|
Thread Number: 9189
CR Washer Tests January 2007! |
[Down to Last] |  |
|
| Post# 170814 , Reply# 1 11/30/2006 at 15:51 (6,349 days old) by exploder321 () | ||
|
They just don't know whats really good.. I love my Affinity and it washes superbly, then again this is my first forray into a front loader... I am an online subcriber only, so i will have to wait and see.... | ||
Post# 170820 , Reply# 2 11/30/2006 at 16:00 (6,349 days old) by appnut  (TX) |
||
Austin, teh Oasis AGI may have gotten a pooer energy rating than the comparable Cabrio AGI because the Cabrio could have had dumbed-down water temps. Sears actually has two Oasis Agi models, one with 500 KWH/year and the otehr 420- KWH/year, prolly cuz of the dumbed down temps. And just another fine example of CR inconsistence--they have to give one of teh "cousins" a slightly different rating, it probably would just seem unseemly for the two cousins to be identically rated lol.
| ||
|
Post# 170834 , Reply# 3 11/30/2006 at 17:06 (6,349 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
CR Has Alwasy Rated Miele | ||
| Post# 170835 , Reply# 4 11/30/2006 at 17:08 (6,349 days old) by westytoploader () | ||
|
It's a shame because the other ratings were relatively good. I wonder when the new Mega-Mieles will be arriving? | ||
|
Post# 170852 , Reply# 5 11/30/2006 at 18:08 (6,349 days old) by appnut (TX) |
||
|
Mega-Mieles | ||
| Post# 170862 , Reply# 6 11/30/2006 at 18:46 (6,349 days old) by golittlesport (California) | ||
One reason I think Frigidaire is rated "fair" in washing performance is that they have one of the shortest wash times for a front loader (except Speed Queen, which was rated "poor" last year) on the normal setting. The cycle is less than 45 minutes....more in line with a top load agitator machine. On mine, for dirtier laundry, you can select a "heavy" cycle and even add a few more minutes on to that by selecting heavy soil option. But CR tests only the normal cycle as far as I know.
| ||
|
Post# 170865 , Reply# 7 11/30/2006 at 18:59 (6,349 days old) by frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
I have to admit that more stains are removed when I add 10 minutes to the wash cycle on my Frigidaire FL'er--another reason I like having a cycle dial to modify as I please. My poor Frigi TL'er was dead last in cleaning scores in last year's CR tests, too. I do tend to wash the really dirty loads in the FL'er. Other loads seem to come out fine in the TL'er. Plus, I just love the unequal agitation strokes and the indexing tub! Very entertaining to watch. Austin, I think the Frigidaire TL'er cleaning scores were better back when they had full-length straight-vane agitators in them. I'm tempted to order one and put it in mine to see if there's a difference. | ||
| Post# 171082 , Reply# 9 12/1/2006 at 10:53 (6,348 days old) by peterh770 (Marietta, GA) | ||
 | ||
| Post# 171279 , Reply# 11 12/1/2006 at 22:29 (6,347 days old) by oxydolfan1 () | ||
|
Tom wrote: "and the ghastly awful Chinese GE front loader." And I BEG you to elaborate, because the Adora is one of three machines on my "maybe" wish list! | ||
|
Post# 171295 , Reply# 13 12/1/2006 at 23:15 (6,347 days old) by neptunebob (Pittsburgh, PA) |
||
Are you referring to the vacuums that CR recommends that you otherwise would not have bought? Awhile back mother bought a Hoover Windtunnel that they recommended. Noisy, heavy, expensive, all made out of plastic and the "trolley" on the bottom broke so only a LO setting. I finally wore it out on a cleaning job I had. She eventually bought an Oreck - Noisy, expensive, bags are expensive, wussy, but "It's only 8 pounds!". My favorite vacuum now is a Hoover convertible I bought from an old lady for 25 dollars and a little Sanyo canister I bought at Woolworths 15 years ago. On another subject, what did CR test recently? Big SUVs, including the Escalade! Who buys those vehicles besides pimps and drug dealers? I feel like cancelling the subscription soon as they seem out of touch with the buying public. I mean, do people REALLY need to spend 3000 dollars on a TV? Yet CR tells you to go get one now! | ||
|
Post# 171319 , Reply# 15 12/2/2006 at 00:05 (6,347 days old) by appnut (TX) |
||
|
| ||
| Post# 171363 , Reply# 18 12/2/2006 at 17:07 (6,347 days old) by washoholic (San Antonio, TX) | ||
What kills me about the CU article is the way they took the cost of a washer and added in the energy it would use in 12 years to come up with a “total cost.” They did this for 2 front loaders and 2 top loaders. However in a previous issue they suggested that consumers replace all washers that were 6 to 8 years old. It started a discussion here about “throw away products.” Does anyone remember the article? Anyway I do like Consumer Reports, and subscribe to the magazine and their web site. If they could make one improvement I would vote that they be more consistent. Jeff | ||
| Post# 171641 , Reply# 21 12/3/2006 at 10:59 (6,346 days old) by lightedcontrols () | ||
|
PS ....the only drugs that I deal in are Aspirin, Geritol, & TylenolPM......and the pimp thing, I think involves sex or something of which I have no recent recollections.......L | ||
| Post# 171651 , Reply# 22 12/3/2006 at 11:20 (6,346 days old) by oxydolfan1 () | ||
|
LOL.... | ||
| Post# 171923 , Reply# 23 12/3/2006 at 21:05 (6,345 days old) by golittlesport (California) | ||
|
Throw away products
I think the reason CR recommended replacing an eight year old broken washing machine with a new one is the cost of labor today. Especially for most Americans who have agitator top loaders that cost under $400 to begin with. A repair today could likely cost hundreds of dollars. Given the much higher water/energy efficiency of today's machines, it would make sense.
| ||
|
Post# 171932 , Reply# 24 12/3/2006 at 21:28 (6,345 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
|
Well my Miele (front loader) is over 8 years old, and so far so good! However, fully intend on keeping her running until Miele refuses to come out! They just do not build appliances the way they did 20 or even 10 years ago. Besides am not totally in favour of the "wet wipe" school of laundry, as current and future government energy restrictions seem to be producing.
| ||
| Post# 171967 , Reply# 25 12/3/2006 at 22:19 (6,345 days old) by oxydolfan1 () | ||
|
That's why I'm considering the Haier. If I'm going to have to throw it out anyway..... Launderess, do you believe Miele's quality factor has increased substantially in the past ten years? | ||
| Post# 172132 , Reply# 26 12/4/2006 at 10:48 (6,345 days old) by lavamat_jon (UK) | ||
|
From what I've seen, Miele have done pretty well on keeping the quality up on their machines. The internal design more or less hasn't changed in the past 20 years - with slight tweaks such as larger drums on the current generation. Jon | ||
|
Post# 172161 , Reply# 27 12/4/2006 at 12:49 (6,345 days old) by rp2813 (Sannazay) |
||
I don't place much value in anything CR has to say anymore. I've stated before that they top-rated my junk Amana W/D pair back in 1997 when they were obviously rebranded Speed Queens, a brand that has never had a good repair record. Back in the 70's when Maytag washers were king and consistently (and correctly) top-rated in spite of their cost, CU factored in repair records as part of their rating and ranking. Seems to me that now they only consider peformance of a brand new machine and pay no attention to repair record. They may show a bar graph with repair info in a sidebar somewhere, but they don't seem to use that data when they do their ratings. I also don't know where they get their average life spans from. 31 years after purchase, my mom's BOL Coldspot side-by-side is still her main refrigerator. To hear CU tell it, that fridge should have been toast over 20 years ago. I let my subscription lapse last time I was prompted to renew.
| ||
| Post# 172655 , Reply# 32 12/5/2006 at 20:59 (6,343 days old) by exploder321 () | ||
|
I almost bought the Chineese GE's.. CU rates my affinty lower and i totaly disagree, esp. if you use the stain clean option or a warm/warm wash... Plus using the correct HE soaps and such also helps | ||
|
Post# 173201 , Reply# 33 12/6/2006 at 23:06 (6,342 days old) by neptunebob (Pittsburgh, PA) |
||
|
Spinout, I don't find Consumer Reports as useful as it used to be. Years ago, even 10 years ago the articles told a lot more about the products and the ratings had descriptions of the features. Also it used to be kind of "grouchy" for thrifty people with "Do you really Need this product?". But now it just seems like a magazine that wants you spend money on big SUVs, big screen 3000 dollar televisions (to show the same crap you get on TV today). They now test wine, may be nothing wrong with that but they would have never dreamed of testing in the past. Oh, wait, there is still some thrifty thought there, recently they said that an 800 dollar GE range cooked and roasted as well as 5000 dollar Viking. But mostly the magazine wants you to spend, spend, spend. Make me wonder if George Bush (Shop till you drop!) has anything to do with this.
| ||
| Post# 173233 , Reply# 34 12/7/2006 at 01:25 (6,342 days old) by agiflow () | ||
|
CU is definitely not what they used to be. I guess with only a few American companies left producing major appliances...the differences seem to be very small. | ||
|
Post# 173301 , Reply# 35 12/7/2006 at 09:38 (6,342 days old) by rp2813 (Sannazay) |
||
|
Wine Testing
Bob, that CU wine testing is a joke and a great example of how they've strayed. It's wine tAsting after all, nobody's tastes are the same so that's just a load of crap from them. I think what they've done is decide that a lot of their subscribers are buying more sophisticated products and so they are now reporting on those types of things. But it seems to me that they stopped looking at the bigger picture at least 10 years ago. | ||
| Post# 173749 , Reply# 38 12/8/2006 at 15:33 (6,341 days old) by oxydolfan1 () | ||
|
Yes, ditto with the 6-cylinder Hondas. | ||
| Post# 173763 , Reply# 39 12/8/2006 at 16:46 (6,341 days old) by vintagesearch () | ||
|
ditto turbomatic i agree with you 100% no 1000% thats why consumer reports i listen to them on certain aspects of things NOT entirely sometimes they dont make sense. | ||
|
Post# 177040 , Reply# 40 12/20/2006 at 23:25 (6,328 days old) by sudsmaster (SF Bay Area, California) |
||
I have a similar bone to pick with CR and their car reviews. Their review staff's concept of an ideal car is one that doesn't sound or feel like it's got a motor in it. They constantly ding various models for having "rough sounding" motors, but for many car fans, it's the sound of the motor that is one of the most rewarding things about driving. The "Chinese" GE front loader: There's a heck of a lot right about that machine. Big, perfectly horizontal drum, internal water heater, big door, big capacity, clear glass door, prewash capability, etc... But it sounds like GE simply dropped off the initial drawings and specs for the washer and never followed up on customer complaints. Perhaps they need to listen and come out with an updated model or revision, such as one that resolves the spin-hesitation issue. The "Mega-Miele"... Anyone have any more details about this? First I heard about it! My Neptune is rapidly approaching the expiration of its seven year extended warranty. If it dies, I have an old Frigmore that can take its place, but I'll also be looking for a modern front loader. If the new Miele is big enough and still has a door hinged on the right, then it might be a great replacement, damn the cost. | ||
| Post# 177045 , Reply# 41 12/20/2006 at 23:48 (6,328 days old) by danemodsandy (The Bramford, Apt. 7-E) | ||
CR hasn't been the same since Betty Furness died. For someone who started out as a minor movie actress (she's in the Rogers and Astaire film "Swing Time"), she sure was one tough lady. Her consumer consciousness began when she was the commercial spokesperson for Westinghouse back in the 1950's- she was the lady who stroked the refrigerators lovingly and said, "You can be SURE- if it's Westinghouse". Within a few years, she discovered something Westinghouse hadn't told her- or consumers. The highly touted "frost-free" models she'd been paid to pitch consumed something like three times the electricity of regular models. That shock got her thinking in consumerist terms, and she eventually became head of CR. I agree totally with those who have pointed out that CR has lost its focus on value. One of the great things about the magazine in its heyday was that it regularly stressed the virtues of doing without. Products that don't have every last bell and whistle are often better value than TOL products to begin with, and often last longer because there's not so bloody much to go wrong. As much as I love keyboard LK's, I have to admit that Kenmore's 800 machines were a much better buy for the average family. I no longer consult CR before buying; I'm too irritated by the changes I've been seeing lately. | ||
| Post# 177047 , Reply# 42 12/21/2006 at 00:02 (6,328 days old) by danemodsandy (The Bramford, Apt. 7-E) | ||
|
P.S.:
One of the things that irritates me most about the "new" CR is the lack of focus on the environmental costs of consumerism. Cars- and quite a few major appliances- take more energy to manufacture than they'll ever consume over their useful lives. Yet CR heavily stresses replacement of "inefficient" cars and appliances with the newer models that have lower energy consumption. For people who drive a lot, or who use appliances hard, that might make a certain frail amount of sense. But it doesn't make sense for many people. I drive less than 100 miles a week. What the hell do I need with a new Prius instead of my trusty old Volvo? And if I did that, what good would I be doing the environment? By continuing to drive my current car, I'm leaving tons of iron ore in the earth, and I'm not ordering up the creation of hundreds of pounds of plastics and other nasty compounds. I'm especially bemused by CR's heavy emphasis on front-loaders these days. While FL's have their virtues, they're far too expensive for many people to consider, both to purchase and to have repaired. TL's are proven, cheap technology, and I wish CL would pay more attention to those that are both frugal and long-lasting, so that lower-income people would know which machines would make their limited funds go furthest. | ||
|
Post# 177112 , Reply# 45 12/21/2006 at 08:45 (6,328 days old) by gansky1 (Omaha, The Home of the TV Dinner!) |
||
The Admiral for $300 probably (was) a NorgeTag. Those will soon be gone and the Admiral will be another DD Whirlpool. Evidently, reliability of those value choices is not a factor for CR. CR certainly doesn't do any reliablity testing anymore, relying on reader surveys for frequency of repair data. CR used to do reliability tests on machines (of all kinds) and would report their findings along with the other tests, now there is barely a mention if they have a problem with a machine. It was a good way for the consumer to get some idea of how the machine could be expected to last - giving true value for their dollar. Do they separate the front-loaders from the top loaders in this data regurgitation now? Even among top-loaders, look at the differences in brand's own lines - Whirlpool has/had the direct-drive, Calypso, Cabrio, etc. which are all very different animals mechanically and the reliability or lack of it can skew those numbers. | ||
| Post# 177265 , Reply# 47 12/21/2006 at 20:50 (6,327 days old) by oxydolfan1 () | ||
|
Maytag "That washer didn't last but 2 years....." A DISGRACE! (Grrrr!) | ||
|
Post# 180176 , Reply# 50 1/2/2007 at 00:20 (6,316 days old) by neptunebob (Pittsburgh, PA) |
||
|
They do need to rate themselves..and they won't like the
I have to find out who is running Consumer Reports. They were started by a labor union in the 1930's, it is just in the past 10 years that they tell people to buy big things like 3000 dollar televisions. Maybe Cvbrnr (sorry if I don't have that right) could explain to me - Is a digital TV 10 times better than a regular television? I see them at Sam's Club and they don't look THAT much better? Is there Any Show worth watching on a digital TV? It's just like when they came out with stereo in TV - Why? So we can hear the balls go around in the Pennsylvania Lottery or the pins go down on "Bowling for Dollars"? I also heard that digital television shows every detail on a person - which just makes more work for makeup artists and hairdressers to make the actors perfect. Like Les Nessman said on WKRP in Cincinatti, I think this is all a plot - To get people to spend big money on unnecessary things. Looks like it's time for me to cancel Consumer Reports too. But it actually seems like losing a old, wise, consumer friend. | ||
|
Post# 180197 , Reply# 51 1/2/2007 at 02:24 (6,316 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
|
Well in a few years you are not going to have much of a choice as to digital or not, by government order analog signals are to be phased out. Rather the network television stations have to give up that end of the spectrum and use the digital licenses they won ages ago,but were playing both sides of the fence. Supposedly all televisions and recording/broadcasting equipment sold after this year or next will have to have a built in decoders for the digital signal. There also is some talk about making low cost set top boxes available for those on limited incomes/elderly. L. | ||
| Post# 180230 , Reply# 53 1/2/2007 at 10:11 (6,316 days old) by danemodsandy (The Bramford, Apt. 7-E) | ||
|
Upcoming Digital Conversion
The upcoming conversion to digital TV is scheduled for January 1, 2009. On that date, the analog signal we've used for over sixty years will go dark. The analog tuner (known as an NTSC tuner) on your TV will no longer be able to receive anything- there will be nothing for it to receieve, since that bandwidth will be re-allocated for other, non-TV purposes. If you have cable or satellite, your present TV will still work through the cable or satellite box. BUT- If you depend on broadcast TV, you will need one of two things to receieve the new digital signals (known as ATSC signals). You will either have to get a converter (already available), or you will have to get a new TV. Some new TV's are already equipped with ATSC tuners. Since March 1 of 2006, all TV's 24 inches and larger have been required to have them when built. On March 1 of this year, the requirement extends to all TV's of every size, and to all equipment with a TV tuner built in, such as VCR's and DVD recorders. The thing to look for is the phrase "ATSC tuner" in the specifications. Other phrases, like "Digital Ready", are meaningless ad-speak- every TV ever produced is digital-ready if you connect it to cable or a converter. Also, the requirements for an ATSC tuner apply to sets PRODUCED after the dates I mentioned, not to all sets SOLD after those dates. If you buy a new TV you intend to use for broadcast after March, be sure you're not getting leftover stock. Some TV's specs say that they have an "NTSC/ATSC tuner". That's fine- it just means that the tuner is capable of picking up today's analog signal, AND the digital signal required after 2009. So, it's really very simple. Look for "ATSC tuner" when you're buying, and you'll be fine. If you have cable or satellite, you'll be fine anyway. P.S.: There is one thing about getting digital on broadcast that is going to be annoying. If the signal is disrupted in some way, you will not get "ghosts" or a fuzzy picture like you do today. You will get nothing on that channel. Digital is all or nothing, it seems. | ||
| Post# 180233 , Reply# 54 1/2/2007 at 10:24 (6,316 days old) by danemodsandy (The Bramford, Apt. 7-E) | ||
|
Correction | ||
|
Post# 180265 , Reply# 55 1/2/2007 at 13:28 (6,316 days old) by unimatic1140 (Minneapolis) |
||
 | ||
| Post# 180400 , Reply# 57 1/3/2007 at 02:29 (6,315 days old) by irishwashguy (Salem,Oregon.............A Capital City) | ||
I would like to think that they are reliable.........
But just like Maytags, they also went South.My mother still has the same Maytag H drive that she bought in 1987, and has not plans to get rid of it.It squeeled when it would stop, I asked the Maytag guy, I fixed it, it stopped.Very simple. My sisters center dial maytag leaked badly. I took the front off, saw the leak, took some duct tape, never had a problem at all.COVERSLY, with the advent of outsoursed parts, who really knows who is making what anymore.Maytags are reallty Norge, Roper is Whirlpool, and the GE is really a piece of @#%$!!! I myself would take what they said like anything else that I buy, i get a second opinoin. Sure, I like to read it for fun, but really have they ever had some of these things in their homes to use over a peroid of time? Do you really think that a GE is going to bake and roast as well as a Viking? Hell NO!! I think that it is buyer beware after my expiereice with my Maytags that were broken before I took them out of the box.That is why we have lemon laws for appliances on the books in OR.Three strikes, and you get a new appliance by law. CR has lost its integrity I think. And about the Miele rating. I have one because i got fed up with all of the stuff that,at the time, i saw as being cheap, and made of plastic.I wanted metal. I wanted mt Old Frigidaires back, in lou of that, I have what I have. PS, I am not an SUV person at all I think that they are too big for me to see out of. I really do not like GM either( I am a Honda guy) I have had four of them. Caddy Esc would be, at least in Portland, Or, associated with drug dealers or old people . My two cents and 5 pents. | ||
|
Post# 180457 , Reply# 58 1/3/2007 at 12:03 (6,315 days old) by rp2813 (Sannazay) |
||
|
Who owns the tried and true Maytag technology now?
Agreed and I've said it before here, CU is not what it used to be and for the same reasons people have posted above. They don't focus on reliability anymore. Oxyfan nailed it above with his comment on Amanas kicked to the curb. I bought my Amana pair based on CU having rated the washer #1. What a joke. That thing is on its 4th belt now in 9 years--I do not overload this machine--and its spray rinse is so short it accomplishes next to nothing. CU used to note things like that in their tests but not anymore. I know some will say that if the washer has lasted 9 years, that's good, but it has cost me in maintenance plans since I don't have the spare time and am not familiar with the mechanics of the Amana. Just replacing the belt is no small task and takes an experienced repair man a good hour. On my old center dial Maytag, just a nudge of the motor would get the old belt to drop and the new one slapped on. Interestingly, it seems that my Amana washer borrowed some of Maytag's technology but it's not nearly as simple a design. Who owns the patent on Maytag's reliable center dial machinery now? Why aren't they using it anymore? It seems to me that it was such a simple and reliable mechanism that it wouldn't be expensive to produce. If I could get a top loader with a tub the size of my Amana's but with the mechanics of a center dial model, I'd probably buy a machine like that instead of the Duets I've got my eye on. Thankfully, the guy who came out and replaced the belt yet again on my Amana seems to have done a good job and it's running smoothly and I dare say fairly quietly--for now. He also managed to quiet down the dryer somewhat so maybe both of these machines won't need to be replaced as soon as I thought. But I really hate them and can't wait to unload them as soon as I've got the funds to replace them. No thanks to CU. They deserve to be boycotted. | ||
|
Post# 180488 , Reply# 59 1/3/2007 at 16:27 (6,315 days old) by neptunebob (Pittsburgh, PA) |
||
|
Actually I do believe that CU was right about the $800 GE oven baking a cake as well as the $5000 Viking - those professional style ranges are mostly hype, just as I believe the 3000 dollar TVs are not 10 times better than a regular television. That remark about the ovens was the only sensible thing they said in the December issue. Now, does anybody here not watch much television? I have limited my TV watching and get more done in life so no, I do not need to spend that much but I am disappointed that Consumer Reports says I do and they will get cancelled! Is anyone else here going to cancel their subscription? Another question I have for Tolivac: If this equipment is so expensive for the stations how do they pay for it? Is this why we see as many as 10 commercials in a row at night and will there just be more commercials coming? Already too many, and around here the worst commercials are made by car dealers to get people to lease SUVs. What has America turned into, a nation of big spenders of junk?!? Sorry for the rant, just frustrated about CR, which used to be my favorite. I might write to Consumer Reports about this, will let you all know when I do. | ||
|
Post# 180549 , Reply# 61 1/3/2007 at 20:31 (6,314 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
|
Well don't think CR focuses so much on reliablity anymore as the American consumer tends not to rate that particular trait very highly anymore. That coupled with the trend of people moving house more often and or disposing of appliances just because "stainless steel is so last year". As for Miele, the new "uber" washer and dryer line will be interesting. As I've said before, there is no free lunch. You cannot build a larger washer and dryer and have them at same or better quality than similar smaller units but cost less. L. | ||
| Post# 180710 , Reply# 65 1/4/2007 at 13:27 (6,314 days old) by danemodsandy (The Bramford, Apt. 7-E) | ||
|
Steve: I doubt you could get anyone here to purchase a twintub machine so long as there was any choice whatsoever- collectors excluded, of course. Americans are just too lazy to deal with something like that nowadays, and most people here are so status-conscious that they wouldn't be caught dead with any but the latest technology. A lot of people here are buying front-loaders because they're so obviously NEW and therefore trendy machines, not because there's anything wrong with their old ones. I personally won't read CR any more; I'm too offended by the repeated emphasis on throwing out the old and buying the new. We need to be digging less stuff out of this earth, not more. | ||
| Post# 180905 , Reply# 67 1/5/2007 at 09:53 (6,313 days old) by golittlesport (California) | ||
|
How can CU focus on reliability? Unless a machine continually breaks down during the testing period they have no way to know how it will stand up over a period of years. Their reader survey is about the only reliability gage available. And has been said before, the vast majority of Americans could care less about quality...it's all about $$$.
| ||
|
Post# 180918 , Reply# 68 1/5/2007 at 10:45 (6,313 days old) by frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
|
One more thing to consider with CR's 'bullet' ratings: The difference between a rating of Excellent and Very Good in a particular trait, for example, can be as little as one point. This can account for some of the seemingly inconsistent ratings between similarly engineered machines. It doesn't necessarily mean one scored a 99 and one a 79 on that particular trait. That's why I wish they'd actually publish a score for each parameter they test, rather than the 'bullet'. 1-19= Poor; 20-39= Fair, etc. This method would give readers a truer picture of each machines performance. don't you think? | ||
| Post# 180924 , Reply# 69 1/5/2007 at 11:18 (6,313 days old) by oxydolfan1 () | ||
|
Yes, and the consumer could hone in on the attributes (or deficiencies) that are most important to them. | ||
|
Post# 185873 , Reply# 74 1/25/2007 at 14:00 (6,293 days old) by rp2813 (Sannazay) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 185987 , Reply# 75 1/25/2007 at 20:42 (6,292 days old) by frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
|
| ||
| Post# 186020 , Reply# 76 1/25/2007 at 22:34 (6,292 days old) by exploder3211 () | ||
|
UM, Dearie You need to read Consumer Reports they pride themselves on not recieveing gifts,etc from companies and buying stuff like you and i would. Been like that scince 1936 (or whenever they where invented) | ||
| Post# 186025 , Reply# 77 1/25/2007 at 22:41 (6,292 days old) by oxydolfan1 () | ||
|
"on not recieveing gifts,etc from companies..." Well, I know they buy their machines, but even I don't buy that they don't get SOMETHING.... | ||
| Post# 186050 , Reply# 78 1/25/2007 at 23:07 (6,292 days old) by exploder3211 () | ||
|
No nothing... I know of some one who worked there for 30_years and she stands by that fact ( i have almost every issue from the past 33 years in my possesion!)..She says that many have tried but no one ahs succeeded... LoL | ||
|
Post# 187420 , Reply# 79 1/30/2007 at 13:21 (6,288 days old) by rp2813 (Sannazay) |
||
|
| ||
| Post# 187421 , Reply# 80 1/30/2007 at 13:25 (6,288 days old) by agiflow () | ||
|
Yes..these are very macho, heterosexual looking in a gay sort of way. | ||
| Post# 187540 , Reply# 81 1/30/2007 at 22:42 (6,287 days old) by mixfinder () | ||
|
Testing In the latest CR testing of washers, where did the Oasis/Cabrio with an agi-tator rate? Kelly | ||
|
Post# 187557 , Reply# 82 1/30/2007 at 23:14 (6,287 days old) by frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
|
| ||
| Forum Index: |
| Other Forums: |
|
|
|
|
|
Comes to the Rescue!
