Thread Number: 66933  /  Tag: Modern Automatic Washers
Modern washing machine energy usage claims: propoganda, or real?
[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# 896273   8/29/2016 at 19:16 (2,790 days old) by aump945 (USA)        

Hi all,

This is my first post here :) I'm sure there have been posts on this topic before, but I couldn't find a comprehensive post on the topic - just random complaints here and there.

Anyway, I'm in the market for a new washing machine, and am trying to sort through what's real and what's marketing BS.

All of the review sites (e.g., Consumer Reports, Reviewed.com, The Sweet Home, etc) claim, in the strongest terms possible, that TL machines are worse than FL machines in every respect.

However, I am wondering if the testing methodology used to arrive at this claim is slanted - perhaps heavily - to favor the new eco-friendly FL machines. I've listed a few of the possible reasons for this below:

1. The cleaning tests appear to always (?) use a cold-water wash rather than warm or hot.
2. The "standard" cycle time is always (?) used to determine cleaning ability. This favors the longer cleaning time of a FL machine over the shorter cleaning time of a TL machine.
3. Soaking ability of TLs is disregarded in determining cleaning ability.

All of the above points seem to result in cleaning ability tests that consistently show FL machines cleaning much better than TL machines. However, this ignores the fact that TL machines probably *can* clean as well - or better - than FL machines if the testing method is altered. For example, what if the TL machine was filled with hot water, oxyclean, and the soiled fabric allowed to soak before washing?

In short, it seems to me that the inferior cleaning ability of TL machines may be the result of the testing method rather than inherent inferiority.

Moreover, the review sites mentioned above seem to heavily weigh the eco-friendliness of washing machines. They claim that some new FL machines use over 75% less water and energy than TL machines. As far as I can tell, this claim is true. However, the implications derived from this truth seem to be greatly exaggerated - probably on purpose. In other words, it sure looks a lot like propaganda to me.

For example, compare the 2 energy guide stickers at the bottom of this post. The first is for a cheap ($500) Samsung FL. The second is for a Speed Queen TL. You can see that, indeed, the Samsung uses 30% less electricity than the Speed Queen. But the point that all of the review sites omit - glaringly - is that the yearly difference in energy use is just $4 with an electric water heater, or $2 with a gas water heater. Unless I am misunderstanding something about the way that the Energy Guide stickers work, there is NO FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE in the cost to operate the "inefficient" TL machines relative to the eco-friendly FL machines.

With that said, I don't think the Energy Guide sticker accounts for regular hot or warm water washing. However, this cost is marginal if one has a reasonably efficient water heater (natural gas or electric heat pump).

The review sites also tout the vastly reduced water usage of FL machines (a datum not mentioned on the Energy Guide sticker). Again, this appears to be a fact. And again, this appears to make almost no difference in cost of ownership for most people with normal access to water. Water is very inexpensive in most parts of the country.

Finally, the review sites seem to give short shrift to the common complaints about FL machines: they mold, stink, and leak. Also, as mentioned above, they cannot truly soak clothing.

What do you all think? Is there a vast left-wing conspiracy against clean clothing? Are FL machines actually better than TL machines? Or are my feelings that I'm being misled justifiable? Thanks for reading!

...

As an aside, I can't understand how Consumer Reports gives such low ratings to Speed Queen machines. The SQ TL beats the #1 rated FL machine (Maytag) on vibration and gentleness, and also cleans in 1/2 the time (35 minutes vs 70 minutes). Unsurprisingly, the SQ has slightly lower washing performance (due in part, at least, to the much shorter cycle time) and the worst possible ratings for noise and water usage. Consumer Reports gives the SQ a score of just 41 to the Maytag's 86...but based on the separate criteria that comprise the score, this vast difference in score makes zero sense. So...propaganda?


  Photos...       <              >      Photo 1 of 2         View Full Size



Post# 896299 , Reply# 1   8/29/2016 at 20:37 (2,790 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.)        

dadoes's profile picture
 
The various machines are tested using the designated Normal cycle at the default settings on the premise that is how the typical consumer will largely use the machine.  Said cycle and settings are typically the most restricted in energy and water usage.  If getting toploaders to clean better and/or equivalent to frontloaders requires soaking and other changes to the cycle ... then that reasonably indicates frontloaders clean better at the default cycle settings.

The differences in energy use are minimal in impact to the individual consumer point-of-view.  Hundreds of thousands / millions of the machines in use has a sum-effect on a larger scale.

Marketing propaganda is in everything.  :-)


Post# 896301 , Reply# 2   8/29/2016 at 20:41 (2,790 days old) by washman (o)        

They also leave out how long a SQ will last compared to a modern FL machine. Typically, with eco-sanctioned products, the cost of repairs more than offset any energy savings.

FWIW a recently married co-worker and his wife ditched their often repaired LG or Samsung FL machine that required 3 rewashes before it got clothes clean with a SQ TL. They called me right after the first wash.

They were impressed.


Post# 896305 , Reply# 3   8/29/2016 at 20:47 (2,790 days old) by kb0nes (Burnsville, MN)        

kb0nes's profile picture
Welcome Nicolas, I hope you end up finding something useful here. This will be a BUSY thread with lots of of personal preference bias.



  View Full Size
Post# 896333 , Reply# 4   8/29/2016 at 23:45 (2,790 days old) by MattL (Flushing, MI)        
Let the bias begin.....

Having used all 3 of the major types of machines the only type I would buy and what I recommend to family/friends is a good quality FL machine.  LG and Electrolux get my votes at the moment, though I own Whirlpool.  I used a TOL TL for a while, found it to be lacking in every way as compared to my FL.  There are those here that are respected who are perfectly happy with the new wash plate TL machines, I won't discount their experience, but TL's are not for me.  I'd buy an agitator model long, long before I'd even consider a wash plate machine.

 

I feel the lift and drop of the clothing into the wash water far outperforms swishing it  around.  I also like the option of Steam, though it is available on some high end TL machines, it's is less common on those.

 

I'm sure there are those that will completely disagree with me, that's fine, just tossing out my experiences.


Post# 896345 , Reply# 5   8/30/2016 at 00:12 (2,790 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

frigilux's profile picture
😑🔫

Post# 896357 , Reply# 6   8/30/2016 at 03:31 (2,790 days old) by henene4 (Heidenheim a.d. Brenz (Germany))        

As far as I understand, energy guide does not consider the water usage.

And 15 vs 40 or something gallons is quite a big difference like, 2 2/3 to 1 ratio... Even though tap water is cheaper in the US, that still quite effects it.



And on testing systems: People say they are biased. The thing is, no matter how unrealistic or "wrong" they test, they are consitently wrong.


Post# 896358 , Reply# 7   8/30/2016 at 03:42 (2,790 days old) by qualin (Canada)        

I might as well chip in I guess...

The top loader vs front loader debate has been a long ongoing argument in this forum, with arguments going back and forth between which one is better.

The one thing I will mention is that a standard, traditional (Non-HE style) top loader is one of the fastest styles of washing machines that I know of. I can't think of any other washing method which cleans as quickly as a non-HE top loader. I mean, to put it into perspective, every traditional top loader out there usually gets a load of clothes clean in roughly around 25 minutes.

The other side to Non-HE top loaders is that they also use the most water, most detergent, most fabric softener (If you use it) and the most bleach of any machine style out there. In saying that though, I would sooner spend the extra money on the operating costs of a traditional non-HE style top-loader, than buy what I would consider to be am ineffective HE-Style washplate style top-loader. (Some people may disagree with me here.)

Now I personally did purchase a front loader because I know they cost less to operate than a traditional top loader. However, the cost savings of switching to a front loader were completely eclipsed by the amount of savings I've had by switching from an electric to a gas dryer. My utilities bill almost literally dropped by about 20 percent right away.

Fortunately, in Canada, using the metric system it's extremely easy to find out exactly how much water my machine uses. With my old Non-HE style top loader, it would use about 180 litres of water per load. My front loader uses approximately around 75 litres of water per load.

Working that out, water and sewage right now costs me $3.09 per 1000 litres. That means that a load would cost me $0.56 and $0.23 per load in water/sewage. I'm not going to factor in detergent, bleach or fabric softener, but if I did, it still would be pennies.

Over the entire lifespan of the machine, assuming I did at least one load per week, this works out to 52 loads per year or $29.12 or $11.96, a savings of $17.16 for the entire year for my utilities bill. Yay, that's just enough for one meal here.

In other words, what I'm trying to drive home is that looking at the energy use sticker is completely pointless because it's penny-wise, pound-poor. Who cares how much energy a machine uses, as long as it gets your clothes clean effectively? What I can't understand are people who pinch pennies by thinking they want to buy a front loader, but then trash the machine in five years to buy another one, without realizing that a decently made non-HE top loader would never cost anywhere near that amount to operate!

I honestly believe that a Non-HE top loader with the correct water temperature and cycle type can clean just as well as a front loader if both are loaded correctly. I can't deny though that TL's do a much better job at soaking than a FL ever could.

The one reason why FL machines seem to clean better is because of the incredibly long cycle times. 90-120 minutes as opposed to 25-35 minutes. Put anything in any machine for two hours and it'll get cleaned well. :-) I agree with you that the testing methods are "rigged" and that they're unfair.

The other thing I wanted to mention is that even though FL's _might_ use up to 75 percent less water, the cost savings are still small, at least IMHO. If anything, if anyone has to re-wash things because they didn't get cleaned the first time around, I'd say that would negate any savings. Money, time or otherwise.

FL machines only mold and stink if they're not left with the door open so they can dry out. I also make it a point to wash with the occasional load of hot water. If I do find that it does stink for some reason, nothing that an empty load with some bleach won't take care of PDQ. As for leaking, that's just a reliability issue. Top loaders can leak too. :-)

I'm not sure what Consumer Reports has against Speed Queen, but noise is something I honestly don't care about as long as the clothes get cleaned. That's just life. The more noise, the better IMHO, it means the machine is actually doing work. :-)

I think comparing FL's to TL's is like comparing apples to oranges. They're different beasts which accomplish a task through very different means. I'd love to see how a SQ TL compares with other TL's on the market.


Post# 896362 , Reply# 8   8/30/2016 at 06:43 (2,790 days old) by arbilab (Ft Worth TX (Ridglea))        
(mostly unilateral editory)

arbilab's profile picture

Energy schmenergy.  Consumers conschmumers.  As you already spotted, the energy differences are almost entirely irrelevant.  And unlike a couple decades ago, so is Consumers.  When I cancelled them, the only valuable report was used-car repair records.

 

Hasten to add, eco schmeco.  Yes, CAL and AUS have  real water shortages.  Don't know why water is so expensive in EU, probably has to do with infrastructure financing.  US water development is heavily if not entirely subsidized (meaning, your kids will pay for it).  Bottom line, none of these highfalutin nanny agencies account for the environmental impact of landfilling 3-5yo appliances so shoddily designed and built they cannot practically be repaired.  So the whole save-the-planet ballyhoo is a sham.

 

Agipellers can be shown to work, a half load at a time @ 90min each, if you're willing to spend 4 days doing a week's wash that used to take 1.  Agitators are almost extinct, and lots rougher on fabric than tumblers.

 

Raised on a W tumbler, got back to FL when my 25yo Maytag quit in 98.  But even FLs have been eco-nazied, gizmodized, and cost reduced (NOT price though, despite the efficiency of making many more of them with common parts among many brands) to the point I wouldn't want a new one of what's on sale today.

 

So back to whether your quandary is justified, I'd say yes.

 


Post# 896363 , Reply# 9   8/30/2016 at 07:06 (2,790 days old) by vacerator (Macomb, Michigan)        
When the washer

is new, the energy savings are real. As mine has aged, it uses more water, but because it does, is also easier on lighter clothing.
Now this may not be the case for front loaders.
Also, the thermistor is calibrated so that in summer warm weather, selecting a warm wash temp. almost always lets in no hot water at all. Thus, no difference between selecting warm, cool, cold, or tap cold.
Consequently, yes, shooting the thing in the waist with my 12 gauge seems tempting. Like one Australian on youtube tosses a concrete block into fast spinning front loaders with worn bearings, or other too costly to bother repairing units. He also has filled a few with petrol and set them ablaze while spinning.
So, what happens to the scrap metal from these 7-ish year old machines?
They may end up reconditioned in a used appliance shop if they are in good external shape and if the owner sets them on the curb on trash day. Or they get shredded and recycled into other things, which also uses energy.
So, is there really any true energy saving other than for the consumer when new?
No! A more durable appliance which can last ten to fifteen years with a few simpler less costly repairs would save more overall energy.
I am sure the Energy Star board or council would scoff at me for this, as well as manufacturers, but who cares. It's my wallet.
Now, if they were replacing a five year old worn out machine free of charge, then maybe I wouldn't mind. Then I could afford more doctor visits, or new glasses, a trip, new furniture, newer car, or "donate more to charity for under developed nations!" Need I say any more?
Of course, I'm sure there attitude is that we are lucky to have nice appliances, because in some parts of the world, they don't even have nice homes to put them in.
Well, it isn't, never was, nor never will be a perfect world. Call me spoiled.
I grew up middle class. So I say to the Ogliarch'(s), suck it!


Post# 896365 , Reply# 10   8/30/2016 at 07:28 (2,790 days old) by vacerator (Macomb, Michigan)        
My dad

used to say, the roads are often paved with good intentions, but then often need repaving sooner than later because they were paved poorly, and cheaply.
One other example is seen in former eastern block, some western European, and even American housing architecture.
LeCourbiseur's brutalist concept of streets in the sky public housing schemes failed more often than not. Pruitt Igoe in St. Louis was finished in 1955, and demolished in 1972. Only middle and upper class high rises succeed and endure longevity.
Cheaply built on site cast concrete panels to house hundreds if not thousand in housing estate projects which end up becoming new slums almost within a decade, two at the outside.
So, while I am a proponent of better living for all people the world over, I am not of commie block housing, or other dumbed down ideals. There is a public housing complex in Polermo Sicily and what is piled up outside of it? Broken down abandoned appliances! Then the estates are abandoned. Crime, drugs, gang infested concrete jungles.
I believe people should earn enough to live well doing their jobs, have good jobs, and be able to afford a single family dwelling.
I have seen some newer manufactured homes which fit this ideal.


Post# 896368 , Reply# 11   8/30/2016 at 07:36 (2,790 days old) by henene4 (Heidenheim a.d. Brenz (Germany))        
Factor in throwing away a applaince every x years

If you go that way, you have to factor in:

- energy used to clean the water your TL uses more
- energy needed to provide the water
- energy needed to produce detergent/softner/bleach
- extraction effectiveness (150-200g vs 400+g)
- enviromental impact of the clothing you have to rebuy more with a TL

You see, for you the savings seem mininal (even though they are bigger then 50%), but summ it all up, and tge picture might change.


Post# 896371 , Reply# 12   8/30/2016 at 07:47 (2,790 days old) by vacerator (Macomb, Michigan)        
Which is why

I said, maybe not for front loaders.
Also factor in the cost of a Miele front loader with the 20 year bearing stateside price of about $3,000.00.
A bearing job on a Whirlpool Duet is about $800.00 and the initial price of about $1,500.00 Almost apples to oranges?


Post# 896421 , Reply# 13   8/30/2016 at 15:03 (2,789 days old) by johnb300m (Chicago)        
ohh jeez

johnb300m's profile picture
I'll try to make this brief.
All I see are non-data-backed claims and "feelings" and nothing of any empirical study or testing.
I get that the testing results of machines by CR and Reviewed.com might not jive with folks' preconceived and tightly held notions. Lord knows I have my qualms about them.
But they test their products in very standard and repeatable, scientific procedures in controlled environments to the best of their abilities.

If I were to test all these different machines, I would do my best also, to use the same water, same laboratory-grade additives with laboratory-grade garments and measuring devices. And then I'd run all the machines on their DEFAULT settings. These are the settings chosen as defaults by the manufacturers, and should be taken as face value for what they choose to be a "normal wash load."
What better way than to discover differences in machines and manufacturers?

The second you add in ANY modifications to the machines' programming, you are introducing variables to an already variable-laden condition.
Again, are the reviews absolutely perfect? No.
But they are the best guides the market has, and at a decent cost of what the test labs are willing to spend for repeatable, and trustworthy test results.

If your 'heart of hearts' cannot accept the results and numbers, well, sorry, science doesn't care about your feelings.


  View Full Size
Post# 896432 , Reply# 14   8/30/2016 at 15:47 (2,789 days old) by vACERATOR (Macomb, Michigan)        
Stay away from the third rail.

That is from "Used People" I think.
So with all due respect, with age comes wisdom. Overhead catenary are better and safer than a third rail.
As we say out in the real world test field, that is better than any testing lab.


Post# 896438 , Reply# 15   8/30/2016 at 16:16 (2,789 days old) by kb0nes (Burnsville, MN)        
real world test field, that is better than any testing lab

kb0nes's profile picture
Unless bias and personal preference invalidate the results...

Post# 896475 , Reply# 16   8/30/2016 at 20:25 (2,789 days old) by vacerator (Macomb, Michigan)        
Oh?

Is there no bias among testing labs.? Marketing is marketing. Do test labs do it for free? Who pays them to? Manufacturers. Good review, good bonus, poor review, poor bonus. Read between the lines. It happens still today in code enforcement inspections also.

Post# 896481 , Reply# 17   8/30/2016 at 21:07 (2,789 days old) by kb0nes (Burnsville, MN)        

kb0nes's profile picture
Mike, Relax a little! I didn't say there was no bias.

But using scientific methods and attempting to do everything they can to normalize variables makes a testing lab FAR FAR more unbiased then someone that just says a TL machine is always better. Heck I know a lot of people that will offer the 'sound advice' that a TL machine is always better and they have never even owned a FL machine, that isn't bias right?

We are all entitled to like what we like, but facts are facts and opinions are opinions.

And last I checked CR buys all their machines they test so they are beholding to nobody. You may not agree with their testing, especially if they don't agree with your opinion, but they are the best empirical data we have at this point.


Post# 896490 , Reply# 18   8/30/2016 at 21:58 (2,789 days old) by murando531 (Augusta, Georgia - US)        

murando531's profile picture
It tickles me that the stubbornness here is so beyond reality that you could line the machines up in a room, lock the person in there with you, and run the tests and they'd see the results with their own two eyes and STILL have something to gripe about. Sounds like our current political situations in this country. *sigh*

Consumer Reports is adamant about one thing, and that is their vow to not allow manufacturers to bribe them for greater scores. I have my own beefs with CR just as others do, but they do have a very logical testing procedure that I feel gets the job done. CR's job is to say whether or not a product does its job, and how efficiently and quietly it does it. If you put badly stained cloth swatches into a standard TL, a FL, and an HE TL, set them to their Normal cycle, and the HE TL and FL removed more of the stain than the standard, how is there any bias other than the test proving exactly what it was supposed to?

There are good and bad in all three categories of machine, and the good ones do their job, regardless of if you don't believe they do just because they don't work according to preconceived notions of how one thinks a washing machine should do its job.


Post# 896519 , Reply# 19   8/31/2016 at 04:20 (2,789 days old) by chestermikeuk (Rainhill *Home of the RailwayTrials* Merseyside,UK)        
Testing, Tests, Users and Machines..

chestermikeuk's profile picture
I was researching with a leading detergent manufacturer years ago at their technical centre, I happen to ask why they didnt invite us (as in appliance groups etc) to test new detergents with all our different washers - the reply stunned me at the time "Because with you guys we wouldnt get the results we require" !! "scuse me" ? "well you guys would take a machine, sort the laundry, select a programme and work out the correct dosage of detergent" - so skewing our results because you probably know more than we do"....

Then the penny dropped ha ha, he continued, "We need the lowest common denominator, we need to know our detergent will work across all eventualities, wrong programme selection, mixed fabric washes and people who DONT understand how their washer works"...so there you have it !!


Post# 896527 , Reply# 20   8/31/2016 at 06:25 (2,789 days old) by vacerator (Macomb, Michigan)        
Yes Phil,

I was really feeling my oats yesterday. I wish they'd test my wallet before they build an appliance though. I usually by higher end because it should last longer with fewer problems. Maybe they should test them for longer than a few months.
Performance isn't longevity, and even sales people will tell you, longevity is no more.
You and I are "as the saying goes" Older, with more insurance, not come down with yesterdays rain. We've done laundry longer, and know what kind of washer did better.
So for a company to make the claim that they took the best of two previously made drive systems and incorporated them into a new one is a false claim. Any consumer testing aside. That claim got me to buy it, and now I know the truth.
I relaxed last nigh when I slept.
This morning I feel like Mr. Smith goes to Washington.


Post# 896537 , Reply# 21   8/31/2016 at 07:47 (2,789 days old) by mayken4now (Panama City, Florida)        
Hello and Welcome

mayken4now's profile picture
One thing is for sure! Leave your New HE machine alone, it will stink! (Plenty of threads on that subject.) I don't care if it's top or front. That is user error for the most part.

Buy a Speed Queen Front Loader and be done.

--Steve


Post# 896560 , Reply# 22   8/31/2016 at 10:54 (2,788 days old) by henene4 (Heidenheim a.d. Brenz (Germany))        
A new high of anti-HE ignorance

So, up until now I just thought that most of the anti-HE people on here had a verry strong entitlement to their opinion and their ignorance wasn't ignorance per se, just a verry strong believe.

But thanks to one single person, every other non-HE praiser has lost this privilege once and forever, except if they somehow show at least some thinking in their posts.




What I'm reffering to is norgechef's reply (reply #23) in Andrew's (murando531) thread about his Maytag Atlantis (thread #66926; "Should I revive my poor Maytag Atlantis?").

You know, I don't expect everybody to know everybody on here, but Andrew is literally the HE appliance "reviewer" on this site in my opinion.
He made 3 FULL cycle videos about his Maytag HE TL on YouTube, as well as his verry verry well visited threads about his WP HE DW with filter. Both are his daily drivers, both have proven to give outstanding results time and time and time again, with actualy verry little care as far as I understand.



Now, he creates a post that is verry verry explicit about him rebuilding a non-HE machine because of his emotional relations to this machine. At least as far as I understand, there was no motive in this thread about making this washer his daily driver again, and even less of a hint that he liked it because it gives such great and superior results compared to his current one.



And what is the first sentence in norgechef's reply?
Of corse, the one sentence that every single non-HE enthusiast shouts as soon as it comes up; that one phrase that seems to be on a shortcut key on their keyboards; that one sentence, right into the face of the person who basicly switched completly to HE and loves it:

"If you want a washer that lasts and that cleans your clothes..."



I mean, come on, you are not even trying the littlest anymore.
Not only was that not a topic in the first place, no, you can't even recognize the people who fight against you anymore.


I'm just blown away by this sheer lack of common sense of some here, and I'm done trying to be nice to people who don't even read the original posts they are replying to.

I'm sorry, but that just hit me right into the stomach.


Post# 896562 , Reply# 23   8/31/2016 at 11:01 (2,788 days old) by vacerator (Macomb, Michigan)        
I'd go with

an Advance Laundry System (speed queen) product knowing as I do now.

Post# 896599 , Reply# 24   8/31/2016 at 13:13 (2,788 days old) by speedqueen (Metro-Detroit)        
I have to disagree about Norgechef's reply...

speedqueen's profile picture
You may claim that Norgechef never read the OP but it is obvious that you never read past his first sentence where he, in quite an amount of depth, explained what to do about the leaking transmission. His first sentence wasn't objectionable either because he was complementary of the machine in question and had no intention of causing a stir in anyone.

In fact you misquoted his first sentence as well, here is a direct copy/paste of it.

"If you want a reliable top loader (more reliable than anything on the market today), that still fills the full way up and cleans the clothes, and your up for the repair then go for it."

This is clearly a complement to the Maytag Atlantis in question and not a call for debate on behalf of Norgechef.

At least finish reading the post before berating the author.


Post# 896610 , Reply# 25   8/31/2016 at 14:22 (2,788 days old) by johnb300m (Chicago)        

johnb300m's profile picture
I agree with you SpeedQueen.

Henene, I thoroughly enjoy your comments most of the time, but I have to disagree with your interpretation this time around.
Just sayin'


Post# 896614 , Reply# 26   8/31/2016 at 14:44 (2,788 days old) by speedqueen (Metro-Detroit)        
I think I should add

speedqueen's profile picture
That I usually do enjoy reading your posts as well Henane4, they are very informative.

Post# 896615 , Reply# 27   8/31/2016 at 14:45 (2,788 days old) by murando531 (Augusta, Georgia - US)        

murando531's profile picture
@Henrik - While I do COMPLETELY agree with what you're saying about the certain group of antiHEers here, I honestly don't believe norgetag meant any insult at all in his comments. There are two users that I can name right off the bat that are horribly guilty of knee-jerk "everything new is crap I'm selling my stocks also I bought groceries today since that's relevant in this sentence" remarks (and I'm sure we all know who they are), but norgetag has never fallen into that group from what I've seen. I greatly appreciate your support and coming to my defense, but I think there may have just been a misunderstanding in how the comments came across. Lord knows I've been guilty of reading a post too quickly and mistaking its meaning before having to catch myself and read it again slowly and realize it was entirely different.

I took norgetag's comments as supportive advice, and in his statement "If you want a reliable top loader that fills the full way up..." I interpreted it as a nod towards the high-quality, minimal trouble build that the Atlantis has, which I completely agree with. If the Atlantis were still available as a new machine on the market today, a Speed Queen would be as irrelevant as a horse and carriage in the age of automobiles today. I say that solely in regard to traditional top-loaders, however. I could never use the Atlantis as a daily driver because the Bravos XL out performs it in every possible category. For its time the Atlantis and Neptune were the Rolls Royce of the laundry world, in my opinion, despite what people might say about their longevity. This particular Atlantis has been running non stop since 2002, and still runs strong despite losing oil. I'd say that speaks volumes for its design.

TL;DR: I love you both and greatly enjoy your posts and support. Let's hug and make up, because there are users here that actually *do* intend insult for no reason other than to be salty and drab. <3


Post# 896618 , Reply# 28   8/31/2016 at 15:14 (2,788 days old) by washman (o)        

hi Frig!

Post# 896633 , Reply# 29   8/31/2016 at 16:29 (2,788 days old) by joe_in_philly (Philadelphia, PA, USA)        

joe_in_philly's profile picture
My suggestion is to get the machine that will make you happy. People have different preferences and priorities, and thus make different choices.

I will share my experience switching from a traditional TL washer to a HE FL washer.

I had a GE Filter-Flo TL washer that I enjoyed using. My clothes were clean, and I liked the washing machine. When it needed to be replaced, I got a FL washer. Despite reading about how little water FL washers used, I was immediately worried during the machine's maiden wash because I could not believe so little water could wash and rinse the clothes effectively. But the results have been great, so I have learned that you don't need a tub full of water and an agitator to get clothes clean.

Benefits of the having a FL washer for me were that I could eliminate my ritual of pretreating stains and soaking heavily soiled items. I can just use the appropriate cycle on my FL machine and a decent detergent and everything comes out stain free and clean. I like that I can sanitize and clean very heavy soiled clothes in 156F water without having to fuss with my house water heater; the washer heats just the water in the drum! Different stains can be cleaned in the same load, since it can start the wash cycle at a cooler temp, and then heat it up so there is no worry of setting a stain that requires cooler water.

I went from an average of 7-6Ccf of water use per month to an average of 3-4Ccf. I used less detergent, bleach, and softener. The longer wash time also comes with shorter dry times since items come out less damp. There is much less lint in the dryer lint filter, no lint on clothing, and clothes look new longer since the tumbling is more gentle on fibers than the agitator in a full tub of water. You can tell when someone has washed a cheap sweatshirt in an over-packed TL washer - it is covered with little pills. I can pack my FL washer's drum full, and everything comes out clean. I didn't overfill my TL machine, but it still was rougher on clothes than a FL washer.

I like that my FL washer will adjust each cycle based on the properties of the load. Small loads finish faster than larger loads with all else being equal. Absorbent items like towels get a different final spin routine than a load of lightweight clothes. A decent sized load takes 45-50 minutes, so it is not like it takes a super long time for a normal load. I can also run it through shorter/longer cycles if I would like.

I have had my FL washer for over 13 years. I replaced the belt and drain pump myself, each taking just a couple of minutes - it took more time to remove and replace the appropriate panel of the washer than to actually replace the parts. I should mention I am NOT mechanically inclined, and have never even attempted any type of appliance repair. The original drain pump was a known bad design on my machine, but the redesigned pump has not been a problem.

In summary, when it comes time to replace my machine, I will again go with a HE FL washer. I love how well it cleans, the savings and flexibility it offers.

If you could try some FL washers at friend's or family's houses, you could then better judge if you would like them and what brand you prefered. When my friend stayed with me and had her stained kids clothes to clean, I told her to not pretreat the stains and just use the stain treat option and see what happens. She was so impressed, soon after she returned home she replaced her TL washer with a FL washer.


Post# 896654 , Reply# 30   8/31/2016 at 18:18 (2,788 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        
Above post pretty much sums things up...

launderess's profile picture
Either method of doing laundry will get you there; H-axis or top loader with central beater; however the former will do so with less bother, energy and chemical use along with other benefits over the latter.

Automatic top loading washers are really just one level up from using wringer washer. That in turn took over from washboards, dolly pegs and other methods of doing washing by hand. However the underlying principles remain the same. Heavily to even moderately soiled wash should be pre-washed/soaked, never start with hot water, never wash in dirty water, stains should be attended to before going into the wash.

With front loaders that self heat water you can dispense with some pre-treating because cycles start in cool or cold water then gradually reach hot or warm. This shifts certain stains that would be set by hot water ( starches, protein, albumen).

All methods of doing laundry arise from the same five main principles: time, water temperature, chemical action, mechanical action, and amount of water. Any decrease in one normally requires an increase in the others and vice-versa.

Top loading washers use far more water than H-axis washers but also a more powerful central beater (mechanical) action. The detergents and other chemicals used are highly diluted (all that water) but that is made up by the above mechanical action.

H-axis washers use principles more in line with doing laundry by hand. Soapy/detergent water is pushed through textiles while they tumble back and forth. This action also causes fibers to flex and open releasing soils. The action of hitting sides of wash tub (lifting and dropping if you want) replicate the same actions of hand washing. Because you are pushing water through laundry rather than moving it through water you can use less of that substance and still obtain good results. Add a forced pump system that recirculates water through the wash and water use can be lessened further still.


Post# 896691 , Reply# 31   9/1/2016 at 03:30 (2,788 days old) by qualin (Canada)        

Regarding henene4's comment....

Just for the record, I'm not anti-HE. In fact, it makes sense to me and detergents these days are designed for it. (I'm sure the scientists that do the R&D at the detergent manufacturers know what they're doing.)

What I'm against is TL HE. The concept, I believe, this being my own personal opinion and not backed up by any scientific evidence, just doesn't work as well as a FL. I mean, there are numerous videos of people with HE TL machines that show just how slow and ineffective the turnover is with a washplate or agipeller. It seems to me that TL HE is just a stop gap solution. I did once think about buying a washplate machine, but after seeing those videos, I'm just not sold on them anymore.

In replying to Joe's post, (Reply #29), you pretty much hit the nail on the head. The same cleaning or better, but with lower operating costs.

Honestly, like I said before, there are absolutely no benefits to the cost savings if the machine isn't built to last or needs the occasional time-consuming and labour intensive bearing job because it was under designed or used cheap poor quality bearings.

I honestly don't think I could add anything more to this thread...


Post# 896698 , Reply# 32   9/1/2016 at 06:22 (2,788 days old) by vacerator (Macomb, Michigan)        
Ansolutely

on the above last three posts.
F/L bearings also wear, and are costly to replace.
Maybe ceramics can enter the engineering design, of course the price points are also calculated according to how long the average life span of the washer is.
Also what the assembly employees are paid, and keeping them employed as well.
There are still plenty of North American grandmothers out there who will not try a front loader no matter what they are told.


Post# 896701 , Reply# 33   9/1/2016 at 06:54 (2,788 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        
And there were American women who clung to wringer washers

launderess's profile picture
Long after fully automatics came along. Again to each his or her own.

It is worth noting on both sides of the Atlantic commercial laundries going back to the late 1800's onwards went with H-axis washing machines and have never looked back. Some places may have had a one or two top loaders for small odd loads, but never would they used for routine wash.

Now all this being said again if you need to plow through tons of laundry quickly a top loader is up your street. However again how much time are you saving if the thing is done properly for badly soiled/stained washing. By the time you pre-wash/soak, pre-treat, main wash and perhaps a few rinses you've hit thirty minutes or more. The fastest commercial based washers from SQ can knock out a load in about the same time.

Speaking on that subject one reason have considered getting a wringer washer (besides it being one step up from doing things in a tub...*LOL*) and that yes, can get through tons of wash quickly compared to the Miele or AEG, and with better results than the laundryette's SQ washers.

The cycles on my local laundromat machines are too fast (about 30 min or less) and water often not hot enough (very short prewash with cold water, no spin after draining and filling with water for the wash, uses tap hot water), to get things really clean. Am noticing persons who routinely do wash at this place have plenty of tattle-tale grey.

Now wouldn't want to do my entire wash each week with a wringer, but for the odd large load of sheets it may just do.


Post# 896799 , Reply# 34   9/1/2016 at 18:40 (2,787 days old) by vacerator (Macomb, Michigan)        
So True!

My mom even had a wringer washer when I was a young tyke.
My top loader plow through loads of laundry in a hurry? No, only four or bath towels at a time. Two pair of pants, three or four shirts, socks, and some undies.
Now it's an impeller type. It's not made for large loads.
The bulky cycle uses a full tub of water, twice, with nominal roll over. A large load floats on the top of the water.



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