Thread Number: 48131
1/2 Horsepower and 3/4 Horsepower motors for washers |
[Down to Last] |
|
Post# 697856 , Reply# 1   8/21/2013 at 10:20 (3,872 days old) by rockland1 ()   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
I always thought it was a sales gimmick. |
Post# 697858 , Reply# 2   8/21/2013 at 10:39 (3,872 days old) by Yogitunes (New Jersey)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
1    
yeah...if anything it is a sales gimmick....some people wanted something really heavy duty that could, in their minds, handle major daily use...
I though the Norges of the 80's big gimmick was a 1 HP motor, I know one guy who searched for and bought his because of the 1HP motor to handle his greasy mechanic work clothes best....one of the only machines I ever knew that had one that huge... it was definately a louder machine.... |
Post# 697881 , Reply# 5   8/21/2013 at 12:57 (3,871 days old) by kb0nes (Burnsville, MN)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
It may all be in the marketing. I'm not sure I always trust the name plate hp ratings, its a bit like the games that were played back in the 70's with audio power output. This is especially true today with how they are selling air compressors and shop vacuums, 5 hp from a 15amp 120v circuit, uh huh... The other leg plays Jingle Bells
As for the power consumption I can't imagine that you would see the difference in your utility bills unless you run the washer nearly constantly. Just running a few guestimated numbers, if you did 5 loads a week for a year with $.11/kwh electricity, the total difference in cost would be ~$7 over the year. About what many AC powered alarm clocks might use in a year. If you want to downsize the motor to save electricity, you probably could, more or less its just a mechanical swap. But have you covered all the low-hanging efficiency fruit in your home already? Replacing one frequently used incandescent light bulb with say an LED lamp would save a lot more power in a year then this motor swap would. |
Post# 697888 , Reply# 7   8/21/2013 at 13:22 (3,871 days old) by kb0nes (Burnsville, MN)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Where do you get the 139 and 639 Kw/h numbers from, re they actually measured or what?
Your numbers show the 3/4hp machine using 62% more power then the 1/2hp unit. The difference between the typical 1/2 & 3/4hp motors should only be about 25-30%. So if your numbers are true, something else is in play here. I'd love to see actual amp draw on both machines while running. |
Post# 697891 , Reply# 8   8/21/2013 at 13:41 (3,871 days old) by norgechef (Saint George New Brunswick )   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
When I first bought the Crosley it still had the Energy guide sticker on it and I remember it said 139 KWH a month. Here is a picture from the norgetag energy guide... |
Post# 697905 , Reply# 9   8/21/2013 at 14:35 (3,871 days old) by kb0nes (Burnsville, MN)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Call me skeptical but I just don't buy those numbers. Its just far more difference then I think there can be, something is amiss.
If you don't own a Kill-A-Watt then you should buy one. They are WELL worth their ~$25 price as you can test to see where you are using power. Then you can compare machines directly under your own actual usage conditions. Anything else is just guessing. CLICK HERE TO GO TO kb0nes's LINK |
Post# 697913 , Reply# 11   8/21/2013 at 15:08 (3,871 days old) by norgechef (Saint George New Brunswick )   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
It said 139 KWH a month on the Energy Guide label, here is a picture of the stickers on both motors, look at the amps and tell me what you think... |
Post# 697914 , Reply# 12   8/21/2013 at 15:09 (3,871 days old) by norgechef (Saint George New Brunswick )   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
. |
Post# 697918 , Reply# 13   8/21/2013 at 16:05 (3,871 days old) by Supersuds (Knoxville, Tenn.)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Remember, the Energy Guide labels cover not just the motor consumption, but water, too. I assume that the largest part of a washer's energy use is going to be hot/warm water, more than the power drawn by the motor.
"The new test procedure for clothes washers reflects changes in usage patterns. For example, consumers are washing fewer loads of laundry using hot water than was the case a few years ago, when the current procedure was developed. The test procedure will also take into account how much energy would be saved in the dryer by clothes washers that are designed to extract more water from the clothes due to higher spin speeds. As a result of these changes, the new test procedure will likely produce energy consumption ratings that are lower than those yielded by the existing test procedure, even for the same model of clothes washer." CLICK HERE TO GO TO Supersuds's LINK |
Post# 697922 , Reply# 14   8/21/2013 at 16:23 (3,871 days old) by mrb627 (Buford, GA)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 697929 , Reply# 15   8/21/2013 at 17:09 (3,871 days old) by kb0nes (Burnsville, MN)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Looking at the two motor tags you see there is a ~21% difference in the power consumption on the two motors. No where near the 60+% difference you are talking about from the EnergyGuide numbers, John and Malcom are correct that electrical power drawn by the appliance is only part of the calculated cost.
The cost to run either machine in electricity won't differ by more then $10 a year. I'd certainly say there is no real advantage to be gained by swapping the motors. Perhaps if you heat your water with electricity that could influence your utility bills! |
Post# 697985 , Reply# 16   8/21/2013 at 22:37 (3,871 days old) by combo52 (50 Year Repair Tech Beltsville,Md)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Is almost only the cost of heating the water used, that's why there is such a big difference between using the washer with a gas or an electric water heater.
I am not even sure they even measured power draw of the motor for these older ratings, But one thing is certain IT IS NOT THE MOTOR that caused the difference in the rating tags. |
Post# 698030 , Reply# 17   8/22/2013 at 01:51 (3,871 days old) by arbilab (Ft Worth TX (Ridglea))   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
For comparison using the use numbers you gave, machine runs 8x week. 8x52 = 416 cycles per year. Rounding to half hour cycles, 416/2 = 208 hours per year.
Label #1, for every hour it runs (high speed for both) 120x10.8 = 1.296 kWh. 1.296x208 = 270kWh per year. Average cost @12c per kWh, cost to operate the motor for a year $32.40. Label #2, for every hour it runs (high speed for both) 120x8.5 = 1.02 kWh. 1.02x208 = 212 kWh per year. Average cost @12c per kWh, cost to operate the motor for a year $25.44. Difference between motors, $32.40-$25.44 = $6.96 a year or $0.58 a month. Your nephew visiting you for a week and opening the fridge door every 15 minutes makes a lot more difference than $0.58. So do longer/shorter days by season, not to mention temperatures. The motor labels are calculated by UL in a lab using instruments. The government labels are "calculated" using data AND formulas supplied by manufacturers. Rather like car mileage stickers. Do you believe those? So if you could retrofit the smaller motor in a half hour (you can't) it would take you TWO YEARS of "savings" off your bill just to pay for your time @$15/hr. If the retrofit takes all afternoon--you've already spent the half hour--it will NEVER pay for itself unless you are a foodserver making $2 an hour. AND if the machine is designed for a large motor, substituting a smaller one could cost you a whole motor. IOW, leave it alone. |