|
Thread Number: 20663
Oh Whatever ***rolls eyes*** |
[Down to Last] |  |
Post# 328087 2/1/2009 at 12:47 (5,560 days old) by unimatic1140  (Minneapolis) |
||
 | ||
|
|
Post# 328090 , Reply# 1 2/1/2009 at 12:55 (5,560 days old) by jons1077 (Vancouver, Washington, USA) |
||
Blah, Blah, Blah... | ||
|
Post# 328093 , Reply# 2 2/1/2009 at 13:25 (5,560 days old) by goatfarmer (South Bend, home of Champions) |
||
 | ||
|
Post# 328100 , Reply# 4 2/1/2009 at 14:01 (5,560 days old) by foraloysius (Leeuwarden, Friesland, the Netherlands) |
||
 | ||
|
Post# 328101 , Reply# 5 2/1/2009 at 14:10 (5,560 days old) by joelippard (Hickory) |
||
High Efficency!
They just think newer is high efficency. Given the fact that most of them take at least an hour to do a load of clothes while they "nutate" and "jostle" clothes around in small amounts of water and weak detergent! I can't see any savings in having a motor run that long versus the shorter but more effective cycle of a vintage machine. What's more the new plastic POS machine will see it's way to landfill in usually under 10 years. For example. In addition to my Frigidaire I have a 90's Whirlpool Direct Drive with the dual action shredder installed. I was amazed when I got my Frigidaire how much lint came from those clothes and how dirty the water was when I washed them. I'll bet some of these people would be disgusted to see how dirty their clothing is if it were washed in one of our "vintage" machines. | ||
|
Post# 328152 , Reply# 7 2/1/2009 at 16:46 (5,560 days old) by pulsator (Saint Joseph, MI) |
||
 | ||
| Post# 328156 , Reply# 8 2/1/2009 at 17:05 (5,560 days old) by autowasherfreak () | ||
|
uh huh, getting right on that... When hell freezes over, when pigs fly! | ||
|
Post# 328160 , Reply# 9 2/1/2009 at 17:13 (5,560 days old) by swestoyz (Cedar Falls, IA) |
||
 | ||
|
Post# 328190 , Reply# 10 2/1/2009 at 19:11 (5,560 days old) by gansky1 (Omaha, The Home of the TV Dinner!) |
||
 | ||
| Post# 328193 , Reply# 11 2/1/2009 at 19:42 (5,560 days old) by roto204 (Tucson, AZ) | ||
*giggle* | ||
| Post# 328196 , Reply# 12 2/1/2009 at 19:47 (5,560 days old) by rickr (.) | ||
 | ||
|
Post# 328210 , Reply# 13 2/1/2009 at 21:12 (5,560 days old) by panthera (Rocky Mountains) |
||
Which is why comments  | ||
| Post# 328282 , Reply# 16 2/2/2009 at 06:45 (5,559 days old) by lesto (Atlanta) | ||
|
Robert, you should show them a video of the 56 Hotpoint doing it's overflo rinse. That should send them screaming! LOL. | ||
| Post# 328290 , Reply# 17 2/2/2009 at 07:22 (5,559 days old) by andrewinorlando () | ||
|
But that's exactly the point that's lost on dopes like those....it's the nostalgia and the memories of a time gone by these machines bring back...and you can't buy that anywhere. | ||
| Post# 328310 , Reply# 18 2/2/2009 at 09:59 (5,559 days old) by danemodsandy (The Bramford, Apt. 7-E) | ||
What Gets Me...
...Is that most major appliances (to say nothing of cars) use more energy in their manufacture than they will during their entire service life. If one's use of something is moderate, keeping the old can actually be the better choice for the planet. I have a neighbour who fell all over himself to buy a hybrid SUV, which, it turns out, gets about 27 mpg highway. That's what my 1988 Volvo 240 station wagon gets without the A/C running. So - who did the planet a favour? | ||
| Post# 328315 , Reply# 19 2/2/2009 at 10:20 (5,559 days old) by drewz (Alexandria, Virginia) | ||
HEY...BACKOFF the 1957 Kenmore! Mixed results from water saving front loaders, less water, means runs longer, same issues with new dishwashers, clean sensors make machine run longer because of amount of water being used or not being used? Also I am amazed by the number of products on the market now to keep your water saving front loader from MOLDING? SMELLING FRESH? I don't think that was ever an issue with a vintage top loader? I want to wash my clothes once, not like a water saving toilet that you had to flush twice... BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR........ | ||
| Post# 328317 , Reply# 20 2/2/2009 at 10:33 (5,559 days old) by hotpointwf220 () | ||
|
rolls eyes 2 yeah i prefer vintage machines to modern ones, who cares if its effient or not because u get them because u love them with ur heart now sweztoyz, how much for ur bol wards? lol | ||
| Post# 328320 , Reply# 21 2/2/2009 at 10:52 (5,559 days old) by bethann (Indianapolis) | ||
|
Maybe I should invite them over and let them take a walk through the house.With all the voltage running through here she would run out screaming calling Green 911! LOL! | ||
| Post# 328328 , Reply# 22 2/2/2009 at 11:21 (5,559 days old) by electron1100 (England) | ||
Youtube Comment
Sorry to butt in from the other side of the pond, but such piety makes my blood boil............so i went for the jugular These self appointed gurus and puritans drive me mad, we have loads of these here in the UK spouting there utter shite.............beware of false prophets always springs to mind when they get going I work in re-cycling over here, and a lot of it is a load of old toss.........more about money than anything else So good luck to you all.........use your fabulous machines with pride and pleasure, they are the real deal, not some overstyled piece of junk, that i would not wipe my a..e on Sorry to rant but grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Have a good day chaps from snowing England | ||
|
Post# 328344 , Reply# 23 2/2/2009 at 12:50 (5,559 days old) by turquoisedude (.) |
||
They just don't get it do they?
Incredible how people just assume that modern appliances are more energy-efficient. What exactly is the point in having to run your "energy efficient" dishwasher 3 times in order to get your stuff as clean as 1 cycle in a vintage Maytag or GE would get them? And the longevity of modern appliances? Don't get me going on that!! The plastic and polymer GE 2004 washer I was using in the house in Ogden has now happily been replaced by the '66 Inglis and guess what? Clothes actually get clean on the first wash... OY!!
| ||
|
Post# 328346 , Reply# 24 2/2/2009 at 13:02 (5,559 days old) by panthera (Rocky Mountains) |
||
|
The last week,
I have tried hard not to use any household appliance built after 1960. Cheated a bit, nuked the potatoes in the microwave the other evening. Otherwise, totally B/W cooking and cleaning. It beats the hell out of me how a 'modern' appliance is supposed to be somehow better, just because it uses less water or electricity. The whole point of cooking and cleaning is to, well, cook and clean. And yes, I also picked up on the &mom point some people are hinting at. Besides, the vintage appliances are just plain better built. Microprocessors are a good and they make many wonderful things possible. Unfortunately, their primary use is to build appliances more cheaply. | ||
| Post# 328350 , Reply# 25 2/2/2009 at 13:19 (5,559 days old) by animasinsulinpu () | ||
|
Miss my Maytag reverse rack DW I totally miss getting able to put my sun-tea jars in the top rack. Im a Kombucha tea FREAK!!! I can put large things in my Bosch's top rack, but not a sun-tea jar, DAMNIT!!!!......Bill in Az..... | ||
| Post# 328351 , Reply# 26 2/2/2009 at 13:20 (5,559 days old) by repair-man (Pittsburgh PA) | ||
|
It's funny how in the early days only the top of the line machines had microprocessors. If you had a dishwasher with electronic controls you had something special. Now you can buy a $200 dishwasher with electronic controls because it's cheaper to build than a mechanical timer. | ||
|
Post# 328522 , Reply# 27 2/3/2009 at 08:34 (5,558 days old) by jetcone (Schenectady-Home of Calrods,Monitor Tops,Toroid Transformers) |
||
She just got  | ||
|
Post# 328532 , Reply# 28 2/3/2009 at 10:38 (5,558 days old) by unimatic1140 (Minneapolis) |
||
|
smackulated by Jetcone! | ||
|
Post# 329086 , Reply# 30 2/6/2009 at 13:55 (5,555 days old) by sudsmaster (SF Bay Area, California) |
||
McMansions
Well, for a time it seemed like the only new homes being built in new Calif. subdivisions were McMansions. Like two story, four plus bedroom, 3,000 sq ft affairs. I started to feel left out because my '41 home is only 1,650sq ft, and about 1/3 of that is in a '70's addition. In town, however, nearly all the new home construction I've seen has been attached condo style. Still big, but probably much more energy efficient than the McMansions in the burbs. Unfortunately there really can't be much argument that a vintage top loading automatic washer will use at least twice as much water as a modern front loader. With California in an extended drought, water conservation is becoming more and more important. So while I like the old top loaders in my collection, the only machines that get regular use are the front loaders. | ||
| Post# 329100 , Reply# 31 2/6/2009 at 14:57 (5,555 days old) by maytag63 (South Berwick, Maine) | ||
I am into classic cars and one article in a magazine that I read last year referenced that the state of Vermont was trying to pass a law prohibiting older cars of a certain age to be driven in their state because of pollution and the carbon footprint they leave behind. Of course, vintage car owners were up in arms about it. I can see this craziness’ happening for older appliances too!
| ||
|
Post# 329134 , Reply# 32 2/6/2009 at 19:25 (5,555 days old) by sudsmaster (SF Bay Area, California) |
||
|
Well, here in California, there are strict smog rules for cars made since 1975. Earlier than that, they are exempt from bi-annual testing/certification. There have been noises about going after older cars, but so far these have not been successful. Originally there was supposed to be a "rolling exemption" where cars older than 25 years were exempted. But they halted that some years ago; otherwise cars older than 1984 would be exempt today. It does add the expense of keeping a car (the smog inspection fee is around $70) and it can interfere with attempts to improve/modify the engine so that it still passes the emissions tests but runs better. There is a whole emissions testing industry that has sprung up here... for better or worse... Some people do use the smog exemption as a way to drive a polluter, but most of the car collectors I know try to keep their older cars in tip top running condition and they are relatively clean. Plus most collectors don't put a lot of miles on their "babies" anyway. Too much risk of accidental damage and normal wear and tear. California has a strong classic car culture and some collectors (like Jay Leno) have a fair amount of political influence. Once in a while one sees someone driving a post-75 car that is obviously in poor running condition. Probably not smogged, not registered, not insured, and driven by someone without a license as well. The gendarmes seem to cull these fairly quickly, lol. | ||
| Forum Index: |
| Other Forums: |
|
|
|
|
|
Comes to the Rescue!
