Thread Number: 11704
New Ratings on Washers in Consumers Reports! |
[Down to Last] |
Post# 208866   5/7/2007 at 22:20 (6,169 days old) by peteski50 (New York)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
I just bought the June, 2007 consumer reports and it is sad reading in my openion. To try to make a long story short the top loaders were rated poorly. Because of all these stupid energy star rules their are big differences in cleaning performances. The front loaders were rated better of course. But the cycle times run extremly long in most cases and they are very costly. Their is so much done to make them look good like the new fancy colors like sears has along with the crazy matching cabinets that are a waste of time as far as I'm concerned. It bothers me that you cannot even see through the windows in a lot of cases. And one of the biggest complaints about the front loaders is that they don't use enough water. So what do you buy??????????????????? Peter |
|
Post# 208870 , Reply# 1   5/7/2007 at 22:40 (6,169 days old) by danemodsandy (The Bramford, Apt. 7-E)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 208873 , Reply# 3   5/7/2007 at 23:10 (6,169 days old) by dadoes (TX, U.S. of A.)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
What does one buy? An F&P IWL16 of course! That is, assuming IWL16 doesn't yet have dumbed-down temps. My IWL12 doesn't, I can get a full-fill wash at choice of six temps -- tap-cold, 68°F, 95°F, 115°F, 125°F, and tap-hot, with targets adjustable on a range of -6°F to +6°F. Also choice of water-saving shower rinses, single deep rinse, or double deep rinse (the Muddy cycle has TONS of rinsing if that's your fancy). Energy-saving EcoActive wash action, or traditional deep wash. 1010 RPM spin.
|
Post# 208882 , Reply# 4   5/8/2007 at 00:22 (6,169 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Actually your F&P came in quite low in the ratings. Bascially CR puts that only three or four top loaders give anywhere near acceptable cleaning results, and of those one or two were "HE" style top loaders. The rest of the lot was a pretty poor showing, indeed rather sad really. Front loaders, according to CR used to be gentle on clothing, but not anymore, with many tested actually becoming quite rough. CR puts most of the blame on top loaders poor performance from the tough energy restrictions,which cause such machines to use less water. However CR also puts down "HE" style top loaders saying they cost more than front loaders but do not give the same performance in terms of cleaning, energy savings, and so forth. What we are seeing is the result of the rather stingy water requirements forced on appliance makers. Top loaders especially need water, lots of it to do their job. Front loaders cannot become too water starved either, otherwise there is excess wear on clothing due to their being beated about/rubbed against each other without some cushioning effect of water. Add to this the rather long cycle times of many American front loaders, and you have some serious problems. Personally they will have to part my vintage Miele out of my cold dead hands. Though not a huge fan of guns, someone might be staring down the barrel of a S&W if they even tried to take my machines. This wet-wipe school of laundry is for the birds. L. |
Post# 208883 , Reply# 5   5/8/2007 at 00:25 (6,169 days old) by rinso (Meridian Idaho)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
I'd prefer an Easy with the spin dryer or a 1-18 if I could find one. What's the point of saving all the water if the results just aren't there? |
Post# 208885 , Reply# 6   5/8/2007 at 00:28 (6,169 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
From the same people who brought us low flow toilets! *LOL* My take on this water saving thing is it was thought out by people who either do not do laundry or do not care how it turns out. Any self-respecting housewife is not going to chuck dirty laundry from the washing machine into the dryer, but rather rewash the offending item(s), which simply uses more water. Same with dishwashers, if a normal cycle cannot do the job, people will use heavy or add additional washes/rinses, all of which use more water. L. |
Post# 208889 , Reply# 7   5/8/2007 at 03:44 (6,169 days old) by frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Sorry, Launderess, but I have to take issue with several points made in post 208882: *The Fisher/Paykel washer was not low-rated. Its overall score was still well into the Very Good area. In fact, it scored only 9 points lower than one of the Oasis/Cabrio models, which scored a 73---also in the Very Good area. *Only three of many frontloading models tested scored low (Fair) in gentleness to fabrics. Two of those were the new Kenmore HE5 and its Duet eqivalent, which have cycle times of 105 minutes. CR opines the long cycle probably has something to do with why those machines are rougher on fabrics. Most other frontloaders scored Very Good or Excellent in gentleness. *The poor cleaning scores received by a growing number of toploaders is attributed to dumbed-down water temperatures, not the amount of water used. Decreased water levels do, however, negatively affect the capacity scores. I don't have a 'wet-nap' frontloader. As you can see from CR's water efficiency scores, my original-issue Frigidaire FL is a relative water hog in comparison to many other FLers. It also scores lower in cleaning ability than most of the very-low water usage machines. CR determines cleaning scores by washing both a standard 8-lb. load and a load at the washer's maximum capacity. So even when they're fully loaded, the wet-nap machines seem to be cleaning well. I'd be more curious to find out how well they're rinsing, actually. Having said all that, I agree completely with your point that lowered water temps and the resulting poor cleaning scores will only cause users to wash some items twice. I'll add one more to that: It's stupid to decrease maximum water levels on TL'ers, thus restricting their capacity. Doesn't it use more water and energy to split a large load into two rather than letting the machine use 6 more gallons of water per cycle which would allow a user to take advantage of its maximum capacity? |
Post# 208893 , Reply# 8   5/8/2007 at 06:49 (6,168 days old) by toggleswitch (New York City, NY)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
I don't understand why front-loaders went to such low water levels. IMHO, it would have been smarter to transition in to it (extremely low water levels) over a decade when everyone in this country eventually got used to front-loaders. Also if the gov't tightens water use restrictions further there appears to be no room to "move" to meet the standards. |
Post# 208896 , Reply# 10   5/8/2007 at 07:11 (6,168 days old) by bajaespuma (Connecticut)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
For my two cents, my LG uses extremely low water levels and it does a brilliant job of washing, rinsing and extracting, no complaints whatsoever. If I'm in a rush, I can set it to do a complete cycle in less than 30 minutes. Also, it can do a sort of conventional cycle ( 1 wash, 2 rinses, 1 spin) in less than 50 minutes. Because of Peter's experiences, though, I would, if I were to buy a new washing machine, choose between the new larger Miele and the new Large Asko (the Asko already is the front runner, because it still can be set to deliver 200 F water, apparently). |
Post# 208934 , Reply# 13   5/8/2007 at 09:15 (6,168 days old) by whirlcool (Just North Of Houston, Texas)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
And our 1993 WP toploader only uses 29 gallons of water for each cycle. An early attempt at efficiency, but it does work well. |
Post# 208990 , Reply# 17   5/8/2007 at 14:08 (6,168 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Frigilux: No worries, was recalling the rankings from memory, so if you had the real numbers at hand so much the better. Miele "Water Plus" option: IIRC was removed on some models of washers after the 1900 series, but may have been reintroduced with the latest series. There was a work around posted over on THS for the 1200 series, that involved some reprogramming, but it wasn't as easy as the old days of selecting the option by pushing a button. My Miele w1070 uses about 32 US gallons for the "cotton" cycle (normal which includes the pre-wash), and about 28 for the short cycle (minus pre-wash). This includes five rinses for the cotton cycle regardless of pre0wash. This gives great results in all but cases when I've added too much detergent in error. I'm sorry, but one needs water to launder clothing, and by continually reducing water levels, there are bound to be problems. Add to the fact American washing machines (front loaders) are increasing in size, but only have 120v heaters, and that also factors into long cycle times. All these problems, IMHO come from people who probably haven't done laundry/housework in their lives, telling the rest of us how things should be done. L. |
Post# 209000 , Reply# 19   5/8/2007 at 15:12 (6,168 days old) by frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 209003 , Reply# 21   5/8/2007 at 15:28 (6,168 days old) by peterh770 (Marietta, GA)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
On my machine, I would say the normal water level is about 2 inches below the door. Pressing the "water plus" button adds about 1 gallon of additional water to the Cotton cycle wash and all rinses, and to the Perm Press wash, so the level is then about 1 inch below the door. It's the programmable options that allows the user to raise the water level on the Cotton cycle rinses to the "high" water level, which is about 1/3 the way up the glass. The high water level is the default rinse water level on the Perm Press cycle and the default water level for both wash and all rinses on the Delicate cycle. |
Post# 209019 , Reply# 22   5/8/2007 at 17:14 (6,168 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Now that is funny. On my Miele, the default rinse for all cycles is the high level which is the normal wash/rinse level for "Delicates". I know this because one time set the program selector to delicate cycle after using a cotton wash program, and the machine didn't add anymore water. However, if one sets the machine to "Woolens" which has the highest wash and rinse water levels, the machine will add more water (assuming one chose another cycle for washing, such as cottons). Down side to this is that being a timer controlled machine, if all that water is not pumped out within the alloted time for say "Cottons", the timer will still advance. This will cause the washer to abort the graduated spin/final spin as a machine protection system. Again, tried this once and the machine simply wouldn't play ball. My machine uses so much water during the rinses for in "Cottons" that heavy, thick/thirsty items like towels will really sop up allot of water. So much so have to take care as one can hear the drum literally bounce down low as the towels tumble about. Still, makes for great rinsing as again, if using the proper detergent by the third rinse the water is almost always totally clear. L. |
Post# 209037 , Reply# 23   5/8/2007 at 19:30 (6,168 days old) by 48bencix (Sacramento CA)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Front cover says "Washers that don't wash" LOL Martin |
Post# 209056 , Reply# 24   5/8/2007 at 20:35 (6,168 days old) by sudsmaster (SF Bay Area, California)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
If you want a modern front loader with higher than average water levels, very good washing performance, and average gentleness, consider the Neptune 6500. It uses an average of 25 gallons per load - about twice as much as other modern front loaders. I would recommend, however, getting an extended service agreement. Mine was for a total of 7 years and cost $120 (for the 7500). It has saved me hundreds in repair bills. And yes, I think the 7500 is a great washer. The only thing it really lacks is a window. But then with all the smoked gray windows in modern front loaders, not sure if there's much difference. |
Post# 209157 , Reply# 25   5/9/2007 at 10:13 (6,167 days old) by peterh770 (Marietta, GA)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
This appeared on AOL today. Look at the pics. Does anyone who puts pics with these articles have a brain?
CLICK HERE TO GO TO peterh770's LINK |
Post# 209158 , Reply# 26   5/9/2007 at 10:30 (6,167 days old) by whirlcool (Just North Of Houston, Texas)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Duh, early 80's Maytags, ALMOND appliances, wodgrained handles on the refrigerators. My how 80's! They must have lifted that image from a museum somewhere! |
Post# 209173 , Reply# 27   5/9/2007 at 14:06 (6,167 days old) by peterh770 (Marietta, GA)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 209289 , Reply# 29   5/10/2007 at 00:51 (6,167 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
CR clearly states that depending upon water and energy costs, one may never recoup the extra costs for some "HE" machines. Even in areas with high water/utility costs, it still may take ages of use (with the same machine), to offset the extra cost. Problem with many of the domestic front loaders sold in the United States is they are big on flash and short on substance. Who needs 15 different cycles and a washing machine that speaks seven languages? Start with a solid built machine like the SQ front loaders, add a decently powerful internal heater, and perhaps a simple range of cycles (mechanical timer or electronic), and that should be that. Top loading washing machines are going to become history if makers cannot figure out a way to deliver good results and meet the energy mandates. Really is a pity Americans do not seem to like 220v washing machines. A high powered heater would go along way towards solving much of the long cycle times, especially with American TOL detergents, which are pretty agressive and designed to work in short wash cycles. L. |
Post# 209292 , Reply# 31   5/10/2007 at 01:13 (6,167 days old) by dadoes (TX, U.S. of A.)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Energy consumption per se is not the only criteria. Water consumption is becoming a large factor, which is what will put toploaders out of the picture. My IWL12 is excellent for energy consumption, on par with, if not better than some frontloaders, but higher on water consumption, even with the shower-rinse. Toploaders that vie with frontloaders for reducing water usage (impeller model Oasis and Cabrio, and the ill-fated Neptune TL), get bashed for poor rollover and tangling and/or poor cleaning and/or wear-tear on the clothes. That's just a fact-of-the-matter on fundamental topload design when water is cut to the point that the clothes can't float. But then frontloaders that are continuing to cut water use are now getting bashed for the same things. It's coming to the point at which consideration may be needed on whether reducing water use to literal wet-wipe levels with increased clothing abrasion is more reasonable in conservation terms than more water with less clothing wear-and-tear. How often do YOU buy new clothes ... and is it to keep up with fashion changes (in which case wear-and-tear is likely not a factor) or because your clothes are worn to threadbare?
|
Post# 209329 , Reply# 35   5/10/2007 at 07:14 (6,166 days old) by lederstiefel1 ()   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
I can only add that maybe MIELE was and is the best brand in the world - that is true! But I like tub-washers most...so what shall I do? Buy vintage machines!! Ralf |
Post# 209442 , Reply# 37   5/10/2007 at 17:24 (6,166 days old) by frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Lawn Watering: It actually uses thousands of gallons, not hundreds, in many cases. I have a large-ish lawn and had to water it once a week the first year I lived in my house. After listening to my lamenting about water bills, he said "Set your lawn mower to its highest setting AND LEAVE IT THERE!" Since then, I've only had to water certain spots (southwest side of lawn) once or twice in a season. I can only imagine how many tens of thousands of gallons that sage advice has saved. It took a bit of time to get used to having taller grass, but the lawn looks much thicker and it's fun to see it wave in the summer breeze. It gathers more dew and self-waters. While some of my neighbors' lawns turn brown as they mow it down to shag carpet lengths, mine looks green and healthy throughout the season. On TL washers: I've always thought the pricing strategy should flip-flop; Reduce the price of water and energy-saving FL'ers, then restore water temps and maximum water levels to TL'ers but charge a much higher price for them. Those who just aren't ready to make the switch to a FL'er can still have a quality washer, albeit at a price. On the poor showing for some KM/WP TL washers: Do the machines that rate a poor cleaning score (ala my Frigidaire) step down to gentle agitation part way through the cycle? I was also a little mystified that certain models scored so poorly in cleaning. It's frustrating that the CR of old would have taken the page space to explain such discrepencies. Now we don't even get full ratings for dryers! I still think their testing is on the level, but the lack of any written explanations about models is becoming increasingly frustrating. At this rate, the entire washer articles will soon take up only one page. G-r-r-r-r-r! |
Post# 209613 , Reply# 41   5/11/2007 at 19:55 (6,165 days old) by toggleswitch (New York City, NY)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Probably the best thing to do to save the earth's resources is to drastically reduce the number of human births. And then teach the ones who are here to value resources and respect the earth. Young lady co-worker in my office runs an electric heater all summer in our over-chilled suite, rather than wearing a sweater or something with which to cover herself. Sleeves darlin, think sleeves...... (Ya know, it's an OFFICE lady, your plunging v-neck shirts and blouses don't have to be so revealing as to make one wonder if that really IS chest hair they see on you.) The above-referenced office building uses electicity for heating and for hot water at the taps. There is natural gas service already in there. This is a needless and DISGUISTING waste of resources. Here is what it takes a very simple law or ordianance- "When natural gas, propane or fuel oil is present, straight resistance electric heating shall not be employed as the primary source of heating, but may be used as supplemental indivdually controlled unit heaters (not central heating) not to exceed 10% of the building's total heating requiments" There is so much corporate and industial waste of resources and energy all over. I have yet to see even ONE industrial buidlng that is insulated. Why go after domestic use? Probably because no one will fight it. Methinks we are headed in the entirely wrong direction. Bottom line is, one needs adequate water with which to wash and rinse if results are important. |
Post# 209815 , Reply# 47   5/13/2007 at 07:27 (6,163 days old) by re563 (Fort Worth, Texas)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
I bought the June CR yesterday, sat down and read the entire artical--(if you want to call it that). Their are major--MAJOR-- discrepincies in what they wrote and what the ratings are. In frontloaders, sister machines such as whirlpool/kenmore--cycle times are different. Yet when you pull the manuals on line--the same cycles from each machine are estimated at the same lenght of time (maybe only varing by a few minutes). Thus they tested these machines on different cycles and rated the "gentleness" as if it ran the same cycle. Another discrepincy is that the Kenmore Elite rates 24 (or Number 3 in the ranking for frontloaders) was rated as a "topload HE" machine?!?!?! (there is a little 1 in []. well, you go the the bottom of the chart and that [1] says "These top-loaders do not have center-post agitators and are often called "high efficiency" or HE Models". Well, the HE5T is not a toploader--so where in the H@ll did this come from????????? With inconsistancys like this, which is what i've noticed happening more and more over the years with CR is why I don't rely on them for anything. Another thing to note is that since Whirlpool/Kenmore/Maytag/Kitchenaid are all the same machines basicly with the same drum design, how can one be more/less gentle than the next??--Ok maybe one uses less water than the other but probably not by much.
|
Post# 209817 , Reply# 48   5/13/2007 at 07:46 (6,163 days old) by re563 (Fort Worth, Texas)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
|
Post# 209999 , Reply# 49   5/14/2007 at 09:40 (6,162 days old) by irishwashguy (Salem,Oregon.............A Capital City)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
I have had three front loaders, Maytag Neptune, Fridgidaire, and my Miele. I love my Miele, although, I would have to say that the Fridgidaire is a good value for the money, it washed my Denim comforter with no problem, unlike the Meptune that would rock and roll when it was trying to spin that, as well alot of things.As far as the water levels, when the program permits it, I always use the water plus, or on my machine it is sensative setting, sometimes it will just do it anyway.The Gentle setting is the most genterous setting, that is really full of water, believe me. I also have a program that is costom, i can set it anyway I please, no mater how rediculous or absurd. I had to use my Mothers Maytag when I was in the middle of moving, I thought that was rougher on my clothes than my front loader was, and I noticed that the color was a little faded, just slightly.I used it growing up, they can wash good, in my humble opinoin, I like what I bought, although, it is hard to beat almost anything old, especially appliances. They for the most part do build crap now in this age of our throw away country.I have alot of old things that just keep working and never quit. Vintage or Miele.I just have a hard time with all of the plastic things. They just have never done it for me.My vintage KitchenAid, build like a tank, that they will have to pry out of my dead cold hands, and I don't rinse my dishes off, they always come clean and the program uses 16 gallons of water, Pots and pans soak and scrub, my fav:) |
Post# 210373 , Reply# 51   5/16/2007 at 12:27 (6,160 days old) by peterh770 (Marietta, GA)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
It's probably not that the WP is being completely phased out. CR has a history of testing models that miraculously have been discontinued or replaced by other models that are similar but not tested. Unless, OTOH, WP is discontinuing the Duet line because it is the same as the Maytag Ensemble and the Kenmore HE4/5 and they don't want to compete with themselves. :0 Right! |
Post# 210670 , Reply# 53   5/18/2007 at 09:10 (6,158 days old) by gansky1 (Omaha, The Home of the TV Dinner!)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
I picked up the issue yesterday and was shocked to see the slip-shot reporting they have done on laundry appliances. They made it sound as if they aren't going to do full testing on dryers anymore, we shall see. John Lefever and I were talking about this the other night and he made a good point about the Kenmore brand in the reliability ratings, which are fundamentally flawed to begin with. By taking only data gleaned from "subscriber surveys" they would naturally include everything from major mechanical/electrical troubles to the minor problems like loose trim and user error blunders like a quarter in the pump or a ball-point pen has shredded the door boot. The average consumer doesn't differentiate between user error and product quality - if they have to write a check for service, the product is simply viewed as junk and they check the box or darken the circle under the "needed service" column. The other fundamental flaw in these ratings, as John pointed out for the whole range of appliances, is that the Kenmore brand is slapped on products from many different manufacturers and there is absolutely no way to tell if the Whirlpool-made units are any better or worse with regard to reliability than the GE, LG or Frigidaire/Electrolux units. One of the other infuriating things I noticed in the text of the story is their recommendation on replacing washers based on age. If you had a five year old washer that needed a pump and a drive coupler for total cost of $180 in repairs, how in the world does it make sense to send that machine to the landfill when the odds are, that machine would probably run trouble free for another five years or more? It's better to junk it and spend more than double on a toploading washer that doesn't clean as well? Or, spend over a grand on a good performing front loading washer that you, by CR's timetable, could only get seven years from? CR seems to now be contributing to the "throw away" society we have become rather than encouraging consumers to make wise choices of quality and value. |
Post# 210673 , Reply# 54   5/18/2007 at 09:17 (6,158 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Agree with everything you say, but remember one saves quite allot of money obtaining parts/doing service work oneself. Those who must call a repair man are at his mercy, and usually that cost can run dear. Mark-up on parts, then billing for time and labour all add up to cost that sometimes equals near half of buying new. That is the reason so many people chuck otherwise decent appliances to the curb. Well that and so many appliances now are made from parts that are NOT designed to be replaced, and or come as a huge assembly. Case in point are the Electrolux front loader, which last time one checked the outer tub, bearings and so forth were one entire assembly. Should the bearings go (and they did) it meant pretty much chucking the entire machine as removing the bearing for replacement was pretty near impossible. One brave soul over no THS did it and you can be sure he won't be in any hurry to do it again any time soon. L. |
Post# 210728 , Reply# 55   5/18/2007 at 17:18 (6,158 days old) by twinniefan (Sydney Australia)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
For what it's worth folks, we get pretty much the same results from our leading consumer magazine Choice,virtually every time they do washing machines the front loaders always come out on top with only a handful of top loaders getting anywhere near acceptable results, and for the same reason,government water and energy saving regulations. Interestingly enough though, now the Australian government has recently introduced a new test requiring a minimum standard of rinsing from washers and some of the front loaders fail this new test, in particular one of the Haier front loaders wehich apparently is one of the most water efficient on the market. How can these government officials have it both ways?, they insist washers be water efficient and yet at the same time they also demand that washers rinse properly,what do these galoots think washers rinse with fresh air??? hey!government washers actually rinse with water so make up your mind what you want. Laundress,never fear! you always your trusty Hoovermatic to fall back on, so get out those guns and protect it as well. I too am getting tired of these enviro-nazis and doomsayers telling us the end is near there actually is plenty of water here in Sydney, it is just that the N.S.W. State Government do not invest nearly enough in water harvesting collection of rainwater and recycling of water, indeed when it rained heavily here a couple of weeks ago,it was reported that enough rainwater fell on Sydney to supply the city supplies for another 2 years, howeve these boffins think that spending 3 billion dollars in building a de-salination plant is the way to go. In fact this is starting to annoy me sooo much, vthat I am considering going out and buying the largest top loader I can think of and using it more than the twinnie, just to annoy these people,(and probably before thay ban top loadrs all together). Cheers folks. |