Will a Dyson DC02 motor fit a DC05?

[madabouthoovers]

I've never come across a DC07 cyclone that came apart at the middle, they have all been glued together - its the only Dyson model where you cant get access to the base of the cyclones - not the best of designs the earlier ones werent either as the holes at the tops of the cyclones were too small and often got clogged up, they "de-rooted" later models (as the pic above) to stop that happening. They are also the noisiest cyclone assemblies as well, as the cyclones were coming out of the bin, instead of going into it on all other models.

 

[madabouthoovers]

However - I still think the DC07 is the best looking upright Dyson has made to date, and the tallest!

 

[beko1987]

taller than the dc14

 

[jmurray01]

Well I would clean the cyclone if it weren't for my lack of torx screwdriver! I'll have to buy one to access it, but for now I don't really care - heck, it isn't a Hoover or anything...

 

[madabouthoovers]

Lol - you havent got a TORX set? its a T15 BTW when you get them - just get a set, they are useful to have, and the later models had anti tamper torx fitted as well, so another T15 is needed with the tiny hole cut out in the middle.

Yes Sam, its a lot taller than the DC14 - the ideal hoover for tall ladies!

 

[jmurray01]

I did order one from eBay once and got a mini flat head and phillips head set for some reason... That's eBay for ya!

 

[beko1987]

I need a good torx set. I borrow my stepdads set, but like to have my own tools. I have a T15 driver, if I need a T20 I need to break out my clunky ratchet set.

 

[baglessball]

beko1987

I am massively interested in this DC07 cyclone you can separate!!

When i was younger one of my aunts bought a DC07 when it was first released she 'treated' herself to a new Dyson every year, i never saw the machine but she had it replaced in the first week because if you knocked the cyclone against anything it would fall apart. The second machine suffered the same problem.
Her husband demonstrated this to all the staff in Comet with all the machines on show. So they swapped the machine for a DC04.

Ive never heard or seen anybody else with this problem. I am interested in your thoughts!!

Funnily i have never really liked the look of the DC07. I love using them to clean though. Ive always like the look of clutched DC04 - they always look the they are ready for work.

Those de-rooted cyclones are screamers! The earlier ones are much quieter. Ive always wished dyson would have quiet motors, id love all the main noise to be all the air rushing through the machine. It sounds like power!! )

I don't separate the top part of the cyclone on most of the 07's that i service now. I tend to add some uncooked rice and shake it like a b*****d!

 

[fantomlightning]

And....

That picture of the DC07 upper cyclones is why I've always preferred the Dual Cyclonic technology of the earlier Dysons and Fantoms.

 

[rolls_rapide]

"De-rooted"

Would someone care to explain the term, "De-rooted"?

As far as I can tell, the small cyclones still act together, effectively as one. Therefore it is still a Root Cyclone system.

What Dyson did alter was:

Remove the aerofoil "propeller" style of vortex finder, and replace with a simple fin in the later vortex finders. Hence the change of high-pitched whistle/scream to a roar instead.

Remove the tri-legged spacer at the top of the inner dirt tube, which previously allowed a mat of dust and dirt to be held in the upper reaches of the cyclone assembly.

 

[madabouthoovers]

The early model DC07's had the same layout, yes, but the inverted cones (cyclone chambers) were taller with a smaller hole at the top. Apparently, many of these cones got blocked at the top because the exit holes were too small. This lead to the pre motor filter becoming dirty very rapidly and the cleaner losing suction and begin cutting out through overheating. No amount of filter cleaning would alter this behaviour due to the cyclones being clogged up from the top down.
Dyson modified the cones by taking the tops off lower down the cone to form a much larger exit hole at the top of each one - De-rooting. Each revision to the cyclone assemblies resulted in a number being stamped on the housing next to the rectangular exit hole from the cyclone chamber (the exit that leads to the pre-motor filter) Earlier cyclones were marked with a "1" and later ones with all revisions marked with a "2" I think the original earliest model cyclones had no number at all (the ones with the smallest cylone exit holes).
The other main problem which was never addressed was the fact that dirt could become compacted at the base of the inner tube, and not come out when the bin flap was opened. This would then build up over a period of months to completely fill the inner tube and cyclone top housing, eventually causing the cyclones to have nowhere to expel their dust, so causing total cyclone clogs and having the result the same as the original problem where all the dirt was sucked straight into the filter clogging it each time the cleaner was used.
Anyone with a DC07 should always turn the cyclone upside down when emptying and check the central fine dust tube is empty from top to bottom. I have come across several that have been partially filled and compacted - its easy to clear them with a bamboo cane or similar long pole.

 

[rolls_rapide]

Thanks.

The DC07 design was indeed inherently troublesome. My aunt's later "independents" model suffered from the compacted dirt problem. Only a matter of a few inches were left free at the top of the cyclones. Thankfully I cleared it before major problems occurred.

 

[vintagerepairer]

All of the above serves only to confirm what I said somewhere else about how no amount of factory testing can guarantee what will and won't happen in the real world. Dyson cleaners seem to have had more built-in defects than anything else I have known about, although as I also said recently too, if only James Dyson had taken a moment to look at vacuum cleaners through the decades and chosen to use the same tried & tested aspects on his own unique machine, his cleaners wouldn't have had some of the problems which they then had to sort out. In his crusade to build a different cleaner which addressed the issues where current vacuums were failing, he totally ignored the aspects which were actually working rather well. He tried to re-invent the wheel - literally so, with those new ball cleaners.

 

[madabouthoovers]

The very early DC07 cyclones were troublesome, yes, and also the very early models now appear to have a much greater incidence of snapping or cracked plastic components - especially the motor retainer plate which cracks and breaks around the rubber seal with the pre-motor filter housing. Later DC07 Animal spines (purple coloured) seemed more prone to snapping off of the handle retainer lugs. Its a matter with dyson of "let the customer test the product and we will modify any common faults when they become common". The most common DC07 problem by far was the handle on the top of the cyclone housing, which was very prone to fracture, and huge amounts of them have failed - Dyson later released a modified top handle with a spring loaded re-inforcement piece of plastic, but by that time, the DC07 had been replaced by later models.
Despite its flaws, the DC07 remains one of the best selling and most popular Dysons to date, and also one of the most powerful in terms of suction.

 

[vintagerepairer]

Hi. I don't dispute that things like a new cyclone cylinder needed time to prove themselves, but many other aspects of older Dyson cleaners (not just the 07) have contained sharp bends, flexible tubes to the cleaning head which split, mains leads positioned so that they are easily pulled and stretched, and so on and so forth, all of which have been addressed in the past by other manufacturers who built cleaners with these faults.

The carry handle on the 07 was a disaster waiting to happen. Too small, too brittle, and too thin. Any fool could see that, but of course Dyson has no fools working for them, so it didn't get noticed.

 

[madabouthoovers]

Notice though that Dyson refuse to sell the top handle of the cyclone on its own - one has to purchase the entire cyclone half at a fairly high cost. Do you ever think they design faults into the cleaners deliberately to sell more parts for them in the future? I'm sure the greedy for profit factor creeps into every company eventually. I also agree about the DC04 cable entry point - the last DC04 I bought had failed for exactly that reason. I also agree about the flexible floorhead tubes, but notice as well how common the main wand hose failed due its thin and delicate contruction. Many of the hose cuffs cracked as well, also due to the plastic being too thin and too brittle. Makes me wonder why I bother with Dysons at all, when I think about how many flaws the old models had.
Remember the old British car industry, the Austin Allegro, Maestro etc - not exactly reliable they werent were they? It was left the the public to test the cars and put up with endless breakdowns. Renault are terrible for this as well - trying to introduce too many gadgets and untested electronic devices to quickly.

 

[madabouthoovers]

Not surprising we used to call the Allegro the "All Aggro" and the Americans call the Dyson the "Die soon" lol

 

[vintagerepairer]

Failure has to be built in as standard, as no one would ever buy new if it wasn't. However, with Dyson, 'failure' was widespread, consistent, and for the consumer, rather annoying. If the parts on Dyson cleaners which failed had done so because of 'built in' failure, I don't think Dyson would have bothered to replace the parts as readily as they did. No, I do think that most parts failed as a result of not being up to the job.

One has to remember though that the Dyson company is a strange one. Their contact centre is open 7 days a week, from 7 in the morning until 10 at night. Great for the consumer, but absolutely ridiculous for a profit making company who are selling a one-off product and not a continual service. Dyson do what they feel like, even if that means ignoring a persistent design fault and sending new parts to 'correct' it.

The DC04 is not the only cleaner to have has failure of the mains lead, as the DC01 did so too. The remedy was the introduction of a 'doughnut', which resulted in even more failure as this part was liable to cut into the lead instead of taking the stress. Electrolux had this problem with their 500 cleaners. They ran for a couple of years and then changed the flex sleeve from straight to right angle. This was in 1975. The 500 series as you know then ran for years and years and to this very day many examples are easily sourced. Would it have killed James Dyson to take one home and analyse it before making his own machines for the mass market in 1993?

 

[vintagerepairer]

On the subject of expensive spares, what I will say is that I think Dyson have moved away from standard 32mm fitments for the tools as they knew a good deal of people were using none Dyson tools as likely as not. They want the whole of the attachment market for themselves.

 

[madabouthoovers]

I find the accessories were much better on the early models, with separate crevice tool and dusing brush, but later models had the dusting brush attached to the crevice tool - a crap design making the crevice tool not fit for purpose as the brush would not come off it. Hoover made similar tools which were model specific for the Freedom - it had a crecent shaped socket for the tools so I cant now get hold of a turbo tool for mine unless I buy it new as no-one sells them second hand and nothing else will be compatible.
Sebo too use a strange size socket for their tools that I cant get a turbo tool for my X4 without buying a Sebo one at £££££'s
Its just another example of greedy companies trying to screw as much out of you as possible.
Dyson charge a lot of money for new models, this should more than cover all the "free" parts they send you over the life of the warranty, and the cost of the call centre opening times. The cleaners probably cost peanuts to produce in the far east, so they can afford to keep spending out on sending out parts under warranty. R+D costs are probably the most expensive as they still do al that at Malmesbury, and have to pay the going UK rate in salaries. It would probably be prohibitive to modify designs and machinery to change failing parts designs midway through a product's lifecycle and they only do it in extreme cases such as the cyclone handles on the DC07.