Thread Number: 8838
Electro Hygiene Model 890
[Down to Last]

Vacuumland's exclusive eBay Watch:
scroll >>> for more items
Post# 98032   5/9/2010 at 18:20 (3,681 days old) by louvac (A)        

Need some help here with this machine concerning the brush roll. The machine features a 350-watt motor-not the most powerful but I suppose being an Electro-Hygiene, this is the lesser model to its cousin, the Royal.

I have a brand new single-row brushroll (with metal square end clips), and when inserted the brushroll siezes as though somehow the ends are being squeezed too tight! I can't figure out why this is! The older one that is in there now is fine, however, it lacks those metal end (retainer?) clips and thus spins freely. When I removed the clips from the brand new one, it also spins freely. What gives?

I guess one of my questions is this: Do the older machines not need them? Are they not designed to utilize them? And, these motors never seem to have all that much umph! Is it me or what? I love them just the same as their cousins. They seem so petite in relation. Quieter and gentler I might also add.

Jeff and others, what is your take on this? What do you suggest? What is the original brush supposed to be?

Thanks guys!

Post# 98093 , Reply# 1   5/11/2010 at 08:25 (3,679 days old) by hooveurroy ()        
I have

about 25 of the older Royal and Electro Hygiene vacs in my collection. The older square end brush rolls that they used at one time were thought to somehow turn in their holders. Since they have an adjustment on the ends that was not good. When you buy a new one they still have that metal piece on them. I try them with the metal pieces on and if they bind up I take the metal pieces off. They just pull off. I have never had a problem of the brush roll ends turning inside their holders. I hope this may help you.

Post# 98111 , Reply# 2   5/11/2010 at 21:30 (3,678 days old) by louvac (A)        

Thanks for the info, Jim! So you are telling me that you have experienced the same thing as far as the binding goes? I have never had the brush roll ends spin in their holders, though, so that's news to me.

Post# 98131 , Reply# 3   5/12/2010 at 13:09 (3,678 days old) by hooveurroy ()        

are welcome ! I have never had the problem either however, I suspect that there must have been a problem requiring them to put the metal gizzie on the ends. You realize that the nozzle is removable on your Electro Hygiene right?

Post# 98170 , Reply# 4   5/12/2010 at 21:33 (3,677 days old) by louvac (A)        


I did recently discover that the nozzle is removable, though I also understand that it was not really meant to be the rule but rather the exception such as when necessary to clear a jam or clog.

Can you tell us, do you think that the Electro Hygiene models featured lowered wattage/amperage motors as compared to their Royal counterparts? They are such a nice quiet, non-obtrusive machine. Also, is there a way to tell which EH model ran simultaneously with the Royal model?

Post# 98188 , Reply# 5   5/13/2010 at 01:50 (3,677 days old) by hygiene903 (Galion, OH)        
Electro-Hygiene 890

hygiene903's profile picture
Hi Lou, I also have an 890 and I agree with what Jim told you about the brushroll. I also think it's possible that when they added the metal clips on the end of the brushrolls, they might have made the clips inside the nozzle a little smaller to make it fit, which could be the cause of the binding when you put the newer brushroll in the older nozzle.
As for the motor wattage or amperage, I'm quite sure that the Electro-Hygiene had the same wattage or amperage as the comparable Royal had in the same time period. The Electro-Hygiene was NOT a lower counterpart to the Royal, but equal and in a couple ways, superior to the Royal. To begin with, from the time Electro-Hygiene was introduced, the built-in deodorizing chamber was an EXCLUSIVE Electro-Hygiene feature and was only re-introduced on higher end Royals after Electro-Hygiene went out of business in the 80's. Actually it was because of this feature that Electro-Hygiene remained a straight suction machine long after the revolving brush was introduced on the Royal--they didn't know what to do with the crystal chamber. After losing sales for not having a revolving brush, they came up with a crystal chamber that would snap on in place of the Adjust-o-rite plate, and introduced the model 285 in 1955. Also, Royal only had a one year warranty, where Electro-Hygiene had a lifetime rebuild warranty similar to the Kirby.
As for model numbers, there were some numbers used by both Royal and Electro-Hygiene, and some were different. For example, the 701 Special tank was an economy model for both, the only difference being the nameplate. And when the 880 upright was introduced, it was both a Royal and Electro-Hygiene, the only differences were the crystal chamber under the headlight of the Electro-Hygiene and trim color. The Royal 880 had a long run, but it's Electro-Hygiene counterpart was replaced with the 890, then the 903. When they introduced models with detachable nozzles, it was 888 for Royal, 980 for Electro-Hygiene, and 990 Galaxie Prestige. Model series are still somewhat a mystery to me, and I still run into one now and then that I've never seen before.

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.

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