Thread Number: 41676
Commercial Laundries/Laundromats & Water Use By Machine Type
[Down to Last]

automaticwasher.org's exclusive eBay Watch:
scroll >>> for more items --- [As an eBay Partner, eBay may compensate automaticwasher.org if you make a purchase using any link to eBay on this page]
Post# 614728   8/4/2012 at 19:49 (4,281 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        

launderess's profile picture
Interesting report regarding water use by types of washing machine (top load, front loading by several weight classes), and suggest large front loading washers are more efficient than top loaders.

CLICK HERE TO GO TO Launderess's LINK





Post# 614734 , Reply# 1   8/4/2012 at 20:32 (4,281 days old) by arbilab (Ft Worth TX (Ridglea))        

arbilab's profile picture
Danger Will Robinson. Link is to a PDF. Older systems (like mine) can lock up and require hard reset if the file is newer than the user's reader.

Much as with a broken dictaphone, 'it goes without saying' that a FL is more water efficient than a TL. My highly-dated 1998 FL manages wash and 4 1/2 rinses on 1/2 the water the Maytag TL before it managed wash and 1 1/2 rinses. (Half rinse = spray.)

Frankly the Maytag scrubbed better, but even with complete fills it shortened the life of cottons at least 1/3 more than the FL does. And today's TLs don't do complete fills unless they're jiggered.

Last time I looked, at least here (N TX), clothes are more expensive than water. Not that commercial laundries care about fabric life. But few of our AW users operate commercial laundries.

JMO, eh?


Post# 614736 , Reply# 2   8/4/2012 at 21:06 (4,281 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        
PDF File Danger

launderess's profile picture
Sorry, had no idea. Should one remove the link?

Post# 614737 , Reply# 3   8/4/2012 at 21:08 (4,281 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        

ronhic's profile picture
Worked fine for me....all I had to do was allow the site.

Interesting paper to be honest.


Post# 614741 , Reply# 4   8/4/2012 at 21:23 (4,281 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

frigilux's profile picture
Thanks for sharing this very interesting, thorough article. Funny how only six years later a front-loading washer that has a 2.9 cu. ft. tub and uses 21.5 gallons of water seems profligate.

Post# 614745 , Reply# 5   8/4/2012 at 21:50 (4,281 days old) by arbilab (Ft Worth TX (Ridglea))        
Should one remove the link?

arbilab's profile picture
I think not dear. My system is VERY old, W98. Even if the incompatibility manifests, no lasting damage occurs, just a transient annoyance. I added that as much to say I couldn't read the linked data so I was running my mouth at random.

Post# 614761 , Reply# 6   8/4/2012 at 23:14 (4,281 days old) by eronie (Flushing Michigan)        
water use

First pic is a Dryer Drum !!! Interesting article though.


Forum Index:       Other Forums:                      



Comes to the Rescue!

The Discuss-o-Mat has stopped, buzzer is sounding!!!
If you would like to reply to this thread please 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