Thread Number: 73085  /  Tag: Modern Automatic Washers
The New SQ TL Washers
[Down to Last]'s exclusive eBay Watch:
scroll >>> for more items
Post# 965234   10/31/2017 at 23:05 (263 days old) by combo52 (Beltsville,Md)        

combo52's profile picture

We saw and dissembled the new SQs in training this morning. First Impressions

They are very well built and I expect them to be even more durable than current SQ TL machines, they are getting closer to the SQ FL machines in longevity.

The transmission is gone, the agitator is bolted to the SS wash basket and moves with the wash basket, on a heavy wash it turns 2 1/2 turns in each direction, it can turn less for a gentile wash motion.

It finally has a proper neutral drain with a separate electric drain pump.

It now has even less plastic in it than the current washer, the main drive pulley is a heavy duty cast aluminum construction.

The drive shaft is over 1 1/2" in diameter.

All controls are electronic, but the two lower priced models have knob type controls.

Now the bad part, I don't think a one piece tub and agitator will wash well, FD tried this a TL machine a few years ago and abandoned it after less than two years.

All SQ TL production will switch over to these new machines around the first of the year. If anyone wants a new traditional TL agitator washer but it fast.

John L.

  Photos...       <              >      Photo 1 of 4         View Full Size

Post# 965238 , Reply# 1   10/31/2017 at 23:51 (263 days old) by Mayfan69 (Brisbane Queensland Australia)        
What a change!

mayfan69's profile picture
Hi John,

Well, that's certainly a BIG change.

Like you, I'm wondering just how effective will the wash action be?

I was just thinking: isn't it going to be very 'splashy' with a full tub of water going backwards and forwards?

You'll certainly need to show how it washes when you get your hands on one.


Post# 965244 , Reply# 2   11/1/2017 at 01:20 (263 days old) by washdaddy (Baltimore)        

washdaddy's profile picture
definitely will be interesting to see this new concept that SQ is coming out with for their future TL machines.

We all will be anxiously waiting to see what your thoughts are once you've gone thru the training you mentioned.

Post# 965286 , Reply# 3   11/1/2017 at 04:33 (263 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

Hopefully the agitator/tub movement will be more effective than the impeller/tub action of Frigidaire's Immersion Care. At any rate, the 2018 models drop the curtain on the last of the truly 'vintage-style' top-loaders. End of an era. There's no question; my next washer will be a SQ front-loader.

Thanks for the inside information and photos, John!

This post was last edited 11/01/2017 at 07:10
Post# 965295 , Reply# 4   11/1/2017 at 05:17 (263 days old) by mtn1584 (USA)        
The last of the true agitator washers.........

Now I know what SQ meant when they said 'move more water through the clothes."
It's wonderful that the washer is built like a tank but if it doesn't wash well then what the hell is the point.
I cannot understand why companies refuse to listen to consumers, the average American turned to SQ for a traditional agitator washer. Not an impeller washer or an agi-tub washer, but an agitator that moves clothes and as Nana used to say "beats the clothes."
This agi-tub is not going to roll clothes over, but move them back and forth thorough the water instead which is NOT what SQ customers are looking for.
Well, next washer will have to be a front loader I guess.

Post# 965296 , Reply# 5   11/1/2017 at 05:50 (262 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

Wonder if cycle times will be longer to accommodate the new wash action?

Post# 965298 , Reply# 6   11/1/2017 at 06:08 (262 days old) by mayfan69 (Brisbane Queensland Australia)        
Cycle times

mayfan69's profile picture

John mentioned to me today the cycle times have been increased.


I'm sure he can correct me, but the cycle time for the Regular cycle is now 45 mins apparently




Post# 965301 , Reply# 7   11/1/2017 at 06:26 (262 days old) by tolivac (greenville nc)        

For me-this new SQ is a no-go-will just shop for washers at the swap shop as I have done for the past several years.You can get an agitator style machine that way.

Post# 965309 , Reply# 8   11/1/2017 at 07:13 (262 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

So glad my sister and I have the 2017 models! Having said that, can't wait to see video of the new machine in action.

Post# 965316 , Reply# 9   11/1/2017 at 07:43 (262 days old) by peteski50 (New York)        
Speed Queen!

peteski50's profile picture
I am a bit surprised that they will be doing a adj-tub style machine? To me it doesn't make sense. But whatever! I just hope they don't do anything to screw up the front load washers, I like the fact that they are simple and have good options.

Post# 965317 , Reply# 10   11/1/2017 at 07:48 (262 days old) by appnut (TX)        

appnut's profile picture

"I cannot understand why companies refuse to listen to consumers, the average American turned to SQ for a traditional agitator washer. Not an impeller washer or an agi-tub washer, but an agitator that moves clothes "


Get a grip people.  It's the government EPA Energy Star guidelines that drive this.  Consumer preference is irrelevant.  Manufacturers receive financial incentives for producing products that meet these guidelines. 


Now if SQ would just offer a front load model with a heater and boost water temperatures.  But based on discussions, I'd never want one of their dryers.  I'll stick with Whirlpool design dryers. 

This post was last edited 11/01/2017 at 08:42
Post# 965320 , Reply# 11   11/1/2017 at 08:15 (262 days old) by appnut (TX)        

appnut's profile picture

John, wasn't the original GE portable washer a one-piece agitator and tub too?  Those seemed to tangle very easily. 

Post# 965322 , Reply# 12   11/1/2017 at 08:19 (262 days old) by agiflow2 ()        

This is the problem Bob. People should have a choice. mtn1584 I couldn't agree more. This is why we bought these washers because nobody makes a proper top loader anymore. Now this is going away also.

I want to keep an open mind to this. It could turn out well, at least that is the hope anyway. I really hope Speed Queen can make this work out.

Combo, is there any chance we can see the agitub? If it is like the agitator Malcolm showed in the other speed queen thread than we will just have to wait and see how this thing performs.

Post# 965323 , Reply# 13   11/1/2017 at 08:31 (262 days old) by joeypete (Concord, NH)        

joeypete's profile picture
I think its a combination of gov't mandates AND customer preference. From what I can tell WP has had the hardest time adjusting to the new mandates, considering how many variants of machines they have had in the last 3 years or so. They keep changing! GE has stayed pretty stable and I feel like they had customer's preference in mind a lot earlier than WP. Just look at their Deep Fill feature. Instead of saying "Hey you can use auto load sensing or FILL the tub entirely", they say "Hey we have auto load sensing but if it's not enough you can add as little or as much water as you want". I like that control better. Hell they still have a few models that you can manually pick the water level. In particular their lower end model (including Hotpoint). I did notice that in their new manuals for these machines though, they added a Precise Fill option to the load size indicator...that's probably to comply with the 2018 standards.

Post# 965332 , Reply# 14   11/1/2017 at 09:02 (262 days old) by appnut (TX)        
Water temperatures

appnut's profile picture

John, are these now going to be dumbed down or can one still get non-regulated temps for warm & hot, based upon water heater settings? 

Post# 965340 , Reply# 15   11/1/2017 at 10:06 (262 days old) by coldspot66 (Plymouth, Mass)        

Looks a bit like a mode shifter from a GE hydrowave washer.

Post# 965346 , Reply# 16   11/1/2017 at 10:26 (262 days old) by mrsalvo (New Braunfels Texas)        

I think we are all waiting with baited breath if the new models are going to cut it.
Am glad that I bought my SQ when I did when the Kenmore T/L died, so far it's held up pretty good with all the laundry I've had to do this year with my Dad's illness and treatments, though I've noticed lately it's running MUCH louder.

Given my experience with what we've been through this year, if I ever do need to replace my SQ it will be with a front loader with an internal heater to get that water hot for sanitizing clothing, no if's, and's, or butt's about it. [I've been looking around, keeping an eye out as to what would work, even though we are still in treatments right now. The trade off would be longer cycle times, I'm running about 10 loads a week currently, as I can't have the TB laden clothing lying around...not comfortable with that.]

Change is so often hard to accept anyway and even though the machine may be built like a tank, if it doesn't wash well...what's the point???!!! Not a fan of the one piece agi-tub, that would have been a no-go for me. GE seems to have gotten it right after the earlier nightmares they came out with.
We all will see what happens with SQ. We wait.

Thank-you John for posting your findings, much appreciated.


Post# 965355 , Reply# 17   11/1/2017 at 10:48 (262 days old) by GusHerb (Chicago/NWI)        

The new design isn't as dramatically different as I had expected. The agi-tub setup is not something I want though. Glad I got my machine when I did, though I'm half tempted to buy another and store it away, but alas I don't exactly have the money to spend on that or the place to store it.

Post# 965359 , Reply# 18   11/1/2017 at 10:58 (262 days old) by agiflow2 ()        

What are sales figures for current top load speed queens? That is a good indicator of people who KNOW what they want. Most reviews I have read for top load speed queens are overwhelming positive. Who are these consumers who want change?

Post# 965360 , Reply# 19   11/1/2017 at 11:00 (262 days old) by johnb300m (Chicago)        

johnb300m's profile picture
LOL....OMG people.
It's not even for sale yet.

You're crucifying your sacred brand because of a modern mechanism change.
And you haven't even tried them yet, because they don't wash clothes the same way they were done 100 years ago?

It's just like all the futile FL machine arguments on here.
They use less water, but all us modern FL users here keep saying they're working quite well and all our clothes are clean.
Yet some people dictate that our experiences must be wrong because they "feel so." (eyeroll)
What if these new machines perform dang good and wash like the dickens, but just don't do it the way YOU want it too?
Does that make them bad?

Mechanically, I agree with John. Looks like these things are TOUGHER than the current chassis.
That drive shaft is HUUUUGE.
It's bigger and thicker than some cars!
And there's no mode shifter on here that I see.
Hence why the agi. and tub move together, all the time.
Since it's the mode shifters that always seem to break, looks like SQ eliminated that trouble spot.

Now it's no secret my disdain for the cult following of SQ and their meager performance [ INNNN MYYYY OPINIONNNNN ]
But if they can pull this off in this MORE tank-like platform, more power to them! I'm still glad there's another US laundry maker around.

Post# 965382 , Reply# 20   11/1/2017 at 12:44 (262 days old) by duttyb11 (Mountain City)        
Oh my...

so i dont understand will the new machines tub move in the opposite direction as the agitator...will the agitator remain stationary....will this machine produce less sound and sound more like a front loader? will spin speed stay the same?

Post# 965385 , Reply# 21   11/1/2017 at 13:06 (262 days old) by agiflow2 ()        

Johnb300m. I for one hope these do well, i will as I said have an open mind about these new washers. Speed Queen I am sure know what they are doing. This company has been around for soo long. I am sure they have studied and done their homework. If not there is always their front load washer to consider or WP flers.

Post# 965386 , Reply# 22   11/1/2017 at 13:15 (262 days old) by brucelucenta ()        

The one thing I would really like to see is a pic of the inside of the new machine, agitator and tub.

Post# 965387 , Reply# 23   11/1/2017 at 13:20 (262 days old) by henene4 (Germany)        

A few things came to my mind.

First, there is nothing in the way of a transmision or torque converter used. Thus, building these should be somewhat cheaper. So maybe they'll be abled to pass those savings on.

Second of all, these should be quieter, given that they should use an inverter type motor now and becuse there is no more transmission.

Next, one would suppose they enabled a higher spin speed. No transmission that would suffer, it is a variable speed motor anyways and the drive system should be verry rugged in general. The transmission might have to be tweaked for higher spin speeds.

Further, given that these do not have a lid lock, I am intrigued by how they'll manage to stop that drum via motor and belt. One would assume opening the lid mid spin would wear down the belt rather quickly.

And, last but not least, the whole wash\rinse question. A good mechanical design with poor programming will still be awfull. A spray rinse in normal eco mode is given. Agitation will be interesting, but certanly better then the Frigidaire disaster. Maybe they'll use more soak pauses and thus score better in terms of gentleness?

Who knows, we will see...

Post# 965394 , Reply# 24   11/1/2017 at 14:30 (262 days old) by agiflow2 ()        

Actually Bob, Speed Queen dryers are fine machines. I followed the manufacturers instructions and found the spot between more and less dry * works on all loads I have dried very well. Mine has been working flawlessly since April 2013.

Post# 965410 , Reply# 25   11/1/2017 at 16:44 (262 days old) by GusHerb (Chicago/NWI)        

My only other reservation besides the wash action/programming/water temperature etc will be the electronics driving the motor. If they're using the same boards that drive the front loaders then we already know it should be ok but if it's something completely new then nobody will know for awhile. I doubt these machines will have any mechanical issues until they're already worn out, electronics OTOH will be another story. (But you can't escape that without going vintage anymore so SQ will probably still be the best bet).

I'm eager to get my hands on a manual for these to see how they're programmed.

Post# 965428 , Reply# 26   11/1/2017 at 18:02 (262 days old) by chetlaham (United States)        

chetlaham's profile picture
Thank you- and looking good :) Nice to see they have kept the suspension and metal parts.

Any pics of the agi?

Post# 965436 , Reply# 27   11/1/2017 at 19:00 (262 days old) by Maytag85 (Sean 1986 YouTube. )        
What happened to the transmission?

maytag85's profile picture
Why did they get rid of the transmission, and why is the agitator bolted to the tub? Speed Queen should ignore the department of energy requirements, and they should also ignore the EPA regulations. I've lost faith in Speed Queen. I can go on and on, and on about why they should have kept the transmission.

Post# 965438 , Reply# 28   11/1/2017 at 19:08 (262 days old) by henene4 (Germany)        
So why and how?

Tell why they should have kept the transmission and how they should ignore legislation?

Post# 965439 , Reply# 29   11/1/2017 at 19:12 (262 days old) by Maytag85 (Sean 1986 YouTube. )        
This makes my blood boil!!!!!!!!

maytag85's profile picture
I makes me angry they got rid of the transmission, and how the motor is going to reverse back and forth and going to sound obnoxious while in action! The EPA/Department of energy needs to mind their own damn business, and let us have washing machines that use water, and have a transmission that allows the washer to do its job. The only place these new Speed Queen washers deserve to go is the scrap pile...

Post# 965440 , Reply# 30   11/1/2017 at 19:15 (262 days old) by jkbff (Happy Rock, ND)        

jkbff's profile picture
How do you ignore a government mandate in the country you manufacture your product?

Post# 965442 , Reply# 31   11/1/2017 at 19:20 (262 days old) by henene4 (Germany)        

Probably gonna be way lower anyways. Less moving parts, less active time for the motor over all.

Interesting how you can hate a product that has not even yet made it to the production line...

Post# 965450 , Reply# 32   11/1/2017 at 19:41 (262 days old) by agiflow2 ()        

The job of the federal government is to protect its people. You want more government and this is what you get.

Post# 965453 , Reply# 33   11/1/2017 at 19:48 (262 days old) by Maytag85 (Sean 1986 YouTube. )        

maytag85's profile picture
It almost feels like we lost our American freedom...

Post# 965454 , Reply# 34   11/1/2017 at 19:51 (262 days old) by norgeway (mocksville n c )        
This is WHY

I'm using all vintage appliances, As soon as I find a suitable fridge I will have a total vintage kitchen and laundry, I intend to keep finding more vintage stuff and store them up , surely at 52 years old I can put away enough stuff to use the rest of my life, I DONT LIKE CHANGE...if I did I would have a range and a washer and dryer that had tons of computer boards and electronic gadgets!!as it is I have nearly 1000 vacuums and over 500 mixers and blenders, tons of vintage cookware and small appliances,I intend to buy up several sets of vintage washers and dryers and a couple of real dishwashers, with any luck I wont EVER have to put up with what the government says I should use!!!

Post# 965458 , Reply# 35   11/1/2017 at 20:01 (262 days old) by Maytag85 (Sean 1986 YouTube. )        

maytag85's profile picture
50 years ago and up we had more freedom, and we could create whatever we wanted to, but sadly those days are over. Again, the EPA/ Department of energy and the government needs to mind their own damn business. Speed Queen was a good company until they made their new POS machines. I don't even care for Speed Queen anymore...

Post# 965462 , Reply# 36   11/1/2017 at 20:23 (262 days old) by GusHerb (Chicago/NWI)        

And I thought I was taking the changes to the SQ TL lineup badly... 🙄

Post# 965474 , Reply# 37   11/1/2017 at 21:05 (262 days old) by chetlaham (United States)        
Boiling blood

chetlaham's profile picture
I do not blame Speed Queen. I blame the government for continually forcing people how to eat, think, live, feel, act, behave... ect, ect, ect, ect, ect. Society would progress more in 1 year then it has in the last 100 if free will wasn't a crime. I will leave it at that as its not the forum and I could rant to the point the server crashes. Yes I feel your pain brother, but their hands are tied.

But going back: with low water there is only so much you can do. Building a transmission with multiple revolutions and complex acceleration/deceleration (assuming that is being done here) is far to complex and there is more that can go wrong. Control boards are already used and perfected in FL washers, so I would imagine adapting them to this is a no brainier. Eliminating extra parts lowers costs and increases longevity.

I am on John's side regarding the agi tub, but in defense of Speed Queen this allows them to ditch the mode shifter which is nothing more than a part begging to fail. Can you imagine a mod sifter in a laundry mat with over loaded washers lasting as long? Not to mention a mode shifter can fail such that the agitator spins and not the tub.

But none the less I mourn the loss of a once great era. I feel your pain guys. But looking at the positive aspect we have a company that is still making long life washers. And with this design longevity potentially goes up. Yes the control board or motor might fail in X years, but can you compare that to the current transmission failing in X years? A failed control board might cost $$$$, but anyone can replace one. A transmission on the other hand requires the whole machine to be scrapped.

Post# 965475 , Reply# 38   11/1/2017 at 21:05 (262 days old) by agiflow2 ()        

Unfortunately I can't store up old machines, let alone finding parts to keep them running. I will have to accept whatever is available at the time. Not so bad I guess. Just wish manufacturers would have longevity and quality in mind.

Funny how we must "conserve" but throw a major appliance away in under 10 years because of built in obsolescence. What a joke. Some actually believe new appliances are better in overall reliability ? How so ?

I thank God my gas range has analog mechanical controls and a full width backlight. It will suck when I have to get rid of it. Though I will say I like the look of the new Frigidaire ranges with the red accents. Pretty sharp looking.

Post# 965476 , Reply# 39   11/1/2017 at 21:08 (262 days old) by chetlaham (United States)        
And ohhh

chetlaham's profile picture
Lets not forget the Speed Queen has kept the best parts like the suspension and metal outer tub. I think this shows they truly care despite being forced between a rock and a hard place.

Post# 965478 , Reply# 40   11/1/2017 at 21:20 (262 days old) by Maytag85 (Sean 1986 YouTube. )        

maytag85's profile picture
If the EPA/Department of energy were to be shut down, I could care less. We would be better off without the EPA/Department of energy regulations anyway. I said this already, but Speed Queen should have ignored the mandates by the EPA/Department of energy, and they should have continued to built traditional top load washing machines.

Post# 965481 , Reply# 41   11/1/2017 at 21:38 (262 days old) by agiflow2 ()        

True chetlaham, they could have went to plastic outer tubs. I never had a problem with plastic for the outer tub in the machines I had that had them though. At least they could never rust.

In this case though I am glad they kept the metal outer tub. One thing I noticed about my current speed queen that I got after the Bravos X was how quickly the speed queen filled with water. No wonder its called a Speed Queen. I just did a small load of whites before in just over half an hour with 2nd rinse engaged.

I do love that aspect of the machine and the wash action. That agitator is anything but anemic.

Post# 965485 , Reply# 42   11/1/2017 at 21:47 (262 days old) by cfz2882 (Belle Fourche,SD)        

might have some ribs stamped into the tub for the "scrubbing action"that Westinghouse and franklin built brands bragged about with the indexing tubs :)Might have good wash action with the moving tub if the inverter driven motor has enough torque for fast acceleration and strong water movement.Electricity use will be reduced considerably VS the across the line induction motor.Good they kept the porcelain outer tub.Should be very reliable and low maintenance IF the electronics are reliable(my 2010 VMW Cabrio had board problems caused by junk Chinese capacitors going sour)

Post# 965488 , Reply# 43   11/1/2017 at 21:53 (262 days old) by Maytag85 (Sean 1986 YouTube. )        

This post has been removed by the webmaster.

Post# 965509 , Reply# 44   11/1/2017 at 22:37 (262 days old) by norgeway (mocksville n c )        

This post has been removed by the member who posted it.

Post# 965512 , Reply# 45   11/1/2017 at 23:08 (262 days old) by norgeway (mocksville n c )        

This post has been removed by the member who posted it.

Post# 965513 , Reply# 46   11/1/2017 at 23:10 (262 days old) by Infusor (Usa)        

Alot of adults being very inmature, this is not the place for politics, can we start talking about how this is an interesting design again? Like we really need another machine with a "wash plate" i applaud speed queen for thinking outside of the box, you know everybody hated the calypsos and those were actually great machines! As far as the epa, we don't need clean air and water right???? Who cares about pollution..... trump thinks we don't 🤣😂

Post# 965514 , Reply# 47   11/1/2017 at 23:12 (262 days old) by johnb300m (Chicago)        

johnb300m's profile picture
Get a grip people.

Oh. And do none of you remember life before the EPA in the 70s, started by Nixon.
Rivers burned.
The air was arrestingly putrid on certain days in the mid 80s on the south side of Chicago. I was SIX, and I remember the air hurting.
We had a few water boil orders when I was a kid.

If all of you want the EPA abolished, ok, you got your pal Pruitt.

And if you think we aren't as competitive as China? Well you're right.
We get paid more. We can breathe our own air. Drink our own water (most of us at least).
Actually see our skylines again.
We're not ravaged with weird cancers and birth defects.
I'll take the US over China, our environment and our efficient machines.

I'm a bit blindsided by all the meltdowns on here. The abrupt lack of faith in the engineering prowess of your favorite company in the face of a little engineering challenge.

Post# 965515 , Reply# 48   11/1/2017 at 23:14 (262 days old) by norgeway (mocksville n c )        
One difference

In the 60s and 70s..WE MADE EVERYTHING, and MADE IT WELL, good quality textiles, etc..ITS ALL GONE!

Post# 965516 , Reply# 49   11/1/2017 at 23:20 (262 days old) by norgeway (mocksville n c )        

Erase my above comments because I decided they didn't belong here.I HOPE the Speed Queen design works, I personally will not own anything with circuit boards and touch controls, just my preference,..I am VERY biased, I really don't like anything newer than the 70s, So my opinions are odd to people who never grew up with good American built stuff.

Post# 965519 , Reply# 50   11/1/2017 at 23:46 (262 days old) by agiflow2 ()        

I'm old enough to remember when American made meant something. In my 50 years of life I remember when we had more than three companies making all the white goods we have now. A time when Whirlpool built real washing machines with heavy cast metal control panels and Frigidaire was a GM company.

It all seemed like it would never change. Funny how you think that things will always stay the same and then when it is gone you then really realize what you had.

If SQ can pull this off and make a good top loader I say more power to them! I will gladly continue to purchase their washers and dryers. Change can be very difficult.

Johnb300m you are a young guy and you have to understand there are people who have been around long enough to see the difference in the appliance industry today.

I certainly don't want to be a pessimist and poo poo everything that comes down the pike but the flimsy appliances of today were built much better in the 70s and and even the 80s. Many of us here remember that.

Post# 965524 , Reply# 51   11/2/2017 at 00:15 (262 days old) by Maytag85 (Sean 1986 YouTube. )        

maytag85's profile picture
How are the flimsy appliances of today better than the appliances of the 70's and 80's?


Appliances back then were built better, and were built to stand the test of time!

That is one of the dumbest things I ever heard! Everything from houses, to cars, and appliances were built to last!

The appliances that are around currently will not be around in 20 years, and will most likely be in the scrap yard.

A lot of the cars that are made currently will be in the junkyard in 20 years.

I can go on and on, but anything that is vintage is WAY better than most of the junk that is made today!

Post# 965535 , Reply# 52   11/2/2017 at 02:46 (262 days old) by Maytag85 (Sean 1986 YouTube. )        

This post has been removed by the webmaster.

Post# 965541 , Reply# 53   11/2/2017 at 04:56 (262 days old) by norgeway (mocksville n c )        
Time will tell guys

Time will tell, I remember in 86 a friend who worked at Sears bought one of the last belt drive TOL washers they got in, As far as I know the new belt drive has never been hooked up because his old one that was only about 5 years old then is still running,As for Whirlpool direct drives, Some folks think they are great, I think they are darn near the worst washer ever built...but my opinion doesent count for much, so I already am biased against the new SQ...just for the simple reason its new, and if I had my way, Unimatics and slant front Westinghouses would still be made!

Post# 965542 , Reply# 54   11/2/2017 at 04:58 (262 days old) by norgeway (mocksville n c )        

Solid tub Speed Queens with solenoids and 20 pound Norges...Need I say more!

Post# 965549 , Reply# 55   11/2/2017 at 07:09 (261 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

Sean--The only reason a few appliances and cars from the '70s and early '80s are still around is because of enthusiasts and collectors. Their natural lifespans were over many years ago. The vast majority of durable goods from those days have been in landfills a long, long time. The notion that all appliances lasted 20+ years back in the day is false.

On the EPA: Before you get too hysterical about energy mandates for washing machines and the trampling of your American freedom, watch some videos about the air and water quality problems in places like China and India. Am I happy about the lukewarm, dumbed-down water temps in many new washers? No. But there's no reason for a wholesale condemnation of the EPA. The quality of life and health we enjoy in far more important areas trumps the irritation about cool water and long cycle times in washers and dishwashers.

Post# 965551 , Reply# 56   11/2/2017 at 07:31 (261 days old) by askolover (South of Nash Vegas, TN)        

askolover's profile picture

Although I don't have a dog in this race I will be curious to see how this pans out.  I will only have a front-loader, will probably always have a European model, and it will more than likely be another Miele since Asko's are quite questionable in quality now.  I don't know if a SQ would fit in my closet like smaller European machines do.

Post# 965554 , Reply# 57   11/2/2017 at 07:47 (261 days old) by combo52 (Beltsville,Md)        
The New SQ TL Washers

combo52's profile picture

A few more points about these interesting new washers.


There was a picture of the tub and agitator posed a few weeks ago in another thread, I don't have a picture.


Back to the wash action, the SS wash basket is not ribbed.


The top spin speed is now 820 RPM


Only the Normal cycle has dubbed down wash water temperatures, other cycles still fill with all hot or warm water as selected, the normal cycle does an extended spray rinse instead of a deep rinse, the other cycles do a deep rinse.


You can chose from 3 water levels or use an auto setting where the machine determines needed water level bu motor loading.


The new cycle time has been extended to about 45 minutes in an attempt to get things clean with less agitation. My concern is if it had been this easy to build a TL washer without a transmission it would have been done 60 years ago. We will have to see how well it works, we have already ordered one but may not see it till around February. I will report on it soon after we get it.




SO GET USED TO IT, EVEN trump can't change this.


John L.




Post# 965556 , Reply# 58   11/2/2017 at 08:13 (261 days old) by Helicaldrive (St. Louis)        
Who knows

If the tub turns 2 1/2 revolutions and then stops, that will cause a pretty strong wall of water to swirl around the tub. If the agitator has the large side fins shown in Malcombs photo, the clothes will stay relatively stationary, and the water might actually flush through the clothes more effectively than in a traditional top loader. Itll be interesting to see. Id predict that both under and over loading would be fatal for effective wash action with this design. A bouncing Apex tub or bottom plate like the Calypso would seem to be far more effective and with less water, but there has to be a reason why the Calypso and Apex bouncing tub were short lived.

Post# 965563 , Reply# 59   11/2/2017 at 10:12 (261 days old) by johnrk (BP TX)        
re 'frigilux'

Thanks so much for injecting some sanity back in this discussion. I want what's best for our nation--and not just for us, but for those to follow. We modified detergents a few decades ago because of the harm the old ones were doing to the environment.

As you stated so well, this is a fringe interest element here. I'd love to have at least one of my old GE Filter-Flo sets back from decades ago, but I also don't deceive myself that my clothes were any cleaner than today, because they weren't. They were fun to use then and I used to love that big filter disc on top of the agitator.

There are still many thousands of Model T fans around the world, and rightly so. They're cool vehicles and a lot of fun to drive and keep going. But, can we imagine what pollution would be like with a world full of those now? I'm a car nut and I can remember how roundly all the car magazines and 'experts' condemned air bags initially. You sure don't see that now! Same for crumple zones on cars.

The EPA is doing what needs to be done. We killed off our bison in this country for the hell of it. The world drove whales nearly to extinction for their oil. Even if the Trump/alt-right drones deny it, we're in a climate warming situation that will affect generations to come, if they survive.

We drive vehicles that are huge and gas-guzzling because our government subsidizes the oil industry, and under-taxes our gasoline leaving us with less than stellar highways. This is apparently what Americans want.

Whatever else I am, car nut, gun owner/lover, I'm an American before all of that. I trust in the wisdom of Americans--eventual wisdom. If front loading washers are the future--which I think they are--then I'll go back to them because my two in the past cleaned beautifully and were fun to watch through the door window.

Post# 965573 , Reply# 60   11/2/2017 at 11:02 (261 days old) by brucelucenta ()        

Folks, unfortunately for some of us, time does march onward. Everything changes and whether good or bad it is a fact of life on earth. I just try to make the best choices I can with what I have to make them with. I truly don't have a problem at all with my new front load machine. It really does do an excellent job washing, rinsing and spinning my clothes out practically dry. I see and realize it does that with a minimum of water, which is why I use extra rinses just to be positive. Nothing has come out feeling soapy or unclean yet. I save not only on water, but in drying time too. It is a win/win situation. As much as I have always adored many of the old top load washers of the past, none of them come close to the job my new age front loader does. I do think that top load washing machines with an agitator or activator or whatever you want to call it, are going to soon be a thing of the past. They waste way too much water and do a less than excellent job when a front loader can easily do the job with excellence.

Post# 965577 , Reply# 61   11/2/2017 at 11:35 (261 days old) by mrb627 (Buford, GA)        
Press Release

mrb627's profile picture
I wonder when the official press release for the new design will surface.

Oh, and THANKS John for sharing your information from the service training.


Post# 965582 , Reply# 62   11/2/2017 at 12:06 (261 days old) by chetlaham (United States)        

chetlaham's profile picture
Thanks John.

Do you have excess to the service manual by chance? I'm curious how these work/are put together.

Post# 965591 , Reply# 63   11/2/2017 at 12:31 (261 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

I saved a screen shot of the photo Malcolm (mrb627) posted of the new SQ agitator/tub. I'll put it here for easy reference since several have asked about it.

  View Full Size
Post# 965594 , Reply# 64   11/2/2017 at 12:46 (261 days old) by agiflow2 ()        

So Brucelucenta, do you think people who take baths are wasting water ? Do you have a home and do you water your lawn in summer ? If you do then you are wasting water. Watering a lawn or washing your car will use more water than any top loader will.

My Speed Queen can be filled up to the softener dispenser making full use of the wash basket and everything gets turned over and cleaned with a good detergent.

I am softening though about front load washers. I have no doubt the modern ones can clean well. Provided you can get truly hot water with a built in beater, yet people who own a current Queen front loader without a heater are saying they are getting great results. So, I don't know, maybe the SQ uses more water ? Or the water stays hot enough ?

Sometimes clothes need to soak in plenty of water and a top load is ideal for that.

In any case if the TLwasher goes the way of the dodo there is always a pail or kitchen sink for soaking,...unless of course sinks become a thing of the past because they are "wasteful" and we are all told we should use dishwashers because they do a better job.

Post# 965601 , Reply# 65   11/2/2017 at 13:01 (261 days old) by duttyb11 (Mountain City)        

I feel like the least they could have done was make the tub ribbed in some way or baffles on it. It would have helped with wash action. Does anyone know if the FL SQ's will be able to use more water? Did the nice guy who posted the updates find out anything about that? My love for the TL SQ has died with the new information. It better be extreamly tourqie if thats even a word I butchered it. I think i'm going to invest my love into a F&P agitator washer now. How sad the news of this is. I really don't like the stainless steel/black looks of the machines control pannel I seen in pics, does anyone have any info on that? and how will the two different knob versions differ.....

Post# 965606 , Reply# 66   11/2/2017 at 13:16 (261 days old) by agiflow2 ()        

duttyb11 don't be so quick to judge these yet. As another poster said these machines are not even released and many here are already condemning them. I am not happy about it either but I am willing to give it a chance. Maybe these will be good machines, willing to bet they will be be better than expected. Only time will be the real proof.

Post# 965609 , Reply# 67   11/2/2017 at 13:20 (261 days old) by agiflow2 ()        

Thanks Frigilux, that agitator reminds me of the early Blackstone a little bit. That machine had good wash action from the videos I saw of it.

Post# 965610 , Reply# 68   11/2/2017 at 13:26 (261 days old) by washman (Butler, PA)        

washman's profile picture
News flash folks, there is no water shortage on this planet. Because if that is the case, where is it going? To Mars? Jupiter?

And for those that failed or skipped poly sci in college, government has NO inherent rights, only the rights granted to it by those being governed. That being said, we've abdicated our responsibility as citizen be staying asleep at the wheel while unelected agencies have grown in power and stature, not to mention sheer numbers.

EPA, certainly. While we regulate ourselves back to the stone age, other nations are capitalizing on fewer regulations and thus generating economic growth and wealth.

Dept Of Homeland about a contradiction of terms. Did you know that Obama and his ilk wanted the law written in such a way that if you somehow ended up on a no-fly list, you were prevented from owning a firearm? Sounds lovely, caring, and safe.
But what recourse does a person have if they end up on this list? Where is due process of law? Trial by jury? Answer, there is none. Just BAM! and voila! one ofyour rights, guaranteed in writing, is excoriated. And, god forbid, you get on that list, how or what process so you use to get off of it? Anyone? buehler?

I know, I know I know global warming, aka climate change, aka whatever sounds good at the moment is a huge crisis that takes extraordinary government action. Et Cetera

These so called DOE mandates are not indicative of a representative democracy and do not represent free market economics. They represent socialism at best, misguided governing at worst.

For those that forgot a few basics, I recommend an online course in government 101.

Post# 965611 , Reply# 69   11/2/2017 at 13:26 (261 days old) by brucelucenta ()        

In answer to your first question, yes, probably so. It would seem that a shower would do the same job with much less water usually. But people are going to do what they are most comfortable with. All I am saying is that on a basis of getting a job done well, the new front load machines do a much better job with MUCH less water and wear and tear on your clothing and other items and virtually NO lint or sediment. Even when you rinse 3 additional rinses, it still saves water and the fast spin leaves clothes nearly dry and saves on the drying energy cost too. I have always liked top load machines better than front load ones up until I finally got a new front loader. It seems ridiculous to me to have a top loader now when I can do a much bigger load with less water and do a better job than my Maytag top load machine did. My machine does have the water temp boost, so it gets nice and hot too. It is just making top load machines obsolete because of the water they waste and I think we will see that more and more as times goes by. I also cannot imagine the new speed queen machine doing a very good job with the new design, but time will tell I guess. I have used an old agitub Frigidaire machine before and the results were marginal.

Post# 965619 , Reply# 70   11/2/2017 at 13:50 (261 days old) by johnrk (BP TX)        

I haven't noticed--what brand front loader do you have, and it manufactured here in the US?

For decades I was in health care. I knew that people had to come see us domestically and locally, thus supporting 'my' industry. Therefore, I was equally inclined to buy the products that they made to support them...

I must say, this new Speed Queen sure has people up in a tizzy! You'd think a lover had thrown them out of bed or something. Obviously, also, people on this forum appear to have little confidence for the engineers whose jobs are to design good washers. I'm an optimist at heart, and I'll happily wait to see what comes...

Post# 965623 , Reply# 71   11/2/2017 at 14:25 (261 days old) by foraloysius (Leeuwarden, the Netherlands)        

foraloysius's profile picture
"Because if that is the case, where is it going? To Mars? Jupiter?"

No, to Nestl.

Post# 965625 , Reply# 72   11/2/2017 at 14:42 (261 days old) by agiflow2 ()        

Thank you washman . In the 1970s it was believed the world would get colder and we would have another ice age. Seems science messed that one up. I am not against "science" only "science fiction".

I have never heard anyone who used a water guzzling top loader say in conversation ' you know, these machines use far too much water, don't they " not once and I am willing to bet all of you didn't either.

I would like to see a consensus poll if there is one of people who want to do away with top load washers...that WASN'T influenced by the EPA.

This post was last edited 11/02/2017 at 14:59
Post# 965630 , Reply# 73   11/2/2017 at 15:19 (261 days old) by DADoES (TX,U.S. of A.)        

dadoes's profile picture

Although I run them occasionally, it makes me cringe at how much water my agitator toploaders (currently the F&P and a WP DD) pull for a fill, particularly a warm or hot fill which involves electric power to heat the water (and pump it from the ground), compared to my lovely HE Calypso or quirky Neptune TL. I have only once in 8+ years run a full-fill HOT load in one of them (the WP DD) and am unlikely to do that again any time soon.

Post# 965633 , Reply# 74   11/2/2017 at 16:06 (261 days old) by norgeway (mocksville n c )        
No Water Shortage

I totally agree, I also think the deal about Freon destroying the ozone layer is false, but If the government said the sun came up in the east I would say its a lie!...LOL..Water we use goes right back into the ground where the earth filters it, just as the good Lord designed it!

Post# 965634 , Reply# 75   11/2/2017 at 16:08 (261 days old) by GusHerb (Chicago/NWI)        

I have little concern for using LESS water, but when it comes to polluting water I do think that is a major concern we all need to get involved in. There is plenty of water on this planet, but we can't be polluting it left and right. As for actually saving water, keep in mind how much water that industry and agriculture uses, wastes, and pollutes. That's where we need to be focused, not on what our home appliances, toilets, and showers use. Home use is merely a drop in the bucket compared to the aforementioned. 


Most of the drive to save water has little to do with saving the environment, or availability, but has everything to do with the cost to treat it. Treating water is quite expensive and in most peoples case that makes up for the majority of municipal water bills (in places that have sewers and treatment plants). We pay about as much as someone in California would on the water bill, because most of that cost is treating it. Our water comes from Lake Michigan and lord knows there's WAY more than enough to go around from there. 


Now back on topic, I hope this new machine cleans at least as well as the old one. Given they've extended the cycle to 45 minutes it sounds like it won't be as efficient in the cleaning process compared to the older machine, so that's something to consider. I do believe my next NEW machine will be a front loader, I have nothing against them except for the awful SamsungTag Neptune we had. I only went for the TL SQ because I grew up with it's Amana predecessor and really liked the way it sounded, and later on learned how well balanced it is during spin as well as how good it cleaned for a TL machine. Plus I hated anything else on the market at the time. 

Post# 965638 , Reply# 76   11/2/2017 at 16:27 (261 days old) by chetlaham (United States)        
Freon destroying the ozone layer is false

chetlaham's profile picture
Its actually true- but not refrigerators that did it. It was the government cleaning aircraft with solvents and sprays that had heaping doses of it.

Post# 965643 , Reply# 77   11/2/2017 at 16:51 (261 days old) by kb0nes (Burnsville, MN)        
TL washer without a transmission 60 years ago

kb0nes's profile picture
Things are a bit different today then 60 years ago from a drivetrain perspective. Today we can replace the transmission with electronics and a poly-phase motor. Years ago we just didn't have the ability to control a motor like we do today. Full speed and direction control with decent torque maintenance is easy today.

Our latest machining center has a direct drive spindle, no belt, no back gear, just a 30hp motor directly turning the tool with a big hefty inverter running the show. From a couple hundred RPM to 8,000 in either direction and even with rigid tapping forward and reverse. Things are SO much better once electronics get involved. Our big CNC lathe is belt driven, but again there are no gears or transmission, just a VFD inverter and a 40Hp motor, and boy does it work better then any other machine we have had.

Technology has improved most everything in our lives in many ways so I will be curious to see how this machine works. It may well provide a decent design for those that steadfastly cling to a vertical axis machine. All the discussion of which machine or agitator gives the best action, but nothing turns over a full load better then a front loader, it does so once with every rotation ;)

Post# 965647 , Reply# 78   11/2/2017 at 17:28 (261 days old) by agiflow2 ()        

Old Norge washers didn't turn loads over or turned them slowly, but they got the best cleaning scores in the 50s by CR. There is hope here folks!

Post# 965666 , Reply# 79   11/2/2017 at 19:44 (261 days old) by brucelucenta ()        

The front load set I have is from Sears. It is an LG made Kenmore set that holds a tremendous load and/or any king size bedspread or comforter. It saves me EVER going to the laundromat again for which I am truly grateful. It also does an excellent job and does it using less energy and water and saves drying time too. On a purely performance standpoint it is better than anything I have EVER used. It took all the enjoyment out of watching as I did with my top loaders, but does a great job.

Post# 965673 , Reply# 80   11/2/2017 at 20:22 (261 days old) by Supersurgilator (Indiana)        

While I was disappointed about hearing the news, I trust that they know what they are doing. I had a feeling all along that this new machine was going to be like a Hydrowave, and honestly those aren't bad, I don't think. We will just have to wait and see, but I trust that they are on to something here.

Post# 965684 , Reply# 81   11/2/2017 at 22:14 (261 days old) by johnrk (BP TX)        

So in other words your machine is Korean?

Post# 965696 , Reply# 82   11/2/2017 at 23:12 (261 days old) by combo52 (Beltsville,Md)        
# 68 Water Shortage Etc

combo52's profile picture

Correct there is no water shortage,


 BUT there is a shortage of clean water where we need it on earth,


It takes a huge amount of energy to clean water purify it and then clean it again.


I voted along with the majority of Americans to allow the EPA to regulate energy matters, sorry you are a sore loser, but according to goverment 101 they do have the right to do what they are doing, I and millions of other Americans gave them the right to do so.


To reply #80, there have only been 3 TL washers ever built that I can think of that had a one piece agitator and wash tub, this new SQ will be the fourth, the first three did not wash large heavily soiled loads uniformly, this new SQ TL machine will be the forth AW to try this.


We will get one and do a comparison cleaning test early in 2018, I hope I am wrong but I will bet that this new machine will not wash a large dirty load as uniformly as the current TL washer.


PS, [ Hi Bruce ] #80, this new washer is not ANYTHING like a GE hydro-wave, on the GE HW the agitator and tub move independently.


As I said before I am sure that GE, WP, LG, Samsung all tried a one piece agitator tub machine and it clearly did not work or they would have used this system and saved a lot of money and built what SQ is now trying to build [ all these washers use inverter type motors and can vary the wash motion ] So if this really could work every one else would abandon the troublesome machines they are building now and go with this simple design that SQ is starting to build.


John L.

Post# 965697 , Reply# 83   11/2/2017 at 23:13 (261 days old) by Maytag85 (Sean 1986 YouTube. )        

maytag85's profile picture
Front load washing machines are great, but I don't know how true this is, but bearings tend to wear out faster in front loading washing machines. It takes years, if not decades for bearings to wear out in a traditional top loading washer.

Post# 965700 , Reply# 84   11/2/2017 at 23:51 (261 days old) by Real1 (Eastern WA)        

Your bearing theory is probably born from the ill-fated Maytag Neptune series. But those bearings were trashed because the tub seal leaked water on them. I'm one of the few that hung in there with my late 90's Maytag Neptune FL and fixed all its design flaws. That has yielded me 13 yrs of continuous, trouble-free usage.

The bearings are more than up to the task....just stay with good quality ones. The inner part of the bearings only spins at most around 1,000 rpm....walk in the park for a decent bearing even with dynamic loading.


Post# 965703 , Reply# 85   11/3/2017 at 00:10 (261 days old) by Maytag85 (Sean 1986 YouTube. )        

maytag85's profile picture
The Maytag Neptune front loader may have been pledged with bearing issues, but there are videos on YouTube of front loading washers that literally sound like a jet. There are videos on YouTube of top loading washers that have bad bearings, but it is mostly front load washers.

Post# 965709 , Reply# 86   11/3/2017 at 01:25 (261 days old) by chetlaham (United States)        

chetlaham's profile picture
John I also hope you voted in and are forging an effort in making US education number one. If we had the best education system in the world that actually focused on STEM and our top minds maybe we could actually come up with a system where mass water purification is economical.

If we applied the same thinking to the food industry only worrying about minimizing consumption and not advancing production to fix a lack there of, most of us would have starved to death by now. EPA regulations are only masking the symptoms, not treating the actual problem.

Second filling up land fills actually takes more energy in the long run, which leads me to think energy and sustainability is not the real concern either. So I fail to see how people seeing (and having concerns about) the bigger picture makes them a sore loser.

With that said I am glad that at least Speed Queen is concerned about longevity.

Post# 965717 , Reply# 87   11/3/2017 at 03:18 (261 days old) by askolover (South of Nash Vegas, TN)        

askolover's profile picture

Front load washing machines are great, but I don't know how true this is, but bearings tend to wear out faster in front loading washing machines. It takes years, if not decades for bearings to wear out in a traditional top loading washer.


Well, my Asko is 20 years old (I bought it new in 1997) and is still using the original bearings.  It has not had gentle use either!  It has sounded like a jet engine since the day it was built...but not from the bearings...the motor actually sounds like that.  This is the 3rd motor the machine has had and they all have sounded like that.  

Post# 965723 , Reply# 88   11/3/2017 at 05:43 (260 days old) by neptunebob (Pittsburgh, PA)        
It is the orientation of the bearings

neptunebob's profile picture
On a top loader, the weight of the tub and clothes come down on a bearing in a vertical manner and the bearing just prevents side to side motion. It would make sense that on a front loader, the loads on a bearing would be much greater as they are sideways loads. Gravity is not on the front loaders side here, but the Asko probably has larger bearings than most. Actually, I like the jet sound the Neptune made but your laundry room should not sound like an airport.

I have heard it written here that it is not good if the tub indexes, why is that? Does it "cancel" the agitation? In the SQ, wouldn't it be harder on the motor to move both the tub and agitator than just the agitator?

When consumers pay for water, you are actually paying for energy. Alcosan treats all the sewage in our area. During a recent tour of the place, the speaker stated that the biggest expense is not payroll but electricity to run the pumps and compressors. Purifying water also requires a lot of equipment that in many areas will need to be replace. Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority will be raising bills because parts of the system are over 100 years old and they use a lot of energy too. So using less water will benefit consumers.

Still, a full washing machine using a lot of water is not damaging the environment much. For example, I learned from horticulture at the zoo that a properly established lawn should not require fertilizer but most people in the neighborhood spend hundreds of dollars on chem lawn which just runs off into the river, polluting it.

Most couples will buy laundry appliances when they have a baby. As you know, having kids damages the environment more than a corvette racing playboy, but when our parents washed diapers in water guzzling machines, at least they didn't leave those nasty Pampers in parking lots. Pampers are the worst thing that ever happened with solid waste.

Post# 965736 , Reply# 89   11/3/2017 at 07:54 (260 days old) by combo52 (Beltsville,Md)        
Bearing Life In Washing Machines

combo52's profile picture

The only thing that really affects bearing life is the water seal design, type, quality etc used on a particular machine.


FL washers are at no disadvantage by having a horizontal tub, there are countless TL washers that have had frequent bearing failures both in newer machines and in washers going back into the 50s, 60s 70s etc, just look at history, and the cause of failure is ALWAYS water getting past the water seal.


If you really look at any washer [ from wringers to automatics ] ever built the biggest problems are when water gets into ares where it should not be.


John L.

Post# 965792 , Reply# 90   11/3/2017 at 12:33 (260 days old) by johnrk (BP TX)        

I remember reading decades ago that in the Hutterite communities of the northern US and Canada, their babies are housebroken, on average, by six months. Why aren't all babies like that? I'm speaking, of course, as someone who never had children (that I claim, anyway...)

Post# 965806 , Reply# 91   11/3/2017 at 13:46 (260 days old) by agiflow2 ()        

Combo52 this maybe a silly question but will the control panel still have the "commercial Heavy Duty" nomenclature ?

Post# 965813 , Reply# 92   11/3/2017 at 14:49 (260 days old) by washerdude (Canada )        

At my old house I left my beloved WFW72HEDW WP Duet front load which was clocking in at 3 years bearing or spider issues or sounds...and no mold.

At my current house I have a Maytag Neptune MAH5500 pair...also no bearing or spider issues...there is mold though.

Post# 965820 , Reply# 93   11/3/2017 at 15:28 (260 days old) by DADoES (TX,U.S. of A.)        

dadoes's profile picture

Two friends who have Kenmore FLs: One is an HE3t, now 15+ years (I changed the water valve last Dec). Other is an HE3(not t), now 14+ years (I changed the pump 4 or 5-ish years ago). No bearing (or spider far as I know) issues on either.

Post# 965980 , Reply# 94   11/4/2017 at 13:04 (259 days old) by neptunebob (Pittsburgh, PA)        
babies are housebroken, on average, by six months. Why aren&

neptunebob's profile picture
You answered your question above, the answer is: Pampers! and Huggies!

I have known day care center workers who use disposable diapers, most day cares require them. Every day care worker has said "you can't train the kids, they want paper!". Some of the little kids who just learned to talk will actually tell the adults to put them in Pampers. Some will have a tantrum if they have to wear "big boy or girl pants." Back in 1957, when it was all cloth diapers, most kids were trained by 18 months, now some kids are 3 years old and still wearing Pampers (and P&G came out with a toddler size, I guess cannot blame them for wanting to make more money). When kids went in cloth diapers, they were uncomfortable and needed changed and so kids were eager to use the potty. With these disposable diapers, there is so much absorption there is no wet feeling, so kids go on playing never knowing they wet or even pooped. One reason I am glad I am not a parent of small children is they are always having arguments, when out in public, about "go potty!".

Some websites for parents for cloth diaper recommend getting a vintage washer to clean the diapers. Even the large amounts of water cannot be much damage compared to the fact that used Pampers just seem to be everywhere - If you go to a place where there are children, be careful you don't stop in a Pampers when you get out of your car. When I worked at the zoo, almost every day I had to pick up a Pampers and some of them were in not easy to get to places, they have been known to get into exhibits too. Most animals ignore them, but monkeys are known to throw a Pampers to each other.

Oh, and John, thank you for not having children. From an environmental standpoint, now we can both be jet setting steak eating, corvette racing playboys
and not do the damage we would do if we were fathers.

Post# 965984 , Reply# 95   11/4/2017 at 13:31 (259 days old) by Infusor (Usa)        
Speed queen

I am waiting, if these new 2018 speed queen washers do well and they turnover clothes well i am seriously considering buying a new speed queen, i have an lg front load now, it's about 4 years old, my dryer is on the left side of the washer so the door is in the way so i am thinking about going to a top load again, i do like my lg, it is very sensitive to getting sudslocked, even with a full dirty load using one tide pod sometimes, my water is not soft eather, of course im sure alot has to do with it being a proctor and gamble product.

Post# 965989 , Reply# 96   11/4/2017 at 14:14 (259 days old) by johnrk (BP TX)        

I just never happened to have kids, or to get married. Engaged 4 times, I called them off each time. Confirmed bachelor, I guess. I have a couple of ladies at my church now getting extra friendly. Won't work...

If I were in my twenties now, I'd adopt for sure. There are millions of kids wanting and needing homes in our world and I don't flatter myself that my DNA is anything special.

Post# 965997 , Reply# 97   11/4/2017 at 14:37 (259 days old) by earthling177 (Boston, MA)        

Wow, there is a *ton* of misconceptions and weird thinking, just to keep it short in here. One could write a novel about it and I could write an entire encyclopedia.

But in the interests of keeping it on the short-ish side:

1) the fight about water usage is not that water is leaving the planet for Sirius or Orion. Treating the water, as it was mentioned, costs an absurd amount of resources. If people were *all* washing in cold tap water and not using the energy to heat up the wash water, there wouldn't be such a rush to get HE washers, but most people rightfully refuse to do so, given that the "proper" cycle times and even cycles to wash *well* in such conditions would force people to wait *much* longer to get their clothes clean. Given that *none* of the whiners here have signed up for a new power plant and/or water/sewage treatment plant in their backyard/neighborhood, and we *know* you haven't because it will *instantly* lower the prices of your homes, your next best option is to minimize resources consumed, thus HE appliances.

2) from the point of view of engineering, everyone who has an engineering diploma will tell you point blank that a transmission is the *last* thing one would want anywhere. It has been a necessary evil and that's it. It's been there for so long because having multiple motors used to be prohibitively expensive in the past. If you visit old mills, you'll see drive shafts overhead and belts and pulleys everywhere -- that started with the water wheels, for sure, but even when combustion engines and electric motors showed up, that configuration was kept for *decades* before machines would have their own electric motor. Single motor. With transmission. Because the motor was often the most expensive part of the machine, with all that copper wiring. Now we have motors, plural, in all sizes and they can speed up or down or stop on a dime. Cheaper, easier, lasts longer. Bye-bye transmissions and you should be all happy if what you were complaining about was how long the machine lasted.

3) Bearings. Sweet Jayeeesus on a crutch! Ball bearings (which are by far the most common in household appliances) work *best* when the load is on a horizontal axis, just like on a bicycle wheel, a car wheel or a front-loading washer. It would be *best* if the whole tumbler were set on *two* shafts and have a door to open on top from the point of view that then *all* the load would be in one direction, but then again, it's *safer* if you don't have a door that opens up in the direction the clothes will put the *most* load during high-speed spinning. In fact, for ball bearings, the *worst* configuration is in fact a top-loading agitator washer, as then there is a lot of weight shearing the bearing to keep the shaft from moving up and down.

There have been "special" bearings designed specifically for both toploaders and frontloaders and they are not identical to other run-of-the-mill ball bearings, but all things considered, cars, buses, trucks, machine tools etc have bearings that are subjected to much nastier conditions and they survive just fine.

This "the bearings will break sooner" crap started from companies that were *not* producing frontloaders to begin with decades ago, just like "the door will leak all over your basement/home". Now that they all make frontloaders, they've stopped singing that tune that you folks keep repeating.

Nothing like experience to tell what is true. Now that the general population *has* experience with frontloaders, they see that the chances of leakage are no different from toploaders in general -- in fact, many machines lots of people here love *had* a boot that could leak just as readily as a frontloader's but it was located out of sight under the basket in those toploaders, so many people never even *knew* their machines had boots too.

As for "government this, government that", blame the investors -- they are the *biggest* force in twisting the arms of corporations to "accept the 'generous' 'gift'/'incentives'" to produce High Efficiency machines. The *second* biggest force is the *consumers*, that is, people just like you and your neighbors that do not want another sewage treatment plant near their homes, and also the ones that bought a HE set and could readily see their clothes getting cleaner and lasting longer while at the same time we were *saving money* which doesn't grow on trees.

I, for example, have bought several sets of HE machines since 1999 and am not planning to go back to the energy/water hogs anytime soon. Would have bought a set way sooner than that, but there were no frontloaders for sale for a while. (For the pearl clutchers out there, no, they are *not* in the dump polluting, they are *still* working, I just like to upgrade when I can and I do. My friends enjoy coming to my "laundromat" to do their laundry for free when the laundromats in/near their buildings are not up to task, which seems to be often.)

And I am frankly often flabbergasted by how people cling to the *bad* parts of life. I've just heard the other day that companies had to pipe "engine sound" into their cars because of cry-babies like some here. I'm not talking about electric cars that are so silent that blind people were having difficulties with -- I can see having something that tells them a car is coming is nice. But no, the cases I've heard about are in the super expensive luxury cars, they got too quiet and instead of letting people enjoy being in quiet inside the car, they pump engine noise into the stereo. I guess that even if I could afford such cars I would rather save my money if I'm not gonna be riding in peace and quiet.

-- Paulo.

Post# 966002 , Reply# 98   11/4/2017 at 15:14 (259 days old) by Losangeles (Muscle Shoals, AL 35661)        
Speed Queen

losangeles's profile picture

Wow!!  Just finished reading this thread.  I enjoyed the opinions and good conversation (politics aside).  It is good to hear from men who are as impassioned about washing machines as I am.  Thanks for a good read.

Post# 966004 , Reply# 99   11/4/2017 at 15:39 (259 days old) by speedqueen (Harrison Twp, Michigan)        
My Thoery on the Agi-Tub

speedqueen's profile picture
I think I figured out why SQ decided to use an agi-tub on what is still really a traditional top load automatic. The reason why is that on the "Normal Eco" cycle they couldn't cut water usage any more with the previous design. They already eliminated the rinse cycle, but if they had to cut the wash water level any more on "Normal-Eco" than the 3-4 inches that they previously did, a large load at a small water level would be simply too much resistance between the tub and the agitator and the transmission no matter how well built would fail in short order. With the new "agi-tub," since the tub will move with the agitator there is no such risk that a large load and a low water level could do any damage to the drive mechanism. The whole tub, clothes, agitator and all mould just move back and forth with no more resistance than that of a large load with a high water level.

I do however share everyone's concerns that washing performance will be negatively effected. I have been looking a videos of the old Frigidaire skini-mini and an unempressed with the action. I hope SQ has found a way to perfect that action so it works better.

Post# 966007 , Reply# 100   11/4/2017 at 15:54 (259 days old) by chetlaham (United States)        
Water treatment

chetlaham's profile picture
1. You are basing this statement on existing technology, infrastructure, and the ASSUMPTION the laws of physics have been exhausted. Put enough brain power and man power to work and you can device a system that gives a lot more fresh water with less energy. Especially if that energy is coming from a sustainable source. I am sure people are rolling their eyes at my education post, but that is simply folks basing things off their own experience in education 20 to 50 years ago. A lot has changed since then that most know little about.

2. "Given that *none* of the whiners here have signed up for a new power plant and/or water/sewage treatment plant in their backyard/neighborhood" Again, pure assumption. Who says you need more real-estate for any of these? Who says there isn't technology, both prototype and commercially available to maximize existing real-estate? Want a good example? Google "gas insulated substations" or "SF6 insulated substation" "neighborhood friendly substation". Power companies now can move many, many times more power from the same if not smaller footprint of existing air insulted substations, often with the option of being able to enclose the gas insulated gear in a building that blends in within its surroundings. Said technology is being implemented everyday across this country at hundreds of sites with few noticing it. In fact you might hear 'yahhh, there used to be transformers there but they demolished all that and built some type of office building'

New powerplants... what about all the existing ones that have been closed or are scheduled to close?

I know people will make the argument 'but those were mostly coal, not to mention dated' Of course, but the space is there to build nuclear or NG; or you could just use the latest in clean coal technology...

The resources are there and the technology is there, it just has to be implemented. HE is great way to delay taking care of the real issues in society...

Post# 966014 , Reply# 101   11/4/2017 at 16:37 (259 days old) by earthling177 (Boston, MA)        

Well, you do realize that you are singing my tune, right? I don't have a copyright on it, being that's it's so old it's not even *my* tune. It's just the tune of people linked to engineering in any way, shape or form.

And no, I don't know everything, but I do live in Boston, which, while not quite the center of the Universe they like to think they are, we *are* part of the hive mind of bleeding-edge high-tech. If it's not started here, it was started somewhere where our colleagues work. I have friends at Google, for example, I could tell you stuff, but they'd have to kill me (and you too) because there are non-disclosure agreements.

Here's the thing: *all* the things you mentioned cost money, time, research, development, resources etc. Things that Google and Apple do because they are near trillion-dollar companies who can see recovering all that they invested over 50+ years are not a dime a dozen.

Heck, even the "closed" power stations that you mentioned, there are *lots* of coal power stations that have converted to gas-fueled turbo-fan generators long ago. If you think that it would be cheaper to empty the building and just install a new nuclear plant or gas turbofan plant, by all means, run and tell them, because they, or their investors, thought it was either cheaper to give money to consumers to buy High Efficiency bulbs, A/C, washers etc, or they decided to shutter the plant altogether. I'm thinking it was no as profitable to them to upgrade, replace or whatever.

And, pretty as a new building would be, with a power plant, or water or sewage treatment plant inside, I am willing to bet that all the people complaining about the compromise being less waste so we don't *have* to have more plants in our own neighborhoods would not sign up for such. Just ask people around here in Boston, who basically just got a few new water treatment plants, or even the ones that have "just" been upgraded, if they want to go for a repeat -- they'll scratch your eyes out, it took years of construction with *all* the involved clogged traffic, potholes, new holes dug up for power, gas, water etc.

Here's the thing we should *all* be ashamed of: even our "high efficiency" appliances lag *years* behind other places. There are *other* machines in Europe that use less water and electricity than ours. Now for the frigging surprise, the *companies* are the *same* here and there, and they could *easily* just produce the things here, or, if we look at the current economic climate, since they are producing appliances not in USA anyway, they could just order their offshore factories to make some for us.

They don't.

Guess *who* that benefits, the country (USA), you and me and others (the public), or the investors?

The prize goes to the correct answer, which is the investors.

You and I, and the rest of the Americans are left sucking our fingers when we are lucky enough to have a home to go to and a job to pay our bills, because there's a huge percentage of the population that has been scrambling to survive, so that the uber rich can have 2 extra pennies, and the uber rich are the people telling us forever that frontloaders leak on the floors, have bearings that break too soon, that high-sudsing detergent is best and we should not look at what goes over in Europe when it comes to better chemistry and engineering.

I love looking into the future, new developments and stuff just around the corner, but what is good for Microsoft, Apple, Google etc is not likely to show up for you and I if that would depend on the Koch brothers and you should not count on it.

Because, when it comes *right* down to it, it was a no brainer to switch to gas turbofan generation a decade ago, it was cleaner, more reliable, and in places, even cheaper -- but people cling to stuff that should have been discarded eons ago, and they'll continue to do so.

-- Paulo.

Post# 966035 , Reply# 102   11/4/2017 at 19:34 (259 days old) by chetlaham (United States)        

chetlaham's profile picture
I will reply more latter, but don't forget the regulations that squash it. Yes- near multi trillion- but from acquiring the best talent on earth and a tenacity to never give up on something now matter how impractical it might seem. IMO the egg does come first in this case. Which thankfully for the first time in 50 years we have an administration that is trying to put an end to the dark age regulations.

If electricity was produced from renewables and water purification easy, then efficiency would not matter. Yes it is cheaper to subsidize efficient light bulbs and push Energy star then upgrading 60 year old infrastructure. But in the end thats not addressing the root of the problem.

I have used this argument before and I will use it again: Why did the US, the richest and most resourceful country on earth, choose TL over FL when they could have easily made FLs as they did TLs? Why TLs?

Post# 966036 , Reply# 103   11/4/2017 at 19:44 (259 days old) by henene4 (Germany)        
Efficency would not matter

It would. Basicly every task you get as an engineer is based on the goal of total process optimisation.
Efficent is always better as long as the result is sufficent. There is no but about that.

Post# 966038 , Reply# 104   11/4/2017 at 19:56 (259 days old) by chetlaham (United States)        

chetlaham's profile picture
Not always- and I can think of many of examples. Sometimes cost and simplicity take over efficiency. Most things can be a lot more efficient but often are not for those reasons. A box fan someone purchases would use 1/4 the power with a PSC motor, 1/5 with an inverter, but a shaded pole often gets thrown in because its cheaper and more reliable.

Post# 966043 , Reply# 105   11/4/2017 at 20:12 (259 days old) by chetlaham (United States)        
Process optimization

chetlaham's profile picture
Better example: there are dishwashers that will fill an outer tank before emptying the water into the wash tank. The idea is that heat will be drawn out of the wash tank and pre-heat the incoming rinse water saving energy. And it does save energy and is thus more efficient. But in most cases the engineers tasked for making consumer DW choose not to employee this type optimization. Same with GE not evacuating the sump, the process would be far more optimized if all the water was flushed out between drain and fill.

Post# 966046 , Reply# 106   11/4/2017 at 20:41 (259 days old) by henene4 (Germany)        
Efficency isn't the same as efficency

Example one: Yes, that is optimized towards efficency, just that efficency here relates to the efficency of the production process.

Example two: Both machines are optimized towards the efficency of the process of cleaning dishes, just that different measures were taken to reach that goal.

You always want efficency, just what you focus on changes. Efficency can mean a lot of things.

Thus, the laundry process would almost always be designed to be more efficent in one way or another to compete with other manufacturers even if there were no regulations. And most likely, as us monkeys love money, and lower usage means more money in your pocket (and that is seen and meant on a verry basic instinctive level, and our instincts are to dumb to understand the "time is money" argument), optimisation would be towards ennergy\water usage.

There are good ways to implement these optimisation steps. Several manufacturers in the EU have a 3 or 4 focus point system for washers.
One setting (default) is optimized to give overall efficency, meaning usual wash\rinse results, average cycle times and average usage.
One setting is optimized for energy\water usage. While maintaining simmilar cleaning results, it saves resources but needs more time.
One setting saves time and therefor it will use more resources to get simmilar (or slightly lesser) wash\rinse results.
And sometimes, there is a performance option, which betters wash\rinse results by adding resource usages and sometimes time.

There is always the goal of improvement, the goal of getting more efficent, getting better at something. Question is just in which way you want to be better and how you want to do that.

Post# 966059 , Reply# 107   11/4/2017 at 21:41 (259 days old) by earthling177 (Boston, MA)        

That example with the dishwasher works very well in countries where the dishwasher is expected to heat its own water. It will fail miserably in countries where the machine has only a hot fill. Like USA.

Post# 966060 , Reply# 108   11/4/2017 at 21:44 (259 days old) by earthling177 (Boston, MA)        

I am unlikely to respond further in this thread, because this has already turned into a political discussion, which is properly done in the private forums, and anyone who wants to discuss this further is welcome to start one there, because no matter what, I will be repeating there what I've said before, so I don't think there's any interest to begin with. Unlikely doesn't mean I *won't* though, it will depend a lot on how the conversation turns here.

That having been said, there's plenty that you may have missed, so I will try and convey what I know.

Let's start by "regulations that squash it" -- just like a judge in USA can't sue someone not directly linked to their person (that is, Mr. or Ms. Sam Doe can sue someone who crashed against their own car, but they can't start a suit on my behalf because they live two blocks from me and saw the perp crash against my car), by which I mean, judges have to *wait* until someone files a lawsuit, laws and regulations can't just start themselves. Someone has to *ask* for a law to be introduced, and, in the *current* economic climate, it's *unlikely* that a regular citizen can do it and bring it to the end. A *bunch* of concerned citizens can put a lot of pressure and maybe they'll succeed.

Where am I trying to get here? To the point where the *vast* majority of laws were petitioned/started by big corporations that ply politicians with money and favors. It's called "Regulatory Capture" (see

Say Boeing (or Ford or whatever) comes up with a new safety protocol/device. They do *not* want the tsuris associated with just introducing it in their newest product. That *might* expose them to lawsuits from people who will claim, for example, that the company *knew* their wares were not as safe without seat-belts, for example, like their older models. What do the companies do then? They get together with *other* companies who make similar wares and lobby (with millions of dollars) for a new law/regulation to not only *force* (or give deep incentives) for *all* the other companies to install the same thing (so the first company doesn't lose money by installing stuff others do not have to spend money on), *but*, and this is crucial, the new law/regulation *grandfathers* the old equipment, thus *exempting* the companies from the unpleasant task of having to tell the people using their old wares to go take a long hike.

And, those regulations are *written by* the corporations, *exactly* the way *they* want them.

Notice, for example, that in other countries, laws are likely to say "the toilet has to work *well* with at most 1.6 gallons/flush" and toilets in those countries work pretty well (just see, as an example, Toto Toilets). Not so in the ol' USA -- here, the law *carefully* says essentially, "the toilet can not use more than 1.6 gallons/flush", thus freeing the manufactures from R&D of *new*, *improved* toilets that wouldn't clog with the new low-flow.

So, take a look at the "regulations" you people have been bitching about. Until a few years ago, they simply said that machines that qualified for an EnergyStar status would qualify the manufacturers for special "treatment", including tax breaks, money incentives etc. This may have changed a bit in the last iteration, but even that is not "you can't make traditional toploaders" like you people cry about, which is why SpeedQueen was able to say "screw it, we'll make a toploader".

This situation is not very far from what happens to cars and other vehicles: manufacturers are free to make whatever cars and trucks they please, *as long as* the *average* of the fuel economy is kept to a certain level. And even then, there are exceptions and exemptions and people who are in that industry, please correct me, but for example, Ferrari does *not* offer any cars that meet the low end in our market unless they are bundled with some other manufacturer that perhaps only sells subcompacts. BMW, Mercedes, and other luxury cars sell vehicles which are taxed as "gas guzzlers" and develop over 300 HP, for example.

It is not forbidden, it's a luxury for the few who can afford paying for the resources and the necessary taxes.

In the brief time (just a few decades, really) when the uber rich were taxed more than we mere mortals, we had plenty of money to *install* a huge electric grid. We *should* have money to update/upgrade/replace necessary parts, but the investors want the very last cent of any profit, which is why it has been deferred for 60 years to the point it's now nearly falling apart.

But even then, there is an *awful* lot of *waste* -- other countries have a standard of living just as high as ours, if not higher, and they spend way less on resources than we do. They can run 3 loads of wash with less resources than we run just one, for example. Not to mention anything about keeping their homes heated in winter, or cars.

You say "If electricity was produced from renewables and water purification easy, [...]" and we need to ask: *why* do you think things are the way they are here? There are *plenty* of countries, including our neighbors in Canada, that people pay the "hydro" bill for electricity. Hydroelectric plants *are* using renewable energy. So are wind farms and plenty of other things. We *could* have been at the forefront of renewable energy but the petroleum corps made sure to pay enough politicians that plenty of our top scientists moved abroad to help the *other* places get it first. There are plenty of stories of cities in US that used to have a pretty good public transportation system which was bought wholesale and dismantled by petroleum companies so that people would buy cars. Is it true? Dunno, before my time.

But that *does* bring me, finally, to your other question:

"Why did the US, the richest and most resourceful country on earth, choose TL over FL when they could have easily made FLs as they did TLs? Why TLs?"

On one hand, just like you said, we had *plenty* of people with enough money to spend, and an automatic washer was worth a *lot* to housewives back then, someone recently just posted a link to a TED Talk saying how much time and effort such an appliance saved the housewife, that she could then read, teach her kids etc.

Then there's the fact that, just like today, manufacturers want to *patent* stuff so they can extoll the virtues of this thingie that they have an exclusive on. Tumble washers are hundreds of years old, in the mid-1800's, for example, all the commercial laundries that the affluent sent their clothes to used tumble washers. No, they were not automatic, but *most* of what could be patented about them had been, and had fallen into the public domain.

The *only* things that people did not have a patent to until the first automatics showed up were the control mechanism and the suspension. And the very first automatic, the Bendix front loader, was not a soft mount, it was in fact secured to the floor. But between Bendix and Westinghouse, the first frontloaders made it very hard for others to compete.

Two other things then cooperated to make users go to toploaders: one, they resembled the wringer washers which people were used to at home. And second, companies like P&G saw the writing on the wall pretty soon -- if the new machines could use just about half of the soap/detergent, they'd be screwed pretty soon. While it was true in fact that at that time there was little preventing unsupervised kids from opening the door to a front loader and making a mess on the floor, it was also true that such kids could easily get a small beach toy pail and dump several gallons of water on the floor just by opening a toploader and bailing water "out" if they wanted to, and many did.

We have *all* heard so many times the "bearings fail soon" and "frers leak on the floor" stories that were started by corporations, both the ones that only made detergents and the ones that didn't make any frontloaders, that it's been repeated on this site to this day. And yet, if we ran a search, we'd find an awful lot of people who are here complaining about a *toploader* leaking on their floor, but those are forgiven somehow.

People wax nostalgic about their toploaders with an agitator because that's all they've known. The ones that are just barely now turning 20 don't remember that before the enzymes soup modern detergent became, their mothers were removing stains by brushing them with lots of different concoctions and long soaks *before* they got their "10 minute wash" followed by rinse and spin. The people for which pre-treating their garments with Shout, Zout, Spray-n-Wash etc is still a routine task are still wasting time, effort and resources doing that, when they could have been all this time just toss the clothes in the frontloaders and let the machine do the work instead. It takes *over* 30 minutes to pre-treat everything by hand and soak them, then another 30-45 minutes for a traditional toploader to run the cycle. That is over one hour, and you were *working* during some of that time.

Here's the alternative: the detergents you use (Tide etc) have the *same* enzymes the pre-treaters have. It takes about 15 minutes for the enzymes to do their work. Any washer that has a 20-30 minute *wash* time, then rinses and spins will *automatically* clean your clothes for you. Of course, if you come back when your toploader is about finished with the wash portion and restart the cycle so it will wash for 20-30 minutes, it would work, but not automatically. It will *also* wear out your clothes faster than a front loader.

Why, why, oh, why don't we Americans know this? Because we had so many resources and we could pay for them. Because we like to think we're the best in the world and there's *no way* that our designs got to Europe and they improved it.

It took people to move to Europe (or Europeans to bring their washers here) to introduce some of us to a modern front loader that could automatically pre-wash, start a wash with a new wash solution and heat it above the temps of the central water heater and then rinse it pretty well and extract so well that the dryer took way less time to finish the job for us to even pay attention.

To this very day, people are afraid to look at the new things and questioning why the "government" is "forcing" us to use them. When in fact, it's corporations writing their own laws so they do not have to do any R&D to produce something better, they can sell machines that waste more resources and don't wash as well as the very machines the same corporations sell abroad.

And people have the *nerve* to come here complain? Wake up and look around you. Ask someone with an Asko, Miele, Siemens, Bosch, AEG etc if they want to switch back to a toploader. The ones that say anything against their machines want something *bigger* so they won't need to go to a laundromat and face a lukewarm or cold wash ever again.

And no, I'm not nearly as angry as my writing makes me sound.

What makes me angry is not that we have a portion of the population that forgot we needed laws to prevent corporations from polluting the air, the soil and the water we all share. They don't know that they are being peons for corporations that spend more in that propaganda than in R&D for better stuff, which is why we *used* to be a country where everyone bought things from, when we sold the best.

What makes me sad and angry is that an awful lot of stuff that was invented *here*, and a lot of it in Universities when the government used to give grants for research, were left to linger for long enough that the patents expired, European countries then *improved* them a *whole lot* and then they come back here as "Euro" stuff, which, in a very American way, we are supposed to pooh-pooh and ignore, as if that would make our lives any better.

If we were *any* smart, we would recognize this "Euro" stuff for the royal gifts that they are: we did not have to spend any time or money developing them, people who are in places with very expensive utilities use them all the time saving money and resources, and getting the job done better.

People complaining about how the government "oppresses" the average American, or even our corporations are kindly invited to move to libertarian paradises such as Ethiopia, Somalia, Namibia etc, where you all can pay no taxes, get no services and have as many weapons as you feel it will make you safe.

And, because we are your friends, whether you recognize this or not, please write us about how your experience of such places is going. Particularly after 6 months or so, when most of the marauding gangs will have stripped you off of all you had and a place with a government like ours might be able to send in the Seals and Marines to rescue you.

-- Paulo.

PS: countries that don't let people pollute their waterways and make the corporations clean up after themselves and/or pay dearly for such cleaning services do not have nearly the same difficulty and spend nearly as much as we do, because their water *stays* clean to begin with, instead of having to spend thru the nose to remove all the crap the corporations dump in the water, air and soil here. For what's worth.

CLICK HERE TO GO TO earthling177's LINK

Post# 966061 , Reply# 109   11/4/2017 at 21:48 (259 days old) by Maytag85 (Sean 1986 YouTube. )        

maytag85's profile picture
The only way to be efficient is to get the job done right! It is not efficient when it has to be done all over again!

Post# 966069 , Reply# 110   11/4/2017 at 22:08 (259 days old) by earthling177 (Boston, MA)        

Yup, that's right.

That's why I discarded two toilets that used to clog all the time despite the fact they used 1.6 gal/flush, and I replaced them with two Toto toilets that use aaall of 1.2 gal/flush and, in the 4 years or so they've been there, they have *never* failed to flush and have never clogged. I've put the plungers in the basement the day the toilets were installed, and they are still there with a thick layer of dust.

That's why I wash my clothes in frontloaders: I only have to cycle them *once*, that's the way it's been since 1999, and I save a ton of electricity, water and detergent. Not to say anything about time, I have not pretreated clothes in nearly 20 years.

That's why I put my dishes in an Euro dishwasher: they have always gotten way cleaner with way fewer resources than when I used to have the American stuff. They break way less often too.

I could go on, but then I'd be the obnoxious guy who is "elitist" and "rubbing other users' noses" on what I have or how much I own.

I might also be breaking one of my own rules, which is to try to be nice to people, because they don't always know all they need to discuss a situation, and some people here already have a hard enough life trying to survive in a harsh world that is unforgiving to people who can't keep up, and while I'm willing to be not so nice to people who *can* keep up, I am not willing to inadvertently or willingly hurt folks who are on the Aspergers spectrum, of which there are a bunch in here. It's unfair that they believe the crappy propaganda from the manufacturers and corporations, and I can only offer data and hopefully be patient enough for them to process the new info without hurting them.

Face it, my dad was a professor of Mech Eng for over 40 years until he retired -- in 1992, we used to have an Amana set, which is basically a spruced up copy of the SpeedQueen (at the time Raytheon owned them or something). My father heard the machine run for a few minutes and told me everything that was wrong with it (including transmission). The machine was still under warranty, so we sold it at a good price while it was still working, and got something else. A year or so later, a *ton* of people started complaining about the SpeedQueens and the Amanas, some of them are users in this very website.

Their revisions did not seem to make the machines much better. I had some hopes that the machines improved a lot when in the last few years folks here who fix them told us the design had improved remarkably.

This new design is a big departure from what they used to be, and I, for one, hope it fixes most of the problems.

But at the time when TLs were more common, SpeedQueens and Amanas were nothing more than average. Their only claim to fame is to be one of the last ones to be left on the market. Any washer in my basement currently finishes the job faster and better with less pre-treating, less manual interference etc than the Amana I used to have.

All of you are welcome to buy the sets and love them. You can fool yourselves into thinking they are the last good thing on this earth.

But please don't expect us to agree with you.

Post# 966083 , Reply# 111   11/4/2017 at 22:44 (259 days old) by Infusor (Usa)        
Test results

I think it's funny, people on here complaining, saying " my old fashioned top loader uses lots of water" " and cleans way better" when orginations like consumer reports, good housekeeping, ALL agree that front load machines clean the best, all of their labratory tests show the results, and americans still think their water hog diluting detergent cleans better, it just shows how ignorant people can be.

Post# 966085 , Reply# 112   11/4/2017 at 22:53 (259 days old) by Maytag85 (Sean 1986 YouTube. )        
Top load washers will always be king!!

maytag85's profile picture
There are front load washers that work quite well, but I will always like top loaders more than front loaders! Front loaders do save water, but they aren't as fun to watch as a top loader.

Post# 966092 , Reply# 113   11/4/2017 at 23:40 (259 days old) by cfz2882 (Belle Fourche,SD)        
top loads get better results with certain loads... least in my experience,using different front load and agitator top load machines:bedsheets and heavily soiled work clothes seem to come out better using the top load machines.

Post# 966095 , Reply# 114   11/4/2017 at 23:55 (259 days old) by chetlaham (United States)        
Dishwasher with heat converter

chetlaham's profile picture
I disagree- think about long lines where the water has chilled. Transferring that heat over does save something.

"Face it, my dad was a professor of Mech Eng for over 40 years until he retired -- in 1992, we used to have an Amana set, which is basically a spruced up copy of the SpeedQueen (at the time Raytheon owned them or something). My father heard the machine run for a few minutes and told me everything that was wrong with it (including transmission). The machine was still under warranty, so we sold it at a good price while it was still working, and got something else."

Honestly, I see a lot of unfounded Speed Queen bashing and I think that comes from not understanding the product at hand. The new Speed Queens are so far from the Amanas. Yes the design is similar, but the seals were horrible (good chance your machine had a leak), the outter tub was plastic, they had a "gimmick" transmission and there were several other issues as well best left unsaid.

"A year or so later, a *ton* of people started complaining about the SpeedQueens and the Amanas, some of them are users in this very website."

Yes- and I have seen those reviews. No offense to anyone, but they often come from a lack of knowledge or experience in laundry. Ie, the lady who had an unbalanced load and the tub was hitting the sides. But that isn't a Speed Queen defect, any top load will do that (or begin to walk) with an unbalanced load. Another case was an agitator leaving holes in clothing which SQ was willing to send a hand inspected agitator, another scratches on the front that was traced back to the dealer... I could go on and on with examples, and outside of quirky noises that do not effect operation, not one of them was truly the result of poor engineering on Speed Queen's part. We could even pick up on the rough seems of the tub, but if one were rub their finger against them chances are nothing would happen.

"Their revisions did not seem to make the machines much better. I had some hopes that the machines improved a lot when in the last few years folks here who fix them told us the design had improved remarkably."

LOL, how? They aren't dropping like flies anymore after a few years of normal use. Do you really think laundry mats and military installations would put up with that?

"But at the time when TLs were more common, SpeedQueens and Amanas were nothing more than average. Their only claim to fame is to be one of the last ones to be left on the market. Any washer in my basement currently finishes the job faster and better with less pre-treating, less manual interference etc than the Amana I used to have."

Ok- I am skeptical about your claim regarding time. What top loader finishes a cycle faster than a Speed Queen on a normal cycle? Not just the name, but the actual time difference. And regarding manual interface... Huhh? I just add clothes, detergent, softener, and then pull the knob. 30 minutes latter clothes clean. There are TL SQ models that come with second rinse and prewash for those who need them.

"I am not willing to inadvertently or willingly hurt folks who are on the Aspergers spectrum, of which there are a bunch in here. It's unfair that they believe the crappy propaganda from the manufacturers and corporations, and I can only offer data and hopefully be patient enough for them to process the new info without hurting them."

I am not intending to diagnose anyone or make anyone feel different, but I think that could apply to everyone here, myself certainly included. We are an odd yet really cool group, and technically anyone from the outside could make the Apserger's claim. But then again you could apply that to so many others outside this group.

But going on- yes I am 100% aware that FL use less water. Yes European FL with their advanced detergents and built in heaters out clean and outperform both US TLs and FLs. I fully understand that fact and it does not hurt me. However what does hurt me on the other hand is when an all knowing entity with a checkered history tells me what to buy and use. The government has no business regulating free will, and most sects that have done so through out history are not viewed in a good light. There are so many more things out there that need more attention like our healthcare, education, 3rd world infrastructure and out of control opioed crisis- all which do far more harm by leaps and bounds then people using a TL washers. Said entity will even arrest you for collecting rain water despite going against what they are supposedly trying to accomplish.

Yes this thread has become somewhat political- but I think thats inevitable considering that politics is forcing fundamental changes in laundry- politics that are altering the process and anatomical make up of the very machines we use.

Heres the thing. You want people to switch? Put FLs, and good Euro style FLs on the market and over time people will make the switch when they are saying "yahhh, you know that FL I bought, apparently it saving me money. Give it a try, you might too"

Post# 966104 , Reply# 115   11/5/2017 at 01:32 (259 days old) by earthling177 (Boston, MA)        

"I disagree- think about long lines where the water has chilled. Transferring that heat over does save something."

And conversely, in the many other cases when the water heater is close by and you cool down the next fill by warming up the water you are about to dump? Oh, sure, we can put another complication or two, like a sensor to tell which water is hotter or whatever. Heat recovery works well abroad, where al the dishwashers have a cold fill and heat up their own water.

As for my Amana -- no it was not broken when I sold it or even leaking. My dad used to have very good hearing which served him well in teaching Mech. Eng. for over 4 decades. He was able to listen to stuff working and describe if the gearing was well manufactured, for example. Or things that were straining. Or a number of other things.

SpeedQueen did not begin to address those problems until about 5-10 years ago, and it seemed to really get better about 3 years ago. We hope this new design will do well or at least better than their previous designs.

My "review" as it were of my Amana, which at the time was nearly identical as the SpeedQueens in laundromats is based on having used lots of other brands, some toploaders, some frontloaders.

The particular model I had (1992) did not wash particularly well and didn't rinse well either. So, to clean very dirty clothes that our household had with the detergents back then, we often had to pre-treat everything that was very dirty with Spray-n-Wash or similar, then we'd do a pre-wash and soak, and *then* the regular wash, which had to be followed by a second rinse and spin. That used to take 2 hours or more, a good half hour or so was manually pre-treating stuff, and we had to go back to the basement to reset the machine from the pre-wash/soak to wash and then second rinse.

All my current frontloaders finish the cycle in less time: one in 65 minutes, one in about 45 minutes and the other in about 90 minutes depending on the phase of the moon. And I don't have to pre-treat, soak or come back to reset the machine.

Granted, newer detergents are better now but if the agitator was the same, the wash arc and speed are the same, the wash time is the same, I don't think I'm committing violence here to say I'd expect the performance to be just as basic/mediocre as it was back then.

And if I remember right, the outer tub on my machine was porcelain coated steel. The inner basket was stainless steel.

"Oh, *I* don't need any of that, my clothes are clean enough to come out clean from a SpeedQueen without pre-treating..."

Wow, good for you! You could be happy with just about anything they offer couldn't you? Why claim this washer is special then? Because the people I know who had dirty socks, children's clothes, clothes with heavy soil from working on farms or fixing cars etc were all doing what we were doing, and yes, a "regular cycle" finished in 45 minutes or less, but was *not* enough to *clean* stuff without help.

As for the claim that the free-market will let people "adequately" choose the best machine, that's *exactly* what hurts you people: everywhere people have been given a choice, they've been picking up the frontloaders. Ever since they've been relaunched in USA, even before all the "serious" EnergyStar thing hit and manufacturers started dumbing down toploaders, people who have been using washers properly have been leaving toploaders behind for good. The few people who got issues and went back to the toploaders are finding the same issues there too, including mold and mildew, and those are the people who use cool/cold washes with crappy detergents.

Now for the politics thing: I'm done with this, if you are still interested, go to the other forums and start a thread there, I might respond.

There is no pleasing people who in the same breath and sentence complain about the lack of healthcare, education, bad infrastructure and "out of control opioid crisis", *all* of which have been shown to benefit from government "interference" stopping the bad corporations from abusing unsuspecting public. The very opioid crisis you complain about was started and fueled by the greed of the pharma industry, who lied to us about the safety of their meds and pushed doctors to prescribe them assuring them the meds were safe when they knew they were not.

Just take a look at places with "no government interference" like Somalia, Ethiopia and compare them to here right now or even better, here 50 years ago, when the government *funded* a lot of education, healthcare, basic research that led the country to be the First World Superpower.

By all means, don't stop there -- also take a look at how we used to be *before* government started telling people that selling snake oil would land them in jail, and stopped food suppliers from loading the food with sawdust and other crap. I don't think that people who lived thru the Great Depression of '29 appreciated having to go thru that just so a few robber barons could live at the top of the chain, when banks were not as well regulated either.

And I have *never* heard of government prohibiting people from collecting rain water, where the heck is that going on?

Here's the way I see what you are saying and what I'm saying: I think a government that regulates commerce and protects the public from the greed and excess of bankers, corporations etc is *great* and they should leave me and what I do in my bedroom alone. What I hear *you* saying, because it sounds an awful lot like what the other half of the population is saying, I hear that group of people saying that government *should* have a right to tell me what my sex life should be, that if I'm not straight I should not have the right to serve my country or walk the streets safely, and that I do not have a right to clean air, water or soil, and, to compensate me for my troubles, they will remove all regulations from bankers, corporations etc, so they can rape the public at will until we're as poor as people in Ethiopia right now, or even people here in 1929, and we should thank our lucky stars that we're not in jail for owing money or, if someone really hates us, they can make up some story that me and someone else were having non-missionary sex, or participating in felatio or anal sex.


If you think about it, you have benefited from government assistance way more often than you give it credit. And unless you have millions of dollars to your name, you have, like everyone else here, used government services that cost real money more than you paid. You use electricity, phones, water, sewage, roads, interstates, police, firemen etc.

Even things you've paid for: when you get something FedExed or UPSed to you, it's *way* cheaper in USA to use those services than in places where the government is so bad that roads and interstates are in shambles, for example.

It's just that people freakout when they pay 10 dollars in taxes, but it's OK to avail ourselves of services that cost way more than 10 bucks, like the internet you are using right now.

As for people on the Asperger's spectrum, if you can look at this thread and not identify at least a couple of them, I dunno what to tell you. I don't think they deserve to be treated badly.

Anyway, have fun, if you want to continue this conversation, please start a new thread in the proper forums, I am way past done here.

-- Paulo.

Post# 966105 , Reply# 116   11/5/2017 at 01:15 (259 days old) by agiflow2 ()        

Come now Paulo and enlighten the rest of us. Who are these poor you accuse of Asbergers ? Surely you know. Name names please and have the balls to call them out.

Post# 966108 , Reply# 117   11/5/2017 at 01:41 (259 days old) by earthling177 (Boston, MA)        


Patrick, that is low even for you.

No one *accused* anyone of Asbergers[sic].

What I *said* is that there are people in this very thread who are on the Asperger's spectrum, it's obvious to anyone who cares, it's more than clear that they are having a very hard time with this stupid discussion and *I* for one do not want to contribute to that any more than I've already have.

If you were a better person, you'd have the balls to refrain from such a post and asking for names in the first place. And if *I* were a better person, I would not right now be wondering -- What Would Jesus Do?

If you or anyone else want to continue this conversation, there are *two* private forums for controversial stuff. Make use of them.

Have fun!
-- Paulo.

Post# 966111 , Reply# 118   11/5/2017 at 02:38 (259 days old) by chetlaham (United States)        

chetlaham's profile picture
And that is my point, there are so many cases where something can be made more efficient, but practicality limits that.

In your case with pre-treating yes it takes longer- but in my case 30 minutes vs 65-90 is a major time reduction. 45 minutes on regular? Sounds like those guys have low water pressure.

Yes- collecting rain water:

"There is no pleasing people who in the same breath and sentence complain about the lack of healthcare, education, bad infrastructure and "out of control opioid crisis", *all* of which have been shown to benefit from government "interference" stopping the bad corporations from abusing unsuspecting public."

No, its the opposite. Who runs the public education system and has done so more and more over the years? No child left behind/common core? The government has. Who has crippling regulations that squash infrastructure projects like new highways? The government. Who legalized powerful opiods (ok they were liberal for once) and then criminalizes the fall out? The government. Maybe the better term would be the are doing it all wrong. But still, the majority of cases involve oppressive laws and over-site. Somalia and Ethiopia are extremes that do not further the argument as there is a LOT in between them.

Post# 966112 , Reply# 119   11/5/2017 at 02:47 (259 days old) by chetlaham (United States)        

chetlaham's profile picture
"that's *exactly* what hurts you people: everywhere people have been given a choice, they've been picking up the frontloaders"

Only from marketing and compelling force. Ie, Whirlpools new toploaders agitate when filling being very rough on clothing. No water level control on many models, long cycle times, locking lids... in short people are being forced to switch to front loaders.

However thats not to say that there are people who save energy while getting great results from their Fls. Many people do. However IMO the issue boils down to consumer choice that is presently limited.

Post# 966123 , Reply# 120   11/5/2017 at 05:51 (258 days old) by askolover (South of Nash Vegas, TN)        

askolover's profile picture

" short people are being forced to switch to front loaders."


Perhaps this is just what the government wants to happen...make so many bad HE topload machines that people will Have to switch.

Post# 966156 , Reply# 121   11/5/2017 at 09:05 (258 days old) by speedqueen (Harrison Twp, Michigan)        

speedqueen's profile picture
I AM one of those autistic people you mention, Paulo, and I am proud to be as such. I resent your notion that myself and people like me cannot be trusted to analyze this thread and make proper sense of it. I have trouble w/ social interaction not rational thinking.

I am most certainly not having trouble following this discussion and it is insulting for you to say that autistic folks like myself cannot!

I usually find your commentary intriguing, but this is simply insulting.

Post# 966161 , Reply# 122   11/5/2017 at 09:23 (258 days old) by simpsomatic (Melb, Aust-now Palm Springs,US)        
Wooden spoons

Here we go again, same old pot stirrers............

Post# 966166 , Reply# 123   11/5/2017 at 10:09 (258 days old) by agiflow2 ()        

I wasn't trying to be low. Do you know someone with Aspbergers ? You made the statement and in your mind you think you know who they are. So all I am asking is for you to state who you think they are. I mean you could tell by their posts..right ? Very condescending of you. Must be the elitists here I have heard about .

If you want to know "what would Jesus do" pick up a bible and start in the book of Matthew. I will not speak on anything again concerning religion or politics here.

I would like to talk to you over at dirty laundry but I currently do not have access as my views are not tolerated much for love, tolerance and acceptance. I don't want to discuss politics either.

I came to this website for the sheer love of automatic washers and to obtain knowledge i didn't have about these wonderful marvels of engineering. So far it has been pretty good and many of the club members have been kind and courteous.

Post# 966174 , Reply# 124   11/5/2017 at 10:31 (258 days old) by brucelucenta ()        
top load machines?

There will probably ALWAYS be a few top load washers produced because there will always be people who will hold out against change and/or there may be certain unusual applications and places where a front load machine will not fit in. That being said, there is really NOTHING that a top load machine can do better than a new front load machine with all the features available now. I have stated many times before that front loaders do as well or a better job of cleaning, rinsing and are far better at spinning the water out. They do it with virtually NO linting and less wear on your clothing, towels and bedding using FAR less water and saving you a LOT of time and energy on drying in your dryer. The ONLY thing different is that it does take significantly longer to wash and rinse a load of laundry, which I consider to be a small trade off indeed. In the new millennium, front load washers have FINALLY been perfected from the old machines from the 30's to the 90's and are the clear educated and informed choice now. When top loaders were useful and worked well was when we had nothing better, that day is over now. The old top load machines are fun and interesting to watch and use. The new ones are just attempting to do the same thing a new front loader can do, with the same amount of water. This is just not physically possible by design.

Post# 966194 , Reply# 125   11/5/2017 at 12:06 (258 days old) by Infusor (Usa)        
Top load

In my opinion, i think the whirlpool/kenmore calypso was the only exception, conveinence of a top load but performance on par with a front load, of course because it was good they stop making it and now produce absolute junk! The new cabrios are noisy, weak agitation, use more water than a calypso..... we are supposed to go foreward in improvements not backwards, anyhow, i am really looking forward to the new speed queen, i have faith alliance knows what they are doing.

Post# 966202 , Reply# 126   11/5/2017 at 12:39 (258 days old) by agiflow2 ()        

The top load design was probably perfected by the seventies. I don't know what advances could be made. Now manufacturers have to redesign the machines and change what worked well for the most part of seventy years.

Does CU use the same criteria to clean an 8lb load they did in the 50s ? Because back then top loaders cleaned very well. So how much cleaner can modern fl washers get dirty laundry ? For decades top load washers cleaned well and front loaders middling even with low sudsing detergent ? What gives ? The mechanical action is still the same in a fler,.so what changed?

Do high temps and improved detergents account for their now "excellent" washing scores ? Now Speed Queen top load ratings are not as high as the best front loaders for cleaning. You mean in all these decades since the first Bendix automatic one figured that a puddle of water and and a low sudsing detergent was the answer ? Give me a break !

It certainly then must be the detergents and built in heaters because I don't see how lightly tossing clothes will get them clean as compared to the good spanking an agitator gives.

Post# 966212 , Reply# 127   11/5/2017 at 13:57 (258 days old) by johnrk (BP TX)        
Changed Criteria

I've found it interesting, owning CR issues back to 1950 testing washing machines, that the criteria certainly aren't the same. Perhaps it's just the testing procedures themselves; I know that an enormous emphasis developed on cleaning wash-and-wear. I guess it's because of the national mania for that new type of clothing.

I wonder whether people back then were nastier than today? I know my own mother told me that when my sister and I were still in cloth diapers, the ability to wash in very hot water was considered important. Now, we seem to be dealing with these machines that deny that. Has doo-doo changed? I don't think so--and believe me, I've seen enough patients' underwear to know that it's not just babies with skid marks. With this obese society, probably people are getting more food on their fat stomachs when they eat, and chemical-laden foods are supposed to be tougher to remove than before.

But, as I've stated here before, my clothing really isn't that dirty. I am equally interested in reliability and durability, though my total laundry load is light. We are in a time, as has happened since the forties, of peripheral junk on our washers. In the past, it was piles of mechanical pushbuttons and dispensers of dubious reliability (think GE Dispensall). Nowadays? Silly electronic options, such as wireless and umpteen different cycle options, that actually contribute nothing whatsoever to the results, but are entertaining for a generation obsessed with 'smart' phones and similar toys.

I purchased the pdf on this site of the Bendix Economat operator's manual. On page 5, it states that the operator, at the end of the wash, remove the agitator and clean it and the tub. Can anyone imagine today's users (including me) having to disassemble the machine after each wash day?

Modern appliance manufacturers are putting out crap because people are willing to buy crap. Just that simple. We saw, in the decade from the late 70's to the late 80's, where American car buyers got fed up with lousy cars from our car makers, and flipped by the millions over to more reliable, better made Japanese cars. Unfortunately, the Koreans haven't shown the same clear advantage over our domestic makers.

Post# 966213 , Reply# 128   11/5/2017 at 13:59 (258 days old) by speedqueen (Harrison Twp, Michigan)        

speedqueen's profile picture
That has been a question of mine for a while, too.

Post# 966214 , Reply# 129   11/5/2017 at 14:01 (258 days old) by DADoES (TX,U.S. of A.)        

dadoes's profile picture

AgiFlow2: It certainly then must be the detergents and built in heaters because I don't see how lightly tossing clothes will get them clean as compared to the good spanking an agitator gives.
Then perhaps you don't have much or any experience using a FL. :-)

The full-fill (very large) load of whites in the WP DD that I referenced in Reply #73 above certainly came clean ... with four water changes -- soak/prewash, wash (chlorine bleach added last few mins), rinse, 2nd rinse -- more than 100 gallons of water. It also generated an alarming amount of lint in the dryer, compared to what would result from the same load in the Calypso with considerably less water consumption.

Post# 966220 , Reply# 130   11/5/2017 at 14:53 (258 days old) by agiflow2 ()        

Glenn i have used fl washers in a laundromat and those machines were no more impressive in getting clothes clean. Granted I would imagine the shorter cycle times probably bad to do with that, but it goes to show why the fl style needs longer to get clothes cleaner.

Those machines also have larger cylinders and have higher lift and drop with more than a puddle of water. You would think those could do a better job. Has not been my experience. Certain types of stains just don't budge or shift completely no matter what type of washing action.

When all is said and done I am one of those who simply prefer agitator washing. I don't get too dirty so any machine would do really.

Post# 966241 , Reply# 131   11/5/2017 at 18:00 (258 days old) by earthling177 (Boston, MA)        


Not that it matters or that it should change your view of me one way or another (I believe only time and experience can do that, and I *am* willing to wait for you to have enough experience interacting with me).

I *do* have friends who have kids on the Autism/Asperger's Spectrum. I have friends (grown up) on the Autism/Asperger's Spectrum. Some of my friends are here in AW, some of them in this very thread.

I am glad to know that you are proud to be who you are and you should be. Some of the people who brought the most gain to Humanity, in whatever sector you want to mention (Science, Medicine, Philosophy etc) were/are people who share this with you. I am sure you know this, but some here don't.

Here's the pattern I've observed on the internet in general (and also here): someone on the spectrum shows up and starts interacting with the group. Everything is going great for a few cycles, and then there's a minor slip -- anyone can do that, it's not exclusive of people on the spectrum. Because we are a group of geeks, instead of just agreeing to disagree or moving on, we start fighting over details that the majority of the population could not care less about it.

Repeat this over time and a few dozen threads.

After a while, with the repeated cycles, we've had people give up on the groups not because they have trouble with the rational part of the discussion -- the trouble comes from the intensity of the social interaction and the failure of the people not on the spectrum to notice who they are interacting with and allowing for them to have a safe space to interact with the group.

Because, truth be told, it's not just people on the spectrum that have trouble with social interaction. It's fairly easy and common for a group to be unable to decide if someone is on the spectrum or a troll trying to cause trouble.

This is important: with just a tiny bit of care, we can have a wonderful experience with people on the spectrum and let them be themselves and we'll benefit from their presence, knowledge and experience etc.

You have been here for a while and I hope you have noticed me trying (and possibly failing) to be an advocate for people on the spectrum, because I am not content with the status quo on the internet and I think we in general do not give them a fair chance and I want that changed.

I am sorry that I came up as condescending and/or insulting. The insulting tone is there, yes, but it was not directed at people on the spectrum, I assure you, but at people like Patrick who think that being on the spectrum is an accusation and/or an insult and that people should "out" folks on the spectrum -- I say they will let us know about if they want to when they want to.

Still, I am saddened that I hurt anyone on the spectrum here, it's what I was trying to avoid in the first place.

My sincere apologies and I will try to do better in the future.

-- Paulo.

Post# 966242 , Reply# 132   11/5/2017 at 18:02 (258 days old) by earthling177 (Boston, MA)        

The Bendix Economat was a very simple machine -- in fact, the agitator was just lowered in place, no screws or anything. One could lift it up, remove the filter underneath and rinse it, and just put it all back in a matter of seconds, the longest operation was rinsing out the filter. In fact, it was much easier than cleaning the filters on any number of machines, including Maytags.

The scoring for cleaning tests (particularly at CU) have changed over the years too. At a certain point (mid-90's? I can't remember) they mentioned in every test that current scores could not be compared to previous scores, some machines that cleaned "really well" previously started rating only fair or worse when compared to the Calypso and the new frontloaders.

There are reasons for that too: since the dawn of time, women were expected to pre-treat/remove all stains before the clothes were washed. Often there were long soaks and pre-washing involved too. The last step was a 10 minute agitation with detergent followed by rinse and spin. Some machines offered "heavy duty" or "heavy soil" setting which were 12 or 15 minutes. That is simply not enough and it shows poorly when compared to any machine that washes for 20 minutes or more -- those can remove most stains and soil by themselves, and machines that can automatically fill with water and detergent, do a pre-wash, then discard that water and refill with water and detergent and do a long wash will basically outwash most any other method. This is not news, Bendix did have some front-loaders way back then that did exactly that, but at that time places like CU were doing a "uniform" test with a "normal" cycle, instead of trying to find out maximum performance. So, it's not any surprise that some manufacturers just relabled what used to be "normal" to "short/express" cycle and some Heavy Soil/Whitest Whites to Normal. Poof, instant promotion to the top of the charts.

The reason for the "over 15 minute" wash length is that most enzymes (and detergents etc) take at the very least 15 minutes at 60C/140F to do the job. Longer in warm or cooler water. The problem one faces now, is that a front loader is essentially just squeezing the clothes (which releases some of the water) when they go up, then dumping them back in the water which gets reabsorbed again, and one can do that for a very long time without excessive wear and tear, but anything with an agitator, impeller, infuser or whatever you call it, might be too rough.

One of the promising features of this new SpeedQueen model is that maybe they found a way for the clothes not to wear out so much compared to other toploaders.

It's a rather counter-intuitive fact when dealing with front loading washers that the less water they use, the more effectively they wash the clothes, but the cost here is that they also wear out the items faster. That is one of the reasons that older frontloaders used more water (to protect the clothes) and did not perform/clean as well as the new ones. Cycle times, speed (rpm) and rhythm (how many revolutions, resting time and reversal) etc are very important too.

So, you see those machines in the laundromat half-full of water and tumbling madly in only one direction or stopping as little as possible and reversing, they look cool and exciting, but they might not be cleaning as well as they could. In fact, a machine that has a low water level but *two* wash speeds (one for tumbling and saturating the clothes, and one a little faster to push the clothes against the basket and squeeze some water out) will outwash the "traditional" frontloaders.

I would also like to point out that *most* people will have a terrible experience in laundromats, where the washers are often tuned for speed and to save hot water, so no matter what, toploader/frontloader, a 6-8 minute wash is not as good as what a domestic washer cycle can do for you.

Do not judge a machine just because what you experienced in a laundromat. In fact, my statement is stronger than that. My husband and I used to have a 6-cylinder car that we loved, so, naturally, we were happy to find out years ago that we were given a car of the same brand/model at the rental place when we were visiting friends in a different state. The car was like a totally different car, if we had rented it first, we'd never have bought it in the first place. First off, it had a 4-cyl engine, and they had not maintained the car as well as they should.

It is *very* very rare that machines in laundromats are maintained well, filled with hot water and wash for the same length of time you machine in your laundry room would do.

I tell European people "don't judge toploaders by your experience in a laundromat" and I tell Americans "don't judge frontloaders by your experience in a laundromat".

The other thing I want to mention: don't judge others who claimed some machine doesn't clean well enough for them. There's an awful lot that goes with local water chemistry, for example. Just because you have an office work and the *most* you need to pre-treat is a ring-around-the-collar and maybe 3 pairs of socks and your laundromat machines suffice for you, it doesn't mean other people are filthy. They have different situations/requirements that you or anyone else could *easily* find yourselves into -- kids, for example, get clothes much harder to clean than my clothes; there are people who walk in white socks which turn filthy; there are people who participate in community theater, for example, and inexpensive/cheap theater makeup is a real challenge; and that's not even touching in an awful lot of other things.

What I want to say is that if we want to be *serious* about this hobby, we can't let small stuff like "this washer cleans or rinses better than that" affect us. It's a fact of life that can by scientifically shown, it says nothing about you or me. Not everyone is after the best performing washer, some want the most fun to watch, some want something that doesn't break easily. Some are happy with whatever came with the home when they bought it.

-- Paulo.

Post# 966251 , Reply# 133   11/5/2017 at 18:31 (258 days old) by DADoES (TX,U.S. of A.)        

dadoes's profile picture

Yes, as Paulo says, the coin-op environment can't be directly compared to a home machine. The business model is to get the customers in and out quickly. A machine running a long cycle can only run X times per day whereas a shorter cycle can run XX times ... more revenue.

Improved detergents target soils on the chemical level so less physical beating is needed ... longer "soaking" time to loosen soils and stains, less aggressive "spanking" to flush them out.

Post# 966273 , Reply# 134   11/5/2017 at 20:09 (258 days old) by agiflow2 ()        

I can say one thing for you Paulo, explain yourself pretty well and I don't want any bad feeling here. I shouldn't have put you on the spot like that. My apologies. I'm not here to argue with you or anyone.

Take care,

Post# 966279 , Reply# 135   11/5/2017 at 20:33 (258 days old) by brucelucenta ()        
Why front loaders are best today

What has changed from the old front loaders of the 30's-90's? A great deal. One major thing is that they equally reverse rotation. This keeps things from balling up and tangling too. They have larger and wider drums, so a further drop, which is what does much of the cleaning. They use less water because front loaders do naturally use less water by design. New machines use less than ever, but usually enough to totally saturate the load washing with soapy water and then rinse water. They spin out incredibly fast and save a great deal of energy that would otherwise be used for drying wetter clothing. Front loaders were always excellent about getting rid of any and all sediment and lint. They also don't beat the clothes like top load machines do to clean them, thus they do not create any lint either. It is just a win/win situation from a standpoint of performance. The absolute ONLY drawback is that they take significantly longer to run their cycle. I consider that a very minor inconvenience, but then some people used to think the tangling into knots that Frigidaire washers did was a minor inconvenience too, others thought it a very great inconvenience.

Post# 966292 , Reply# 136   11/5/2017 at 21:03 (258 days old) by speedqueen (Harrison Twp, Michigan)        
Reply to Paulo,

speedqueen's profile picture
I understand better now. I want to apologize for getting my feathers ruffled.

I think now that both you and Patrick meant the best but it was a little confusing. I appreciate your flattering comments about us autistic folk, but I'm certainly no Einstein or Thomas Jefferson!

"Minor slip." I have got to laugh because I usually end up messing something up within the first week of joining a forum.

To sum up, you meant the best and thus you didn't need to apologize. I want to thank you for your care about us. All I can say is you're lucky that there isn't an extremist "autistic self-advocate" around here, as they would take insult to the simple fact that you showed support at all and didn't let them do all the talking. I have both my support and qualms with those types, they make every neurotypical(NT) action even if it is to help autistic people out to be bad because they "cannot possibly represent us." They do have a point that autistic representation regarding autistic issues is severely lacking, though.

Post# 966313 , Reply# 137   11/5/2017 at 23:22 (258 days old) by earthling177 (Boston, MA)        

Thank you both Pat and Richard.

I think that one of the greatest things about the internet is that we can make more friends -- I have yet to meet anyone that thinks or feels that they have too many friends. With time and just a tiny little bit of effort, places like AW become like this really cool extended family, we get to know each other and care for and about each other.

Like any family, yes, there can be tough times, drama, party times, wonderful things can happen.

Most of the time, most of the people here have had wonderful experiences and I hope that the trend will continue for a long time.

-- Paulo.

Post# 966336 , Reply# 138   11/6/2017 at 03:57 (258 days old) by chetlaham (United States)        

chetlaham's profile picture
I agree and well said :)

So- onto the Queen. I can't wait to see her in action. And the new model line up. I want seconds! :P

Post# 966388 , Reply# 139   11/6/2017 at 11:36 (257 days old) by Infusor (Usa)        

Me too chetlaham!!! I'm kind of excited, the speed queen rep said that the 2018 models will have the same "washability we have come to expect" from speed queen, which sounds promising, i think people on here are scared because the first thing that comes to mind is agitub skinny minni, and immersion care frigidaires, frigidaire in general is know for having subpar performence, even some of their front loaders including the new electolux under performed some agitator top loads according to CR and other groups, it all depends on how long the rotation of the tub is and how fast, the frigidaire agitub skinny mini did not have a big agitation arc, we will see, i do not think speed queen will risk it and be ok with poor results.

Post# 966394 , Reply# 140   11/6/2017 at 11:56 (257 days old) by agiflow2 ()        

I hope this works out well for speed queen. I will gladly embrace this new way of washing as long as it can still get grimy work clothes clean. I certainly hope it rinses better than the one I have now.

It's not that bad but could definitely use improvement without using the second rinse switch so much.

Post# 966399 , Reply# 141   11/6/2017 at 12:15 (257 days old) by Infusor (Usa)        

Agiflow2 i think that was the main reason for the new mechanism was rinsing ability on the eco cycle, with the spray/spin sequence there is not much you can do with a transmission, it limits the spin/pause patterns, with the new motor there is so much more you can do, not to mention less moving parts easier to repair too.

Post# 966408 , Reply# 142   11/6/2017 at 13:39 (257 days old) by brucelucenta ()        

I will really find it interesting to see how well this works.

Post# 966471 , Reply# 143   11/6/2017 at 19:53 (257 days old) by HiLoVane (Columbus OH)        

I find both sides of this discussion interesting; since I didn't look at everybody's post, has anyone uttered "GOD SAVE THE QUEEN?"

As for me, it's all moot. My SQ TL (mechanical controls) is a bit over 1.5 years old. As I had mentioned elsewhere in the past, I do prefer FL's having had an Asko and then a Maytag (in a way, they both offset one another; the Asko was overall the superior washer; but the Maytag had better capacity, and would tumble as it filled, unlike the Asko) But, since I couldn't afford a SQ FL, let alone another Asko, or Miele, I figured if I have to get a TL, SQ was the only way to go. I have no regrets about my decision.

It's not out the realm of possibility that it could be the last washing machine I'll ever buy.

Post# 966472 , Reply# 144   11/6/2017 at 19:55 (257 days old) by rapunzel (Sydney)        

I will not be embracing anything. Agitub my arse. I want real agitation from an agitator. My plan is to keep repairing my current Speed Queen if and when necessary.

I also must add that Fisher and Paykel top loaders are superb machines, which are extremely well designed and I do like the many programmable options they offer. Comparing LG, Samsung and a whole bunch of other washer, Fisher and Paykel are way ahead of all of them in performance, quality, built and programming. If I wasn't such an intransigent, churlish old bastard, I would consider replacing my Speed Queen with a Fisher and Paykel washer. I don't get why Fisher and Paykel is not more popular in the US. They are attractive, perform as well as most other highly rated washers and represent very good value for money.

This post was last edited 11/06/2017 at 23:57
Post# 966483 , Reply# 145   11/6/2017 at 21:43 (257 days old) by agiflow2 ()        

I used to see F&P over here in more mainstream outlets like Lowe's. I think they are now being sold through smaller independent outlets . The only thing I didn't like about F&P washers,..that is before they redesigned them, was they felt very cheaply made.

I understand why they had that plastic top so there would be no rusting but the sheet metal for the body was very thin gauge. The agitator also was less than impressive with full loads in videos I have seen.Lots of thrashing and very little if any turnover. The agitator blades were paper thin.This is just an observation though.

I actually prefer the impeller version of the F&P washers. They look like they perform better and I have been impressed by the videos I have seen of those models in action. The newer large capacity agitator models look decent decent also. The newer redesigned cabinets and controls look to be of much better quality . Have not seen one live so can't comment on build quality.

Post# 966508 , Reply# 146   11/6/2017 at 23:11 (257 days old) by rapunzel (Sydney)        

The agitator design for F&P machines hasn't really changed in years. They use flexible vanes to give a gentler wash and are up to the task. You are right, the newer models have more substantial lids and overall they are no less sturdy than any of the other major (Asian) brands that are on the market. As for durability, sure, older F&P models don't quite appear to be as sturdy and solid as traditional, American style top loaders. However, they last the distance, clean and rinse well, are known for being reliable and they are a very easy machine to service and maintain.

Lets face it, traditional top loaders, like the ones we all grew up with are almost extinct. So Speed Queen still produces washers that, by all accounts, appear to be solid and sturdy. However, they are also a lot more expensive than most other washers. I can't wait to get reviews for the new agitub models. The proof of any pudding is always in the eating.

Post# 966512 , Reply# 147   11/6/2017 at 23:57 (257 days old) by agiflow2 ()        

Agreed rapunzel. Just to digress for a moment. When WP was using F&P motors they seemed to have better wash action than what they use now. I know the high end models are still using a DD motor, but they are a combination of the DD and belt driven cabrios.

I could hear gears when I turned the wash plate of one of the current models. The F&P based washers had more powerful wash action.

Post# 966523 , Reply# 148   11/7/2017 at 02:12 (257 days old) by chetlaham (United States)        
I'll be honest

chetlaham's profile picture
I think Speed Queen did the right thing. As Infusor said I don't think they will risk it. I mean ultimately I'd like the classic concept of filling all the way to the top to remain forever, but with the current regulations SQ was forced to make changes.

With those changes if I had to choose between a mod shifter that could fail in 10 years (which would make the machine practically junk-able) and a fail proof part then I would go with the fail proof design. Remember, Speed Queen is trying to get 20 years (at least) out of these machine. A mod shiftier is a gamble in addition to necessitating a suspension system change. I don't know, maybe they could make a sifter serviceable that does not require removing the inner and outter tub when it fails, but still.

Post# 966524 , Reply# 149   11/7/2017 at 02:32 (257 days old) by Infusor (Usa)        
Speed queen reps response

Thank you for your question. In 2018, there will be stricter government regulations we need to comply with for one cycle on the machine. There will be some modifications to our current top load washers beginning with January 2018 production. What will not change is that our design specifications remain at 10,400 cycles giving you a long life, a high degree of reliability backed by a strong warranty, and great Washability. For most cycles, you still get a full tub of water for wash and rinse and the temperature you select for washing is still hot or warm or cold and not blended. I hope this helps!

Post# 966535 , Reply# 150   11/7/2017 at 06:16 (256 days old) by chetlaham (United States)        

chetlaham's profile picture
"For most cycles, you still get a full tub of water for wash and rinse and the temperature you select for washing is still hot or warm or cold and not blended"

Wait, is my leg being pulled here? Because that is to good to be true. If that is true my respect for SQ just went up in that they could have ditched that all together. Glad to see an effort to give customers what they want.

Post# 966540 , Reply# 151   11/7/2017 at 06:38 (256 days old) by joeypete (Concord, NH)        
F&P TopLoader

joeypete's profile picture
I got mine this past Saturday and I have to say it's a very good machine, aside from the fabric softener dispenser, which will dump the FS in the spray rinse, regardless if you select the FS option (which adds a deep rinse in addition to a spray rinse). That is extremely frustrating and all I can gather is that in the manual they discourage the use of liquid "conditioner", so my guess is it's intentional to reduce scrud build up...still, I'm not happy BUT...

Rollover is excellent...yes it's a straight vane but it has very vigorous agitation and it does rollover well, as long as water level is proper. It does have an auto level, which I discovered works good for smaller loads. Larger ones it actually estimates very well, but it's just not enough to get good rollover. But nice thing is you can over ride it easily after.

It's extremely quiet as well. So for the most part I'm very happy with it...just that dang FS option! haha I may try a Downy Ball to see if that works better.

Post# 966573 , Reply# 152   11/7/2017 at 10:32 (256 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

I think joeypete bought a Fisher & Paykel, not a Speed Queen.

Post# 966659 , Reply# 153   11/7/2017 at 17:21 (256 days old) by GusHerb (Chicago/NWI)        

I considered one of those F&P machines in lieu of the SQ TL. Ultimately I had my heart set on the SQ, which actually ended up costing less than the F&P. Still curious to use one and see how it performs compared to the SQ though, I believe those machines can use a ton of water with the right settings. 

Post# 966672 , Reply# 154   11/7/2017 at 18:40 (256 days old) by mark_wpduet (Lexington KY)        
Confused -

mark_wpduet's profile picture
You said it now has a "proper" neutral drain as if it's a good thing they no longer do spin drains? I thought all the washer fanatics loved spin drains? I remember my Grandma's Frigidaire would spin a tub full of water out in no time, and I always hated the fact that our Lady Kenmore didn't do that. I think spin drains are better unless there's something I'm missing.

Post# 966699 , Reply# 155   11/7/2017 at 20:44 (256 days old) by appnut (TX)        
SQ was the last to have two major things

appnut's profile picture

And old-fashioned agitator washer and a solid tub washer with overflow rinsing. 

Post# 966701 , Reply# 156   11/7/2017 at 20:54 (256 days old) by joeypete (Concord, NH)        

joeypete's profile picture
Yes i did buy the FP. It's probably comparable to the SQ. Very user friendly and you are able to adjust things to your desire. I liked it for the larger capacity, and considering I just barely fit all my towels in it's 3.9 cu ft tub, I'm glad I bought it over the SQ.

It's kind of like when I switched from Windows to Mac...a little weird but I learned to love it immensely. I'm sure it will be the same for the FP. :-)

Yesss it's uses a shit ton water. LOL. But it's temp efficient with the Eco Active re-circulation spray. I'm not in a drought area so I'm happy.

Post# 966749 , Reply# 157   11/8/2017 at 02:51 (256 days old) by rapunzel (Sydney)        

The SQ still uses a shit ton of water, especially if one selects the three deep rinses over the eco rinse option. That's the whole point, isn't it? Having that choice to either go with the water saver option or not to.

The same applies to Fisher and Paykel. Depending on the model most of them give the option of an auto sense fill or manual water level select. The default, to my understanding, is the intuitive eco option that comes on every time the machine is turned on. This option is supposed to only fill the washer through auto sense and with only as much water as is absolutely necessary for the load size and fabric mix to be washed. In the manuals it is described as using almost as little water as a front loader would do for the same size and type of load. The load is fully saturated, but not to the point that it is fully suspended in the water. Combined with the eco rinse it is meant to be almost equivalent to a front loader wash in water consumption and wash action. However, if intuitive eco is deselected, the washer fills and operates like a regular top loader. Both the straight vane agitator and low profile wash plate are designed to allow for such low water volume and still thoroughly agitate clothes without excessive wear and tear.

F&P also offers five different water temperatures, which the machine will mix and sense. With hot being tap hot, hot/warm equal to 40C (104F), warm 30C (86F), warm/cold 20C (68F) and cold being tap cold.

Now, getting back to the 2018 SQ model using the agitub system. A picture of the agitator for the new model was posted earlier. It really dosen't look like that much. One would think that with an agitub they ought to incorporate structures in the spin tub that cause more water turbulence when the tub is spun to create agitation. Will the clothes still move through the water as vigorously and in the same toroidal movement with the new system?

The service tech response mentioned further regulatory compliance making desing changes necessary. However, many markets that SQ sells to do not apply American regulations. Thus, one would assume that SQ may still manufacture regular, belt driven agitator washers for overseas consumers. At least I would hope so. By making such a fundamental change to their top loaders, I feel that they are dumbing down their design.

This post was last edited 11/08/2017 at 05:03
Post# 966763 , Reply# 158   11/8/2017 at 06:21 (255 days old) by joeypete (Concord, NH)        

joeypete's profile picture
Yes, that's what I like about the FP is that the agitator model (at least in the US), is not an HE machine. The auto level works decent actually, though I discovered that while washing bedding it's best to select the water level manually.

Best thing I like is that the water temp isn't dumbed down, unless you want it to be. I selected warm and it felt almost hot to me...haha. Nice! I turned controlled cold on instead of tap cold because out tap water gets pretty chilly in NH this time of year.

It's a very cool machine.

Post# 966779 , Reply# 159   11/8/2017 at 07:50 (255 days old) by agiflow2 ()        

Joeypete, how does the F&P compare to your Maytag Bravos ?

Post# 966783 , Reply# 160   11/8/2017 at 08:02 (255 days old) by joeypete (Concord, NH)        

joeypete's profile picture
It's a completely different machine honestly. The Maytag, while able to be filled completely, was still an HE machine at heart. The FP is not an HE machine, it fills traditionally and has more control over options, which I liked better.

The Maytag is probably a better cleaner, though it did take longer, but would clean anything. The FP has done a good job so far but it's cycles are timed more like a regular washer. I'll probably notice the biggest difference on my whites. The Maytag cleaned them spotless, with little to no pretreatment. My other stuff doesn't get that dirty so I won't be able to see a difference. But like I said, I like the more traditional setup of the FP.

Post# 966787 , Reply# 161   11/8/2017 at 08:30 (255 days old) by agiflow2 ()        

Cool. Hope you get years of good service.

Post# 966797 , Reply# 162   11/8/2017 at 10:14 (255 days old) by DADoES (TX,U.S. of A.)        

dadoes's profile picture

To clarify on Rapunzel/Olav's F&P detail for agitator models ... only the initial Eco Active pretreatment is at the low-water saturation level, at the selected temperature. The Eco Active solution is not drained, a traditional agitated wash follows at either an auto-sensed or a manually-selected water level, with the fill being at controlled-cold (Regular, Heavy, Delicate, Quick cycles).

Only the Regular & Heavy cycles default to an eco/shower rinse (like SQ's Normal Eco cycle but designed differently and IMO more effective). Softener option changes it to an agitated rinse.

WashSmart's Allergy cycle fills to the selected level fully at the selected temperature, no controlled-cold is involved (and it does two deep agitated rinses). JoeyPete has confirmed that Allergy defaults to Hot but any temp can be selected. Can also fill it on Allergy, then change the cycle (manually select the same water level) and it'll happily run along with Hot water (or whatever temp) on whichever cycle.

Software revisions vary the temperatures across the range of models, production years, market areas, etc.
Target temps on my 2004 IWL12 Intuitive Eco (per Diagnostic Mode). A submenu provides adjustment (in C) of -6, -4, -2, 0, +2, +4, +6.
- Hot = 69C (156.2F, equivalent to tap hot)
- Warm/Hot = 51C (123.8F, also equivalent to tap hot for most households per typical water heater settings)
- Warm = 46C (114.8F)
- Warm/Cold = 34C (93.2F)
- Cold+ (Controlled Cold) = 16C (60.8F)
- Cold = tap

Perm Press or Easy Iron or Creasables, as the cycle is variously called, is usually designed as a traditional wash without Eco Active. The Creasables option on my IWL12 does run Eco Active, raises the auto-sensed water level one level higher (not higher than High, of course) after sensing is done, and has two agitated rinses.

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