Thread Number: 47309
and Now its time for Amerca's favorite guessing game
[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# 687057   7/3/2013 at 06:19 (3,921 days old) by Jetcone (Schenectady-Home of Calrods,Monitor Tops,Toroid Transformers)        

jetcone's profile picture

"Which Used More??"

 

Today we have the 1956 Bendix going up against the 1960 GE FF. Which used more??

 

 





Post# 687058 , Reply# 1   7/3/2013 at 06:22 (3,921 days old) by Jetcone (Schenectady-Home of Calrods,Monitor Tops,Toroid Transformers)        
The GE

jetcone's profile picture

Using our new Scientific gallon meters lets see>>>>

 

The wash on the solid tub GE for a hot fill used: 21.4 gallons

 


Post# 687059 , Reply# 2   7/3/2013 at 06:24 (3,921 days old) by Jetcone (Schenectady-Home of Calrods,Monitor Tops,Toroid Transformers)        
The GE

jetcone's profile picture

for Rinse in--- cold water for all you" Crazy energy-nuts " out there--- used :

 

Wait for it 

 

wait... 20.6 gallons of cold water!

 

 


Post# 687060 , Reply# 3   7/3/2013 at 06:27 (3,921 days old) by Jetcone (Schenectady-Home of Calrods,Monitor Tops,Toroid Transformers)        
To wash and rinse

jetcone's profile picture

in the GE she took a grand total of

42.0 gallons!!

 

Now which used more the Bendix or the GE?? (Hint: we didn't use the Soak cycle on the Bendix) 

 

Discuss....


Post# 687093 , Reply# 4   7/3/2013 at 10:22 (3,921 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

frigilux's profile picture
Boy howdy, I'm really conflicted on this one. Early front-loaders used a lot more water than today's HE machines do. If the GE wasn't a solid tub, I'd be more certain of my answer.

Probably wrong, but I'm going to say the Bendix used......less....no wait!....more water than the GE. No wait...CRAP. I will be tied in knots 'til the results are revealed.




Post# 687100 , Reply# 5   7/3/2013 at 11:12 (3,921 days old) by bajaespuma (Connecticut)        
Is this a trick question?

bajaespuma's profile picture
Front loaders use way less water than top loaders unless the front loader is a washer/dryer and cold water is used in a condensation drying cycle. What do I win for a correct answer?

Post# 687116 , Reply# 6   7/3/2013 at 13:19 (3,921 days old) by mickeyd (Hamburg NY)        
Could have been an audio hallucination

mickeyd's profile picture
but once heard that some condenser dryers can use up to 100 gallons of cold water.*

Bad trip or truth?

The Bendix uses more on a regular cycle because of the 3 rinses; this is a guess because I don't know the per gallon rate for the Bendix tub fill. Since the Bendix is big (combo) and old, I'm guessing 7 gallons, which would make only 28 gallons, so now I'll change my answer to GE, unless you're drying the load, then it's the Bendix with 128 !!!!!

So my final answer is: It's a TIE...LOL Thanks, Eugene for encouraging mental convolutions and fireworks for the 4th. Perfect!

* Just remembered at post time that Mother Superior told me this.


Post# 687140 , Reply# 7   7/3/2013 at 15:56 (3,921 days old) by foraloysius (Leeuwarden, Friesland, the Netherlands)        

foraloysius's profile picture
Definitely the GE. Drying in the combo wouldn't count, that would be cheating, wouldn't it...?

Post# 687144 , Reply# 8   7/3/2013 at 16:04 (3,921 days old) by kb0nes (Burnsville, MN)        
that would be cheating, wouldn't it...?

kb0nes's profile picture
Well it wouldn't be a fair comparison since the GE only washes...

My assumption is that the Bendix will use more, simply because Jon loves proving how wonderful the FF's are ;)


Post# 687145 , Reply# 9   7/3/2013 at 16:09 (3,921 days old) by foraloysius (Leeuwarden, Friesland, the Netherlands)        

foraloysius's profile picture

My assumption is that the Bendix will use more, simply because Jon loves proving how wonderful the FF's are ;)

 

Unless he finds a new combo!


Post# 687152 , Reply# 10   7/3/2013 at 16:53 (3,921 days old) by Kenmoreguy89 (Valenza Piemonte, Italy- Soon to be US immigrant.)        

kenmoreguy89's profile picture
Post# 687156 , Reply# 11   7/3/2013 at 17:24 (3,921 days old) by Kenmoreguy89 (Valenza Piemonte, Italy- Soon to be US immigrant.)        

kenmoreguy89's profile picture

Anyway..... I've seen old front loaders that used as much water as a top loader for a same weight load, ..nedless to say that generally FL machines that  use more water do provide cleaner clothes rather than ones using less...of course.... this  to the face of today's C**P that claim to wash with two fingers of water... ahahah!
BUT Consuming more water or less water  comparing the two types does not mean nothing though and that's obvious that FL would in  general use some to little less water.... you cannot just compare a front loader to a top loader...they have a  different operation, there may be a front loader that use more water than a top loader  though.....that's possible!
That would not mean nothing though in terms of washing comparison even if Bendix hypotetically used the double more than GE.. there isn't just any comparison to do based on water consuming in this sense.... but in case the Bendix was proven to use more  water would have been nice though to have  had these easy water counters back then and compare them to other machines,  so GE's FF also  and if more bring the data to the Bendix company  known for their specialization in  FL  machines  advertising them  as revolutionary types as they used less water,  and hear what they  would have had to say about that....

Just supposing..... anyway I do not find it impossible to be of course.

 


Post# 687190 , Reply# 12   7/3/2013 at 22:25 (3,921 days old) by PhilR (Quebec Canada)        

philr's profile picture
Jon, you should dry the clothes washed in FF in the Filtrator dryer and substract the amount of water saved in the drain pan that you could use for the next wash!


That's what I do with my Filtrator dryers since I don't have a laundry tub or an automatic drain near them to get rid of the condensed water!


Post# 687216 , Reply# 13   7/4/2013 at 04:41 (3,920 days old) by qualin (Canada)        

My 2004 vintage GE top loader used 91 litres per fill, meaning that a full cycle usually was around 182 litres, not including the spray rinse.

That works out to about roughly 48 US Gallons per load.

My Huebsch front loader uses almost half as much water per cycle.


Post# 687225 , Reply# 14   7/4/2013 at 07:22 (3,920 days old) by Yogitunes (New Jersey)        

yogitunes's profile picture
That was a big hidden MysteryScienceTheater3000 to someone considering a FLer....all the claims were that it used up to half the amount of water of a TLer....

there was no insight that it was doing 3 to 4 rinses per load versus a TLer.....

never understood why they didn't make a big deal of this during advertising.....

what do you think CamBot?


Post# 687415 , Reply# 15   7/5/2013 at 07:35 (3,919 days old) by Jetcone (Schenectady-Home of Calrods,Monitor Tops,Toroid Transformers)        
Well now all interesting

jetcone's profile picture

Here we go>> The Bendix used 35.1 gallons of HOT and 13.0 gallons of COLD for a wash and 3 rinses!  A grand total of 48.1 gallons ..Ding Ding Ding the Bendix is the water HOG!!!


Post# 687416 , Reply# 16   7/5/2013 at 07:36 (3,919 days old) by Jetcone (Schenectady-Home of Calrods,Monitor Tops,Toroid Transformers)        
Gulp

jetcone's profile picture

Gulp!! Naughty Bendix


Post# 687417 , Reply# 17   7/5/2013 at 07:37 (3,919 days old) by Jetcone (Schenectady-Home of Calrods,Monitor Tops,Toroid Transformers)        
OH and before

jetcone's profile picture

MS chimes in, they both did 5 pounds of clothes.


Post# 687418 , Reply# 18   7/5/2013 at 07:49 (3,919 days old) by foraloysius (Leeuwarden, Friesland, the Netherlands)        

foraloysius's profile picture
I knew there was something...!

Now try again both of them fully loaded. I bet the GE on a max. water level turns into a waterhog and the Bendix could do that with the same amount of water or perhaps even less!


Post# 687422 , Reply# 19   7/5/2013 at 08:21 (3,919 days old) by Jetcone (Schenectady-Home of Calrods,Monitor Tops,Toroid Transformers)        
Well now Louis

jetcone's profile picture

fully loaded for one is going to be quite different than fully loaded for the other. If you note the GE on wash used 21.6 gallons but on rinse 20.6? I believe that shorter gallon fill on rinse was a gallon of water already in the clothes. So different sized loads would throw off water use.


Post# 687426 , Reply# 20   7/5/2013 at 08:46 (3,919 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

frigilux's profile picture
Holy schnikees, I thought the horse race would be much closer than that! Six gallons more for the Bendix...wow. I'm assuming the solid tub GE was filled to the highest water level as the Filter-Flo was activated in the photo.

Thanks for doing the comparison, Jon. Now...which two washers will be next in line for the thirst test?

Aside: Love those little water flow monitors. Where did you get them and how much did they cost?



Post# 687427 , Reply# 21   7/5/2013 at 08:59 (3,919 days old) by foraloysius (Leeuwarden, Friesland, the Netherlands)        

foraloysius's profile picture
Well then, let's say do this with a 10 pound load, or perhaps 12 pounds. I'm sure that would make a difference. Can the Bendix handle a full GE load?

BTW, what level did you use on the GE?


Post# 687429 , Reply# 22   7/5/2013 at 09:17 (3,919 days old) by Jetcone (Schenectady-Home of Calrods,Monitor Tops,Toroid Transformers)        
The GE has a water saver option

jetcone's profile picture

which you can manually activate at any time but this was NOT USED< repeat NOT USED so the GE was let go to fill to the maximum.

 

Yes Louis both machines can handle a 12 pound load.

 

Jeff, I was very surprised as well, once a long time ago in a galaxy far far away I had manually filled the Bendix to what I thought was the fill level and it took 8 gallons but I was obviously way off back then.

 

These little gadgets are available thru Amazon.Com (a website)..

 

 

 



CLICK HERE TO GO TO Jetcone's LINK

Post# 687434 , Reply# 23   7/5/2013 at 09:35 (3,919 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

frigilux's profile picture
Thanks for the Amazon link to the water flow meters! I'm interested to know how much is used every time I water around the perimeter of the house, or the garden in the back yard.

Post# 687438 , Reply# 24   7/5/2013 at 10:13 (3,919 days old) by golittlesport (California)        
Thanks, Jon!

golittlesport's profile picture
Next do a solid tub Frigidaire vs. a Westinghouse Laundromat!

Post# 687439 , Reply# 25   7/5/2013 at 10:13 (3,919 days old) by foraloysius (Leeuwarden, Friesland, the Netherlands)        

foraloysius's profile picture
Hmmm, still, it would be interesting to see how the machines would do with a 12 pound load. I guess they both would use a bit less water.

Post# 687487 , Reply# 26   7/5/2013 at 16:24 (3,919 days old) by Kenmoreguy89 (Valenza Piemonte, Italy- Soon to be US immigrant.)        

kenmoreguy89's profile picture

If any kind of water  level selector was not used, so  both the GE and Bendix did fill on their max level I don't see how the Bendix would use less...
It all would be related to the load they did and amount of water that actually was still in clothes....both in GE and Bendix, I think there is no way it would change for a greater  load size...there would more clothes in the Bendix but also in the GE! So it's just a proportional reasoning I think...
Also:
To mention is the fact that probably the Bendix as most of older combo of the era had a slight slower spin speed than a top loader,  what I'll say is just a guess not a know fact from  me.... but if so the Bendix  in the test actually  used less water than it would have needed for the rinses IF the spin Rpm and so relate water extraction was identical to the GE...so even spin speed plays an important role to determine this... if that is the case, I say that  if there was the possibility to lower the spin speed of the GE or increase the speed of Bendix to be the same thing,  the results would have been even more different......


Post# 687525 , Reply# 27   7/5/2013 at 21:18 (3,919 days old) by Tomturbomatic (Beltsville, MD)        

Jon, your electric Duomatic uses slightly more water because each fill has to fill that area to the left of the strainer, that sort of delta shaped area below the condenser stack and over toward the path to the pump. The gas models don't have that area to fill with water. I'll would bet that if you tried that test with your Bendix washer, you would find that it used less water. Of course, its drum is smaller, also. CU speculated that one of the reasons that modern front loaders are not as gentle with fabrics is that they use so much less water that there is more rubbing of the fabrics against one another than there would be if there were more water in the drum.


Post# 687561 , Reply# 28   7/6/2013 at 00:14 (3,919 days old) by A440 ()        

I love it.
Who cared back then right?
I wonder what the utilities were running back then?
Cheap for Electric and even cheaper for Gas and Water.
Good Ole' days!
Both are such great and fun machines.
Do you find your play-time vs. idle-time make a big dent in your current bills?
Brent


Post# 687785 , Reply# 29   7/7/2013 at 10:19 (3,917 days old) by combo52 (50 Year Repair Tech Beltsville,Md)        
Great Comparison Test Jon

combo52's profile picture

And cool little water meters, I would think that the size of the load would not effect the results much of these older machines and I believe that neither machine was rated for more than 9-10 pounds of dry laundry.

 

I also believe the surprise results come from the fact [ as Tom mentioned ] that the Bendix condenser combs had a large sump area at the bottom of the condenser.

 

But now the testing should begin and I will wager that the Bendix will do a SUPERIOR JOB of removing sand and grit from laundry along with lint and pet hair. And it will certainly be more gentile with the clothing rinse far better and may even clean better.

 

Tap  Tap Tap, we are waiting for additional test results.


Post# 687794 , Reply# 30   7/7/2013 at 11:05 (3,917 days old) by Tomturbomatic (Beltsville, MD)        

To say nothing of radioactive dirt.

Post# 687806 , Reply# 31   7/7/2013 at 12:27 (3,917 days old) by mickeyd (Hamburg NY)        
Now everbody wants "water counters" LOL

mickeyd's profile picture
You thought 8, I thought 7. What did the meter say after each fill ? If you divide 48 by 4 fills, you get 12 gallons per fill.

So let's do the HOT. Wash 12

Rinse 6 + 6 + 6 ................. .18

Now the COLD ........Wash 0

Rinse 6 + 6 + 6 ................. 18

TOTAL ............................48

HURRAY FOR ARITHMETIXXXXXXX Not a whole cigar, but close. The extra gallon of hot must fill the black hole, yes ?


Post# 687809 , Reply# 32   7/7/2013 at 12:37 (3,917 days old) by mickeyd (Hamburg NY)        
"Never Mind " E Litella

mickeyd's profile picture
I see my Arithmetixxxxxx is wronggguee.

Wash HOT 13

Wash COLD 0

Rinse HOT 0

Rinse COLD 35

Total 48


Post# 687923 , Reply# 33   7/8/2013 at 07:59 (3,916 days old) by Jetcone (Schenectady-Home of Calrods,Monitor Tops,Toroid Transformers)        
Ah

jetcone's profile picture

Thank you E. Litella!

TOM! Forgot about the Atomic Dirt Test, I have that AD somewhere must put it up over the machines!!

 

 



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