Thread Number: 70690
/ Tag: Modern Automatic Washers
Modern washer the fills all the way |
[Down to Last] |
Post# 936618   5/5/2017 at 18:56 (2,539 days old) by chetlaham (United States)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
|
Post# 936730 , Reply# 2   5/6/2017 at 07:08 (2,538 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 936741 , Reply# 4   5/6/2017 at 09:34 (2,538 days old) by joeypete (Concord, NH)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
3    
|
Post# 937194 , Reply# 6   5/8/2017 at 19:25 (2,536 days old) by chetlaham (United States)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
I take this model can fill all the way up on both? Or is the rinse only a partial fill like those dreaded ropers?
www.homedepot.com/p/Whirlpool-3-5... |
Post# 937254 , Reply# 8   5/9/2017 at 01:27 (2,535 days old) by chetlaham (United States)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 937266 , Reply# 10   5/9/2017 at 02:07 (2,535 days old) by chetlaham (United States)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
1    
Thank you for clarifying this! :) If the goals is to concentrate cleaning of detergents, and perhaps get more water into garments- that agitation during the fill is still not justified in my book. IMO all its doing is wearing at the fabric. Ample water is one of the hallmarks of achieving low wear/linting in top load washers.
|
Post# 937270 , Reply# 12   5/9/2017 at 02:26 (2,535 days old) by chetlaham (United States)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
My trust in places like reviewed.com are limited... I'll leave it at that for now.
But, why force consumers to put up with extra roughness/wear when it can be eliminated? Could this be a ploy to perhaps even out impeller machines? Having sites such as consumer reports say 'in testing we have found that a deep fill conventional agitator washers produced just as much linting and clothing wear as an impeller washer. This proves the touted claim that conventional machines are gentler than HE impeller machines is pure myth'? Soon or latter consumers will be compelled to use 16 gallons or less per load. |
Post# 937275 , Reply# 14   5/9/2017 at 02:54 (2,535 days old) by chetlaham (United States)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
I know, but for a typical top loader at 3.5 cu regulations will force under 20 gallons in 2018, or at least somewhere in that ball park.
Top load vs front load. Id argue Europe chose front loads in the 50s due to limited resources- and FWIW my understanding is that front loads from the 50s and 60s used just as much water as US top loads. Though I could be wrong on that last part. |
Post# 937284 , Reply# 16   5/9/2017 at 05:09 (2,535 days old) by chetlaham (United States)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 937287 , Reply# 17   5/9/2017 at 05:18 (2,535 days old) by chetlaham (United States)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|