|
Thread Number: 13151
Alliance Energy Saving Toploaders |
[Down to Last] |  |
Post# 228156 8/6/2007 at 19:46 (6,106 days old) by pulsator  (Saint Joseph, MI) |
||
Once I figure out the price for this machine, I'm probably going to buy it, but I have a question perhaps someone on here can answer. The machine I'm buying is an OPL Continental Girbau Econo-Wash toploader, made by Alliance. But it has 6 cycles instead of the usual 3. There's normal, delicate, and permanent press, but then there's also 3 energy saving versions of the same 3 cycles. The ad claims that the machine only uses 23.7 gallons of water on these energy saving cycles. How does this work? Is it just a low water level wash or does it do something Fisher Paykel-like and perhaps rinse only buy a series of spray rinses? I've got my mind set on buying this machine, but I'm just curious what these energy cycles are about!
CLICK HERE TO GO TO pulsator's LINK | ||
|
|
Post# 228164 , Reply# 2 8/6/2007 at 20:37 (6,106 days old) by pulsator (Saint Joseph, MI) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 228166 , Reply# 3 8/6/2007 at 21:20 (6,106 days old) by toggleswitch (New York City, NY) |
||
Ponga la estrella en el culo. | ||
| Post# 228186 , Reply# 4 8/6/2007 at 22:45 (6,106 days old) by powerfin64 (Yakima, Washington) | ||
Those looks like | ||
|
Post# 228191 , Reply# 5 8/6/2007 at 22:52 (6,106 days old) by pulsator (Saint Joseph, MI) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 228206 , Reply# 7 8/6/2007 at 23:41 (6,106 days old) by pulsator (Saint Joseph, MI) |
||
|
| ||
| Post# 228207 , Reply# 8 8/6/2007 at 23:43 (6,106 days old) by dj-gabriele () | ||
|
Okay! :) | ||
|
Post# 228221 , Reply# 10 8/7/2007 at 01:02 (6,105 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
Noticed the lack of a water level adjustment as well. The only way the unit can use twenty some odd gallons of water for a complete cycle is if the rinses are "spray" rinses. Alliance makes a twin tub washer that only spray rinses, and it does a remarkable job. Unit sprays a fine almost mist of water to saturate the load, before ramping up to speed. Repeated enough times such a thing can rinse very well; sort of a variation of the old Hoover manual spray rinses where one saturated a load, spun then repeated. The important thing about spray rinses is that the water not only must be directed a certian way, but it cannot hit and bounce off the laundry. Tub should slow down a bit to allow laundry to absorb water, then ramp up to speed to wring the water out. Such a process can and will dilute detergent residue as well as deep rinses, but use less water. L. | ||
|
Post# 228223 , Reply# 11 8/7/2007 at 01:31 (6,105 days old) by dadoes (TX, U.S. of A.) |
||
L, that's exactly what F&P's shower rinse function does. Spinning slows down to 23 RPM, the clothes are saturated while the pump continues to run, then it revs back up to 670/700 RPM to squeegee the load. This process is repeated three times, I think. Or maybe twice, with spray rinses as well. Normal spray rinses are at 300 RPM.
| ||
|
Post# 228224 , Reply# 12 8/7/2007 at 02:11 (6,105 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
|
Think the only saviour for top loading washers, are going to be effective spray rinse designs. This would allow units to use a decent amount of water for the wash process, and still keep the government happy. With the advent of dryer sheets, adding fabric softener for the rinse becomes less of a problem. Yes, know many here hate the things, but Amercians by tons of the stuff. What will also help spray rinses, would be the development of clean rinsing detergents. Some liquid detergents foam up too much during spins which can cause a suds lock. | ||
| Post# 228267 , Reply# 14 8/7/2007 at 09:05 (6,105 days old) by peterh770 (Marietta, GA) | ||
Jamie, You would be better served to get the Maytag OPL topload washer. Especially since it is the old design and will be discontinued when they close that plant in October. The washer you are considering is very good by commercial standards. According to a conversation I had with SQ at the Clean show, the water savings occurs by the machine doing a PARTIAL DRAIN after the wash. Eeeeeewwwwwwhttp://www... | ||
| Post# 228273 , Reply# 15 8/7/2007 at 09:13 (6,105 days old) by decodriveboy (FL, US) | ||
|
Tom "Here greed and stupidity have replaced innovation, engineering and progress, except when progress means progressively cheaper quality and progressively larger corporate profits." That sums it all up right there! I could not agree more. | ||
| Post# 228274 , Reply# 16 8/7/2007 at 09:15 (6,105 days old) by peterh770 (Marietta, GA) | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 228387 , Reply# 17 8/7/2007 at 20:12 (6,105 days old) by johnb300m (Chicago) | ||
all those super durable nuts and bolts they talk about, that are rust resistant (proof if you ask me) used to be made by my company; Rockford Products, in Rockford, IL. When Whirlpool bought them, they took their business else ware. We lost $31 million in sales due to the loss of Maytag, and we're not bankrupt. Of course, management greed did not help at all, but Maytag's loss was a huge hit. They'll probably use Taiwanese zinc coated bolts now, that will chip, and rust out in 3 years. Yay to progress. 
| ||
| Post# 228388 , Reply# 18 8/7/2007 at 20:13 (6,105 days old) by johnb300m (Chicago) | ||
|
| ||
|
Post# 228818 , Reply# 19 8/8/2007 at 21:38 (6,104 days old) by pulsator (Saint Joseph, MI) |
||
|
I looked into the Maytags, but, I just can't bring myself to buy a short stroke washer new, it just doesn't seem right! Plus, I love the styling of the Alliance machine, mostly the interior of course. It's BD Whirlpool meets Helical Maytag!!! Besides, I gotta take something vintage-like that will hold up to heavy use in college! What better than combining two of my favorite vintage toploaders?
| ||
|
Post# 228828 , Reply# 20 8/8/2007 at 21:58 (6,104 days old) by pulsator (Saint Joseph, MI) |
||
|
Forgot to mention, I talked to the closest sales rep about the machine. He had no idea what I was talking about! Finally, he looked up the machine I was asking question after question about and I heard him say very quietly, "Hmm, I didn't know we sold toploaders..."!!! Anyway, he gave me the price, then proceeded to say that he didn't know anything about the machines but would give me a call once he got word back from the factory. The machine is $975 plus tax!!! Talk about over-priced... BUT, I've decided to continue with the purchase anyway, he told me that the machine was designed to last for about 10 years under constant use in an industrial setting such as stlying salons, and community homes. That means it should last quite a while washing for one or two people! I told him I had my heart set on the toploader but he proceeded to list off some of their "better and more efficient" frontloaders. He said, "The toploader is a toploader, it's small, inefficient, and not very flexible as far as features. You might want to consider our 20LB capacity frontloader, it only uses 17 gallons of water per cycle and is made to last 17-20 years of heavy use." I'm thinkin, 17-20 years? I highly doubt THAT considering where I work just bought 2 of those machines and they both came defective (one had computer issues, the other's main bearing failed!!!), the computer toubled one was replaced by another bearing failure machine! He continued, "The toploader is $975, but again, lacks quality, efficiency, and flexibility. The frontloader is made of high quality, it's very efficient and it's extremely flexible! Plus, it's only $2,400!" Once again, I'm thinkin PSHT!!! That makes the toploader sound like a steal! I also know he's pushing me for the frontloader because it's made by Continental, the toploader may be labeled Continental, but it's made by Alliance! Anyway, so we'll see how things play out, hopfully I'll have an Alliance machine humming away in the laundry before school starts! | ||
| Forum Index: |
| Other Forums: |
|
|
|
|
|
Comes to the Rescue!
