Thread Number: 32209
[Down to Last]

Cool Washer Stuff on Amazon:
scroll >>> for more items
Post# 485923   1/2/2011 at 20:03 (4,723 days old) by Tomturbomatic (Beltsville, MD)        

It struck me tonight how appliance makers caved so quickly to so-called energy standards and forced us to purchase washers and dishwashers that use so little water that the next cleaning term is going to be "spit shine" while the auto makers had the clout to tell the govenment that they were not going to be cowed into doing anything that they did not want to do. You can still buy huge vehicles that get less than a dozen miles per gallon. You are not forced to buy some shtick dreck that won't reach 60 mph with the gas pedal pressed to the floor when you purchase a car. I think it has a lot to do with males being associated with motor vehicles and women with appliances.

Post# 485930 , Reply# 1   1/2/2011 at 20:36 (4,723 days old) by qsd-dan (West)        

qsd-dan's profile picture
That has been one of my arguments for a while now. If I can go any Chevy dealership and buy a gas guzzling V-8 that gets about the same gas mileage as they did in the 1960's, why can't I buy a water guzzling washer/dishwasher/toilet that uses the same amount of water as was used the 60's? Hey, if I'm willing to pay for the extra amount of water (gas in an auto), then there should be options for me to purchase one. I can also apply that logic to quality of design and parts which is also regulated, 'cause God forbid we apply a little more metal here and there for a longer lasting design.

But we're talking about a perfect world where logic is exclusively used. We can't have that now, can we ;)

Post# 485977 , Reply# 2   1/2/2011 at 23:58 (4,723 days old) by A440 ()        

I so agree with you guys!
It really pisses me off!

Post# 485987 , Reply# 3   1/3/2011 at 01:43 (4,723 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        
They Didnt' *Have* To, And Nothing Is Stopping

launderess's profile picture
Appliance makers from opting out of the "Energy Star" program. Problem is consumers have been led like so many sheep to look for that label, that it is doubtful how many units not marked otherwise would sell.

More proof of the above (appliances being a mature market), is seen in how only a handful of companies own almost every major appliance brand name, past and present. Maytag would have gone to the Chinese if Whirlpool didn't act, and that is a sad comment on the state of affairs.

Aside from new bells and whistles, the laundry appliance market is rather mature, especially for top loaders in the United States.There just isn't that huge a market to warrant the costs for R&D and everything else. Now Maytag (ahem, Whirlpool), and the lot could simply bring back their water guzzling top loaders, but state and local governments have weapons at their disposal. Here in NYC at least our water rates keep going up, to the point that during last summer's sparse rain, many homeowners didn't water their lawns much if at all. Aside from parts of NJ, there wasn't a drought, just people didn't wish to pay huge water bills.

It is far eaiser and cheaper to take the Energy Star money from the federal government than fight. This is how I see things.

Post# 485991 , Reply# 4   1/3/2011 at 03:26 (4,723 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        
...and the lot could simply bring back their water guzzling

ronhic's profile picture
It is an interesting thought, but we certainly get them here for those that want them.

To put that into perspective, Speed Queen has recently come back onto our market under its own name, rather than being rebadged 'Kleenmaid'. In the last round of Choice tests, and rated at 7.5kg by Speed Queen, it scored 64% for dirt removal and used 166 litres of water (that's 43 US Gallons!). The only thing it actually did well was rinse, scoring 86% which is excellent.

By comparison, the slightly larger capacity (8kg v's 7.5kg) Simpson Ezi Sensor, also a top loader, scored 76% dirt removal and used 85 litres of water to do it....thats 22 US gallons. Rinse performance was deemed OK at 67%.

Additionally, the Fisher and Paykel Aquasmart 8kg machine removed 81%, nearly equalled the rinse effectiveness of the Speed Queen at 74% and used less water again with 76 litres (just under 19.5 gallons).

I suppose my point is that water hungry appliances have seen their day for the average consumer. Our market sells both and quite simply, most people don't want them. This is evident when you look at the number that are now available compared to even a couple of years ago - manufacturers are simply not going to keep making something that isn't selling. Now if this is purely because many councils offer an incentive to purchase an efficient machine, I don't know, and water isn't that expensive that it would dissuade someone who wanted a more traditional machine from buying one, but when you can get results from an efficient machine as I mention above, why would you wish, as seems to be the case of the vast majority of Australians, to buy one that is going to cost you more to run in the longer term?

Oh, and before anyone mentions reliability and Speed Queen in the same sentence, Kleenmaid, who used to rebadge Speed Queen for our market are rated 3rd from the bottom out of 13 brands....only time will tell if this has changed.

Post# 485993 , Reply# 5   1/3/2011 at 04:15 (4,723 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.)        

dadoes's profile picture
Post# 485994 , Reply# 6   1/3/2011 at 04:24 (4,723 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        
Quite Honestly

launderess's profile picture
Whislt one loves my little portable *vintage* Whirlpool, the Miele is streets ahead in terms of cleaning performace.

While some top loading washers may be going the way of the Dodo, think government should have left front loaders alone, or perhaps developed a different standard.

Contrary to common thought, it does not require large amounts of water to launder well in a H-Axis washer. However you do need lots of water to rinse, and that seems to be where the current crop of US offerings seem to fall short.

Post# 486005 , Reply# 7   1/3/2011 at 05:39 (4,723 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        
However you do need lots of water to rinse....

ronhic's profile picture
Well, not really....

There are very effective machines currently available here and in Europe that use around 10 litres (2.5 gallons) of water or less per KG of clothes and yet rinse with the best of them....

...but it would be good to hear how the US standard works....

Post# 486008 , Reply# 8   1/3/2011 at 06:58 (4,723 days old) by hoover1100 (U.K.)        
Energy-Guzzling machines

I guess the general concensus is why buy a machine that uses more energy and water, yet is less effective, or at best on par with, a more efficient machine?

I for one would have to agree with that.

If you want a machine that uses a swimming pool full of water, buy a used, older machine.

As much as I love vintage machines, often they don't provide such good results, can often be rougher on fabrics and use a lot more energy and water in the process. I could not justify using one as an every day machine myself, but they are fun for the occasional use! The nostalgia is the main reason they appeal to me personally.

As for reliability of modern machines, there are plenty still out there that are well made, in the same respect that there were plenty of machines years ago which needed many repairs and didn't last long.

I think a lot if it is those old rose-tinted glasses.


Post# 486011 , Reply# 9   1/3/2011 at 07:27 (4,723 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

frigilux's profile picture
The energy-saving/low water-use appliances I have perform excellently.

Frigidaire FL Washer: uses 13-14 gallons to wash a large load of clothes. No problem with cleaning. I've adjusted to seeing no water in the tub. As long as clothes are cleaned and rinsed and spun dry I just let it do its job. I've given it several tough cleaning tests (you'll recall the mud/oil muck test I posted here a few months ago) and I'll bet it performs as well as or better than any top-loader, vintage or new.

LG 9810 Dishwasher: uses 3.5-5 gallons for a normal load. The machine cleans better than any I've had, including KitchenAid, Whirlpool, Frigidaire and Maytag (the Maytag was the cleaning champ before the LG).

2007 Frigidaire Top-Freezer Refrigerator: uses substantially less energy than even my 2002 Frigidaire refrigerator, with no loss in performance.

Gerber Power-Assist Flushing Toilet: uses 1.6 gallons per flush. Never fails to do its job on one flush. 

CFL Bulbs:  I switched my entire house over to these about five years ago.  Quite by accident, I purchased them all at Home Depot, whose 'house brand' bulbs produce a better quality of light, and achieve full brightness faster than many others (according to subsequent test results in Consumer Reports). Having said that, I believe LED "bulbs" will usurp the CFL, as they use even less energy and will have no mercury/disposal issues.  I will concede there are some really awful CFL's out there.  My local utility gave each household one to try. It produced a weird greenish light and was quite dim for the first 20 seconds.  I returned it, and told them they weren't going to convert anyone with those lousy examples of CFLs.

1994 Geo Prizm LE Sedan:  240,000 miles on it and it still gets 39-41 mpg. on the highway.  It's by far the most reliable vehicle I've ever owned. I've saved thousands in repair bills as compared to GM and Ford autos I've owned in the past in addition to fuel savings. (The Geo Prizm is a rebadged Toyota Corolla, for those not familiar with the model.) 

I'm sure there are crappy energy saving appliances out there, just as there has always been crappy energy hogging appliances. But to contend that all energy/water saving appliances are inferior in performance is simply not true.

Buy appliances that perform well and save energy/water.  I don't understand this knee-jerk reaction against energy savings.  Does it feed our egos or make us feel more powerful/dominant to use more energy/fuel/water than is necessary to maintain a comfortable existence?  Part of this mentality comes from having had subsidized, cheap energy available to us all our lives. That will change in our lifetimes.  There's going to be a very tough, expensive period in the gap between the "tipping point" of fossil fuel reserves and the growth of alternative sources of energy---again, because there's little rush to acquire new technologies when fossil fuels are still relatively inexpensive. 

Back to vehicles:  Don't forget the automobile lobby has the oil lobby as its ally. Together, they are far more powerful than any appliance lobby could possibly be.  As China and India raise their standard of living and thus consume more oil, prices for fossil fuels in this country will rise to heights we've never experienced.  There is already talk of $4.50-5.00 gasoline within a couple of years.  I can assure you that many people driving a 14-mpg Chevrolet Tahoe will quickly reassess their vehicular needs.  On the other hand, when fuel prices climb that high, and wages for workers in Mexico/China/India/Korea increase,  some manufacturers may be forced to move their production centers back to the US.  

This post was last edited 01/03/2011 at 09:00
Post# 486014 , Reply# 10   1/3/2011 at 08:19 (4,723 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        
is already talk of $4.50-5.00 gasoline within a couple of ye

ronhic's profile picture
Let me assure you that, apart from North America and the US in particular, Australia has some of the cheapest petrol prices in the western world....

....and we're now paying USD$5.00 or MORE per US Gallon....depending on which grade of fuel you purchase....

Post# 486015 , Reply# 11   1/3/2011 at 08:23 (4,723 days old) by mrb627 (Buford, GA)        

mrb627's profile picture
I suspect that there are efficient machines that are poorly executed.  That is you may have two machines that are equally efficient but one might utilize resources better than the other.  Like both machines use 8 gallons of water, but one uses more in the wash phase and less in the rinse while the other uses more water for rinsing and less in the wash...


Post# 486021 , Reply# 12   1/3/2011 at 08:57 (4,723 days old) by hoovermatic (UK)        
Oil companies and the car industry

while the auto makers had the clout to tell the govenment that they were not going to be cowed into doing anything that they did not want to do. You can still buy huge vehicles that get less than a dozen miles per gallon. You are not forced to buy some shtick dreck that won't reach 60 mph with the gas pedal pressed to the floor when you purchase a car. I think it has a lot to do with males being associated with motor vehicles and women with appliances.............

This has more to do with the oil companies running the countries of the world, not the governments. It has nothing to do with the male/female argument, sadly! No I am not a conspiracy theorist - just a realist!

Post# 486023 , Reply# 13   1/3/2011 at 09:04 (4,723 days old) by 3beltwesty ()        

The old 1976 Westinghouse FL LT570 washer here at that time had the lowest water usage of any washer in a Consumer Report around 1977/78. The total water usage with the longest cycle is 30 gallons total. If one used hot water 0 to 10 of that 30 could be the hot water.

The electricity used was measured as between 0.22 to 0.25 Kilowatt hours. If power costs 16 cents per Kwhr then a wash load costs 4 cents.

A recent water bill here was for 5000 gallons, about double my norm. Most "extra" was for cleaning some outside equipment, mixing concrete, watering plants. The fees for 5000 gallons are 6.50 for water, 13.75 for sewer, 8.80 bond surcharge due to Government poor planing with their water system. This added charge just got tacked on. 5000 gallons thus costs 2905 cents; ie 0.58 cents per gallon.

Thus a cold water wash with my 1976 FL costs 30*.58= 17.4 cents is water; 4 in electricity. With a tad of soap a load costs 25 to 30 cents.

The new LG machine uses about 1/2 the water; but takes longer. In electricity it uses about 1/2 to 2/3'rds.

If I consider that my 599 buck 641 with tax LG FL machine will probably get a broken spider in 5 years, one has to look at that cost too. If I wash 1 load a day for 5 years, that is 1826 loads before failure. Thus the machines cost is 64100 cents/1826 loads = 35 cents per load. This cost is 10 times more than the electricity used. It is double the cost of the water too.

Thus for the average Joe who washes not much like me; just buying the on sale 249 buck Maytag TL washer before Thanksgiving can make sense.

Most folks will NOT get a FL washer fixed once its Aluminum spider craps out, it is too costly.

Here I will never have my high flow faucets or show heads replaced in my old house. I prefer the have my own control. A High flow sink faucet blasts out whiskers in a razor, the low flow ones I have used due not. I really do not like to fart around spending more time cleaning razors; or waste money throwing them out early too. I had low flow stuff when in California, and wasted GOBS of water since the flow was so damn whussy and weak. The damn low flow shower head the apartment manager installed was a joke, one spent gobs more time rinsing one's hair since the flow was feeble.

If refrigerators and freezers modern ones use a lot less energy than my older ones.

***For the average JOE or JANE; your refrigerator uses a massive amount of electricity compared to your washer.

In the USA folks have giant refrigerators compared to other countries

Post# 486031 , Reply# 14   1/3/2011 at 10:07 (4,723 days old) by 3beltwesty ()        

One wonders if it ie better to own a 249 buck TL washer that uses a lot of water; or own a thrifty FL washer that uses 1/2 the water, costs 2 to 5 times more, and dies way sooner with a broken Aluminum spider. Most all in this area will just send the broken FL washer to a land fill, repairs are just too darn costly.

In many places in the USA, there are few local folks who really know anything about repairing consumer items. Here after Katrina it was even worse, even houses that had 6 inches of water had their washers hauled to the curb. Local repair places got saturated, even replacing a 50 buck pump on a washer , or oiling a lower coil blower fan a refrigerator was not done, thus landfills got gobs of appliances with minor issues.

Here the cost of water used with a washer is less than the disposable washer/appliance issue. Once one has a major issue, the average Joe/Jane finds it is easier to junk than repair. Fixes often doe not work; it costs 80 to 100 to arrive at ones door. It often makes no sense to flush repair cash down the toilet.

Here when my new Nov 2010 LG FL washer dies in 3 to 7 years, I will fix it myself or junk it. I will get my old 1976 washer running before then too!:) It repairs of all types; it has been often bad money spent when paying another. In a riding mower, they replaced the belt with an autos belt and it would only last a year before slipping. I called up Toro in Minnesota and found out the locals were using the wrong type belt; and the locals are a Toro dealer.

Post# 486033 , Reply# 15   1/3/2011 at 10:09 (4,723 days old) by hoover1100 (U.K.)        

Could NOT have put it better myself!

Post# 486038 , Reply# 16   1/3/2011 at 10:29 (4,723 days old) by suburbanmd (Maryland, USA)        
Why current US-market clothes washers largely suck

Careful reading of the page linked below will give you the reason: Unlimited $225/unit direct-to-manufacturer tax credits for clothes washers that meet/exceed 2.8 MEF, and do not exceed a 3.5 water consumption factor (as of 1/1/11; there was a credit in earlier years also). I think the intention is good: Rather than mandating a standard that might not be attainable, give manufacturers an incentive to make machines that save water and energy, and are acceptable to consumers. But practically no one, not even the washing machine enthusiasts here, knows about the credits. Instead, the general impression is that excessively frugal machines are inevitable.  So the manufacturers are getting their tax credit ($225/unit is huge), and we're stuck with lousy machines.

Maybe things would be different if the public knew about the credits.  I tried to get Consumer Reports to publish the facts in their magazine.  Wrote a letter (on paper!) to the Home Editor, got no answer, left phone messages that weren't returned, and finally caught him in his office.  He told me that he ignored my letter because he found my claims implausible.  At his suggestion, I emailed the letter to the technical lead.  Had to follow up on that too, and got a weasel-ish answer, basically saying that I'm not wrong, but CR doesn't want to go there.


Post# 486053 , Reply# 17   1/3/2011 at 11:40 (4,723 days old) by 3beltwesty ()        
tax credit explains alot.

Thanks for posting the link about how a washer maker gets a nice tax credit for selling/making a thrifty machine. That explains a lot of why modern machines recycle the water, have palty water levels. The new LG machine here has another button to add more water, but still its "seems" a bit whimpy.

If makers added a button to give *a lot of water* for a very dirty load, it might blow the tax credit kickback thus is forbidden!

Post# 486057 , Reply# 18   1/3/2011 at 12:09 (4,723 days old) by hoover1100 (U.K.)        
If makers added a button to give *a lot of water* for a very

It would be completely unecessary. The water levels of modern machines are perfectly adequte to clean even the dirtiest load perfectly.

Still the myth persists, particularly on this forum, that the more water the cleaner the clothes will be, despite this being disproved time and time again...

Ah well, I'll just go and shove these filthy muddy sports clothes in my modern, energy efficient front loading machine with "invisible" water levels, without pre-treating, soaking or pre-washing, or adding more water or additives to the detergent, safe in the knowledge they will come out perfectly clean first time...


Post# 486066 , Reply# 19   1/3/2011 at 13:19 (4,723 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

frigilux's profile picture
I don't think today's appliances are lousy because they use less water/energy. Washers don't give out in 8 years because they're highly efficient; they give out in 8 years because of the quality of the parts put in them.  We choose not to have them serviced and repaired because the cost of doing that is prohibitive.

Our built-like-a-tank 1960 Kenmore washer needed servicing many times during its life.  The difference is that it was far cheaper to have the washer serviced than to replace it.  That's not so true, today.   

Post# 486087 , Reply# 20   1/3/2011 at 14:38 (4,723 days old) by kenmoreguy64 (Charlotte, NC)        

kenmoreguy64's profile picture
I think we have a couple things going on here worth talking about.

First, the difference between automobiles and appliances is not a men vs. women thing, not in my opinion anyway, it's just a difference in the loudness of the consumer market voices who relay their opinions.

Far-be-it from any consumer group, company, or even government agency to tell the American driver what they can drive and what they can't. We WERE in the early 1980s in a very energy-conscious, conservative time in automotive history, and Ford, GM and other brands responded with smaller vehicles, and with smaller engines which at the time were how we tried to make vehicles burn less fuel per driver. In the early 80s we DID NOT have the variety of vehicles on the market which got fuel mileage figures as we have now. For example, four out of the eleven houses on our street in 1982 had the GM midsize sedan as their family main car - today that same group would probably have a mid-size or full-size 4x4 SUV, and I'd bet the GMs of 1982 got better mileage.

My point is that consumers play a very huge part in both markets. Consumers wanted cars with performance beginning in the mid-80s, as we forgot about oil prices, and we dug ourselves our own hole from which we now are digging out. We never should have started to purchase the 12-16mpg SUVs in the first place, not in the huge numnbers we have done for so many years.

Appliances on the other hand don't have the passion behind them in consumer's minds, and if one is more energy efficient, we like that. It doesn't get parked in our driveways and garages, we don't have status symbols with our washing machines, or appliance fantasies, and thus consumers don't care in the masses that this year's dishwasher uses less water than last year's, and that its cleaning performance may have suffered. The Eneregy Star and similar focuses have driven appliance design as a result of the market, just as we found more guzzling SUVs on the market for the same reason - consumer demand.

The build-quality of parts and overall machines is a direct response to consumer demand too. Prices for appliances have NOT risen with inflation, in fact I paid $100 LESS in 2010 for my Admiral washer than I did for my generally equivalent Kenmore 70 belt-drive in 1986. Think about that for a moment. At a similar time though, the 2004 Mustang I bought in 7/04 was more than 2.5 times more expensive than the 1984 Mustang I bought in 10/84. Employ this same logic now on the price of washers, and $358 multiplied by 2.5 would yield a $895 top-load washer on the market today. If we were willing to pay that price (are we? NO), then we might get similar build quality.

In a summary, I think we have nobody to blame but ourselves as a mass of consumers for both the state of the automotive scene AND the state of appliances (in terms of appliance quality, price, and energy use). I think the U.S. government may be gradually nudging the market with legislation to make sure we don't fall off the wagon like we did with the automotive industry.

Post# 486138 , Reply# 21   1/3/2011 at 17:48 (4,723 days old) by RevvinKevin (Tinseltown - Shakey Town - La-La Land)        

revvinkevin's profile picture

"If I can go any Chevy dealership and buy a gas guzzling V-8 that gets about the same gas mileage as they did in the 1960's, why can't I buy a water guzzling washer/dishwasher/toilet that uses the same amount of water as was used the 60's?"

Dan, a comment and 2 questions:  Today's V8's (all engines in general) are much more efficient then those of the past.   Try to get mid 20's or better MPG out of a 1960's - early 70's Corvette, V8 Camaro or Mustang like you can in today's models, it's not gonna happen.   You'll be lucky if you get high-teen's or even 20 mpg.   

And my questions: Why do you need to use SO much water when washing clothes/dishes?  And what are you flushing down the toilet that 1.6 gallons won't handle?   Are you one of those that uses a 1/2 a roll of toilet paper each time you use the toilet?   I don't mean to offend, I'm just asking.   I have the low flush toilets never have any problems.

Friglux, Launderess, ronhic, Dadoes, Kenmoreguy64, heck, everyone makes some VERY good points!

To echo Hoover1100... as much as I love vintage top load machines, they are often rougher on fabrics and use a lot more energy and water in the process. I cannot justify using a vintage top loader as an every day machine myself, but they are fun for the occasional use!    I much prefer using a front load washer because it uses a lot less water, holds a lot more clothes and does a great job cleaning everything.   

Sure most of the new FL machines use so little water (on the normal cycle) that it's ridiculous and mine is no exception, but then I don't see the need to have the water level 1/2 way up the door glass either.   Once I learned my 2009 Kenmore Elite Steam washer uses more water on the "Express" and "Bulky Items" cycles, I use those most of the time.   

See the photos below.  It may not be easy to see, but the "bulky items" fill is about a 1/2 inch (or so) higher then the "express" fill.

Personally I'm OK with low flush toilets and more efficient washers.   I'm all for preserving our planet and it's natural resources.   Why do we need to be so wasteful? 


Post# 486154 , Reply# 22   1/3/2011 at 18:48 (4,722 days old) by 3beltwesty ()        

One also has the waste in time when a modern FL washer uses so less water that a rare group of super dirty blue jeans requires pushing the extra water button and an added prewash cycle; and they are not completely clean.

I went through after Katrina with hand washing using 5 gallon buckets to wash clothes, or old tubs that washed ashore. Later I got the 1976 FL westinghouse rebuilt. Now it is apart to replace the worn shaft and I used the local laundromat then got a new LG FL washer. The old washer uses more water works better with extremely dirty rags and clothes; stuff I get with the on going house rebuild. Thus I find myself probably adding a laundry sink for extremely grubby prewashing. I suppose time does not matter to some. The old machine was done in 42 minutes, the new machine to wash SUPER dirty stuff requires about double the time but uses 1/2 the water. Thus the new machines are really designed for retired folks who have no schedules, ie who cares if the wash time is double since one has no job.

The old machine has a water level knob, something that post WW2 Westinghouse added over 60 years ago. In that era there was the "weight to save" scale that came out about 1950 that one adjusted ones water level based on the clothes to be washed.

Today the modern machines use a lookup table based on the machines pretumbles, sensing torque. Thus one can load up a modern FL washer with super dirty stuff and 10 minutes later the stuff is still being sprinkled; and other stuff is about dry. The whole modern cycle is based on conserving water and a do not care about ones time. My neighbors Whirlpool FL does this too. The old machine would be done washing in 15 minutesand into the rinse and the new machine is still goofing around with little sprinkles. The bottom line is with a modern FL washer I spend more with degreasers, spot removers but the extract speed is higher thus drying time is shorter. Thus the plan here is to rebuild the older machine to use it more for clothes that require more water, ie super dirty stuff. The more modern FL washer is probably better for normal clothes with less soil.

Post# 486155 , Reply# 23   1/3/2011 at 18:49 (4,722 days old) by suburbanmd (Maryland, USA)        
Low wash levels aren't the big issue

I agree that low wash levels are fine, as long as the load is completely soaked. I've seen laundry forum complaints about machines which don't even do that. Good low-flow toilets are ok too. Anyone who complains about 1.6gpf probably hasn't used a Toto Drake or American Standard Cadet 3. I think they both outperform the old swirling toilets.

Does anyone dispute that too-low rinse levels and "dumbed-down" wash temperatures are bad? The tax credits are also responsible for those.

Post# 486159 , Reply# 24   1/3/2011 at 18:57 (4,722 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        
It's quite simple really....

ronhic's profile picture
...we don't...

People get a tad too hung up on various governments trying to encourage socially and environmentally responsible use of resources.....many think they are being 'TOLD' or 'FORCED' into doing things.... some respects, they are correct, and Americans inparticular are more likely than others to buck up at any government telling them what they can and can't do as individuals. So, they choose a different path and target corporate bottom lines with incentives (efficient machines) or fines (CAFE fuel economy average) and then further target the individual with an incentive...rebates from local authorities and disincentives, increased utility charges or higher fuel taxes to encourage them to do the 'right' thing.

Sure, you as a householder may well be the one paying the bills and want that choice, but as 'citizens' of a country there is a very strong arguement that there is in fact an OBLIGATION to consider the next person/neighbour who is entitled to access that particular resource, be it water, petrol, food etc....just as you are entitled.

The simple facts of the matter are that there is only so much water on the planet...and nature sends it where she does. Most is not usable to sustain life and many country's, the USA included, have gone through periods of extreme drought in various through that will certainly make a person think twice about using more water than absolutely required to get the task done....

For the first time in nearly 20years our dams are at 100% capacity, yet we are still on water restrictions to some degree.

Goulburn, a town about 60miles from here, was at one point nearly out of water (around 15% capacity). They had had no significant rain for years. Gardens were dead, cars were dirty and people were restricted to 25 gallons of water per person per day for EVERYTHING....people were using their washing machine and dish water (not dishwasher) to keep 100yr old trees alive and to flush the toilet with...

Live in that environment for a while and not only will you be TOLD, but you will be FORCED to do the right thing. People who were caught here watering gardens when we were on stage 4 restrictions (2nd strictest) a couple of years ago had their water turned down on the council side of the meter to a trickle AND copped a fine into the bargain...

So really, using more than you need isn't just bad, in this country it is deemed downright irresponsible and you'll get more tut-tutting than an unwed mother living in sin in the 1940's would have by wasting resources....

Now, should we have a chat about recycling?

Post# 486164 , Reply# 25   1/3/2011 at 19:10 (4,722 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        
dispute that too-low rinse levels and "dumbed-down"

ronhic's profile picture
No, they're not bad at all.....

Ultimately, you don't NEED scalding hot water or much water to rinse if the machine is set up correctly.

The vast majority of Australians wash in cold water to save money (most hot water heaters here are still electric storage)....and our consumer magazine tests machines and detergents in cold water....

We didn't need any incentive (says I who still wash in warm water....) as a population, apart from saving money, to switch to cold water. Manufacturers still offer machines that will take hot water direct from the tank at whatever temperature is available and are not penalised for doing so....

Further more, the vast majority of front-load machines here are cold water connect only and heat to whatever temperature you select and it wasn't that long ago that top loaders could be had with heaters too....our energy rating labels take account of this by telling consumers how much power each machine used for the 'energy label' cycle. We have a similar label for water efficiency.

So basically, we are informed the moment we look at a machine/toilet/dryer/TV as to how much that unit will use given certain parameters....


Post# 486165 , Reply# 26   1/3/2011 at 19:12 (4,722 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        

ronhic's profile picture
Post# 486220 , Reply# 27   1/3/2011 at 22:22 (4,722 days old) by qsd-dan (West)        

qsd-dan's profile picture
Today's V8's (all engines in general) are much more efficient then those of the past. Try to get mid 20's or better MPG out of a 1960's - early 70's Corvette, V8 Camaro or Mustang like you can in today's models, it's not gonna happen. You'll be lucky if you get high-teen's or even 20 mpg.

I was waiting for someone to comment on that topic ;)

It isn't efficiency that has brought us increased MPG's in modern day V-8's, it's gearing, more specifically, overdrive transmissions. Install an OD transmission in a 60's car with a stock engine and a proper tune, and you'll get the same, if not better, MPG's.

Better? Yup.


Because EFI engines are tuned to burn a strict 14.7:1 fuel ratio during cruising speeds. Get any leaner than that and NOX starts to rise. On the other hand, we didn't care about NOX back in the day, so carbed engines ran as lean as 17:1 during part throttle cruising speeds, hence better MPG's.

What?! So you're saying EFI engines are dumping extra fuel into the cylinders and out the exhaust (and your pocket book) just to lower NOX? Uh-huh ;)

Considering the fact that older cars generally weigh a ton, and couple that with the fact that their aerodynamics are worse than a brick, it really is impressive what they can pull off MPG wise with an OD trans and carefully selected differential gears.

Back in the late 1980's when I became interested my grandfathers 1959 Pontiac, he used to rave how it got 20 MPG's at 65 MPH with a carload of kids and gear. What? A 4,300 pound wagon with a big ass gas guzzling 389 w/ a 4 barrel carb getting 20 MPG? Riiiiiiight.

It wasn't until years later that I found out it's indeed true, even with today’s crappy gas. Why? Gearing. Pontiacs (as well as Cadillacs and Oldsmobiles of the time) had 4 speed auto transmissions with an insane 3.96 first gear. Hell, the 2.55 second gear was steeper than first gear on any other auto trans or manual transmission at that time. But they were also equipped with rear end gears as low as 2.56. This combo gave you more than enough power to get moving in the lower gears, but the engine was only turning 2000 RPM’s on the highway. I know a guy with a '59 Bonneville who removed the original 3.08 gears and installed 2.56 gears. He gets slightly more than 25 MPG on the highway in that 4,500 beast and can light up both tires at a standstill with a Safe-T-Track (posi) rear end!

Why do you need to use SO much water when washing clothes

Because my clothes get more than office dust on 'em ;) Remember, WATER is the main ingredient for getting clothes clean. Dump a bunch of soap on clothes and nothing happens unitl you add water. The more water there is (with the proper amount of soap, or course) the more dirt it can quickly remove and keep suspended from re-depositing.

Why do you need to use SO much water when washingdishes

Because I enjoy my dishes being cleaned very well and put away almost within the hour ;) Does it really make any sense using a cup of water in the dishwasher and throwing it around a bunch of dirty dishes for 45 minutes to an hour? I prefer to use ample amounts of water and have it changed out often....just like my KDS-19 does.

And what are you flushing down the toilet that 1.6 gallons won't handle? Are you one of those that uses a 1/2 a roll of toilet paper each time you use the toilet?

LOL! I don't use much TP, but I do have a high fiber diet ;)

My main issue with them is that 1.6's plug up quickly with mineral deposits due to our hard water. I get about 4-5 years before they're plugged up to the point that they refuse to flush without wanting to overflow. Funny, but the original 5 GPF American Standard toilet from 1970 hasn't had that issue yet :) It replaced a 1.6 toilet upstairs and the pink '54 took the place of the '70 downstairs. Also, when the 1.6's are working correctly, I still have to hold the handle down, every time, before clean water emerges from the bowl. Not so with the guzzlers. Just flush and walk away. Instant clean water.

Here's a quote from a person in the water/wastewater field speaking about 1.6 GPF toilets:

The problem is they use so little water that the solids don't flow in the pipes properly. Water is the carrier for human waste but there's grease and other materials that go in there that stick to the inner walls of the pipe. This creates a need to flush sewers more often which uses a lot of water. On a private residence, they tend to plug up septic fields.

I guess you can say that I feel like I'm doing my part in keeping sewer lines from the street and beyond just a little bit cleaner ;) But I can't lie. It's very comforting to know I can pull this off, if needed.

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385">

Post# 486250 , Reply# 28   1/4/2011 at 00:37 (4,722 days old) by MattL (Flushing, MI)        

Dan, love the video.  I posted in another thread about a very similar topic.  I dumped about equal amounts of waste tissues from the basket into my '65 American Standard and my brand new Toto 1.6g toilet.  The AS swirled the tissues around and flushed well, the Toto plugged I feel simply because it did not 'swirl" - it just tried to push a big gob straight down.

I have to agree with many of the points made here. But, my old '95 LK does a heavy duty load of clothes in lots of water in 23 minutes and takes an hour to dry.  My new older duet takes an hour to do the same, but dries in 30 minutes, so it nets out about the same per load.  since I got the Duet in Sept, I've used it pretty much exclusively.  Why, it does use MUCH less water and the clothes are as clean if not cleaner than before.

I think we should all have the option to use as much water or electricity as we want, but I bet most people would use the setting that gave them the performance they'd like with the least cost.

Post# 486253 , Reply# 29   1/4/2011 at 00:44 (4,722 days old) by mark_wpduet (Lexington KY)        
To RevinKevin

mark_wpduet's profile picture
Is that a joke on that "normal cycle" picture? That literally looked like 2 cups of water....I realize it would add somewhat more if there were actually clothes in there, but still.. If it's not all I can say is WOW! My Duet from 2004 uses a little more water on the normal cycle than the picture I saw for the Bulky cycle of your machine.....I would be using the Bulky cycle on everything if that were the case based on those pics.

Post# 486269 , Reply# 30   1/4/2011 at 05:43 (4,722 days old) by hoover1100 (U.K.)        

I guess you can prove to people all you want that things can be perfectly washed and rinsed in VERY little water with indisputable evidence and they will still refuse to accept the fact.

However, that tiny minority of people are not big enough to make it financially viable for manufacturers to produce wasteful machines for. So it's hardly unfair, it's just the way the market works....

As for toilets, well, the only toilets I've ever known clog or not flush away completely have been whilst on holiday in America. This includes toilets old or new. I have no explanation why (and tbh, I don't really care enough about toilets to bother finding out), but that's my experience anyway...

Post# 486283 , Reply# 31   1/4/2011 at 09:03 (4,722 days old) by 3beltwesty ()        
Re Water usage

In a commercial washer for a hotel or giant commercial cleaners; they have insanely low amount of water used compared to today's best FL washers. The washer is run as a continuous process, dirty clothes are fed in end and come out another. The water "flow" of the process is opposite of the flow of clothes. There is no cycle or batch for one load, clothes are fed in the North end and come out clean at the South end. The water flow in the process is the opposite direction. A washer like this uses a tiny fraction of what today's best new FL washers use. Thus if you want to feel bad, just spend several million on a new washer.

It is also "indisputable evidence" that 1.5 hours after a modern FL washer's washing that there is still dirt and grime in the rarer "super dirty loads" that is still there, thus we rewash the failed stuff that was not washed properly. The spot removers in the USA are suppose to be applied; then one waits 2 to 5 minutes, then washes. A modern FL washer that "farts around" and spends 10 to 15 minutes with sprinkles, thinking means the tough spots do not come out all the time.

Thus here with the newer FL machine(s) I have used the lack of water is not always welcomed. Post Katrina many of us had clothes that went under muddy water that were saved via washing real soon. Both neighbors Whirlpool and Maytag FL washers when filled with muddy clothes really did not clean all that well. Thus many of us prewashed clothes in tubs by hand; or used another neighbor's old TL that used more water to get the job done properly.

Post# 486302 , Reply# 32   1/4/2011 at 11:21 (4,722 days old) by mark_wpduet (Lexington KY)        

mark_wpduet's profile picture

Did you see the post of the guy who bought the New Frigidaire FL washer that is very water efficient and he wanted to see of he could get the dirties "rare" load that you speak of clean? It got them cleaner than his water hogging TL.

My issue has never been with low water washing because I think items can be washed in low water/concentrated detergent......My main issue has always been the rinsing.

Post# 486314 , Reply# 33   1/4/2011 at 12:07 (4,722 days old) by 3beltwesty ()        
True; Rinsing is often the issue

Here with the "rare super dirty load" with the old machine I might wash it for 15 minutes, then stop the machine and let it soak as required; then go through the several rinses.

Just opening the door often resets the program or forces pump cycle. I guess one cannot assume today to not open the door if water might come out. ie folks cannot accept personal responsibility. 50 years ago one just turned the dial to pump some out if the water looked high. Most of us learned this after one spill.

Washers are more like cars; to use manual choke or manual water level control is too complicated.

With the Katrina submerged clothes and items; on had a massive issue with rinsing. The items basically were submerged in a muddy mess, one would have a cup full of dirt in one pair of bluejeans in the fabric even after removing the grass and big stuff. Even when one prewashed items in a 5 gallon bucket the modern FL washers I used did not use enough rinsing. Thus one basically washed items manys times; say 2 to 7 times to "save" the times.

If one did not "get" to the stuff within several days to a week; it basically rotted and smelled like manure and was thrown away. The embedded dirt from Katrina was mostly marsh muck; basically like cow manure.

Items washed quickly after the event several times were saved; other stuff chucked. If one imagines mixing one cow patty per pair of bluejeans, a water saver machine designed for minor dirt just did not work with a single wash.

With plastic tubs that washed ashore here I prewashed the stuff is 2 of them and used another 2 for rinsing. These tubs are huge, about 2x4 feet and 18 inches deep. On had say 60 gallons of water in each and threw in the stuff in one and let them soak all day to remove the salt and muck; then moved the items to another tub. I did not even have electricity for 2 weeks. A modern FL washer would not remove a gallon worth of dirt with one wash. Neighbors nearby who had power prewashed dirty items in tubs and pails too.

The issue is like washing a truck. In Los Angeles a 4WD truck is often for show, folks get them washed in the summer to remove the surface dust. In Mississippi in hunting season; a 4WD truck can get so muddy that there is mud everywhere; and more water / rinsing is required.

Post# 486325 , Reply# 34   1/4/2011 at 13:08 (4,722 days old) by Hoover1100 (U.K.)        
RE: wash times

I will reiterate the fact that a modern, energy efficient machine can perform just as well, if not better than many older machines using much more water/energy.

As for the wash times, yes they do take longer, but it is an AUTOMATIC washing machine, therefore you do not need to wait for it. With an older machine you often have to "fart" around pre-treating, have to wait around to add bleach in many machines, and have to wait around until final rinse if softner is desired in some cases. I just chuck in all the clothes, no matter how dirty they are, add detergent/softner and turn it on. Then, I do not have to think about it again until I decide to unload the machine, and can be guaranteed it will be perfectly clean, providing I have chosen the correct cycle.

Therefore, my modern machine is more automatic, easier to use, and consumes less of my time or patience whilst providing as good, if not better results all round. It also costs a lot less to use.

The facts are there, and that is all I have to say on the matter.


Post# 486358 , Reply# 35   1/4/2011 at 15:55 (4,722 days old) by 3beltwesty ()        
The new machines are poor in TIME efficiencyHere

Here the facts are that my newer machine will wash as good as the old one with normally dirty clothes; But instead of being done in 42 minutes flat it is more like 75 to 120 minutes. If one presses the settings on the newer machine for typical real dirty stuff like construction work and uses a prewash and high dirty setting; it is easy to get a 120 to 150 minute wash cycle. The average wash load on the new machine for me is not large.

With a big load the new machine wins since one has more stuff to dry. For a small load like I normally have I can be done washing and pulling shirts out of the dryer to hang up while the new machine is still washing.

Thus for a practical matter if I wanted to wash something before leaving home for work; I just have to get up 1/2 to 3/4 hour earlier. The short wash is so short like 22 minutes that cleaning is not so great, or for some stuff.

Here time matters; thus the trade-off of saving a few cents in water versus 1/2 hour of extra time wasted is rather poor.

The old 1976 machine used the least amount of water of any home washer in a 1978 Consumer Report test. With clothes that are not really that dirty I often use a 5 or 10 minute wash instead of 15 minutes,and thus the total cycle time is just 32 to 37 minutes.

Having being use to being able to wash a few dress shirts and have them dry on hangers in 45 minutes is what I have done my entire life. It has been done like this for business trips and the such.

Today's new FL machine may use less water, but it requires more time than an older FL machine, thus hard to get use to .

One has miser government spec'ed machine that got the maker a 200 buck tax kickback; saves me a few cents water per load but takes 1/2 longer to do the same task a Westinghouse automatic machine did in 1976.

The old 1976 machine uses 0.22 to 0.25 KwHr for a 42 minute load, about 4 cents. The newer machine has been measured at just 0.15 to over 1 KwHr per load. To remove spots, with a prewash and longer cycle/dirt setting, a 90 minute cycle consumes more KwHr than the old beast.

Here time matters besides saving a few cents on water. The new washer is like a new car that gets slightly better gas mileage, but takes 1/2 hour longer to get to work. For a short wash the old washer is vasty superior.

For many washes time like weekends and evening does not matter so much. It probably does not matter to retired folks either. It is troubling how for 1/2 century one could use Westinghouse FL washers and wash and dry in 45 to 60 minutes 1 hour flat; and todays machines can have average cycle times of 90 minutes before they go in the dryer. The older machines are like star trek in time savers for small loads. They were designed and built without government rules

Post# 486360 , Reply# 36   1/4/2011 at 16:08 (4,722 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.)        

dadoes's profile picture
Folks are too hung-up on time. If one has so many things to to do, surely there's something else can be attended during the additional 30 mins. Need a few shirts done for a business trip in the morn? Plan ahead and start them washing the night before. :-)

Post# 486361 , Reply# 37   1/4/2011 at 16:24 (4,722 days old) by 3beltwesty ()        
I agree; Time does not matter to many folks

I agree; Time does not matter to many folks. They have a rigid job, no emergencies, they are retired, etc,

Here to wash clothes a workday evening means; 3 loads has the washer is running for 4.5 to 5 hours with the new machine; and about about 2.2 hours with the old machine.

With the old machine by the time the load was done the dryer stuff was done or way before. 3 loads of wash with the old beast would 3 hours tops; with 2 hours with a quicker time. It is about 5 to 5.5 hours with the new machine.

thus as a practical matter here it takes 1.5 to 2x the time to wash clothes with a modern FL washer here.

Post# 486362 , Reply# 38   1/4/2011 at 16:37 (4,722 days old) by 3beltwesty ()        
UK machines are 24" versus USA machine are 27"

Your new FL washers you use in the UK are smaller than in the USA, that might have a bearing too.

The "load level" on my new FL machine goes from 1 to 4 bars. In about all loads it is at 1 bar, once maybe in 10 loads it is 2. I once got it to three washing with the machine full, too full.

If I wash just 5 T shirts the new machine may spend time because the load is too small and thus get confused. To fake off the machine one can wet one t shirt to add mass,so it gets on with life and gets the cycle going. If one only places 3 shirts and it says 1 hour 15 minutes; 1/2 hour later it might say 1 hour 2 minutes. The machine gets confused with a light load and has to resense. My neighbors Whirlpool FL washer does the same thing; the time estimate is close with some washes and can be low with a confused wash.

Post# 486364 , Reply# 39   1/4/2011 at 16:44 (4,722 days old) by suburbanmd (Maryland, USA)        
What I wrote to Consumer Reports

Below, in italics, is the text of my letter that CR round-filed.  Sorry for the inconsistent line breaks; I'm having trouble getting corrections to "stick".

The British and Australian members here may not realize that US-market washing machines (except Miele) don't have temperature markings, they just say Hot or Warm or Cold.  Those can correspond to any temperature the manufacturer wants, and it's hard to find out what the temperatures are. Forum discussions indicate that they're getting cooler and cooler. Some of our washers have internal heaters, but they don't work on all cycles.  On the cycles where they do work, the wash cycle may end at a fixed time, whether or not the water has reached the target temperature.

By way of introduction, I’m a long-time Consumer Reports subscriber, since 1987.

While doing research on
clothes washers recently, I learned something that surprised me about federal 
regulation of washers.  Specifically, the mandatory energy conservation standard for clothes washers, being the same for
top-loaders and front-loaders, is actually a very forgiving standard when 
applied to front-loaders.  Incentive for further energy and water conservation in front-loaders comes from a program of
manufacturer tax credits.  This fact is at odds with the prevalent public belief that washer manufacturers’ hands are
tied by federal regulations, and therefore deficiencies in recent models simply
have to be tolerated.  

I feel the public should be
educated about how clothes washers are regulated.  Consumers should be told that shortcomings
due to lowered wash temperatures, inadequate rinsing, and limited internal
heater use (especially important when an HE washer is far from the house water heater) are not inevitable.  Such
knowledge might lead to more consumer choice in clothes washers.

For example, buyers who want
a front-loader with hotter wash temperatures, better use of the internal water
heater, and higher rinse levels could, in theory, get a machine programmed
thus, by paying an extra amount equal to the tax credit that the manufacturer
would forego.  The extra amount could be
as little as $100, the difference between the stringent $250 performance tier
and the less stringent $150 tier.  Such a
machine targeted to allergic households might sell very well, and fill a real need. 

I would like to see Consumers
Union take the lead in disseminating the facts about clothes washer regulation,
and in advocating for more choices.

Thank you for considering this matter.


Post# 486365 , Reply# 40   1/4/2011 at 16:54 (4,722 days old) by Hoover1100 (U.K.)        
I once got it to three washing with the machine full, too fu

In a European front loader, the machine is only *full* when you can just about get your hand in on top of the clothes in the drum.

When the machine is filled this full, it will still wash everything perfectly, and will not make creasing worse.

Our machine has a 49l (1.7 cu.ft) drum and will more than happily wash 8 pairs of adults jeans perfectly, with no trouble at all.


Post# 486384 , Reply# 41   1/4/2011 at 17:34 (4,722 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.)        

dadoes's profile picture
Why would three successive loads need to be done on the one evening?  Adapt and adjust.  I don't do all my laundry in one day.  I wait until I have a full load of a particular kind, or don't have enough of those items to last but 1 or 2 days longer.  Each type of load accumulates at a different rate and is done accordingly whenever the need arises .... towels/whites, jeans, casuals, bedding, etc.

Post# 486409 , Reply# 42   1/4/2011 at 18:55 (4,721 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        
I'm with Matt....

ronhic's profile picture
A European style front-load machine is 'full' when the drum starts to move as you push things in on the top....


when washing, you can just spot the back of the drum when the machine pauses to change direction over the top of the wet washing....

Any less, and it is underloaded for a full cycle.

Post# 486482 , Reply# 43   1/5/2011 at 06:40 (4,721 days old) by autowasherfreak ()        

I spent a lot of money for my Frigidaire Gallery washer and dryer, and got about 6 years use out of them. I can't afford to spend the $1000.00 every five or six years for a new washer and dryer. I will stick with my  Maytag 806 until she dies, then I will get another top loader.  The only thing that I do miss from my front loader is the high speed spin, dying times are longer using the Maytag.

Post# 486485 , Reply# 44   1/5/2011 at 07:14 (4,721 days old) by dj-gabriele ()        
...when washing, you can just spot the back of the drum when


Post# 486496 , Reply# 45   1/5/2011 at 08:34 (4,721 days old) by pierreandreply4 (St-Bruno de montarville (province of quebec) canada)        
maytag maxima front load washer

pierreandreply4's profile picture
yesterday i went to my local shoping center and as i left i look in the appliance department and i saw the new maytag maxima washer dryer set my dream set fro my next washer dryer set as my mother and me plan to stack them but i do all the wash load around the house just the washer cost 1800.00$ canadian dolar thats high robery for a washer that after 10 years of use needs to be replace as for the dryer and as for the dryer it cost $1,200.00
can if i round the amount

Post# 486543 , Reply# 46   1/5/2011 at 12:46 (4,721 days old) by 3beltwesty ()        
USA washer size


the machine I have here in the USA is just an average machine 27" in size, ie 4.2 cubic foot. At Home Depot it was the 2nd smallest LG machine in FL. A top load model is 7.0 cubic feet. To buy a 24" machine like yours requires mail ordering it and it costs double thus a home user will never do it.

A 24" machine in the USA is usually bought for a boat/yacht, or special thing where space is a premium and paying double is ok. If I vist dozen local stores that sell washers and look at several hundred washers, none are 24".

If I decided to just wash socks and wore 1 pair a day; one could go 1/4 year before filling up the USA's "just average" 4.2 cubic foot machine. The old 1976 machine here is about 2.2 to 2.5 cubic feet, not marketable in the USA anymore since "bigger" sells.

There are entry level TL machines in the USA at 3.2 cubic feet, some tend to shred clothes more and use more water. In FL machines there are ones in the 3.5 region; often then have less features, less vib isolation in the bottom low cost end.

Some of us here lost the bulk of ones clothes in Katrina, and now have a truncated amount of stuff. Thus if I just tried to "fill up the washer" with shirts; I could probably wait 1 month. The problem *here* is that I really do not have than many shirts; *plus* the darn stains if any tend to get set if one waits,

Thus here the machine I have typically has just 1 bar out of 4 showing with a wash load, and sometimes the load is too small so the washer gets confused too and delays the long wash cycle.

Maybe in Europe, Oz etc folks have more clothes; or smaller washers too.

In the USA here I tend to wash stuff that just got dirty/spotted before the stains set and do not wait weeks "to fill up the washer". Often in washing I wash "something extra" that may or may not need washing; so the machine senses "it has something to wash". 2 to 3 loads run after another are to separate colors from whites, or separate rather clean stuff from super dirty stuff ; never because the machine is full.

I WOULD buy a 1.7 to 2 cubic foot FL machine the same price as my new 599 buck FL washer; they are just not available here. True Sears has a Maytag MAH2400AWW 2.4 cu. ft machine for 599 bucks; but none are in stock. To get in to my house installed would cost about 180 more is what I was quoted. A Bosch 24" 3.4 cuft unit is about 1040 bucks; LG is about 750 for a 24" unit .


Post# 486574 , Reply# 47   1/5/2011 at 16:47 (4,721 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        
To get in to my house installed would cost about 180 more is

ronhic's profile picture
What on earth for?

Surely the delivery fee isn't higher than a 'traditional' machine?

Just level it off, screw on the hoses, connect the drain and plug it in....

I will just clarify something though. You comment that

'Maybe in Europe, Oz etc folks have more clothes; or smaller washers too'

I have no idea what people have in their wardrobes, but I will say that there seems to be a great deal of confusion between 'size' and 'capacity'.

The American way of measuring in cu ft is not comparable to the rest of the worlds use of pounds/kilograms unless you look at the chart you provided in a previous forum. I've pulled it from the original document, but have not formatted, so sorry about the difficulty people may have reading it....

Basically, a 4.0cu ft machine should be tested with a load of about 7.5kg (16.5lb)and a 2.3cu ft machine, with 4kg (9lb)....but here's something interesting...

I've just read the owners manual for the following machines:

Whirlpool 2.3 cu. ft. I.E.C. Compact Front-Load Washing Machine (WFC7500V)
Whirlpool 4.0 cu. ft. WFW9050XW

..and let's take towels as the capacity measurement....

The 'normal' load for both machines according to the handbooks are:

2.3 cu. ft. - 8 bath towels, 8 hand towels and 10 wash cloths (page 17)
4.0 cu. ft. - 8 bath towels, 8 hand towels, 10 wash cloths AND one bath mat...(page 15)

Sorry, are you recommending (Whirlpool and undoubtedly other manufacturers) that a machine with a stated capacity over 70% larger can only wash an extra bathmat?

Now, the smaller one is European designed....and has similar cycles (adapted for the US) to the larger, US built machine. It is currently on offer through SEARS for $599....

All the above information proves to me is that Americans are being 'sold a fib'...these large capacity machines are actually not that big when it comes to what you can actually get clean in them. Their large size exacerbates the high G-forces when spinning potentially causes premature wear and they don't appear to do anything better than a smaller machine. In fact, they can't handle a small load nearly as well as the smaller machine will and they certainly don't have the capacity that their size would indicate...

Additionally, 3beltwesty, the smaller machine has a 30min quick cycle, the 'normal' cycles are faster than the larger machine AND you can get away with washing smaller loads in a smaller drum without the balance issues you have experienced yet still wash 95% of the capacity of the larger machine should you require it....

Bigger is not always better....

3.3.2Determine the test load as shown in the following table:

Container volume Test load
cu. ft.¡Ý< liter¡Ý< lb kg
0-0.80 0-22.7 3.00 1.36
0.80-0.90 22.7-25.5 3.50 1.59
0.90-1.00 25.5-28.3 3.90 1.77
1.00-1.10 28.3-31.1 4.30 1.95
1.10-1.20 31.1-34.0 4.70 2.13
1.20-1.30 34.0-36.8 5.10 2.31
1.30-1.40 36.8-39.6 5.50 2.49
1.40-1.50 39.6-42.5 5.90 2.68
1.50-1.60 42.5-45.3 6.40 2.90
1.60-1.70 45.3-48.1 6.80 3.08
1.70-1.80 48.1-51.0 7.20 3.27
1.80-1.90 51.0-53.8 7.60 3.45
1.90-2.00 53.8-56.6 8.00 3.63
2.00-2.10 56.6-59.5 8.40 3.81
2.10-2.20 59.5-62.3 8.80 3.99
2.20-2.30 62.3-65.1 9.20 4.17
2.30-2.40 65.1-68.0 9.60 4.35
2.40-2.50 68.0-70.8 10.00 4.54
2.50-2.60 70.8-73.6 10.50 4.76
2.60-2.70 73.6-76.5 10.90 4.94
2.70-2.80 76.5-79.3 11.30 5.13
2.80-2.90 79.3-82.1 11.70 5.31
2.90-3.00 82.1-85.0 12.10 5.49
3.00-3.10 85.0-87.8 12.50 5.67
3.10-3.20 87.8-90.6 12.90 5.85
3.20-3.30 90.6-93.4 13.30 6.03
3.30-3.40 93.4-96.3 13.70 6.21
3.40-3.50 96.3-99.1 14.10 6.40
3.50-3.60 99.1-101.9 14.60 6.62
3.60-3.70 101.9-104.8 15.00 6.80
3.70-3.80 104.8-107.6 15.40 6.99
Notes: (1) All test load weights are bone dry weights.


Post# 486577 , Reply# 48   1/5/2011 at 16:48 (4,721 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        

ronhic's profile picture

Hugs Gabriele...

Post# 486582 , Reply# 49   1/5/2011 at 17:34 (4,721 days old) by whirlpolf ()        
Bollocks: " can just spot the back of the drum whe

Euro FL: This (what is described) is a half load to me.
Nice when used on a quick refresh cycle, but plain baloney when it comes to energy saving for real full programmes and complete wash cycles (which is always the better option).
Pack it as you can pack (same colour, same fabric or whatever you have).
Then try to stick a hand on top of the clothes: Can you still twist it? THAT is full, no less.
And it works with old machines (zillions of liters and kilowatts) and with new machines alike (shower type clothes wetting in port hole seal nozzle, energy saver low temp cycle, lesser KW on heaters or any other mechanism).
Thumb rule:
Hand moving? = full. Hand bondaged? = too full /overloaded.
Will do anytime.
Anything less is a housewife's germ phobia having come to life on the electric bill. (May sound harsh, but I do not respect any of this slosh-o-rama for no reason at all).

Post# 486583 , Reply# 50   1/5/2011 at 17:42 (4,721 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        
Bollocks: " can just spot the back of the drum whe

ronhic's profile picture

If you had bothered to read the rest of the sentence:

'when washing, you can just spot the back of the drum when the machine pauses to change direction over the top of the wet washing....'

NOTE: the washing is WET....

By 'just spot', that means via the top of the door when it pauses - not through the middle of you know, washing compacts when wet...a full drum of towels (and by that I mean FULL, by your definition) in my Zanussi made Westinghouse. When the machine pauses to reverse, I can JUST see the drum at the back if I look through the top of the door...and that was 8 bath towels and 2 heavy bath mats, not a 'half load' as you imply...

Post# 486586 , Reply# 51   1/5/2011 at 17:50 (4,721 days old) by 3beltwesty ()        

The bigger is not always better is true in many cases, that is why a smaller machine can be often better with a smaller load of clothes.

One can notice that larger 27" frame machines often have tops 1000, 1200 or 1400 rpms spins speeds, and smaller 24" machines folks comment about have 1600 and 1800,

The LG 27" 599 buck machine from Home Depot had free delivery. Sears quoted on the 24" 599 buck machine 80 bucks extra; plus 100 because of a steep drive way; another said is was 180 because the day after thanksgiving. To get the delivery cost to be only 80 bucks required me to take off 1/2 day; and wait around for their 4 to 6 hour "delivery window". Since I run a small business;shutting down for 1/2 day has a cost. Having it delivered for nothing the day after Thanksgiving had a zero delivery cost with Home Depot as the seller.

I actual volume; the washers in the USA are mostly larger than other places. The frame is 27 inches versus 24" inches.

If one takes a modern new FL 27" washer in the USA and places just a few items to be washed, the computer seems to sense a paltys load thus does much random motions to insure the sprinkling tries to get to all items. When one stop the washer after 15 minutes some stuff is still dry; and most feels damp and there is about no water to be seen. The whole AlGorithium :) is that water costs the same as inkjet ink; and your time if wasted does not matter. Thus the machines first displayed time estimate of say 1 hour 15 minutes can stretch to 1.5 to 1.7 hours, since the machine is hell bent in tinkleing instead of wizzing. This can be a problem that the small load causes an abort, or time lengthening.

Post# 486587 , Reply# 52   1/5/2011 at 17:57 (4,721 days old) by whirlpolf ()        

I can imagine the situation you've just described, yet I pack my machines fuller than that and I've never encountered any cleaning problems.
Models involved:
Vorwerk 403 (aka Zanussi)
AEG Lavamat Regina (old style FL)
AEG Lavamat 583
Bosch Logixx
Bauknecht Eco Series
Miele 7oo series Novotronic

All of them had been filled just how I've described it, none of them failed to clean my clothes to what I want, all was spotless. (And all of them would not allow me an inch to the back wall of the drum, even with wet clothes in them (course I DO know that wet clothes collapse), I had a bare half moon only to see through, not larger than half of a palm - visible only on top of the WET clothes being revolved, not even reaching as far as the back wall of the drum).

It DOES work. Just try.

Post# 486590 , Reply# 53   1/5/2011 at 18:06 (4,721 days old) by whirlpolf ()        
added: OK, this could be of course a heater problem

As far as I am informed (correct me if I'm wrong), American washers are gas heater fed.

Maybe this is the reason why.
But why on earth don't manufacturers conceive a likeable and positive way of adding heated fill to internal heater enzyme build-up? It would be a snap and just a major market to go along with!
As to what I have found:
Cold is good for protein based stains (First 10 min)
Warming up slowly will do for etching out all organic stuff (next 10 min) talking about enzymes
Hot is always good for bleaching/color degrading (chlorine of even better: oxygen based products)

Then cool down, double spray rinse and there we go.
I feel a blend of both technologies (transatlantically) would do for best results.

Post# 486595 , Reply# 54   1/5/2011 at 18:14 (4,721 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        
My comments...

ronhic's profile picture
...remain valid though.

- The usable capacity difference between Whirlpools 4.0 and 2.3 cu. ft. washers is negligible according to their user manuals
- the 24", 2.3 cu. ft. Whirlpool appears to suit your needs better because it will wash smaller loads without issue compared to larger machines (balancing)
- and it appears your retailers may sell cheap, but delivery is abominable....

On another note, I can get any machine from any retailer in this city delivered for $40 or less regardless of if the machine is on sale or not or if its the day after a public holiday...and that price more often than not applies for Saturday too. From some on-line retailers I can pay as little as $13 for a washer to be delivered from interstate....

Now, whilst we may be the capital city, our population is only 300,000 AND we are a minimum 225 miles from the next major city - Sydney....

There are times, when I really do feel for North Americans....inexpensive appliances on one hand (YAY) and gouged for delivery on the other (Boo)

Post# 486597 , Reply# 55   1/5/2011 at 18:29 (4,721 days old) by whirlpolf ()        
ok, that is completely out of my hands

marketing and delivery issues on continents that I have never put my foot on.
Excuse my ignorance, the things you've just described are far from what I see commondays here.

Coming from what you can get for what price and for which delivery rate, I am out of the game.
Here we usually get an appliance within 24 hrs. no matter what.
Unfortunately we will never get the whirly-blender-type oversea's weirdo mechanisms at all (and I envy you guys for that, I love them!).

A major dream to come true would be a Calypso or a Cabrio, but the shortcomings of a serious service answer of Whirlpool and Maytag alike make it impossible for me (they could never tell whether a 60Hz machine could run on a transformer using 50Hz). But I am drifting off....

Post# 486598 , Reply# 56   1/5/2011 at 18:33 (4,721 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        

ronhic's profile picture
We are basically saying the same thing....

Fully loaded, and wet, there will be some room that is visible when the machine pauses - not much, but some....

Post# 486704 , Reply# 57   1/6/2011 at 08:15 (4,720 days old) by SRSwirl ()        

8 bath towels? Wow! My average towel load consists of between 14 and 18 bath towels (heavy bath towels), 4 hand towels, and 10 wash cloths. Last week my colors load consisted of 17 heavy cotton tee shirts (I've loaded as many as 22), nine heavy cotton shorts, 10 socks, and a couple of miscellaneous items. I have a Bosch 700 machine. I just think most Americans tend to underload as compared to how Europeans use their washers. You certainly can get far more into the larger drums if you want to. Perhaps manufacturers don't advise this...but I always load my machine to capacity...and I know I can get FAR more in it than in a European Miele...because I have tried out the smaller machines with my loads. I can PACK things into a small machine...and it will generally only hold about 1/2 to 2/3 of what I normally put into my Bosch every time I wash a load. Everything always comes out spotless and well rinsed...and I never use fabric softner. If I PACKED things into the Bosch, I could get quite a bit more than I would normally put in there...but I like the clothes to at least have some room to move and tumble. When I see machines packed so full they are just going around in a static circle...well...the clothes in the center are not getting cleaned no matter what people think.

I do agree that the larger machines do not handle a small load nearly as well as the European machines. I have to be careful if I wash too little in the Bosch. It might not spin at all. That, to me, is the drawback of the larger drums.

Post# 486800 , Reply# 58   1/6/2011 at 16:31 (4,720 days old) by 3beltwesty ()        

The Old Westinghouse FL washer from 1976 has a 22 inch diameter basket and it is about 11 to 12 inches long.

The 2010 LG here has the same diameter basket 22 inch but it is about about 17 long.

Both are in a 27" wide washer frame.

The old FL washer has thus about a 2.4 to 2.6 cubic foot basket

The new LG thus has a 3.7 cubic foot basket, BUT IS MARKETED a 4.2 model with the IEC spec.

Here is something mentioned on the link below:

"Let me show you two washing machines with identical tubs so it makes a little more sense. The Whirlpool 38762 rates 4.0 I.E.C. cu. ft. The Whirlpool 38612 rates 3.5 conventional cu. ft. These washers have exactly the same tub, but because the first one is Energy Star-qualified, the I.E.C. measuring system is used. That means it comes out with a higher cubic foot reading than the second machine."


Post# 486805 , Reply# 59   1/6/2011 at 16:42 (4,720 days old) by 3beltwesty ()        
More volume gobble gook

More gobble gook:

"This 4.3 cu. ft. I.E.C. Equivalent Capacity* washer cleans 30 XL t-shirts in one load (*Equivalent volume per I.E.C. International Standard, 4th edition, based on 3.7 cu. ft. D.O.E. measurement)"

Note how that 3.7 number is about like my volume swag for my washer that has an IEC of 4.2..

I got Volume = (22*22)* ( 3.14/4) * 17 / (12*12*12) =3.7

Thus the IEC volume is a volume larger than the Physical volume. As an engineer this makes me want to tar and feather a few marketing & government spec writers.


Post# 486809 , Reply# 60   1/6/2011 at 16:49 (4,720 days old) by 3beltwesty ()        
22 Inch diameter baskets in 27" machines

This 22 inch diameter is in mid to early? 1960's Westinghouse FL washers too when units got 27" frames and had a horizontal tub.

Thus a swag/guess my seat of the pants first guess is a European 24" machine might have a basket 5 inches less in diameter; or 4" less with a more crafty design. ie a 1
17 or 18 inch basket diameters, ie 43 to 46 cm in my slide rule world.

QUESTION: Thus what is the inner basket diameter on your 24" frame machines? and depth too?

Post# 486831 , Reply# 61   1/6/2011 at 18:51 (4,719 days old) by ronhic (Canberra, Australia)        

ronhic's profile picture
My machine, which is rated at 6.5kg, has the following

- inner diameter - 45cm (17 3/4")
- inner depth - 34cm (13 1/2")

It should be noted, that there are greater capacity machines than mine with stated wash loads of up to 9kg that still sit in a standard width frame - they are deeper.

Post# 487073 , Reply# 62   1/7/2011 at 16:35 (4,719 days old) by StrongEnough78 (California)        
Gutless cars....waterless washers

strongenough78's profile picture
They already tried that in the early to mid 80's and yeah, need I say more. You had Cadillac's weighing in at 4,200 pounds with a dinky, underpowered V-8 under the hood putting out an unbelieveable 120 horsepower. I think the 0-60 times were somewhere in the 20 second range. So since people would full throttle the thing just to get it moving, they would end up using large amounts of gas anyway. And the compact cars were just as slow, yeah you'd get on the highway and go forever on a gallon of gas, but you also prayed and begged that you could get the hell out of the way of a large semi rapidly approaching. The early 90's had great cars. Full size with V-8 power that was more than adequate that got over 25 MPG on the highway and at least 17 in town. Now when I see advertisements for a highpower V-6 engine that gets 25 MPG on the highway, and they make it seem like the best thing ever, I can't help but to laugh. I sit and think, "Just a few years ago they were advertising V-8 powered cars with those same numbers" Oh well, it makes no sense to me either. I don't forsee anymore gutless cars in the future, but waterless washers.....blah. I mean seriously, Earth is 75% water, if I remember correctly. I highly doubt we're going to totally run out anytime soon. Yeah most of it is salt water in the oceans, but I say, if they can make a pill to make your "manhood" erect, liquid filled pillows to enlarge breasts, and cellular telephones that can access anything from the internet, to the gas level in your car, then they can make a way to make ocean water usable. And that would be after our fresh water reserves are totally drained, and honestly, I don't forsee that happening either. This is getting pretty bad when we're pretty much getting told what kind of appliances we HAVE to use. I don't prefer front loading washers, especially after the reviews and posts I've seen about them, or washers that have a hot water setting, but will only allow a preset tempurature, with NO spray rinse between the wash and rinse! I know a few still do that but most don't seem to now.

And gasoline, I don't see any reason why it should be at the prices it is now, and why the hell we have to buy oil elsewhere when there is obscene amounts of it here we could be using. This place has gone to hell in a handbasket.

Post# 487086 , Reply# 63   1/7/2011 at 17:44 (4,719 days old) by 3beltwesty ()        
WATER SHOWER instead of washing stuff somewhat in Water

With many new FL washers, a light small load with the default settings has the actual water level below the clothes. During the wash cycle; the clothes are sprayed/tinkled on.

The clothes do not have any part sitting in contact with the horizontal water level. The water is in the tub; but it is BELOW the basket during the entire wash cycle at all times.

The washer tinkles on the clothes, the basket revolves up in the air; the actual water level is below the basket during the entire wash cycle.

Some folks here will swear that this is the greatest thing, and it really doesnt matter if 10 minutes into the wash that one half one's clothes are still bone dry.

The save the planet, water saving folks just probably hate it when folks like me press the "extra water button" so say 5 to 10 percent of the clothes are actually in contact with the horizontal water. ie the water level actually touches the basket. ie one has a few cups of visible water. ie part of the clothes with stain remover are in contact with an actual body of liquid.

Lord knows how evil it is to actually have clothes go "under water" during washing.

Because the default wash is tinkling; the washer has the basket move randomly up above the water level so after say 5 to 15 minutes that T-shirt with a grease spot (and spot remover) somehow gets tinkled on.

Here I have found that dirty stuff tends to get cleaner and spot remover works better if the clothes during part of the wash cycle come in contact with a liquid; ie the part went under water for a few seconds.

Maybe Police and lawmakers could pass laws to outlaw washers where the clothes "go underwater" for a few seconds, and just make all machines tinkle.

Or maybe non tinkle machines that have clothes "go under water" could be crushed by the Government.

Why not make the water level never touch the basket. One could just tinkle/spray for a few hours to drive downb the water usage.

Post# 487089 , Reply# 64   1/7/2011 at 17:51 (4,719 days old) by hoover1100 (U.K.)        
The clothes do not have any part sitting in contact with the

You mean like when you have a shower instead of a bath?

Funny, I'm always just as clean out of the shower as out of the bath....

The majority of machines here fill into the drum, but the water level is not visible at the door when the machine is in operation.


Post# 487102 , Reply# 65   1/7/2011 at 19:08 (4,718 days old) by 3beltwesty ()        
Many spot removers have a time element involved

Your shower logic's flaw misses the time element:

The problem is there is NO quick shower right away in the washer like if one had an eye emergency and used an eye shower.

It is more like getting some bug spray in one's eyes and walking outside looking up in a fog, mist, or drizzle "HOPING" with time after 15 to 20 minutes one has a few drops in ones eyes to clean out the poison.

There is NO big shower, more like some whussy mini sprays every now and gobs of drum revolving such that a random shirt is full wet in 10 to 30 minutes, depending on luck. Thus treated spots bleed, dry, tend to set.

What I mean is that if one stops the wash cycle after 15 minutes and has 8 shirts; some are still bone dry; most are damp. The water level of the tub is below the basket. To save water, there is just wimpy sprays and random motion of the basket. Calling it a shower is a stretch, it is more like a spray of window cleaner a few times per minute. That is why the wash cycle is so long. There is no bath, no shower, ie just a mess of wimpy sprays like one is cleaning a monitor.

Thus here in the USA most of the grease spot removers like Shout, Spray in wash say to spot then wait 2 to 5 minutes; then wash immediately.

It just means that after 10 or 15 minutes if unlucky; that spot that was sprayed is still bone dry and the spot remover's effectiveness is ruined. ON the spot has lifted and now dried on the other part of the shirt. It means one has to rewash ones clothes again to get the spots out.

Thus here some shirts have this white spot where the oxidizer bleached the shirt too much; others have shirts that the spots did not come out all the way. ie a drop in performance to met the government specs.

****Pressing the "extra water button" means the clothes tend to get wetting quicker; since some are in contact with actual water in a tub.

If a lady dyes their hair and it has to be washed out in 5 minutes to get the color correct; it is washed in a tub of water or good shower in 5 minute; not a few wimpy hand sprays a few times each minute such that after 15 minutes one still has not contacted all the hair surfaces.

Maybe clothes in Europe are free and water costs more than inkjet ink.?:)

Here clothes have a cost, and pressing the "extra water button" or hacking into the washer's guts will be done to allow water to properly get to clothes in a timely basis to reduce spots on clothes.

Many spot removers have a time element involved. It is a process issue.

Thus the lay inexperienced designers have created a machine that saves more water; but fails in 1910 technology in the basics of stain setting; ie not letting a stain set by farting around getting water in contact with the stain in a timely matter. A housewife in 1910 understood this, the lame government spec writers today and designers do not.

If you really want to feel bad, my grandmothers washer In Detroit was water powered. There was no electric motor. The water pressure ran through a "water motor" that moved the clothes. These were made by Coffield in Dayton Ohio.


It was not until 1978 here until the house even had a water meter. Think of it like the internet, where most today have no data limits.

Maybe in a few years usage of data will be frowned on and every house is taxed 5 bucks per gig of data?

Post# 487325 , Reply# 66   1/8/2011 at 15:50 (4,718 days old) by jerrod6 (Southeastern Pennsylvania)        

"It is more like getting some bug spray in one's eyes and walking outside looking up in a fog, mist, or drizzle "HOPING" with time after 15 to 20 minutes one has a few drops in ones eyes to clean out the poison."

3beltwesty: Seriously, I am going to comment in this thread but right now after reading your last post I am laughing so hard at what you wrote that I cannot type.

Post# 1153740 , Reply# 67   7/9/2022 at 00:52 (518 days old) by GELaundry4ever (Nacogdoches, TX, USA)        
new appliances unfairness

I know this thread is old, but nothing has changed. It's only getting worse.

Post# 1153746 , Reply# 68   7/9/2022 at 05:14 (518 days old) by qsd-dan (West)        
It's only getting worse.

qsd-dan's profile picture

Post# 1153770 , Reply# 69   7/9/2022 at 10:42 (518 days old) by Maytag85 (Sean A806)        

maytag85's profile picture
Crazy as this sounds but since all appliances have electronic controls that can fail or be dubious, I am beginning to wonder if companies are VERY slowly beginning to merge together (not that they are but in a way they might as well) and purposely stagnate innovation etc and that’s VERY Monopolistic.

Same thing is going on with cars since they all have the same features, options, and last but not least is the same body style and yes there are a few distinct differences but usually all have the same generic shape as well. The automakers might as well be “merging” together, stagnating innovation and styling, and simply DO NOT give people ANY sort of choice what they want anymore and again that’s what Monopolies do.

Post# 1153777 , Reply# 70   7/9/2022 at 11:25 (518 days old) by Pierreandreply4 (St-Bruno de montarville (province of quebec) canada)        
this his my opinion but wanted to share

pierreandreply4's profile picture
this is my opinion this is my curent daily driver purchuse last yearbut if after 5 10 years it broke if i can convince my mom would go for something more vintine like this inglis set if still possible to find in use store markets in mint good condition ir a good direct drive like inglis royal100 that has a warm rinse and second rinse option last pic is a refrence

  Photos...       <              >      Photo 1 of 6         View Full Size
Post# 1153936 , Reply# 71   7/10/2022 at 18:29 (517 days old) by GELaundry4ever (Nacogdoches, TX, USA)        
you may be right

You may be right about this. I wish they could've innovated on the features we've grown to love, like direct drive, filter-flo, etc.

Post# 1154129 , Reply# 72   7/12/2022 at 15:44 (515 days old) by vacerator (Macomb, Michigan)        
The business climate today

seems to be to get your money and then they could care less! Appliances, furniture, bedding, cars, etc., etc.

Forum Index:       Other Forums:                      

Comes to the Rescue!

The Discuss-o-Mat has stopped, buzzer is sounding!!!
If you would like to reply to this thread please log-in...

Discuss-O-MAT Log-In

New Members
Click Here To Sign Up.

Discuss-o-Mat Forums
Vintage Brochures, Service and Owners Manuals
Fun Vintage Washer Ephemera
See It Wash!
Video Downloads
Audio Downloads
Picture of the Day
Patent of the Day
Photos of our Collections
The Old Aberdeen Farm
Vintage Service Manuals
Vintage washer/dryer/dishwasher to sell?
Technical/service questions?
Looking for Parts?
Website related questions?
Digital Millennium Copyright Act Policy
Our Privacy Policy