigger and bigger without valid reaso

sebo_fan's profile picture

Mmm.. on the basis that back in the 1990s where computers didn't have half as many downloads as they do today as well as itunes for both PC and Mac, gaming etc i find it hard to fathom how you feel things are getting "bigger without a valid reason." You may well rely on a PC for word processing only with the odd video here and there, but largely you'll find a lot of laptops and computers have physically become smaller even though they have had to become larger in terms of memory to accomodate lifestyle downloads. 

 

I used to have quite a few of those heavy CRT monitors too but I've now changed to the thinner ones because they take up less space - and are physically smaller but offer greater definition.

 

What examples can you give where things are getting bigger without a valid reason?

 


Post# 189466 , Reply# 29   7/11/2012 at 06:08 (2,823 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland)        

jmurray01's profile picture
Well I guess I was looking at it from my point of view, as somebody who uses a computer to go onto the internet only.

The only two downloads I have is Mozilla Firefox (for browsing internet) and Avira anti-virus. That's it.

For others maybe there is valid reason, my apologies.


Post# 189480 , Reply# 30   7/11/2012 at 08:52 (2,823 days old) by sebo_fan (Scotland, UK, member AKA ukvacfan, & Nar2)        

sebo_fan's profile picture

Id still be interested to know what things have got "bigger with no valid reason," in your opinion? I think it would be interesting to discuss.


Post# 189484 , Reply# 31   7/11/2012 at 09:54 (2,823 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland)        

jmurray01's profile picture
Televisions for a start, it might be all well and good having a massive television but do you really NEED it ?

Don't think so.

I have a 42" Hitachi Plasma and that is the biggest I'm going. In my bedroom I have a 28" Toshiba CRT and I like it more actually.


Post# 189561 , Reply# 32   7/11/2012 at 16:55 (2,823 days old) by sebo_fan (Scotland, UK, member AKA ukvacfan, & Nar2)        

sebo_fan's profile picture

Are you actually serious?? Look at the market forces in the last 10 years or so - game stations galore have pressured TV companies to go large. Then there's the Nintendo Wii system - I doubt you could do any of the fitness stuff they show on a box 14" TV. You might not need a massive TV but I don't find your opinion to offer a justifiable thought where validity is concerned.

 

MY generation and countless others born in the 1980s played outside, ran about in fields, climbed trees etc. Not todays generation who'd rather be stuck indoors when it rains and be glued to a massive TV with a games console.

 

The bigger TV also meant several brands went out of business with their home cinema systems, because of the push to make the domestic TV larger. It brought the price down compared to the bulkier systems and thus pressured other brands to do the same.

 

At least though in terms of TVs you do get to choose sizes. 


Post# 189603 , Reply# 33   7/12/2012 at 03:16 (2,823 days old) by tolivac (Greenville,NC)        

I mostly watch movies--so a LARGE widescreen TV is a must for me-presently--57" RPTV.When it dies-will be replaced with an equivelant size plasma.And you can get even LARGER front screen projectors-image mostly limited by he size of the screen you are using.Heck,even if you have the money---$75K-$150K you could buy a digital cinema projector to use at home!All they are is a form of HD front projection system!Give Christie,Barco,NEC,or Sony a call.Note--you may need 3 Ph 208-240V to run the projection lamp.The rest of the projector can run from 120V.But you will have a HUGE HD picture!

Post# 189987 , Reply# 34   7/15/2012 at 08:55 (2,819 days old) by sebo_fan (Scotland, UK, member AKA ukvacfan, & Nar2)        

sebo_fan's profile picture

My pet grieve of the opposite where things are getting smaller for no valid reason would be BOL microwaves with hopelessly small cavities. Also having to pay more just to have a grill fitted in them and then having to pay out more when the thing starts sparking because grease has attached itself to the hopeless cardboard magnetron cover, despite persistent water-only cleaning.

 

 





Forum Index:       Other Forums:                      



Comes to the Rescue!

Woops, Time to Check the Bag!!!
Either you need to change your vacuum bag or you forgot to 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