Thread Number: 70050  /  Tag: Vintage Automatic Washers
Top Load or Front Load....?
[Down to Last]'s exclusive eBay Watch:
scroll >>> for more items
Post# 929696   3/30/2017 at 12:19 (449 days old) by Johnny42 (Glasgow)        

johnny42's profile picture
What do people prefer ? Top loaders or Front loaders. Which machine gets your clothes cleaner ? Are revolving drum action machines better than centre post agitators ? I must admit, that I have never owned a front loader. The only time I ever used a front load, was at our local laundrette. I remember my granmother's Servis twin tub when I was a kid....35 years later and we still have it and it still works !!! Our first automatic, was a Hotpoint top load with the filter Flo. Another good machine. I presently have a Whirlpool top load super capacity washer and have recently acquired a Wilkins Servis wringer washer. So which machines do you guys prefer ?

Post# 929697 , Reply# 1   3/30/2017 at 12:26 (449 days old) by Pierreandreply4 (St-Bruno de montarville (province of quebec) canada)        

pierreandreply4's profile picture
i prefer topload washers to be honest

Post# 929702 , Reply# 2   3/30/2017 at 12:35 (449 days old) by vacuumguy99 (North Western PA)        

We have a front loader and when I took over doing laundry I thought an hour per load was way to long, we got an wringer washer and our clothes have never looked better. Wringer/Toploader gets my vote.

Post# 929704 , Reply# 3   3/30/2017 at 12:49 (449 days old) by Johnny42 (Glasgow)        
Top load or Front load

johnny42's profile picture
I agree with you guys !! Unfortunately, living in Scotland, the majority of households are front load. If you want a top load, you either have to go on ebay or really do some searching through appliance stores. I would really love to get my hands on a Speed Queen. I have heard they have a good rep.

Post# 929706 , Reply# 4   3/30/2017 at 13:11 (449 days old) by Paulinroyton (B)        
Top Loader

I love top loaders as they much quicker than a UK front loader and do a great job of the washing


  Photos...       <              >      Photo 1 of 5         View Full Size
Post# 929708 , Reply# 5   3/30/2017 at 13:25 (449 days old) by Johnny42 (Glasgow)        
Top Load or Front load

johnny42's profile picture
Hey Paul, I do agree with you on that one. I don't personally own a front load, but some of my friends say that they take ages to do one load of laundry,while my top load can do 2 or 3 loads to their 1 load of laundry. Is that your Speed Queen Paul ? If so, I am sooooo jealous !!! Always wanted one of those !! I saw a coin op commercial SQ washer on ebay, but was too late as it had been sold !!!

Post# 929713 , Reply# 6   3/30/2017 at 13:40 (449 days old) by brucelucenta ()        

Ya'll are N U T NUTS!!!! Front load is the ONLY way to go these days! Uses WAY less water, gives you lint free washes, washes & rinses extremely well with NO wear and tear on your clothes and spins out so dry that it takes little time to dry in the dryer. Just no comparison to the top load machines offered today.

Post# 929715 , Reply# 7   3/30/2017 at 13:55 (449 days old) by Paulinroyton (B)        
Top Loader

Hi John

Yes that's my top loader washer. Simply love it, do have a couple of front loaders, but prefer the top loader.


  Photos...       <              >      Photo 1 of 2         View Full Size
Post# 929717 , Reply# 8   3/30/2017 at 14:10 (449 days old) by brucelucenta ()        

A couple??? Looks like an arsenal!

Post# 929718 , Reply# 9   3/30/2017 at 14:13 (449 days old) by turquoisedude (Ogden & St-Liboire (where??), QC, Canada)        

turquoisedude's profile picture

Top-load for me, please!!

  View Full Size
Post# 929723 , Reply# 10   3/30/2017 at 15:04 (449 days old) by RevvinKevin (So. Cal.)        

revvinkevin's profile picture



I have been using a front load washer for my weekly laundry for about 20 years now and have been happy with the results.   We've had this water shortage in California for a few years now, so I'm happy to do my part to conserve water by using front loader(s).


I have a number of both top load and front load washers in my collection and currently have 4 FL washers connected that I use for laundry each week.  It's REALLY nice being able to do 4 loads at one time!


Occasionally I will move machines around and connect a top load washer (or 2) and use them for a while.  However after 2 or 3 or maybe 4 weeks, I start getting uncomfortable with how much water they use and will move them out and reconnect a FL.  I do between 4 loads and 7 loads per week, usually 4 or 5 loads.   That equates to water usage of 170 gallons up to 350 gallons per week if I use top load washers, depending on what machines I use. 


Yes front loaders have longer cycle times (tho not as long as EU front loaders), but being able to use 4 machines at once, this is a non-issue for me.  Top load washer do have much shorter cycle times and they are more fun to watch, but the amount of water they use becomes an issue for me, so I don't use them regularly.




P.S... Paul, nice group of machines you have there!  Question, what is that metal bar / bracket on the Speed Queens lid?  Thanks!


P.S.S... I posted this 6 years ago, but still fun to watch.  Skip to 2:18 and start watching from there!



This post was last edited 03/30/2017 at 16:43
Post# 929727 , Reply# 11   3/30/2017 at 15:56 (449 days old) by Paulinroyton (B)        


The metal bar of the Speed Queen is the locking device for the machine, I know it spoils the appearance of the machine.


Post# 929729 , Reply# 12   3/30/2017 at 16:35 (449 days old) by RevvinKevin (So. Cal.)        
locking device?

revvinkevin's profile picture





A locking device so you cannot open the lid anytime during the cycle?  Is that something that is installed on SQ machines sold in Europe, or did you install it?   



Post# 929732 , Reply# 13   3/30/2017 at 17:21 (449 days old) by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        

lordkenmore's profile picture

Front Load vs Top will be interesting to see if this thread turns into a bloodbath before it's done... LOL

Post# 929735 , Reply# 14   3/30/2017 at 17:45 (449 days old) by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        

lordkenmore's profile picture

As for me... I'm not sure I really can answer this question because I've never used a home front load washer. Everything has been top load, from 1960s Kenmore to 1990s WCI Frigidaire to the current BOL WP. So I can't make fair comparisons.


Not that real experience will stop people from making loud announcements of what is better on the Internet...


I have to admit that I was very biased against the idea of front load machines for a long time simply because of the horror stories I heard about them not working terribly well here in the US. And some of these experiences were reported by people who seemed reasonably likely to have attempted to use the machines properly (e.g., members of


But...I've reconsidered my bias in recent years. I've been hearing more positive things in recent years. While these don't necessarily "sell me", I'd be curious to try living with a front load washer. And I certainly have come to realize that they are very practical for certain situations (e.g., where water is seriously limited, energy use is a concern, etc). I also have thought, often, that if buying new a front load machine makes more sense than a low water use top load machine.


However, a front load machine won't be on my "try" list any time soon. I hear stories of people who find passable machines for free or very cheap, which is my current budget. But my current laundry room pretty much dictates an older top load washer.


Indeed, at this point, I'd be more inclined to go definitely "older" with the "older top load washer." Reliability of a vintage machine is a real concern. But I cannot forget how good a job the last belt drive Kenmore did for me vs. either of the top machine designs (WCI Frigidaire and WP DD) I've had the misfortune of using since that time.

Post# 929827 , Reply# 15   3/30/2017 at 23:36 (448 days old) by askolover (South of Nash Vegas, TN)        
front load all the way

askolover's profile picture

Been using a FL since 1997 (it's still going) and have never looked back.  Who cares about longer cycle times?  What do people do, sit there nervously biting their fingernails anxiously waiting for the washer to finish so they can put things in the dryer?  I load it, set it, start it, and walk away to do other chores.  It took me one day to adjust to that type schedule all those years ago.  I have clothes that would not come clean in my previous GE filterflo that did come out of the FL spotless!  I'll NEVER go back to a top loader.

Post# 929838 , Reply# 16   3/31/2017 at 02:32 (448 days old) by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room)        
Cycle time lengths

lordkenmore's profile picture

As for me, what I don't like about lonnnnnggggg cycles isn't that I do feel a need to be more or less present during the entire cycle. Not that I'm hovering over the appliance the whole time, but I want to be on the premises and awake so if something seems like it might be going horribly wrong (e.g., loud bangs, sound of running water when water shouldn't be running, a big plume of smoke, etc), I have a better chance of dealing with it before it becomes a major disaster. Major disasters have, happily, been rare...but small things with washers can and do come up.


Although I have to wonder as I type this if a lot of my bias here isn't just the sorts of appliances I'm used to. Top load washers, for example, can go out of balance. A front load machine, however, is apparently "smarter" about balancing--unless something goes seriously wrong...


Another issue, too, is that there are times when one wants/needs a load done fast. Say, one wants to go out to dinner, and wear a favorite shirt.

Post# 929840 , Reply# 17   3/31/2017 at 04:02 (448 days old) by brucelucenta ()        

I believe it all boils down to load machines are things of the past and front load machines are things of the future. With energy conservation getting stricter I doubt if even SQ will be making a top loader like their's much longer. It is just ridiculous to use something that wastes so much water when there is an alternative that does a better job and produces lint free totally clean clothes using a minimum of water. Even using extra rinses would not use the amount of water that one load in a top load machine uses. There is just no need for antiquated top loaders anymore and in a few more years they will be rare. Old style top load machines are great for collections and to see how things once were.

Post# 929841 , Reply# 18   3/31/2017 at 04:19 (448 days old) by Paulinroyton (B)        


Speed Queen machines sold in the UK have this locking device. Their machines are sold for commercial use, so can't understand why they fit this lock.

As for some front loader wash times. My LG Turbo wash machine could take over 3 hours to complete a load, you did have Turbo wash feature, but I found it would compromise on the rinse.


Post# 929842 , Reply# 19   3/31/2017 at 04:30 (448 days old) by foraloysius (Leeuwarden, the Netherlands)        

foraloysius's profile picture
East is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet.

We had numerous discussions about toploaders vs frontloaders and there is never an agreement on it. It's a matter of opinion and noone will give an inch away of his opinion in this matter, so the disscussion is rather useless.

Me? I love H-axis toploaders.

Post# 929844 , Reply# 20   3/31/2017 at 04:48 (448 days old) by Johnny42 (Glasgow)        
top load or front load

johnny42's profile picture
Wow!! What an interesting response from you guys. It's interesting to read the different opinions. Well, after reading the different answers, I will probably just stick with a TL washer. I haven't had any problems with it. Either that, or I will go back to the good ole' days and beat my laundry on a rock down by the river or use a washboard !!

I am currently in the process of restoring a 60 year old wringer washer. It actually still works.....wish me luck !!!

Post# 929850 , Reply# 21   3/31/2017 at 06:19 (448 days old) by chestermikeuk (Rainhill *Home of the RailwayTrials* Merseyside,UK)        

chestermikeuk's profile picture
Well you aint afraid of pulling out the big guns Johnny ha ha...having collected twinnys, wringers possers and lime barrells one can firmly say that a horizontal access turning drum far outweighs anything else in the efficiency stakes, in water consumption, energy efficiency, detergent consumption per kg washed you will always get the best efficient results - hence why its the machine of choice for commercial launderies etc...

Nowthen before everybody swipes right from brown, most of us here will get the best results from any wesher made whether it be top load or a cement mixer, because we would (hopefully) understand how the machine worked and adapt our resources accordingly...!!

What model is the twinny you have Johnny ?

Post# 929860 , Reply# 22   3/31/2017 at 06:45 (448 days old) by Pierreandreply4 (St-Bruno de montarville (province of quebec) canada)        

pierreandreply4's profile picture
you might have to rethink that not everyone are into frontload washers i might be using 1 now but to me a 1 hour wash cycle is just to long and for me the more water the better the cleaning power grewup with topload washers set from my youth mny teen year still had the original inglis dry till 1992 washer was replace aroud my teen years 1988 by a whirlpool washers and also asl long as some consumers buy topload washsers companys like whirlpool inglis speed queen general electric will keep making topload washers the set my mom and i have now might be 13 years old and will eventualy require replacement so while doing research i have look at the speedqueen model awn432 and it would fit or need perfectly since i do not see the use in my case of lots of cycles the only cycles i use are normal perm press delicate hand wash if needed and soak and not everyone wash the same.

  View Full Size
Post# 929865 , Reply# 23   3/31/2017 at 06:53 (448 days old) by turquoisedude (Ogden & St-Liboire (where??), QC, Canada)        

turquoisedude's profile picture

So Louis, wanna buy a Launderall?  For you, special price!!!  (ducks and runs...) 

Post# 929877 , Reply# 24   3/31/2017 at 07:15 (448 days old) by Johnny42 (Glasgow)        
top load or front load

johnny42's profile picture
Hey Mike. I have a Servis MK2 supertwin. We have had it in the family about 35 years without any problems. It was my grandmothers before me and as far as I can gather, I think she bought it some time in the 1960's. I think by that time the brand name had changed from "Wilkins Servis" to just "Servis". Always has been one of my favourite brands. I also have another Servis make. It's a Servis 1108 twinny.

Quite a debate going on here Mike !! Top load or Front load ?

Post# 929883 , Reply# 25   3/31/2017 at 08:04 (448 days old) by foraloysius (Leeuwarden, the Netherlands)        

foraloysius's profile picture
Watch it mister! Or I'll send Jon over for one of his famous slaps! lol

Post# 929886 , Reply# 26   3/31/2017 at 08:12 (448 days old) by turquoisedude (Ogden & St-Liboire (where??), QC, Canada)        

turquoisedude's profile picture

Louis,  I'll be seeing him soon - I'll be good....  LOL 

Post# 929895 , Reply# 27   3/31/2017 at 08:37 (448 days old) by Helicaldrive (St. Louis)        
I agree with Bruce

Everything he said. FLs do take longer but with some extra rinses ultimately clothes are cleaner and better rinsed, with far less detergent and water. Win-win. It's worth the extra time. Especially when washing towels and blankets, I sometimes do think, jeez, the TL was easier, none of this time spent trying to balance, but then I remember I'm getting almost twice as many items washed in that FL load, and it'll dry faster due to better extraction.

I expect that the cost of detergent for a TL will eventually become cost prohibitive. As more and more people get HE units and start using only a tiny fraction of the detergent they used to use, the detergent companies, to survive, will reduce the size of bottles and greatly raise the prices. Already starting to gradually happen. Groceries here are stocking way more of the smallest sizes.

Might as well get with the 21st century.

Post# 929898 , Reply# 28   3/31/2017 at 08:51 (448 days old) by alr2903 (TN)        

FL plus the detergent designed for them= better results. Half way measuring huge heaping scoops of detergent is a thing of the past.

Post# 929989 , Reply# 29   3/31/2017 at 20:36 (448 days old) by spinspeed (Sydney Australia (originally London UK))        

spinspeed's profile picture
I have both front and top load washers in my laundry. I have to say the front loader does a much better job than the TL machines and it is my main driver. In Australia we are very water conscious and FLs use a fraction of the water the TLs do

I have 3 Fisher & Paykel TLs and they are not bad and do a pretty good job. They spin really fast too. I also have a Maytag Atlantis and it is rubbish and I rarely use it though the dryer is fab and they look pretty cool side by side. I also have two GE Filer-flo which I love to use but they are not as good as the F&P washers.

Post# 930005 , Reply# 30   3/31/2017 at 22:04 (448 days old) by Washerlover (Lake County, California: Wines With Altitude)        
I'm a Top Loader!

washerlover's profile picture
Front load machines (especially these dreadful new "energy savers" that take eons to complete a cycle) are awful. A folded handerchief remains folded after an entire cycle. How clean is that? Top loaders take less time and actually clean the clothes. And besides, front loaders are not that exciting to watch...give me a Penta-Swirl, Roto-Swirl, Pulsator, Burp-a-Lator, Activator, Surgilator any time!

Post# 930019 , Reply# 31   4/1/2017 at 00:25 (447 days old) by VacuumGuy99 (North Western PA)        

Its interesting to hear how much people like there front loaders, I personally cant stand them. I don't feel like the cloths get rinsed well enough,a front loader takes way longer than it needs to to complete a cycle and could someone explain why moving surfactant through cloths requires an $800 computer? Instead of throwing money at gadgets and gizmos that will eventually be the downfall of a machines longevity, personally speaking I find a wringer washer with a double washtub and laundry spinner to be a much more dependable and sound way to put $800 towards laundry equipment. In 1hr and 1/2 you can get everything washed and thoroughly rinsed in a wringer that an he machine would take 8 hrs to do. Just my personal thoughts but as they say "to each their own".

Post# 930025 , Reply# 32   4/1/2017 at 01:33 (447 days old) by tolivac (greenville nc)        

So this comes back--TL for me!Don't want to wait for long cycle times on FL.If the Hotpoint TL dies on me-will just get another older machine from the swap shop.

Post# 930027 , Reply# 33   4/1/2017 at 02:09 (447 days old) by askolover (South of Nash Vegas, TN)        

askolover's profile picture

The way I figure it, if I can wait 45-60 minutes for my Kitchenaid or Maytag dishwashers to do a load then why can't I wait for the washer to do a load..The Asko takes 45 minutes for a normal load and the Miele 59 minutes at 120F and 66 minutes for 140F both with extra rinses.  I'm just used to it after all these years.  Try getting embedded paraffin wax out of cotton in a toploader.  Both my Euro FL machines with powerful heaters can/have. 


A folded handerchief remains folded after an entire cycle. How clean is that?

True...but you don't throw socks wadded up in a little ball into the washer do you?  I unfold my handkerchiefs when I stick them into the whites basket...but to each his own.  I'm just being's all in good fun!

Post# 930055 , Reply# 34   4/1/2017 at 10:20 (447 days old) by rapunzel (Sydney)        

How to get paraffin was out of cotton in a top loader - you first use a hot iron and kitchen paper to get the excess wax off, then you spray laundry stain remover on the remaining oily stain and wash it on hot.

Post# 930061 , Reply# 35   4/1/2017 at 11:42 (447 days old) by PassatDoc (Orange County, California)        

I vote for front loaders. Use way less water and energy (and detergent)---water will always be a perennial issue here in California, in spite of this winter's record snowfall.

My current (Electrolux 60) and last FL (Frig 2140---given to my neighbor, works perfectly at 11 years of age) get clothes cleaner than any TL I previously owned. Yes, the cycles are longer, but the result is cleaner clothes. I use the delay wash option to my benefit, setting up a load to run overnight or while I'm at work, which obviates the longer cycle time. The older 2140 had only one option, an 8 hour delay, but the 60 has delay from 30 mins to 24 hrs.

Additionally, fast final spin speeds shorten drying time.

Post# 930067 , Reply# 36   4/1/2017 at 12:36 (447 days old) by Laundromat (Hilo, Hawaii)        

laundromat's profile picture
Hands down on the front loaders. They do more per sq.ft.,they use less water,less bleach,less detergen,less fabric softener,less electricity and do a more thorough job getting clothes clean using a less vigorous method. They also spin much more water out to save time,energy and are more gentle on fabrics. No sharp agitator blades like the "cruel action" agitator post types.

Post# 930120 , Reply# 37   4/1/2017 at 20:45 (447 days old) by rapunzel (Sydney)        

I vote traditional top loader hands down. Never had a problem and as I've stated before in other threads, my clothes are no less clean or in worse condition than the clothes of people who launder theirs in (expensive, top of the range) front loaders. In fact, I will put money on my clothes being better rinsed and containing less detergent residue, because my machine is a traditional, no-frills, no eco nonsense machine, that uses plenty of water for rinsing. Clothes clean up well in either type of washer, but effective rinsing is an issue with many high efficiency machines. Here in Australia consumer review organizations rate rinse performance as important as wash performance and top loaders generally perform better at rinsing according to their assessments.

Either types of washers have their advantages and drawbacks, but whatever the differences are, a well-designed, good quality washer will get the job done well enough. It's up to the individual consumer to decide for themselves what they are looking for in the products they choose.

In most cases the differences aren't that significant to get passionate over. The best performing products are usually the ones where the focus of design remains on the primary function. Many manufacturers are promising consumers all kinds of additional features and benefits to meet perceived consumer demands, but rarely do they deliver all that is promised.

This post was last edited 04/01/2017 at 21:09
Post# 930162 , Reply# 38   4/2/2017 at 07:04 (446 days old) by brucelucenta ()        

To be totally honest, IF there were still an abundance of replacement parts for ALL old machines I would have probably a couple of top load sets. A Kelvinator and possibly a Norge, Frigidaire or even a Speed Queen, all solid tub machines. They all washed, rinsed and spun clothes out quite well and I liked using any of them. However, that is not the case. A vintage machine always has the possibility of breaking down and there are just no parts around for them anymore. It is regrettable, but true. If Frigidaire had not sold out and still made a washer that agitated up and down, that would be the set I would have. But there are no such machines anymore. I don't even look at laundry in the same way as I used to these days. It is now just another necessity that I have to deal with and after using every kind of washer and dryer around in my existence, I have reached the conclusion that a front load washer does an excellent job of washing, rinsing and spinning my clothes out with no linting or wear to them. That is just not something that even the best top load washers I have used could do with the same degree of excellence. This machine does it's job with a minimum of water too. I have used the front load washers from the past too. The westinghouse machines were adequate, but that's about it. Even they did a good job giving lint free loads, but were only fair at washability and at extracting water from the clothes. They also only rotated in one direction which caused balling up of items like sheets. The new front load machines are just far superior to ANY HE top loader. I will admit that the Speed Queen top loader is as close to a traditional washing machine as you can get now. But why have something new that uses vast amounts of water to do the same thing a front load machine will do at far less? Not only that, but the Speed Queen limits you to ONE rinse and that ONE rinse requires you to do a deep fill rinse. The front loaders will do up to 3 extra rinses and STILL use far less water than the Speed Queen uses with just ONE deep rinse. It only makes common sense to go with a front load machine and I look for Speed Queen to quit making their top loader before much longer anyway due to goverment interference.

Post# 930166 , Reply# 39   4/2/2017 at 07:30 (446 days old) by chrisbsuk (Bristol, uk)        

chrisbsuk's profile picture
Hey Johnny...
I've recently bought a top loader as I do a shed load of laundry because of some air b and b places I have. I also run a front loader alongside it, so a few months in, I have a better understanding of them both!

I'd say I much prefer the top loader for washing towels, sheets and other "robust" items of clothing. The top loader washes these really well, and even when I use the 6 minute "light" programme the results are great! However, I would say it is let down my its poor spinning performance, so I do run them through the front loader before drying.

The front loader is 100% better for washing more delicate items of clothing, or dark clothes that would need rinsed very well - despite the huge amount of water the machine uses, it doesn't rinse as well as a front loader - end of! I've used the hand wash programme in the top loader too and it is useless - again, the front loader does this programme much better.

Here are some pictures now of my set up - I have all three machines on the go at the moment!

Post# 930168 , Reply# 40   4/2/2017 at 07:31 (446 days old) by chrisbsuk (Bristol, uk)        

chrisbsuk's profile picture
filling up - 16 min cycle (towels are filthy!)

Post# 930170 , Reply# 41   4/2/2017 at 07:32 (446 days old) by chrisbsuk (Bristol, uk)        

chrisbsuk's profile picture
and the front loader

Post# 930171 , Reply# 42   4/2/2017 at 07:34 (446 days old) by chrisbsuk (Bristol, uk)        

chrisbsuk's profile picture
this cycle is due to take nearly 4 hrs! I have put three extra rinses on though, but even so, the top loader would have done about 8 loads in this time!

Post# 930179 , Reply# 43   4/2/2017 at 09:11 (446 days old) by Rolls_rapide (Scotland, UK)        
Front Loaders - but with a tilted drum!

rolls_rapide's profile picture
Front loaders, for the sheer practicality of siting the machine below counter tops.

Though I have to confess that the new machines with looooong cycle times are doing my head in!

If the load is out of balance, inter-rinse spinning is skipped, so rinsing is poor.

Autocare sensor programme: quite speedy - but defaults to two rinses. Extra rinse not allowed, but machine "might" add one depending on sensor feedback (I'm presuming if a sudslock is detected...?). Spin maximum is locked at 1400rpm.

Rinses, by default on speedier programmes, are only two. An extra rinse can be activated - on some programmes.

Skin care programme has 3 rinses, and an option to add a fourth - but the final spin maximum speed is locked at 1200rpm. Arrrgh!!!

Final spin predicted to take about 10 minutes - ends up taking half a bloody hour!

I have actually had more success with front loaders with a tilted drum. When they distribute the load, the laundry tends to fall towards the back wall of the drum. Spinning has been far better than a purely horizontal drum.

Post# 930196 , Reply# 44   4/2/2017 at 10:55 (446 days old) by rapunzel (Sydney)        


Your top loader doesn't have good spin efficiency and difficulty cleaning delicate clothes. In Australia most top loaders spin at 800 rpm and higher and there is no issue with decent water extraction. My SQ washer spins at 700 rpm, but I've got the matching dryer which will dry a full load of regular clothes in a little under an hour. There is absolutely no problem with getting hand washables clean on the delicate cycle.

Post# 930243 , Reply# 45   4/2/2017 at 20:15 (446 days old) by norgeway (mocksville n c )        
I would take a front loader

IF IT WERE A BENDIX OR WESTINGHOUSE that actually washed your clothes, the modern ones are just about like beating your clothes on a rock, and they don't rinse worth a darn, and a front loader should turn continuously in one direction, when the new ones stop to reverse they are NOT washing!!!LOL...But you all know I hate anything new and most especially anything digital!

Post# 930248 , Reply# 46   4/2/2017 at 22:05 (446 days old) by Washerlover (Lake County, California: Wines With Altitude)        

washerlover's profile picture
Thank you Norgeway! I totally agree and think these newfangled front-loading "energy savers" do nothing but. How could a 2-3 hour cycle be efficient? And as I pointed out earlier, folded handkerchiefs thrown into the front-loader are still folded after the entire cycle. Nice for some who don't like to fold, but is that really clean? Top loaders are the best in cleaning! Just call me Norma Desmond, loving to live in the efficient past..!

Post# 930257 , Reply# 47   4/2/2017 at 23:02 (446 days old) by abcomatic (Bradford, Illinois)        

Top loader and here and wringer machines for sure.
happy washing, Gary

Post# 930294 , Reply# 48   4/3/2017 at 06:45 (445 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, Thereīs a Lady on Stage)        

launderess's profile picture
Only reason modern domestic H-Axis washing machines take hours to do wash is due to government/energy mandates.

Commercial/industrial machines complete an entire "Normal/Cottons/Linens" cycle in < 45 minutes. Those machines however use more water and aren't bothered by having "profile" washes and or time for various stain treatments and or enzymes to work. Though the programmable units can be made to do so I suppose.

Same with automatic dishwashers. Forced by government interference to use less water it now takes two, three or more hours to wash a load of dishes.

Post# 930317 , Reply# 49   4/3/2017 at 09:54 (445 days old) by e2l-arry (LAKEWOOD COLORADO)        
Funny thing about rinsing . . .

When I first got my front loader, Sears Kenmore in 2005. I noticed it almost oversuds in every load when I 1st got it. I was using HE detergent and the correct amount so I didn't know what the problem was. Later, after everything had gone through 1 wash in the front loaded the oversudsing thing stopped. So I came to the conclusion that my old top loader was leaving a lot of detergent residue in my clothes in the rinse cycle. Conclusion: Front Loaders do a much better job of rinsing that the Top Loader. If they're better at rinsing it stands to reason they're better at washing.

These days the rinsing is up to me as I only use my Maytag wringer washer.

Post# 930331 , Reply# 50   4/3/2017 at 11:27 (445 days old) by Johnny42 (Glasgow)        
Top load or front load

johnny42's profile picture

Hey man, I love your laundry set up. What make is your Top loader?


Post# 930338 , Reply# 51   4/3/2017 at 12:16 (445 days old) by firedome (Binghamton NY & Lake Champlain VT)        

firedome's profile picture
and TOP load:

  Photos...       <              >      Photo 1 of 4         View Full Size
Post# 930341 , Reply# 52   4/3/2017 at 12:27 (445 days old) by norgeway (mocksville n c )        
I would rather

Use a good Maytag or Lady Kenmore wringer than a new HE machine ....then I would know my clothes were clean!

Post# 930358 , Reply# 53   4/3/2017 at 14:39 (445 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, Thereīs a Lady on Stage)        
Rinsing: Top Loading vs. Side

launderess's profile picture
Sadly when the switch was made from semi-automatic top loaders (wringers, twin tubs, etc...) washing machines to fully the ability to rinse often as required went as well. Some top loaders late as the 1970's or so did offer two rinses, but one assumes much of that went by the boards in way of energy/water savings. This is sad because often it takes more than one or even two rinses to get all detergent/soil residue out of textiles.

Thus it comes as no surprise that those who switched from top loading to H-Axis washers found there often was enough "soap" left in their clothing for one or more loads. *LOL*

Post# 930359 , Reply# 54   4/3/2017 at 14:45 (445 days old) by brucelucenta ()        

Just one more reason I am happy with having my front loader. I can automatically rinse 3 additional times and still not use as much water as a traditional top loader that rinses once. The only reason I can see for having an SQ top loader would be to get a lot of laundry done quickly. I have no such need and do not mind it taking longer. I have also gotten used to my dishwasher taking a long long time too. No need to be in a hurry. Haste makes waste

Post# 930365 , Reply# 55   4/3/2017 at 15:09 (445 days old) by kb0nes (Burnsville, MN)        

kb0nes's profile picture
Finally read through this thread today, pretty much the discussion I expected. A lot of religious dogma based on opinion vs facts.

I'll bet that no top loader fans were convinced of the superiority of front loading machines :p

Post# 930391 , Reply# 56   4/3/2017 at 16:48 (445 days old) by mrb627 (Buford, GA)        
I Like Both

mrb627's profile picture

And find that when I wash in a FL machine, I wish for a TL.
Other times, when I washed in a TL, I have wished for a FL.

No happy medium, LOL!


Post# 930411 , Reply# 57   4/3/2017 at 17:33 (445 days old) by rapunzel (Sydney)        

I bet that none of the front loader demagogues could ever bring themselves to concede that top loaders are superior to front loaders in their own way. They are too invested in their own delusions of superiority. So they preach to and berate everyone, using manipulative militant environmentalist populism, propaganda, exaggerations and falsehoods, to justify their demagoguery; and in spite of established facts.

Down with front loader oppression, fanaticism and firebranding!

This post was last edited 04/03/2017 at 20:29
Post# 930704 , Reply# 58   4/5/2017 at 10:20 (443 days old) by rapunzel (Sydney)        

What?! Just one up-tick? Can't believe it. Bloody useless lot you are. Us top loader aficionados must stick together. The front loader brigade has its sights set on world domination and we must stop them. Maybe we can get Trump to abolish efficiency regulations on appliances. Front loaders, like efficiency standards, are un-American and they don't wash and rinse our knickers the way we like it.

Europeans only shower once or twice a week. They've got something against using water. Does it then come as a surprise that they also don't like getting their clothes wet when doing laundry? Do we really want to emulate this kind or behaviour? If we do we might as well not change our undies more than once a week and lets forget about using deodorant altogether, yes?

Post# 930748 , Reply# 59   4/5/2017 at 13:53 (443 days old) by earthling177 (Boston, MA)        


I don't know how efficiency standards are implemented in Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand etc.

I know how they are here.

And I can tell you they've been lying to you and themselves. The efficiency standards for household appliances here, including Energy Star, are all *voluntary*.

The hard standards have to do with the installations: if you use a certain socket/plug, you only have 120V/15A, another one (easy to find/buy in stores, but much more rare to see installed in homes) and you get 120V/20A, you can move another notch to 240V/15A, then 240V/20A, then 240V/30A ("dryer plug"), I believe, but not sure if they got rid of the 240V/40A plugs and then 240V/50A ("free-standing range plug"). Past there, I think the plugs become locking plugs (you need to rotate it to plug/unplug).

The proof is that SpeedQueen has been making their toploader mostly unchanged, and there are still frontloaders that use a lot of energy/water.

The "thing" that "makes" manufacturers offer Energy Star equipment is the *huge* tax discount and rebates the government offers. Also, customers that are upset about the price of utilities, buy the newer more efficient machines.

Don't confuse places like some parts of California, that prohibit electric dryer outlets in new home construction, for example (you can only provide hookups for gas dryers), with the entire nation has a program *forcing* manufacturers to toe the line.

Conservative talk shows and manufacturers like to spread those "government forcing us" rumors because they want all the advantages (tax, rebates etc) without having to deal with the people who hate high efficiency machines.

In fact, *manufacturers* in US are the ones that get together, *write* the laws exactly the way they want them, *lobby* for the laws to pass and then pay the talk show hosts to spread misinformation. If one is to believe the rumor mill, sometimes the hosts are paid in "favors" (alcohol, sex, drugs) so as not to appear in their tax forms.

So, if you wanna bitch, by all means proceed, complain about new products, complain about high energy efficiency etc.

But stop complaining about the "government" "forcing" the "poor" manufacturers to "comply" to an Energy Star standard -- they do that out of their own free will for appliances.

†††-- Paulo.

CLICK HERE TO GO TO earthling177's LINK

Post# 930754 , Reply# 60   4/5/2017 at 14:25 (443 days old) by brucelucenta ()        

No doubt in my mind that a good ole Whirlpool belt drive washer with the wavy agitator in it will wash filthy clothes as well or better than anything ever made. It certainly should, it beats the hell out of whatever it is washing. Not that this is a bad thing, but most people don't have filthy dirty clothing all the time that require that. It does it in record time too, but it can be harsh on clothing and promotes lint. A front load machine of today does a lot of soaking and tumbling the clothes. As long as it takes to do a load, it too should certainly be good and clean by the time it is finished. I just find that my front loader does an excellent job of cleaning, rinsing and spinning out the water and it does this with greatly reduced wear on my clothes and virtually NO lint at all along with using FAR less water with 3 extra rinses than the Whirlpool does with just one rinse. I guess it is a matter of what you want, but I am quite happy with my front load machine and can see why they seem to be taking over. The new HE top load machines attempt to do the same thing as front loaders, but cannot simply by design.

Post# 930790 , Reply# 61   4/5/2017 at 20:48 (443 days old) by rapunzel (Sydney)        

Bruce, if a wash system like the Whirly belt drive is that effective, you can shorten wash times and maybe include some soaking to minimize wear on clothes. Of course, when you put your cotton t-shirts and knits in for a full 15 or 20 minute beat-up and do this every week, they'll be showing some signs of abuse. However, with the advent of the flexi-vane, agitation has become a lot more gentle on clothes. CR evaluations of agitation systems, used here in Oz, do not show gaping differences in wear and tear on clothes. Whatever discrepancies there are they are not worth losing sleep over. If consumers have huge problems with the performance of their washers, may it be linting or cleaning, the source of the problem is usually the consumer.


You are correct, but you are not totally correct. Government agencies set performance and manufacturing standards for appliance makers, which are legally binding. Whilst some efficiency standards may not be mandatory as such, there are very generous financial incentives and various disincentives to garner sector compliance. Thus, government interference has set the ball rolling and continues to influence the boardroom decisions of appliance manufacturers and importers.

The same applies to new building codes and what builders are allowed or encouraged to include in new developments. This very much sets the tone for what consumers may then purchase as far as large appliances are concerned. By not including a hot water connection and standardizing the washer space in the laundry area as an under-counter installation, consumers will automatically choose a front loader that heats its own water. To modify the laundry to accommodate a top loader is just another expense in a housing market that is already totally overpriced.

If a product does not meet government agency standards, it may either not be rated under those standards or be banned from sale altogether.

Of course the manufacturing sector has undergone huge changes over the past 4 decades and the products that we are offered today are the result of those changes. It appears that some states in the US, like California, have extremely restrictive regulations to change consumer behaviours.

Australia hasn't gone down that path quite yet. However, our appliance imports are now predominantly focused on Asian and European products. American appliance companies like Whirlpool either only offer their European product pallet to Australians, or they occupy an expensive niche, like the commercial laundry market, as is the case with Speed Queen and Maytag products. Consumers can get these niche products, but they have to pay a much higher price for them.

A while back I spoke to a bloke who used to be an official service rep for Kleenmaid (Speed Queen) washers. He is now retired, but still goes out freelancing as a repairer. According to him, reconditioned Speed Queen and Maytag washers are much sought after. He apparently reconditions and sells at least one or two machines a week offering a full year's warranty on them. There are a lot of consumers desperate for regular washing machines with mechanical controls and traditional program options.

This post was last edited 04/05/2017 at 22:56
Post# 930803 , Reply# 62   4/6/2017 at 00:34 (442 days old) by askolover (South of Nash Vegas, TN)        

askolover's profile picture

I would like to see an unbiased scientific analysis between clothing that has been washed in a TL and dried and clothing washed in a FL and dried.  Then take the same clothing and analyze how much or little residue is actually left after normal cycles were used.  I know Asko recommended the first time clothes are washed in their machine to NOT use any detergent due to the residue left in the clothes from previous inefficient rinsing.  After 4 rinses in the Asko I dare say there wouldn't be much residue left.  New Askos rinse up to 7 times. 

Post# 930808 , Reply# 63   4/6/2017 at 04:48 (442 days old) by brucelucenta ()        

I think that you can get most clothes clean in just about any washer. I do know that with front load machines there really is virtually no lint at all. It all drops off the clothes or towels or anything else and lint goes through the holes in the drum to the bottom of the outer tub where it is pumped out. With a top load machine it just doesn't happen that easily. Rinsing several times in a front loader gets all the soap residue out of the clothes much better than one rinse in a top loader too. With a front load machine, the clothes are dropped over and over in soapy water to clean them. In a top loader something actually physically engages with the clothes forcing them to move. What do you think would be easier on the clothes?

Post# 930928 , Reply# 64   4/6/2017 at 19:56 (442 days old) by rapunzel (Sydney)        

CR research is supposed to be unbiased. As for the 'scientific' research that has found the gold standard for water to clothes ratios and the best agitation technology to satisfy that standard, please show it to me. With all the claims and counter claims I have yet to see a 'scientific' paper, from an independent research body not connected to the appliance industry, that proves that front loading washing machines of x capacity, using y liters of water, achieve the best laundry outcomes possible. Of course this paper would have to prove via that same 'scientific' process that top loaders are unequal to the task.

A number of commercial laundry industry bodies claim that top loaders harbor more bacteria than front loaders and must therefore not be considered for use in large residential settings like nursing homes, motels etc. - I have not ever seen evidence that supports this claim either. When and where did clothes, laundered in top loading washing machines, cause cross infections and outbreaks of disease? I've been scouring the internet for evidence, but have, so far, been unsuccessful in locating anything at all. They don't even qualify where, inside the machines they have tested, these reservoirs of bacteria are located and what the chances are of clothes actually coming into contact with them. Their apparent studies also do not take into account that, in commercial residential settings, clothes are machine dried. Which would further reduce any bacterial load left on laundered clothes and linen. However, commercial and residential establishments are now forced to buy these very expensive 'commercial' front loaders. Having worked with both top and front loaders in that set-up, I can see how an industry body can force businesses into spending more money on products that inherently do not provide better outcomes for users. It's a real money spinner though.

Post# 930972 , Reply# 65   4/6/2017 at 22:07 (442 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, Thereīs a Lady on Stage)        
There is plenty of research out there on bacterial counts

launderess's profile picture
In regards to laundry if you but care to look:

Post# 930974 , Reply# 66   4/6/2017 at 23:18 (442 days old) by toploadloyalist (San Luis Obispo, CA)        

My user name shows which I prefer! I was going to use "toploaderloyalist", but ran out of room for those characters.

Post# 931036 , Reply# 67   4/7/2017 at 11:09 (441 days old) by rapunzel (Sydney)        

That's right laundress - however in the cases of nursing home laundry staff spreading gastroenteritis among residents and care staff, this occurred, not because of the washing machines that were being used, but the way that laundry staff were handling contaminated laundry. One paragraph referred to a faulty tunnel washer that was suspected of cross-contaminating linen.

None of the articles that you linked to make any distinctions between domestic top and front loaders at all. They reference laundry processes, chemicals and temperatures however. Neither is there any mention of clothes being machine dried and how that affects bacterial and viral loads on laundry. Based on the proposition that high temperature are most effective at killing lots of pathogens, I surmise that traditional American tumble dryers are probably the best at killing off anything that may be left on laundered clothes.

Bacteria are mostly good for us, especially the ones that we commonly encounter in our regular environments. They give our immunity the workout that it needs to help us survive. Getting sick with common bacterial and viral infections is actually good for us. We will never eliminate pathogens. They are part and parcel of the world we live in and they can grow in the most unexpected places.

Post# 931059 , Reply# 68   4/7/2017 at 14:02 (441 days old) by johnny42 (Glasgow)        
Tl or Fl washer

johnny42's profile picture
Ok...ok...!!! Yes, I am about to do something which I have never done before....yes I am going to try a Front Load washer and compare the results

Post# 931067 , Reply# 69   4/7/2017 at 14:28 (441 days old) by akronman (Akron/Cleveland Ohio)        

akronman's profile picture
I own and use toploaders, twin tubs, and the occasional wringer. I don't own a FL but's it's because I like the 60's 70's era US machines, and the Hoover twinnie built a stone's throw away in Canton OH, and I like restoring/finding/working the antiques. I don't have anything against FL's, I just haven't yet needed to buy one when I have a basement FULL of washers already.

But one thing I bet they outperform TL on: kids nylon winter coats. they fill with air and just stay on the top of the TL's, never pulled under. For the offbeat "floating" clothing, I'll someday pick up a used FL if local Craigslist has a cheapie.

But from what I've seen at friends homes, I trust my TL's to rinse better.

Post# 931074 , Reply# 70   4/7/2017 at 15:01 (441 days old) by Unimatic1140 (Minneapolis)        

unimatic1140's profile picture
The title of this thread is a bit too generic because grouping an LG or Samsung Front Loading washer and a vintage Westinghouse FL in the same category doesnít really work. The same goes with comparing a modern base impeller top-loading washer with a Frigidaire Unimatic or a vintage Whirlpool belt-drive TL, it just doesnít work.

So about two months I was given this 2007 LG washer. The door hinge was frozen in the open position due to corrosion from a leak in the boot. If fixed the leak and took the door hinge apart and greased it and now it works perfectly. So after using the Unimatic almost exclusively for a few months, I have now used the LG nearly exclusively as it was designed without making any mechanical adjustments for over a month and here is my personal opinionÖ

For washing ability Iíd say it is excellent. It seems to clean well and remove stains from things. You only need about 1/8 to 1/4 of the detergent that I use in my vintage machines although for me personally I couldnít care less about the amount of detergent I use, whatever works best for each machine Iím fine with.

Rinsing is another story. I see a lot of people calming that these new front loaders are rinsing better but in my opinion this has not my experience. I always use the extra rinse option (so three rinses total in the LG) along with the ďwater plusĒ feature. While it seems to rinse okay, what Iíve noticed is sheets still have quite a bit of detergent smell for two to three days after putting them back on the bed. With most of my vintage machines this is not the case using the same Tide detergent, but more of it in the vintage machines. When I put sheets back on the bed there is little to no smell of detergent what so ever out of the vintage machines, especially the solid tubs. I have huge newish Turkish bath sheet white towels. I always use bleach on these and I can clearly smell bleach on the towels when I remove them from the LG. I never smell bleach when I remove those towels from the Unimatic where I normally wash them. I use 1/4 cup of bleach in the LG and 3/4 of a cup in the Unimatic bleach dispenser. Another big difference I noticed is the towels are slightly less soft when washed in the LG than they are out of the Unimatic. Iím not sure if that is attributed to rinsing ability or not, but I suspect it is. I donít use fabric softener in towels that are less than a year old.

Water extraction seems really good, I use extra high speed spin for nearly everything. Iíve been drying most loads in the Wards gas dryer which has a very accurate auto-dry cycle. Loads of 4 large bath sheets towels are drying in nearly the same time (about 25 to 27 minutes) as the Unimatic or GE AW6, both with 1140rpm spin. Those same towels take 35 to 40 minutes to dry in the Wards dryer from my vintage machines that spin below 700 rpm.

As for overall gentleness Iím not quite sure and need more time to experiment. I did notice after a month of using the LG the back pockets of my Diesel jeans were starting to fray slightly. I donít know if that would have happened anyway using any of my other machines, but the Diesel jeans that I wear generally last a long time. Iím not convinced that the smack action of tumbling those clothes in a small pool of water with a large vertical fall for 40 to 45 minutes overall between wash and rinses is all that gentle, then tumbling again in the dryer.

Dryer lint seems slightly less out of the LG about on par with my non-back and forth style agitator washers. Back and forth agitation seems to produce the most linting. However the difference overall is not all that much.

So Phil is right, Iím not convinced that this method is superior for overall results. However the savings in water is significant which is good that the general population is heading in that direction.

Overall Iíd say it is an excellent washer for the masses. Most people unless they are allergic will never notice the difference between properly rinsed and just okay rinsed clothes. I did have a GE Harmony washer a while back and was not at all impressed with that machine, I thought it was way rough on the clothes unless you forced it to fill all the way up. If I had to choose between a modern front loader and a modern top loader for sure I would pick the modern front loader. Thankfully however I donít have to make that choice.

Post# 931088 , Reply# 71   4/7/2017 at 17:20 (441 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, Thereīs a Lady on Stage)        

launderess's profile picture

"That's right laundress - however in the cases of nursing home laundry staff spreading gastroenteritis among residents and care staff, this occurred, not because of the washing machines that were being used, but the way that laundry staff were handling contaminated laundry. One paragraph referred to a faulty tunnel washer that was suspected of cross-contaminating linen.

None of the articles that you linked to make any distinctions between domestic top and front loaders at all. They reference laundry processes, chemicals and temperatures however. Neither is there any mention of clothes being machine dried and how that affects bacterial and viral loads on laundry. Based on the proposition that high temperature are most effective at killing lots of pathogens, I surmise that traditional American tumble dryers are probably the best at killing off anything that may be left on laundered clothes. "


No offence meant, and with all do respect, this debate between commercial/industrial laundries and domestic is moot. Especially as it relates to healthcare laundry.


By their nature of their business laundry from hospitals or other healthcare related are going to contain linens mildly to grossly soiled with blood, feces, and other bodily fluids. This along with various pathogens.  It is also known that depending upon end user of linens (elderly, very young/infants, those with compromised immunity systems, etc...) certain said pathogens that survive the laundering processing could prove dangerous or even fatal.


Best practices have long been established to deal with the risk of transmission of disease via soiled healthcare linen. These standards received a boost after HIV/AIDS came upon the scene causing renewed focus not just upon patients but workers coming into contact with soiled linen.


Unless someone at home is routinely laundering textiles heavily soiled with blood, feces or whatever there is little to worry about from whatever is "growing" in a washing machine, top or side loading.


Have said this before and it is worth repeating, if washing machines and or dryers in domestic use were capable of transmitting serious diseases you'd have seen vast outbreaks by now; but you haven't have you?


Yes, when someone is ill in the home, elderly, an infant or other special situation that laundry can pose an issue. Advice now is the same as it has been for ages; consult one's physician, a professional nurse, or other healthcare professional for advice.


Think about it; for years hundreds of housewives and mothers laundered cloth diapers in top loading washing machines (both automatic and semi), and yet you didn't see any correlation between increased illness and or mortality within said households.


Commercial and or industrial  laundries by nature of their business (mingling of various linens/textiles from many sources into one wash load), have long been required by local statues and or best practice standards to take steps to ensure proper sanitation. Hence the often aggressive laundering process that involves very high temperatures over several cycles, heavy use of bleach (chlorine), and even many changes of water.


Tunnel washing machines by nature of design "can" cause infection of laundry. This is likely more true of bottom flow washers that use counter-flow water direction.  However many new designs use "top transfer" and or even systems that basically treat the washing as if it moved through a succession of pony washers.


There are also tunnel washers certified to meet various EU standards for disinfection. That is one, two or more compartments will heat water to temps at or > 170F, and hold for required time to satisfy the standard.


Yes, there probably are all sorts of nasty things growing in a domestic washing machine. But then again so is it likely to be the same on toilet seats, shower curtains, various surfaces in the W.C., inside dishwashers, on the bed linen slept on last night and so forth.


Each time a human being makes wind it expels air laden with at least e coli and other "gut" bacteria. Yet you don't see persons rushing to change their undergarments and clothing each time they break wind do you? Studies have shown most shower curtains are grossly contaminated with all sorts of pathogens (mainly e coli but others as well), yet you come into contact with said shower curtain each time you bathe, and worse are naked with wet skin at the time. Again you don't hear of people keeling over in the hundreds do you?



Post# 931091 , Reply# 72   4/7/2017 at 17:44 (441 days old) by rapunzel (Sydney)        
On washing bulky air-filled items

I frequently wash feather doonas (duvets) and pillows in my top loader. The secret is to get the water pulled through the material into the stuffing. It takes a little extra work, but my system works just fine. All my doonas are singles, I don't like the pull and tug with king sized ones; what's on my side of the bed is mine or my partner has to come over and try to get it off me.

Anyway, I fill my washer half way with warm water and dissolve some detergent. Then I stop the machine and push in the donna or (two) pillows to get them thoroughly submerged and wet. I let it soak for a while without agitation. To extract the air I turn the dial to spin so that the detergent water gets pulled right through the item(s). When that is done all the air will have been pulled out of the duvet (doona) and it's reduced in size by three quarters of its original volume. I then let the machine fill with hot water and fresh detergent and allow it go through its chosen cycle and, voila, clean feather down bedding. After that it goes straight into my SQ dryer and comes out all, fluffy, fresh and warm.

I have washed these air-filled, big, floaty, feather down quilts in front loaders at work. From what could be observe, there is no major reduction in the size of the item until after the first spin pulls out all the air. Usually I have to run two cycles for when I wash duvets at work, because they don't have a pre-wash option.

The same principle applies with quilted, nylon winter coats. They get washed on gentle cycle, but first the air has to come out. Again, I let them soak in the washer in warm, soapy water before I spin them out and refill the machine to let them wash. It works just fine.

This post was last edited 04/07/2017 at 20:41
Post# 931097 , Reply# 73   4/7/2017 at 18:54 (441 days old) by rapunzel (Sydney)        

Laundress, I absolutely respect the fact that you are extremely knowledgeable when it comes to all things laundry.

However, after skimming through much of the material that you have linked, there still is no clear and established proof that top loading washing machines are singularly or primarily responsible for major disease outbreaks in commercial settings such as motels and residential aged care places. Or that they are inadequate for these environments; or that we need to worry about using top loaders in laundromats. This being contrary to industry body claims that front loaders provide a superior alternative to top loaders and therefore they enforce a standard that is largely driven by pecuniary interest than actual facts.

Post# 931136 , Reply# 74   4/7/2017 at 22:03 (441 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, Thereīs a Lady on Stage)        
That is what am saying.

launderess's profile picture
First of all you won't find top loading washing machines with central beaters in commercial/industrial laundries. Laundromats are another story but even there they have been vanishing for decades in favor of H-axis washing machines.

What have been attempting to say the number of disease outbreaks directly traced to domestic washing machines is nearly nil. Commercial or industrial laundries are another matter, and even then that would depend upon what sort of washing is routinely processed.

What happens to laundry after it is washed/processed is another matter. The two recent outbreaks of fungal infections in USA hospitals came from linen not properly stored and or transported after cleaning, not from the laundering process.

As for H-axis washing machines vs. top loading with a central beater; well, yes the former are rather superior to the latter in terms of commercial laundries and or even for healthcare/care home linens. Again you don't see top loading washing machines being used in such settings much if at all, and there are good reasons.

First and foremost top loading washing machines cannot or do not have heaters. This makes temperature of wash and or rinse waters totally dependent upon what comes out of the taps. Since the minimum recommended water temp for dealing with germs (E Coli) is around 165F, you just aren't going to get that in a top loader. Well suppose it is possible by having the boilers cranked up and using circulators, but then you are talking about temp of water will still decrease upon contact with washing.

Then there are front loaders designed to deal with hospital/healthcare laundry called "sluice" washers.

Even h-axis washing machines not strictly marketed as sluice washing machines, can be set to do multiple high level pre-rinses.

Post# 931145 , Reply# 75   4/7/2017 at 22:35 (441 days old) by rapunzel (Sydney)        

Of course you wouldn't find vertical axis washers in large laundry operations. The design doesn't lend itself to washing and rinsing commercial volumes of laundry that are processed by tons rather than a few pounds, by the very nature of that design. Not only is the engineering of such a machine impractical and too costly, but the concept of a vertical axis top loader that could wash a ton of linen is irrational. Nor is that the premise of my previous posts. I was always referring to commercial situations that generate regular wash loads which can be laundered in a household sized machine by one person and without the need for mechanical aids to shift the laundry from washer to dryer.

Top loaders did have heaters in the past. Not in America, but here in Australia and in the UK. Also, LG currently offers a heater in one of its top loaders. And, yes, it is possible to have a dedicated water heater with a higher hot water temperature for laundry. This is the case at some of the places that I work at. They also have a sluice washer for heavily soiled linen before these are then dispatched to the commercial laundry. Thus their linen are actually washed twice.

This post was last edited 04/07/2017 at 22:55
Post# 931238 , Reply# 76   4/8/2017 at 10:36 (440 days old) by polkanut (Wausau, WI )        

polkanut's profile picture

We have a 1998 Maytag Dependable Care toploader w/ the suds saver option that we still use on a weekly basis.  It is very economical to use because we save on hot water and detergent.  I'm including a link to an article about that I posted about it in the Deluxe forum in 2015.

Post# 931325 , Reply# 77   4/8/2017 at 20:45 (440 days old) by Twinniefan (Sydney Australia)        
Front load convert here

twinniefan's profile picture
Well since buying the F&P front loader4-5 months ago, I'm sold on front loaders.
Since using this one , I have noticed very little linting, very little wear and tear on my new work shirts and the stain removal does seem superior to the old LG TL.
I believe some front loaders have an issue with insufficient rinsing, but my F&P uses a reasonable amount of water during rinses and has an extra rinse which can be used if needed.
As for long cycles, I really only use the 59 minute everyday cycle anyway and it is sufficient to get the job done.
On balance I couldn't see myself changing back to top loaders.

Post# 931373 , Reply# 78   4/9/2017 at 06:55 (439 days old) by mayken4now (Panama City, Florida)        

mayken4now's profile picture

"Ok...ok...!!! Yes, I am about to do something which I have never done before....yes I am going to try a Front Load washer and compare the results "
Did you see our webmasters post in length about the LG front loader?  He decided to give it a test.  Reply #70, your post TL or FL

Post# 931377 , Reply# 79   4/9/2017 at 08:00 (439 days old) by Bobbi (Pennsylvania)        

There was a comment about front loaders taking much more time than TL. This is true to a degree, but that can be compensated for by choosing a FL with Delay Start and having one load out of the way when one gets up on laundry day. Additionally, modern FL machines have considerably more capacity than traditional TL, which reduces the number of loads.

There was a comment that one's laundry day can be finished much more quickly with a TL. The reality for me is that I can have my laundry completed in 2.5 hours with a FL, whereas my TL water saving laundry setup took 4.5 hours. There are a number of reasons for this. First, delay start gets me a load ahead before I even wake up - I do my worst (longest) load first. Second, my TL machines had much less capacity - now instead of having to break my darks into two loads, they can be done in one load. Third, due to linting in my TL I would have to do my husband's work shirts/hoodies separate from his jeans. With my FL all can be done in a single load. What used to be at least 5 loads is now 3.

Another consideration is water usage. It is a non-issue for some, but not for all (though perhaps it should be?). I have a well, septic, and whole house water softener, so the less water I can use, the better. When I was using TL machines, I was practicing reusing wash and (partially) rinse water between a wringer, TL and Hoover twin tub, but let me tell was quite a spectacle. The FL makes things so much simpler for me, and I can catch up on other chores between loads, even with hanging laundry to dry. All in all, a FL with delay start and on-board water heater just streamlines everything and does it efficiently. I have also seen a couple HE top loaders that worked great too.

There was a comment about an LG Tromm not rinsing well. I am not noticing this with my LG True Balance.

Though I was apprehensive about going back to a FL machine after two FLers that did not perform well, I am pleased with my LG and would not go back to a traditional TL machine as a daily driver. It takes a lot of effort to save my water in my small laundry space, there's too much lint, and they generally are not as good at extraction. Just my experience, though.

Post# 931379 , Reply# 80   4/9/2017 at 08:25 (439 days old) by johnny42 (Glasgow)        

johnny42's profile picture

I have read in full post #70. I have conducted similar experiments and have found TL's to produce the most lint. However, I did not notice a difference in cleaning power. I got 2 pair of Levi's , stained them with Tomato ketchup, beetroot and Irn Bru. I put 1 Levi's in Tl machine and the other in a Fl machine. The TL machine finished first. Once the FL machine had finished, I dried the jeans. There was no difference in the cleaning performance. Just more lint with the TL machine. I will still use my TL as it's what I am used to. Especially my wringer washer, which I love using.

Post# 931389 , Reply# 81   4/9/2017 at 09:34 (439 days old) by brucelucenta ()        

I agree with what you have stated. The reason I use the maximum amount of rinses is so I will have ALL the soap residue out of my clothes. It seems to be working quite well for me adding the additional 3 rinses. One other thing I do is that I do not put bleach in the dispenser, I wait until the wash has washed for several minutes and add diluted bleach to the detergent part of the dispenser and it goes right in. That way I have no bleach smell to white clothes when they come out. Mine is LG made too. It is far better than the modern HE top loaders and easier on clothes. I know it really does use a LOT less water than even the old solid tub machines that rinse once. If there were someone who still made a solid tub washer like Frigidaire did, that would be what I would have. Sadly they don't, so I am using what I think works the best these days. I have to admit, I like being able to wash a really huge king size bed spread or comforter at home and not go to the laundromat.

Post# 931400 , Reply# 82   4/9/2017 at 10:44 (439 days old) by PassatDoc (Orange County, California)        

When my Frigidaire 2140 was delivered in March 2006, for the first load I ran "clean" clothing, hanging in my closet, which had been washed in my previous GE TL. I ran the load without detergent, and could see suds from residual detergent left in the clothes by my single rinse TL. The 2140 had an extra rinse button, which granted today's FL's no longer have (government mandate), but I did the same test on a load washed by the 2140 and never saw residual suds.

Post# 931404 , Reply# 83   4/9/2017 at 11:11 (439 days old) by mayken4now (Panama City, Florida)        

mayken4now's profile picture

With all about the rinsing.  Wonder if the government mandates by the DOE can watch to see what I am turning my Maytag A608 dial to?  Often, we repeat the spray rinse (as Launderess said many years ago) on "gentle action" to slow the spin speed, hence more water saturation with less extraction.  Then let the machine do a second rinse on it's own, back to "regular action"  WHOA, that means it is filling three times instead of twice + spray rinses.  Betta Hide Quick.


Hence, you can rewash or rinse as you please without anyone knowing!


Okay, John,  on your experiment with the two machines.  I'd bet they are just as clean, only one with more lint in the dryer.  Have experienced all that myself with having the luxury of multiple washers in use at once.


Bruce, I'd have overflow rinse in a heartbeat if it were re-created.  


`Jim - have done the same thing before.  Actually, when purchased the MAH4000's tried the same thing with "clean" clothes, as per the owners manual.  Results, still suds in the clothing.  



Post# 931429 , Reply# 84   4/9/2017 at 14:01 (439 days old) by johnny42 (Glasgow)        

johnny42's profile picture

That's absolutely correct sir. !! And the top loader left the most lint when I cleaned the lint filter from the dryer.

Post# 931489 , Reply# 85   4/9/2017 at 20:51 (439 days old) by rapunzel (Sydney)        
Hi Steve,

I am glad you are enjoying your F&P front loader honeymoon rosy glow and that it gives you many years of satisfaction. However, I think Malcolm hit the nail on the head in reply #56.

As for linting, I put almost everything I wash through the dryer. There is only a lot of lint in the filter when I dry a large load of bath towels. All other laundry produces very little lint residue. I can run the dryer for 3 or 4 loads before I need to clean the lint screen.

Post# 931500 , Reply# 86   4/9/2017 at 22:19 (439 days old) by Washerlover (Lake County, California: Wines With Altitude)        
Lint, Schimnt!

washerlover's profile picture
Thank you Johnny42, for conducting such a scientific experiment! So from an "energy saver" standpoint, which is truly more efficient? Top loaders do not take more than two hours to wash a normal load like front loaders do, however front loaders use much less water. Yet top loaders can finish a normal load in approx 30 mins, vs top loaders at two plus hours. And here in the United States in some/most cases, it takes water to generate electricity, so are we really saving energy? And using a clothes dryer will handle any lint issues unless one prefers to use a clothes line. Just my thoughts on the matter...

Post# 931507 , Reply# 87   4/9/2017 at 22:56 (439 days old) by rapunzel (Sydney)        

Energy efficiency in laundry is 99% about hot water and has very little to do with the electricity used to actuate the mechanical wash action. If hot water is generated from less expensive and renewable sources the energy efficiency argument falls flat.

Here in Australia fresh water use by households makes up less than 10% of our national water consumption. Something like 98% of all potable water is used by industry, agriculture, businesses and lost through evaporation as well as old plumbing infrastructure. Even if all Ozzie households changed over to front loaders instantly, the savings to our national water resources would be absolutely negligible and not worth the millions of taxpayers' money spent by governments to make consumers buy the products politicians think we should.

Post# 931514 , Reply# 88   4/10/2017 at 00:22 (438 days old) by dartman (Portland Oregon)        

I like top loaders because that's what I'm used to and most are easy to service and get parts for that usually are cheap.
I bought a new Kenmore 28102 he top loader because the reviews were good and it's a direct drive that Whirlpool makes so again parts are available and cheap. BUT the main reason I bought it is my old direct drive Whirlpool was using a ton of water and was about to need a transmission. My water bill was 306 bucks for 3 month and that was too expensive. New machine is bigger, way quieter, and my water bill and use is much lower, plus clothes get cleaner. If I didn't have a stupid high water bill I probably would have stuck with my old school top loader or a newer version in better shape. So far only problem with the machine is a penny got under the impeller a few months after I got it, pulled it myself, cleared the penny, and put it back together, has run flawlessly since then. Got it in 13 and we'll see how long it lasts but happy so far.

Post# 931543 , Reply# 89   4/10/2017 at 05:53 (438 days old) by Twinniefan (Sydney Australia)        
Hi Olav

twinniefan's profile picture
Hi Olav, thanks for the response, yeah as I stated very happy with it so far, but maybe 5 months is too short a time to gauge performance accurately, but so far I'm impressed by it.
As I stated on balance I wouldn't change back, but I guess one should never say never.LOL

Post# 931557 , Reply# 90   4/10/2017 at 08:21 (438 days old) by DaveAMKrayoGuy (Oak Park, MI)        

daveamkrayoguy's profile picture

Top load for me--My sis has a front load diagonal tub (or drum) herself--Maytag Neptune to be exact--and that has yet to fail...



-- Dave

Post# 932111 , Reply# 91   4/12/2017 at 22:57 (436 days old) by Helicaldrive (St. Louis)        
I agree with Bruce

With a FL you do need 3 extra rinses, and then at that point results are superior to the FL or equal.

Really, 2 Tbl of LCB is ample. If you do a pre-wash, then the detergent enzymes get their chance to work first in the prewash, followed by LCB in the main wash. And the hot water stays hot in the main wash because the clothes and tubs get pre-heated by the prewash hot water.

Post# 932113 , Reply# 92   4/12/2017 at 23:03 (436 days old) by Helicaldrive (St. Louis)        
I meant

After 3 extra rinses in the FL, the results are superior or at least equal to the TL. Even if you do 1 or 2 extra rinses in the TL.

Post# 932163 , Reply# 93   4/13/2017 at 08:42 (435 days old) by HiLoVane (Columbus OH)        

I'm going to hedge on this one, and say it's more a matter of opinion based on experience.
In 2000, I bought an Asko pair. Despite their smaller capacity (a full-sized quilt just barely fit into the tumbler), this washing machine was by far, the best, bar none, I ever had. However, it became too costly to repair, and after 11 years, I had to let it go. It was replaced with a Maytag F/L. Bigger capacity; slightly faster spin; and unlike the Asko, which would start tumbling until it was filled with water,. the Maytag was "old school" in the sense that there was motion from start to finish (except, of course, for the pause to change tumbling directions).

Since I moved, and couldn't take the Maytag with me, and didn't have the money to buy another Asko, or a Miele, or even a SQ F/L, I did manage to get a deal on a SQ T/L. Say what you want about energy efficiency, and all. But, for my money, this does the job quite well. I'm happy with it, and as far as I'm concerned, that's all that should matter...along with the fact that it'll easily outlast any HE machine at any price.

Post# 932166 , Reply# 94   4/13/2017 at 09:29 (435 days old) by DaveAMKrayoGuy (Oak Park, MI)        

daveamkrayoguy's profile picture
I wonder what the capacity of this one Frigidaire front loader would have been like...

It seemed to be real short, the controls were over the door, and if I'd bought it for my late-mom, she would have found it hard to was anything in--and it probably wouldn't give a very long life either...!

Fortunately she left the world w/ her dream Maytag top-loader set...

-- Dave

Post# 935419 , Reply# 95   4/30/2017 at 03:40 (418 days old) by Johnny42 (Glasgow)        
TL or FL

johnny42's profile picture
Well folks, this has been quite a discussion. Thanks for everyone's participation and opinions. This has really helped me a lot.

Post# 935709 , Reply# 96   5/1/2017 at 17:00 (417 days old) by RevvinKevin (So. Cal.)        

revvinkevin's profile picture



I have always selected the "extra rinse" option any FL washer I use, especially the "newer" machines with even lower water levels.   I also always use the "express wash" cycle on my Kenmore He5t washer, being all water levels are slightly higher.


This little Miele washer I recently acquired does 4 rinses by default and no option to add more.  If I press the "rapid wash" button, it eliminates 2 rinses BUT, it does fill 1/3 of the way up the door glass during each of the 2 rinses.   I still feel the 45 minute wash time is more than excessive.  I'm also learning this little 6 kg (13.2 lb) washer holds larger loads than I thought it would.

  Photos...       <              >      Photo 1 of 3         View Full Size
Post# 935766 , Reply# 97   5/2/2017 at 00:05 (416 days old) by Mrsalvo (New Braunfels Texas)        

Very lengthy thread and most educational as well as highly opinionated. I think for most Americans, the top load washer will be the choice of most households, even though front load may perform better given the government water restrictions. Sometimes I think that we, in this club, forget that we are a unique group with a fascination for all things laundry, certainly most or all of my extended family and friends DO NOT share this fascination. Yesterday I paid a visit to Lowes and saw that there was a half row of front loaders, only 3 brands, and 4 1/2 rows of top loaders of more brands. If Lowes sold more FL I'm sure there would have been more offered, demand vs. supply. It might have been different had the mold and motherboard issues of the 1st generation FL been resolved much earlier. And this is South Central Texas where, historically, rain can be scarce in some years. Americans, for the most part, have short memories.
I agree, and believe, with previous posters that the supply of clean water is now an issue we ALL are going to have to take into consideration, not only laundry but in other area of daily usage. About 6 years ago we had a sever drought that did not let up for many months, combined with much higher population density in this region, strained private wells and the Edwards Aquafer to the max. The water that was being withdrawn was very murky and had an odor, never had the Aquafer dropped that low. Water is going to be an issue, even if rainfall levels provide normal or flood stages. Again, it's the population of the areas.
As for me, our household is top load, Speed Queen, to be exact. We have low water rates in San Antonio Texas, but I can assure you that if we had high rates or a private well go dry, I would have bought an HE unit. More and more I consider it a luxury to use the 54+ gallons of water it uses on one cycle, but I know things can change quickly and one reason I'm here is to monitor the experiences others are having with HE brands and models in case I HAVE to switch over. Our weather and climate is just weird, and unpredictable, these days. I LOVE the fast cycle times, and doing laundry pretty much the way my mother and grandmother did so many, many, years ago.

Post# 935772 , Reply# 98   5/2/2017 at 00:45 (416 days old) by petek (Ontari ari ari O )        
I haven't completely made up my mind.

petek's profile picture

But it's only been a couple of weeks since I got that free Duet front loader, my first front loader.   But I'm liking it so far. I haven't used all the cycles , just the normal cycle. I like how it really extracts the water and cuts down on the drying time. I like how easy it is to load/unload, it does have the pedestal.  If it didn't have the pedestal and the tilted drum  and I had to stoop over, well that would be a HUGE drawback for me.  And it's quiet compared to the trusty old GE. 


Now just yesterday I did a load with some Persil pearls. I bought some just for the heck of it.   When they dispensed into the washer a few of the pearls lodged on the bottom of the door boot and just slightly dissolved, no water was hitting them.  At the end of the cycle when I opened the door they were still there, mushy and I had to wipe them away with a rag before I pulled the clothes out.  

Post# 935906 , Reply# 99   5/2/2017 at 20:22 (416 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

Welcome to the wonderful world of HE front-loaders! The benefits are many; the drawbacks few. Stay away from Downy Unsoppable pellets, as well. They also like to wind up in the boot.

Post# 935934 , Reply# 100   5/2/2017 at 23:37 (415 days old) by rapunzel (Sydney)        

I am totally against pods and tablets. It is impossible to vary the dosage or control how quickly the wrapping breakes to release the detergent. As long as machines come with dispensers it is far better to use powder or liquids - at least they will be added at exactly the right time and not end up in some space where they do nothing.

Post# 935959 , Reply# 101   5/3/2017 at 05:07 (415 days old) by askolover (South of Nash Vegas, TN)        

askolover's profile picture

I always throw the pod in the drum first then the clothes.  It will begin dissolving while the washer is filling.  I've never had a pod NOT dissolve properly.

Post# 935972 , Reply# 102   5/3/2017 at 07:28 (415 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

I used pods/pacs for a couple of years and really liked them. I had a 2010 Frigidaire front-loading washer at the time. It didn't tumble before the fill began, so the pod didn't migrate to the boot. It also filled in one shot so the pod dissolved efficiently. Someone here mentioned that LG, which tumbles before the fill and then fills in short bursts, recommends that pods not be used in their washers.

The only time a pod didn't dissolve properly was when I wrapped it tightly in a towel, then stuck the towel in the center of a BobLoad of bath towels. The resulting purple stain was removed by rewashing the towel.

I'd still be using them but my Maytag has an auto-dosing system for liquid detergent. The only thing easier than tossing a pod in the tub is filling a dispenser once every couple of weeks and letting the washer decide the dosage according to load size, soil level, cycle, water temp and water softness/hardness.

And yes; toss the pod to the back of the empty drum before adding the clothes. That's Pod 101.

Post# 936003 , Reply# 103   5/3/2017 at 09:32 (415 days old) by Yogitunes (New Jersey)        

yogitunes's profile picture
well, from one test I did with a mason jar and a Tide pod, using ice cold water, it took just over two hours for it to pop open.....

so my advice, never use a pod of any sort unless your using true warm or hot water...or else dissolve it first in a jar with hot water, then add to the machine

what ever happened to Tide Cold Water anyway?.....I would love to see 'Cold Power' return to the shelves...

  View Full Size
Post# 936058 , Reply# 104   5/3/2017 at 17:11 (415 days old) by earthling177 (Boston, MA)        

Pods can be prevented from falling in the boot area by putting them into a nylon bag meant for delicate garments, then even if they land in the boot area, the bag will be dragged back into the wash.

Post# 936858 , Reply# 105   5/6/2017 at 21:29 (412 days old) by askolover (South of Nash Vegas, TN)        

askolover's profile picture

When I was using the Asko I didn't have to worry about a doesn't have one!  I sure wish other manufacturers would adopt this design.

Post# 936874 , Reply# 106   5/6/2017 at 22:27 (412 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, Thereīs a Lady on Stage)        
"what ever happened to Tide Cold Water anyway?.....

launderess's profile picture
Had a box of the original powder that foolishly gave to a family member as it was too sudsy for the Miele washer. She never used the stuff and indeed on one visit over a year later spied the stuff sat sitting a closet. About a year or so after that family member mentions she "found a home" for the stuff (gave her a box of old school TWB as well), so that was that. Should have taken both boxes back at the time. Needless to say no longer bother giving surplus laundry products to family if that is how they are going to behave.

P&G discontinued all powdered versions of Tide Coldwater not long after introduction IIRC. The liquids remain but vary by market. You cannot find the "free and gentle" version in North America apparently as P&G seems to believe only Canadians are worthy. Have asked P&G customer service several times about plans to reintroduce that product south of the border, and each time the response is "no, not at this time".

Pity really as love the results from bottle of TCW "free" in my stash. P&G states Tide "Free and Gentle" works in warm or "cold" water so that is them for you.

Tide Coldwater liquid is just too fragrant for one's tastes. Since mostly use the "20C" or "30C" settings on my European washers when doing delicate table or bed linens, just want really good cleaning power, but not anything too strongly scented. That is where Tide Coldwater "free" came in.

Never the less you can find persons selling the old powdered version of TCW on Ebay and elsewhere, same for the Canadian "free" liqud version. Just am not willing to pay the sums requested and very high shipping rates piled on.

Post# 936880 , Reply# 107   5/6/2017 at 22:41 (412 days old) by ryner1988 (Indianapolis)        
Another problem with front loaders that no one has mentioned

Is that in some situations, they are just too big. I know people like the fact that they can save space by being stacked, but what about the space they take up from front to back? For instance, in my apartment laundry closet, I'm afraid that front loaders would stick out too far and I wouldn't be able to get the closet doors closed. The closet is large so I kinda doubt it, but the apprehension is there so I did not buy a front loader. I think most are a good 5 or 6 inches deeper than top loaders.

Also, with my blindness, I generally prefer machines with simpler controls, and this is not usually the case with the electronic front loaders. Visual displays and buttons that modify the parameters of cycles, with no auditory feedback, no clicks, nothing except maybe an unhelpful beep to let one know the selection was made, are extremely frustrating for me. With the new top loader I purchased, whirlpool model number WTW4816FW, the controls are just knobs that click into place with each turn, and the start button is very distinctive. I don't want to be that person who doesn't seem to care about water usage, but it means a lot for me to be able to set my own wash cycles without help from a sighted person every single time.


Post# 936901 , Reply# 108   5/7/2017 at 02:02 (411 days old) by askolover (South of Nash Vegas, TN)        

askolover's profile picture

That's why I am limited to having compact front load machines.  The European ones fit fine, others I have to take a tape measure to see if they are too deep.  I can fit a standard full-size dryer in there, but it doesn't have pipes behind it like the washer does.   Plus...the bigger they are, the harder they are to balance.  Every time I visit the laundromat to wash a very large rug I am so aggravated at all the front load washers being used and they are less than half full!  And these are the smallest SQ units like the home units.  One would think people would want to save money and run them at capacity instead of loading 3 machines with the same types of clothes.  I've often considered giving an inservice on how to properly load one but I'm only there once or twice a year.

Post# 936908 , Reply# 109   5/7/2017 at 04:05 (411 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, Thereīs a Lady on Stage)        
Cannot speak for your laundromat

launderess's profile picture
But the larger SQ at ours have one more rinse cycle and seem to do a better job than smaller units.

Also don't forget even if a washer appears only half full during cycle, it very well may have been loaded so drum was quite packed at the start. Often as load is saturated things compact down.


The uber sized SQ front loaders at our local have *NO* problem balancing a load. Then again they are bolted into several feet of concrete. They do a slow distribution spin, then gradually ramp up to speed. Mind you if a load is unbalanced you can not only see the machine vibrate, but feel the movement coming up through floor from one's feet.

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.

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