|
Thread Number: 48463
New Speed Queen AWN542 owner here |
[Down to Last] |  |
|
| Post# 702081 , Reply# 1 9/8/2013 at 18:06 (3,875 days old) by DirectDriveDave () | ||
|
I wish I could like your post more than once! | ||
| Post# 702084 , Reply# 2 9/8/2013 at 18:08 (3,875 days old) by Washman (o) | ||
|
thanks I am very happy so far. The tub does index quite a bit, in fact, it makes a total 360 circle rather quickly. I was told that the brake pads need to break in, then it will index normally. CLICK HERE TO GO TO Washman's LINK 
| ||
| Post# 702085 , Reply# 3 9/8/2013 at 18:09 (3,875 days old) by DirectDriveDave () | ||
|
Tub Indexing That is correct. After you use it for a while, the indexing will stop. | ||
| Post# 702086 , Reply# 4 9/8/2013 at 18:11 (3,875 days old) by Washman (o) | ||
|
Cool good to know My dad's stopped after a while too, not sure how long it took though. Bottom line, this washer is a tank and really does a fine job on cleaing despite what CR says. | ||
| Post# 702090 , Reply# 5 9/8/2013 at 18:26 (3,875 days old) by DirectDriveDave () | ||
|
Yeah, I haven't listened to much of what CR has said for quite a while now. | ||
| Post# 702113 , Reply# 6 9/8/2013 at 19:10 (3,875 days old) by nmassman44 (Brooksville Florida) | ||
The indexing on my AWN311 took about a month or so to stop indexing and when it did index it wasnt all the time. I noticed it more with heavy loads than with lighter ones. You might want to adjust your water level up because it really is too low for Ex Large fill, that way you can take full advantage of the space in your washer. That FlexVane agitator is a hybrid of a Maytag PowerFin and a Whirlpool Surgilator and it handles anything thrown at it and it will clean well. I too question where CU rates things and how they basically put this washer down at the bottom of the ratings.
| ||
| Post# 702129 , Reply# 8 9/8/2013 at 19:53 (3,875 days old) by mrb627 (Buford, GA) | ||
Welcome | ||
| Post# 702208 , Reply# 12 9/9/2013 at 04:29 (3,874 days old) by washer111 () | ||
|
Nor do I want to Offend: Problem is, they actually do clean clothes, and quite well. How could such a design last the better part of a century if it didn't clean one's clothing? | ||
| Post# 702209 , Reply# 13 9/9/2013 at 05:02 (3,874 days old) by chris74 () | ||
|
Unsolved mystery to me Probably because of additional detergents like bleach or other boosters. I disbelieve that you get good results with a V-axis toploader when it comes to cleaning really dirty laundry, I'm sorry to say so. | ||
Post# 702211 , Reply# 14 9/9/2013 at 05:19 (3,874 days old) by foraloysius  (Leeuwarden, Friesland, the Netherlands) |
||
Chris
Is your opinion based on experience or on assumption?
I have used toploaders on my trips to the USA and Canada and experienced that you can get clean laundry with V-axis toploaders without using additives. A detergent with built in oxygen bleach got my whites sparkling white. BTW, congratulations on your new washer, Washman! | ||
| Post# 702215 , Reply# 15 9/9/2013 at 06:04 (3,874 days old) by chris74 () | ||
|
I assume this because of... ...the loads of videos I've seen with that technique. | ||
| Post# 702225 , Reply# 16 9/9/2013 at 07:13 (3,874 days old) by JeffG () | ||
|
Chris, I've never heard that opinion before. If you think simply tumbling clothes in a drum (as in front loaders) washes them more thoroughly than wringing them through an agitator, all I can say is that you don't have much experience with top loaders. | ||
| Post# 702247 , Reply# 20 9/9/2013 at 08:58 (3,874 days old) by washman (o) | ||
|
What happened to the "bed of nails" lint filter? Mom's 1983 vintage had that, it was effective and kinda cool too. | ||
| Post# 702412 , Reply# 22 9/10/2013 at 05:43 (3,873 days old) by mieleforever (SOUTH AFRICA) | ||
|
Chris regarding your post about ... the Speed Queen, I tend to agree with you, I have worked with a Speed Queen and Whirlpool toploader, they are water hogs and the wash and spin performance is dismal. SO there I said it, now everybody can stone me. RIP. | ||
|
Post# 702419 , Reply# 23 9/10/2013 at 07:09 (3,873 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
mieleforever: You are a brave one, LOL!
It comes down to this: Traditional top-loaders were practically the only game in town for 50 years in the United States. Many here are very attached to the top-load format, and will always believe the only path to excellent cleaning is with a traditional top-loader. I say God bless, and enjoy your Speed Queen (or vintage washer)! I get excellent results from my modern front-loader, and wouldn't trade it for any top-loader, new or old. It's fun washing some loads in my 2012 Frigidaire Immersion Care top-loader, but all the "heavy lifting" is done by the front-loader. | ||
| Post# 702422 , Reply# 24 9/10/2013 at 08:15 (3,873 days old) by mieleforever (SOUTH AFRICA) | ||
|
to frigilux... Thanks for supporting the brave!!! Cheers bud. | ||
| Post# 702433 , Reply# 26 9/10/2013 at 08:58 (3,873 days old) by washman (o) | ||
|
Every time I do laundry I am spitting in Algore's face. I also have a good laugh knowing that he would not approve of the massive amounts of water I use. But I could care less. I just want clean clothes. | ||
| Post# 702478 , Reply# 27 9/10/2013 at 14:23 (3,873 days old) by Mich (Hells Kitchen - New York) | ||
Not to be mean...
But if you really wanna see, how well, newer, front loads, and top loaders *Can* clean, try this experiment..
Fill your Kitchen Sink, with Warm or Hot Tap Water, and pour in a cap (Line 1 or 2 of Tide Liquid) and drop in a stained garment. (In my Case, it was a shirt stained with BBQ sauce) just with, well, a little agitation (with your hands) in the water, you can actually see the stain just lift and go away. Being as though the Detergent Solution, isn't so diluted, and spending time, trying to soften all the water in a top loader, you achieve better stain removal performance, and results. The Concept really in a Front Loader, is to tumble, and tumble your clothes over & over again (more gently, I may also add) in a detergent solution, sitting in the bottom of the tub. It's basically a clothes washer, that soaks your clothes, and agitates them slightly enough to take full advantage of the detergent being used. The Concept of a Top Loader, is to roll the clothes, through the wash water, and pull them downward (through the detergent solution at the bottom of the wash basket, and back up, and over again) and while, I'm not going to say, this isn't a effective cleaning technique, I do believe the Front Loader, really can deliver a better cleaning result. I'm sure a lot of you will disagree with me, and say, I'm wrong, but, I've been on both sides, and this is what my opinion is. I think clothes come out noticeably cleaner with a front loading washer (especially our socks) and when loaded properly, with the right detergent & water temperature, one can clean anything no matter how soiled. The one thing that I really do like about Top Loaders is, however, how quickly one can load and unload one. Seriously, you can load in lightly soiled Clothes, and in half a hour, there done and ready to be dried. Try getting that from a Front Loader.. You'll be disappointed. | ||
| Post# 702479 , Reply# 28 9/10/2013 at 14:23 (3,873 days old) by Mich (Hells Kitchen - New York) | ||
|
Not to be mean...
But if you really wanna see, how well, newer, front loads, and top loaders *Can* clean, try this experiment..
Fill your Kitchen Sink, with Warm or Hot Tap Water, and pour in a cap (Line 1 or 2 of Tide Liquid) and drop in a stained garment. (In my Case, it was a shirt stained with BBQ sauce) just with, well, a little agitation (with your hands) in the water, you can actually see the stain just lift and go away. Being as though the Detergent Solution, isn't so diluted, and spending time, trying to soften all the water in a top loader, you achieve better stain removal performance, and results. The Concept really in a Front Loader, is to tumble, and tumble your clothes over & over again (more gently, I may also add) in a detergent solution, sitting in the bottom of the tub. It's basically a clothes washer, that soaks your clothes, and agitates them slightly enough to take full advantage of the detergent being used. The Concept of a Top Loader, is to roll the clothes, through the wash water, and pull them downward (through the detergent solution at the bottom of the wash basket, and back up, and over again) and while, I'm not going to say, this isn't a effective cleaning technique, I do believe the Front Loader, really can deliver a better cleaning result. I'm sure a lot of you will disagree with me, and say, I'm wrong, but, I've been on both sides, and this is what my opinion is. I think clothes come out noticeably cleaner with a front loading washer (especially our socks) and when loaded properly, with the right detergent & water temperature, one can clean anything no matter how soiled. The one thing that I really do like about Top Loaders is, however, how quickly one can load and unload one. Seriously, you can load in lightly soiled Clothes, and in half a hour, there done and ready to be dried. Try getting that from a Front Loader.. You'll be disappointed. | ||
|
Post# 702480 , Reply# 29 9/10/2013 at 14:24 (3,873 days old) by rp2813 (Sannazay) |
||
 LOL -- Al might approve. Remember the flack he had to deal with for the gross overconsumption of energy at his own house?
As for TL vs FL, both types have their merits. Our FL Duet got stains out of things that we had been putting through our Amana TL (basically the same wash system as SQ) for years. Our current FL Affinity isn't nearly as adept as the Duet, and made me realize that there are some tasks where a TL machine is the better option.
If I were looking to switch to a brand new TL for my daily driver, I wouldn't consider anything but a SQ. Enjoy yours!
| ||
|
Post# 702485 , Reply# 31 9/10/2013 at 14:46 (3,873 days old) by foraloysius (Leeuwarden, Friesland, the Netherlands) |
||
|
| ||
| Post# 702492 , Reply# 32 9/10/2013 at 15:35 (3,873 days old) by JeffG () | ||
|
"BUT there is not more then the same amount of action, maybe even less. " No there's substantially more. That's precisely why one can do two or three loads of worst-soiled laundry in a TL (~30 min) in the same time as one load in most FL's (70-90 min). | ||
| Post# 702518 , Reply# 33 9/10/2013 at 17:09 (3,873 days old) by Mich (Hells Kitchen - New York) | ||
|
But.. | ||
|
Post# 702520 , Reply# 34 9/10/2013 at 17:15 (3,873 days old) by Yogitunes (New Jersey) |
||
Bottom line is he got a machine he is HAPPY with......
and I dont care who it is, or what machine they got, many of us have had many, good and bad, some we liked, some we didn't, our reviews may have helped others make their choice.... but this could have been a WCI product, or a NorgeTag, etc....if it is something that someone likes, and is content with, no matter anyone else's opinion.... MORE POWER TO HIM....congrats on your new machine, and I wish you many years of happy washing!..... and you couldn't have done any better than that Speed Queen | ||
|
Post# 702541 , Reply# 37 9/10/2013 at 19:27 (3,873 days old) by combo52 (50 Year Repair Tech Beltsville,Md) |
||
New SQ Top Loading Washers Ben I am very happy that that you like your SQ TL washer, I am a SQ dealer and have already sold three TLers this week already. However I would always take a SQ Front Load washer over their TL models, Like it or not FL washers and Hi Efficiency TL washers DO work better overall and I love my eight year old SQ FL washer, the load is done in 30-45minutes, like many other great new energy saving things they are here to stay.
But this is not the forum for your stupid political rants we have a separate areas for political discussions, join if you like but don't expect many here to agree with you, welcome aboard, John. | ||
|
Post# 702602 , Reply# 40 9/11/2013 at 02:32 (3,873 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
|
Washman: You portray yourself as a fiercely independent thinker, but your posts make it abundantly clear that objectivity isn't in play, here. You don't need to repeatedly interject your hatred for Al Gore, the left wing, and the government into your posts; we already understand where you're coming from.
This post was last edited 09/11/2013 at 05:14 | ||
| Post# 702624 , Reply# 43 9/11/2013 at 06:46 (3,872 days old) by chris74 () | ||
|
Next wars... ...will be because of water not for oil. So everyone should be up to save water as much as he/she can. It makes just no sense if we, for example, in Germany save water like idiots and the rest of the world consumes it as if there is no tomorrow. | ||
| Post# 702625 , Reply# 44 9/11/2013 at 06:53 (3,872 days old) by Washman (o) | ||
|
Frigilux Not only am I a fiercely independent thinker, my laundry is fiercely clean thanks to my TL Speed Queen. Sorry, couldn't resist CLICK HERE TO GO TO Washman's LINK 
| ||
| Post# 702627 , Reply# 45 9/11/2013 at 07:09 (3,872 days old) by chris74 () | ||
|
Gentle rollover Or useless stirring? Sorry, couldn't resist... | ||
|
Post# 702628 , Reply# 46 9/11/2013 at 07:14 (3,872 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
|
One can hold the government accountable for mandates involving water and energy usage. However, the full brunt of blame for the use of sub-par electronics, as well as machines that give out shortly after the warranty expires lies with manufacturers.
Like many here, I'd prefer a mechanical cycle control over the the insubstantial electronic controls on new machines. But electronics per se aren't the problem. They are very reliable in aviation and space travel, where conditions are far more adverse than those experienced by any home appliance. The problem is the poor quality of the electronics, and that they are used to restrict, rather than enhance, cycle flexibility available to the user. Manufacturers have learned they can produce short-lived appliances that are unfriendly (or not cost-effective) to service---and charge $1,000+ for them, to boot---with little backlash from the general public. It makes far more sense from a corporate standpoint to force consumers to buy a new washer than to repair the one they currently own. It's called free enterprise! | ||
| Post# 702629 , Reply# 47 9/11/2013 at 07:15 (3,872 days old) by Washman (o) | ||
|
Amazingly enough however I just did a load of mixed coloreds and they came out clean. SQ must be doing something right. | ||
|
Post# 702660 , Reply# 49 9/11/2013 at 10:52 (3,872 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
|
I've always had a front-loader as my "daily driver", but have also enjoyed having various top-loaders as a 2nd machine in the laundry room.
Currently, that's a 2012 Frigidaire Immersion Care impeller-based washer. Picked it up more out of curiosity than anything. Unlike most other impeller machines, you can choose your own water level with this one. The impeller is actually bolted to the tub, so the entire tub indexes back and forth to create the wash action. I use it for three or four loads each week, mostly because it's fun to watch the reverse rollover (the load blooms up from the center and heads toward the tub walls). Wouldn't want it as my only washer, though. It doesn't like large, bulky items like sheets and blankets; it's completely useless for washing comforters. John (combo52) brought one home (he services appliances) and had dismal results with it. In fact, the only positive thing he could say about the machine was that the fabric softener dispenser worked well. I have the upper-end model which provides more options for longer wash periods, so I have had better luck with cleaning ability. To John's single accolade, I would add that it's nearly impossible to create an out-of-balance, cabinet-banging situation. It has a traditional suspension system rather than the hanging suspension most impeller machines have these days. It does a great job of balancing the load with slower "agitation" during the last few minutes of the wash period. Unfortunately, there's not much else to celebrate about it, LOL. If I were told I could only have one washer and it had to be a top-loader, there's no question it would be a Speed Queen. I only hope they don't eventually adopt a trait of some of their latest commercial top-loaders, which reportedly spin out half the wash water, then refill and call that the deep rinse. This post was last edited 09/11/2013 at 11:47 | ||
|
Post# 702675 , Reply# 50 9/11/2013 at 12:42 (3,872 days old) by rp2813 (Sannazay) |
||
|
I don't think electronic controls are an attempt by manufacturers to differentiate themselves, but they are cheaper to produce and indeed a marketing ploy to appeal to all those people who are addicted to touchpads and touchscreens on devices they have foolishly come to rely on to get through daily life.
I'll take knobs, timers, tactile buttons and good old fashioned road maps over the devices of today that remove even the smallest amount of brain power from a large array of daily tasks. At this rate, the entire planet will soon be populated by a bunch of morons who can't think for themselves and will do whatever they are told by a pane of glass.
Still, that doesn't mean I'll intentionally run up my electric/gas and water bill just to make a point that's rooted in hatred, which is equally moronic. | ||
| Post# 702716 , Reply# 52 9/11/2013 at 15:19 (3,872 days old) by Washman (o) | ||
|
Did a load of mixed colors earlier today Rumor has it Algore had a fit. | ||
|
Post# 702739 , Reply# 53 9/11/2013 at 18:22 (3,872 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
|
Powrbruh-- I've found the tumble wash action of a front-loader to be very gentle on fabrics, even though cycles are longer. My dress shirts last far longer before collar edges and cuffs start to show wear. And you're right: There's noticeably less lint in the dryer filter when I wash in the front-loader.
Glad to hear you're getting great results with your LG! | ||
|
Post# 702740 , Reply# 54 9/11/2013 at 18:25 (3,872 days old) by Unimatic1140 (Minneapolis) |
||
IIRC, household washers were originally invented as front-loading machines. The only reason why the U.S. and a few other countries preferred top-loading ones maybe because it has something to do with the patents.
Not true actually, Bendix did submit patent applications for their front loader in the mid 1930's and the machine first became available in 1938, but at the very same time in the 1930's Blackstone, Beam, Frigidaire and General Electric were submitting patent applications on their top loading designs. Blackstone's top loader was introduced in 1941, but all production stopped quickly as WWII started. At that time soap (before detergent was introduced) which caused suds was much more effective being handled and removed by the top loader. Hands down a solid tub top loading washer can deal with suds much better and must faster than any front loader. And that is why the top loader was superior for decades, until low sudsing detergents were perfected. What happened in the above video would have taken a loooooooooong time to be purged from a modern front loader, where as a vintage solid tub washer laughs at it. and I can't think of any topload washers that spin that fast. Frigidaire and early GE top loading washers spun at 1140rpm, hence my name :-) and hence their amazing overall performance. This post was last edited 09/11/2013 at 18:56 | ||
| Post# 702748 , Reply# 55 9/11/2013 at 19:19 (3,872 days old) by Mich (Hells Kitchen - New York) | ||
|
What ever... | ||
|
Post# 702750 , Reply# 56 9/11/2013 at 19:55 (3,872 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 702797 , Reply# 57 9/12/2013 at 05:55 (3,871 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
|
Although....to be fair to new front-loaders, a very small load washed with a triple-dose of liquid Tide will create a huge amount of suds, completely filling a 4-cu. ft. tub. Several times more suds than shown above! Not that I would ever subject my Frigidaire to such abuse just to force the machine into its oversudsing protocol for my own amusement. 
This post was last edited 09/12/2013 at 06:47 | ||
| Post# 702798 , Reply# 58 9/12/2013 at 06:10 (3,871 days old) by chris74 () | ||
|
And that is why the top loader was superior for decades, .. This thesis has to be explained closer. I don't see any superiority in V-axis toploaders over front loaders besides not to stoop down. | ||
|
Post# 702955 , Reply# 64 9/12/2013 at 18:09 (3,871 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
|
I recognized some of the statistics in rwindiana's post from a water consumption footprint calculator at National Geographic online. A link to it is provided---check it out; pretty interesting.
When it takes 338 gallons of water to produce a 3-oz. serving of beef, saving 16-20 gallons of water by using a front-loader doesn't seem like much. I calculated that with various water-saving devices (appliances, faucets, toilets, shower heads, etc.) I save around 265 gallons of water per week in a 1-person household. I certainly don't live a Spartan lifestyle, either! Again, it's very small when compared to the water it takes to produce a gallon of milk---but it's a little, and it's no skin off my nose, so I don't mind it a bit. And I've never had to re-wash a load of clothes or dishes. Have never added a drop of water to the washer.
Our water and utility rates are extremely low out here in on the open prairie, and the US in general pays far less than many other places on the planet, so there isn't a lot of incentive to be mindful of how much we consume.
CLICK HERE TO GO TO Frigilux's LINK This post was last edited 09/12/2013 at 19:34 | ||
|
Post# 703052 , Reply# 65 9/13/2013 at 04:52 (3,870 days old) by foraloysius (Leeuwarden, Friesland, the Netherlands) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 703055 , Reply# 66 9/13/2013 at 05:35 (3,870 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 703190 , Reply# 67 9/13/2013 at 22:14 (3,870 days old) by logixx (Germany) |
||
 I think one of the biggest reasons why top loaders won't catch on in Europe is the amount of (heated) water they use. Even HE top loaders use more water the front loaders - on average. See link:
dishwashers.reviewed.com/features...
While it would certainly be fun to have a TL in the laundry room, it would simply become too expensive to use it as a daily driver.
Alex | ||
| Post# 703588 , Reply# 69 9/16/2013 at 16:18 (3,867 days old) by Washman (o) | ||
|
Congrats bellap I too am enjoying my SQ in all it's USA made glory. I wish I had more laundry to do right now! I have no doubt you will get many good years of service from this fine machine. Enjoy! CLICK HERE TO GO TO Washman's LINK 
| ||
| Post# 703593 , Reply# 70 9/16/2013 at 17:15 (3,867 days old) by roger (Pennsylvania) | ||
|
Were wringer washers ever popular in Europe? Perhaps North America stuck with the TL because it was used to using wringer washers. | ||
|
Post# 703596 , Reply# 71 9/16/2013 at 17:34 (3,867 days old) by Yogitunes (New Jersey) |
||
|
@Washman....those ads are great, but thats a whole different SQ, from a whole different company.....those solid tub machines were made by McGraw-Edison, then sold to Raytheon in the 80's, who badly redesigned them with the perforated tub and seal issues, finally Alliance took them over, around 2000, and corrected their seal issues, and made them into the better machines they produce today...actually SQ didn't get recognised until the DirectDrive machines were phased out, and everything was heading towards HE, and now who's leading the market with old school technology, a simple design, and all metal construction?
| ||
|
Post# 703597 , Reply# 72 9/16/2013 at 17:35 (3,867 days old) by logixx (Germany) |
||
|
| ||
| Forum Index: |
| Other Forums: |
|
|
|
|
|
Comes to the Rescue!
