Thread Number: 11704
New Ratings on Washers in Consumers Reports!
[Down to Last]

automaticwasher.org's exclusive eBay Watch:
scroll >>> for more items --- [As an eBay Partner, eBay may compensate automaticwasher.org if you make a purchase using any link to eBay on this page]
Post# 208866   5/7/2007 at 22:20 (6,169 days old) by peteski50 (New York)        

peteski50's profile picture
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)        
So what do you buy???????????????????

danemodsandy's profile picture
Vintage.

You asked.


Post# 208871 , Reply# 2   5/7/2007 at 22:43 (6,169 days old) by alr2903 (TN)        
a new house

with double tub laundry sink, I think we are all going to have to start soaking overnight the day before wash day. top or front load with all the water sparing, at least maybe the dam# things could rinse and spin.

Post# 208873 , Reply# 3   5/7/2007 at 23:10 (6,169 days old) by dadoes (TX, U.S. of A.)        

dadoes's profile picture
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)        

launderess's profile picture
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)        

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)        

launderess's profile picture
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)        

frigilux's profile picture
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)        

toggleswitch's profile picture
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# 208895 , Reply# 9   5/8/2007 at 07:05 (6,168 days old) by mrx ()        

In Europe our machines were not always that water-efficient. The older FL machines over here used plenty of water and were hot and cold fill. The water was typically at least 1/3 way up the glass until the late 80s / early 90s.

Hot fill began to be abandoned as water levels dropped as it just became pointless to even attempt to fill from the hot water supply - There is also a preference for heating the biological detergents up from cold to about 40C as the enzymes activate more effectively that and the fact that 60C+ washes are less common thesedays.

Many of the earlier water saving machines didn't do a great job on rinsing and were way too stingy with the water supply! Some of the BOL models are still like that.


Things are changing a lot though as most of the newer machines use innovative combinations of water scoops in the padels, special drum surfaces that pick up the water and slosh it over the clothes (i.e. the newest bosch/siemens, the miele honeycomb, the Hoover Vortmax etc) recirculation pumps and sprays (Zanussi Jetsystem being the first to do it)

Are the FL machines that are rougher on fabrics of US or European origin ?
I get the impression that some of the US manufacturers are still not quite there with their FL machines just yet. Which is very odd, considering that the likes of Whirlpool or Electrolux (which owns a good few US brands?) operate on both sides of the atlantic and should have decades of FL experience from Europe to learn from!

In general, FL machines should be very low-wear on fabric as the clothes don't really move against eachother very much, rather the water moves through them as the drum turns.

I wonder if the wear is being caused by those tilted drum machines? They seem to cause the clothes to fall back and twist much more than a fully horizontal axis.

Or, could it be the HE detergents used over there?


Post# 208896 , Reply# 10   5/8/2007 at 07:11 (6,168 days old) by bajaespuma (Connecticut)        

bajaespuma's profile picture
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# 208910 , Reply# 11   5/8/2007 at 07:46 (6,168 days old) by cvillewasherbo ()        
wear and tear

I personally believe that a front loader with low water levels and long cycle times does cause a lot of wear and tear of clothes because they just rub against each other. I agree with Laundress.

IMO washers and dishwashers are in a sad state and have been for a time.

A dishwasher that uses less water but takes 2.5 hours to wash a load must cause wear and tear on the dishes too. Government is short sided and stupid. Remember the low flush toilets that took three flushes to remove everything?

Courtney in Waynesboro VA


Post# 208915 , Reply# 12   5/8/2007 at 08:25 (6,168 days old) by rapunzel (Sydney)        

mrx wrote:

"In Europe our machines were not always that water-efficient. The older FL machines over here used plenty of water and were hot and cold fill. The water was typically at least 1/3 way up the glass until the late 80s / early 90s."

Too right they weren't, plus they washed and rinsed beautifully. A standard-sized 10 lbs front loader could use as much as 44 gallons per cycle. As a rule they also lasted a lot longer than the current fare of front loaders.

My brand new SQ top loader uses about 39 gallons per cycle to wash and rinse 16.5 lbs of clothes. In our household that amounts to approx. 9.5% of all the water that we use per month, which is not all that much.

Cleaning and rinsing performance, durability, flexibility as well as simplicity and functionality were the primary criteria for my choice. Our machine can wash all machine and handwashables that we use in our home. This includes doona covers, sandshoes, sneakers and soft toys. More importantly, I can take care or all our laundry needs using only three different cycles.

After doing a bit of comparative shopping I concluded that a lot of TOL washers rely more on gimmicks rather than durability and quality. I read somewhere that most people only ever use between two or three cycles on their washing machines anyway. It negates the point of having 15 or 20 different specialty cycles. In my books washing clothes should be practical and easy, not complicated by superfluous choices.

With most cheap to moderately priced washers life-span is estimated at 6 to 10 years. I think a washer that lasts 15 to 20+ years makes more economic and environmental sense.


Post# 208934 , Reply# 13   5/8/2007 at 09:15 (6,168 days old) by whirlcool (Just North Of Houston, Texas)        

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# 208939 , Reply# 14   5/8/2007 at 09:27 (6,168 days old) by lederstiefel1 ()        

You are all soooo right!!!!
That is what I've always been telling!
We have just bought another old washer Hotpoint 9605 Top Loader Electronic de luxe 1050!
I hope the latest machine will last until I shall close my eyes for ever - after me the Flood! (Devil-may-care!!)

Ralf


Post# 208985 , Reply# 15   5/8/2007 at 13:29 (6,168 days old) by mrx ()        
Its the wonderful thing about miele :) WATER PLUS!

You can override all that stuff on any Miele I've ever seen.

Turn water plus on, increase the water level on all washes/rinses (programmable option-- often requires a cryptic combination of key presses and knob turns)

It will then by default bring the water level of all the rinses up to an old fashioned 1/3 way up the glass.

Washes are still relatively low water volume though.

Clothes come out stunningly well though.


Post# 208986 , Reply# 16   5/8/2007 at 13:55 (6,168 days old) by seeitrun2006 (Commerce, GA)        
Consumer Reports

I was at Costco today during my lunch hour. Stopped and read the lastest copy of Consumer Reports with the lasest washer reviews in it. It down rates every top loaders on the market except the Cabrio and Oasis. I read it in a hurry didn't care to buy it. I guess the people at Consumer reports assumes everyone can afford one of the high end/highly efficient machines when a traditional top loader cost way less.

But the front loaders were off the scale compared to top loaders. Once again most people can't afford a high priced front loader even if it does clean better then a TL.

I know Consumer Reports now are more concerned with what saves the most energy versus what is actually a good product for the US public to buy.

It also seems that each time the reviews are published the article get smaller and smaller. Use too back in the 70's I could read for an hour with all the information they used to provide.


Post# 208990 , Reply# 17   5/8/2007 at 14:08 (6,168 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        

launderess's profile picture
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# 208996 , Reply# 18   5/8/2007 at 14:25 (6,168 days old) by lavamat_jon (UK)        

Water plus was never removed on the W1200 series - the button was just renamed "sensitive". It still works the same way as the water plus option on models from other countries, but for some reason or another Miele thinks Americans are too stupid or dumb so didn't put instructions for altering the sensitive option in the manuals.

Although I prefer to use the water plus option mainly for fun purposes, I can use low water levels on our Miele just fine and our laundry is laundered and rinsed properly, our whites aren't dingy and I never have to rewash anything. What's more, whether there is a water shortage or not I can feel better when I've done laundry knowing I haven't used more water than is necessary. I've used several machines that have employed low level washes and rinses, and out of them the only low water machine that didn't do a good job was the Bosch we had - the Zanussi and AEG machines I've also had have done a perfectly fine job with low water levels. However, the Miele we use now uses less water, I believe, than the Bosch we had for 3 or 4 years, and only rinses twice as standard but with medium levels - however it employs fast interim spins, and this combination seems to be able to rinse the laundry well compared to the 4 low rinses and slow spins on the Bosch - so it just goes to show that washers can be made to be water efficient, if it is done right.

Sure, low water levels are boring, but we can't let it cloud the fact that if done properly water efficient machines do work.

Jon


Post# 209000 , Reply# 19   5/8/2007 at 15:12 (6,168 days old) by frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

frigilux's profile picture
Launderess, you know I have nothing but massive respect for your wide-ranging knowledge!

One more question for those of you with the very low water usage FL'ers: Do the rinses use more water, or are they as 'wet-nap' as the wash cycle?


Post# 209002 , Reply# 20   5/8/2007 at 15:20 (6,168 days old) by lavamat_jon (UK)        

Frigilux - the lowest rinse level in my machine reaches the lip of the door seal (that's if it's sensed there is a small load) - for a standard load the water is usually an inch up the door. With water plus selected the water is 4 or 5 inches up the door.

The water in our old Bosch however wasn't visible at all - only on the rinses of the Delicate cycle!

Jon


Post# 209003 , Reply# 21   5/8/2007 at 15:28 (6,168 days old) by peterh770 (Marietta, GA)        
Miele 1918 "Water Plus"

peterh770's profile picture
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)        

launderess's profile picture
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)        
But I loved

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)        

sudsmaster's profile picture
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)        

peterh770's profile picture
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)        

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)        

peterh770's profile picture
And further in they have the Neptune TL on the washer page...

Post# 209287 , Reply# 28   5/10/2007 at 00:39 (6,167 days old) by tolivac (greenville nc)        

I also shop for washers at the swap shop at this point-GO VINTAGE-preferably BD KN or WP machines.I have looked at the "pretty" FL machines at BB and Lowes,HD,but can't get motivated to buy them because of their high prices-at how some of them are priced-might as well send out your clothes-it would be cheaper.most areas have a local laundry service.Its the same idea as the high priced lawn tractors-it would be cheaper to have a lawn service do your lawn.And with those high prices on the laundry equipment--how is the water savings going to offset their high prices-Can't justify it for me.Maybe if these were more reseanably priced-it would make more sense.

Post# 209289 , Reply# 29   5/10/2007 at 00:51 (6,167 days old) by launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        

launderess's profile picture
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# 209290 , Reply# 30   5/10/2007 at 01:06 (6,167 days old) by tolivac (greenville nc)        

It would be nice to have a 220V 15-20A outlet in the laundry room for newer washers.After all many folks who are woodworkers install 15 and 20A 220V outlets in their workshops or garages to run table saws or radial arm saws-one I know of put a 60A 220V outlet in the garage to run his 7Hp surface planer.Like the 220V table saw-the washer would want 15-20A 220V to run the heater.The 15A 220V outlet could run a table saw with a 3hp motor.These are becoming more common with serious home woodworkers.If such a washer were to become available-at a RESONEABLE price an electricain could run the 220V line for it.Again I feel the energy standards adopted for laundry equipment should be scrapped-Its too costly for consumers and accomplishing nothing.I wished the Republicans did that when they were in power.Let folks have a greater freedom of choice.If only FL were available-that laundry service around the block from me just may get my business!

Post# 209292 , Reply# 31   5/10/2007 at 01:13 (6,167 days old) by dadoes (TX, U.S. of A.)        

dadoes's profile picture
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# 209316 , Reply# 32   5/10/2007 at 06:07 (6,166 days old) by tolivac (greenville nc)        

I don't understand why politicians are so concerned about water use in washers-when hundreds of gallons of water is dumpted on lawns and gardens each spring and summer.With the amount most households dump into their yards-you could do SEVERAL top load washer loads with that water.also factor in amounts used to fill swimming wading pools and washing cars.For some folks washing their car could use a few TL washer loads of water.Then even filling a small pool could again use several coldwater TL washloads.Why aren't politicans concerned about those water users?At this point I would be more concerned about the outdoor use of water.For instance I don't water my yards-and its fine.And I take the car to a car wash-they use less water and even do a better job than I could do by hand-and its free at my car dealer!Their car wash filters and reciculates the water-they just ask not to have your car washed there if you got it real dirty from deer hunting.

Post# 209317 , Reply# 33   5/10/2007 at 06:18 (6,166 days old) by magic clean ()        

There is no easy way to control water use with regard to lawn watering, car washing, swimming pools etc. Except perhaps through exorbitant pricing of water & sewer rates and tough water restrictions.

Appliances & plumbing fixtures on the other hand can be manipulated to regulate water use.


Post# 209319 , Reply# 34   5/10/2007 at 06:25 (6,166 days old) by tolivac (greenville nc)        

I read thru the washer reviews in the June issue of Consumer Reports-doesn't sound promising-At this point I am going to stay vintage-and even stock up on older TL's (good excuse to expand my collection)Check your thrift and swap shops-and estate sales-and even garage sales-and Monday Morning shopping--the curb.

Post# 209329 , Reply# 35   5/10/2007 at 07:14 (6,166 days old) by lederstiefel1 ()        

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# 209425 , Reply# 36   5/10/2007 at 16:41 (6,166 days old) by washabear (Maryland)        

I just saw the report. Kind of bizarre. Among 21 top loaders, 13 are "Whirlpool," 5 are GE, and 3 are other brands. Talk about a reality check! Where's Speed Queen? I also find it hard to believe that many of these machines suddenly wash less well than they did before. Do I detect a slant here? And how come the Kenmore 700 and 800 series rate poor for washing, whereas the 400 rates fair and the 600 rates good? Other than cycles, settings, and other doodads, aren’t all of them essentially the same under the hood? What’s going on here?

I did find it interesting that CR has no Best Buys this time because all the machines they like are relatively expensive. I guess if I were buying a new machine right now, it would be the Frigidaire 2940 front loader, even though CR says its washing is "mediocre."


Post# 209442 , Reply# 37   5/10/2007 at 17:24 (6,166 days old) by frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

frigilux's profile picture
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# 209472 , Reply# 38   5/10/2007 at 21:08 (6,166 days old) by decodriveboy (FL, US)        
Consumer Reports

...is crap.

It's a marketing tool used by corporations to encourage people to buy these gimmicky appliances with built-in expiration dates. They look pretty, fall apart early, don't use enough water, and end up wasting more time and energy in the end when you have to wash and re-wash your smelly clothes and replace them from all the friction due to the overlong cycles.

Want a washer that saves energy? Here it is:

Introduce a front loader with an internal heater, maybe 3 different cycles, and a water level that fills 1/3 up the window so only 2 rinses would be necessary.

Have a maximum-speed spin take place in between each drain to remove soap and suds, and a couple of spray rinses.

The cycle time would be cut in half, saving electricity, and the water savings would still be there because the need for 3 and 4 rinses has been eliminated thanks to a reasonable water level.

But, unlikely to happen, as that would just make too much sense.


Post# 209505 , Reply# 39   5/11/2007 at 01:58 (6,166 days old) by tolivac (greenville nc)        

Grass height-down here in the South-folks set their mowers to about the lowest cutting height-hard on grass and mower blades.I set mine higher-like to see the green grass and you don't have to mow and water as much.Also set your mower to mulch-don't bag the cuttings-let the mower shred them and lawn debris for free fertilizer and moisture barrier-the shredded debris acts to keep moisture in the lawn-less watering.The big thing I am trying to point out is not saving of water and energy-is peoples freedom of choice-this is being eroded away-its GOT TO STOP.It is UP TO YOU to save water or energy as YOU wish-not the politicians-its time to vote these folks out.What other freedoms are they going to try to take away?Think about it-its more than just water,energy and washers.I also look at it why are these guys so concerned about MY water or electric bill?-I pay them on time!Despite my TL machines and I may do up to 4 loads per week-my water bill is less than $25 per month!

Post# 209506 , Reply# 40   5/11/2007 at 02:01 (6,166 days old) by agiflow ()        

I went to my local library to see the new issue and was pretty disappointed. I can see in the local stores TL washers are disappearing pretty fast. I also saw that Haier has a TL at about $1000 dollars in the report!?!?. Seems to be a pretty dismal time for appliances across the board.



Post# 209613 , Reply# 41   5/11/2007 at 19:55 (6,165 days old) by toggleswitch (New York City, NY)        
Give everyone in the third world a free television, and free

toggleswitch's profile picture
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# 209618 , Reply# 42   5/11/2007 at 20:28 (6,165 days old) by magic clean ()        

Well Florida is in the midst of drought currently. There is continual talk of tighter water restrictions, yet the population growth continues.

The link shares an interesting story about the potable water shortages ocurring now.


CLICK HERE TO GO TO magic clean's LINK


Post# 209640 , Reply# 43   5/12/2007 at 00:12 (6,165 days old) by tolivac (greenville nc)        

After reading the new CU washer reviews-it convinces me the "water and energy saving" washers are a flop-scrap the laws-and give us washers that use MORE of that universal solvent to clean our clothes and yes even our dishes.At this point your best washers are the vintage ones at the swap and thrift shops.Bet the "Mr Dixon Swap shop" will have MORE business this year!Thats the place I go for those vintage machines.

Post# 209657 , Reply# 44   5/12/2007 at 07:22 (6,164 days old) by seeitrun2006 (Commerce, GA)        
Double talk

Several years ago when consmer reports started pushing Maytag to the side they told in their report to buy a washer with only the basic cycles and minimal options on it. I think the Maytags had the orbital transmission at the time. CR that particular year in their report showed Kenmore to be the top TL washer to buy. They even downrated the Whirlpools. Each Kenmore listed as a "Best Buy" was the Kenmore top of the line overly featured machine. After that CR in my opinion lost it's attraction for me. CR seems to show favortism toward Kenmore. Makes you wonder if Kenmore was giving big donations to CR. Like maybe buying off someone to swing the reports their way?

Post# 209666 , Reply# 45   5/12/2007 at 09:13 (6,164 days old) by westyslantfront ()        

For all the concern about conserving water, the same people are washing their cars, watering their lawns, and filling their pools.
And with the computerized front loaders "balancing" the load before a spin, the cycles are long, thus using extra electric.
I fail to see where all the savings and conservation is here.
When asked, I recommed a Whirlpool/Kenmore/Whirltag direct drive top loader. Tired of all the eco-bolsheviks.

Ross


Post# 209673 , Reply# 46   5/12/2007 at 10:19 (6,164 days old) by mulls ()        
Old made new

Here is a thought-how about making a vintage set new again?Instead of just fixing what happens to be wrong at the moment,just upgrade everything that is likely to give problems before using them?Certainly one would want to start with a dependable brand,but it seems to me that I could have a GE FF set,for example,totally rebuilt,and have a dependable daily driver that actually gets the job done for about the same $$$ as a new TOL FL set.What say our experts?
Tom


Post# 209815 , Reply# 47   5/13/2007 at 07:27 (6,163 days old) by re563 (Fort Worth, Texas)        

re563's profile picture
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)        
sorry--my fault

re563's profile picture
I re-read the artical again and they DID'T say that the HE5T was a toploader. It was giving the model number.

Post# 209999 , Reply# 49   5/14/2007 at 09:40 (6,162 days old) by irishwashguy (Salem,Oregon.............A Capital City)        
I have never found front loaders rough on clothes

irishwashguy's profile picture
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# 210292 , Reply# 50   5/16/2007 at 00:44 (6,161 days old) by frontloadfan (Wellfleet, Ma.)        
Is the problem too little water or lower water temp?

Hi,

My Consumer Reports came today. It was interesting reading how top loaders are not performing as well as they had. I wonder if the problem is reduced water or reduced water temp? Listed below is a quote from the article that suggest rather than using less water, the problem may be lower water temps.

"Today most top-loaders only get a good washing score, and some had the lowest scores we've seen in years. One washer, with an overall score of 19 (out of 100) is one of the lowest scoring washers in this and past reports. Several major manufacturers are meeting the new energy standard by lowering wash water temperatures. But during this often lowers the washing performance."

Switch to another topic, CR rated LG Tromm Steam washer as the best front loader. Second most highly rated was the Whirlpool Duet. CR then made the Duet as a quick pick but referenced that the Whirlpool is being phased out.

Does anyone know what is going on? Is it a case where they judge that the brand "Maytag" has more appeal so they will sell the Duet type machine under the Maytag tag (Maytag Epic)?

I noticed that the Duet 9400 is listed as selling for $1,200 while the Maytag Epic is listed at $1,400.

I was disappointed that CR did not include the new larger Miele in its testing. They tested the smaller Miele and rated it at the bottom of the scale.



Post# 210373 , Reply# 51   5/16/2007 at 12:27 (6,160 days old) by peterh770 (Marietta, GA)        
I haven't see this CR article, but...

peterh770's profile picture
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# 210641 , Reply# 52   5/18/2007 at 03:01 (6,159 days old) by tumbler ()        
Ratings in CU

I no longer pay much attention to CU-their ratings seem fairly irrelevant, and not just with laundry equipment. A year ago I bought a Duet HT pair, and I for the life of me can't understand the complaints of not enough water. When I wash filthy, greasy work clothes (my day job is self-employed comm'l. refrigeration/restaurant equip/HVAC repair), I use the "sanitary cycle," which provides the hottest watter. My clothes come out spotless. Yes, it looks like there's hardly any water in it (the tub is tilted toward the back, so there's much more water in the back than the front), but results are results! The sanitary cycle takes a long time-if I select "more time" and extra rinse, it takes 2 hrs.- but it does the job and then some! Other cycles take far less time. As to energy use-the motor in a Duet uses about 130-150 watts while tumbling and 300-360 while spinning (specifically while accelerating). This compares with 600-900 watts for a typical top loader, whether agitating or spinning). I've yet to have a load of clothes come out of it that I didn't like the looks of

Post# 210670 , Reply# 53   5/18/2007 at 09:10 (6,158 days old) by gansky1 (Omaha, The Home of the TV Dinner!)        

gansky1's profile picture
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)        

launderess's profile picture
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)        
same in Oz.

twinniefan's profile picture
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.



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.



                     


automaticwasher.org home
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