I doubt that Speed Queen will stop making their topload agitator washer. Rather, as they've begun producing for Australia and the commercial market, they'll be making a machine capable of being HE or... not if you wish. Here is the Australian control panel, it does have the cycle selector vs the timer and the option of being HE (aka, the grey water rinse) or the regular with a full, separate deep rinse. One of our members in AU has had the chance to use this version of the machine... Perhaps he can elaborate.

Do use a LOT less electricity in spite of longer cycles, the main motors in the newer machines often draw only 1/4 of the power of older machines with split phase motors and of coerce the newer machines spin so much more water out of the load that considerable amounts of electricity or gas is saved when the clothing is dried. Some of the time lost in longer cycles is made up by drying time saved weather you use a dryer or hang clothing for drying.

There is no turning back from progress [ yes there will be some fine tuning ] but most consumers LOVE their new ES FL and TL washers. In the DC metropolitan area at least 1/2 of people now have hi efficiency washers and there have been no outbreaks of rashes or people walking around in torn or dirty clothing.

I asked one of my customers who is a Dermatologist if she has seen any increase in people complaining about rashes and other skin problems that might be related to clothing they are wearing. She said if anything she sees far less of these type problems than she did ten years ago which she attributed to detergent makers being more concerned about what goes into their products.

Storing a new machine should not be a problem today for maybe 50 years or longer, modern materials including rubber and vinyl parts do not dry out and turn to dust or hard and brittle bits like materials that were used 50 years ago. There are no seals in a new SQ washer that must be kept wet for example. Stockpiling parts for these machines should not be a problem either, new packaged parts will last a very long time.

Prove IT, Ben, after being in the appliance repair and sales field for nearly 40 years now we have seen no evidence that overall repair problems have increased and no evidence that appliances are lasting a shorted time period when you look at the complete picture, even the worst junk today [ like the broken GE TLers you posted ] are still on average outlasting the average 1950s and 60s AWs.

The length of the warranty that a manufacturer offers on their product has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to due with how long a product will last.

Often products with the best warranties are the products with the poorer repair records and past histories of problems, but if you are have convinced yourself that shorter warranties mean the products ware out faster, good for you and it makes it easy to see how you have reached many of your other opinions in life, LOL.

Please don't speak for me, mtn1584.  My Whirlpool made Kenmore HE3t FL washer is now over 10 years old, and going strong. While I loved my previous GE Filter-Flo washer, the washer I have now saves me money every month by using less water, energy, and additives. My clothes are cleaner and last longer. It is true, I was shocked at how little water it used when I first got it, but the superior results sold me on FL washers. While I can appreciate the benefits that my FL washer has provided me, I respect that other people enjoy restoring, fixing, collecting, and using traditional TL washers. The reason I am a member on this site is because I enjoy being a part of the automatic washer family, watching the videos, and participating in the discussions. I think we should all make an effort to respect each other's experiences, and appreciate our differences.

Everyone on this site who has bought a front load washer, and I mean all of you, complain that these machines use too little water to effectively clean clothes, and all of you have tried and some succeded at adding more water to your washers.

I'd like consumers to demand water- and energy-efficient appliances of manufacturers, but that isn't always realistic since there isn't a common platform for us to research and demand those changes.  It makes sense that a government agency, like the Department Of Energy, which can study the possibilities and then implement those changes, acts as the catalyst.  We have more efficient appliances, cars, and homes as a result.  

Is that system of implementing change perfect? Of course not. Manufacturers in a free market system will always opt to meet the challenges of increased efficiency in ways that are the least expensive for themselves.  The cheapest way for manufacturers to meet energy-use mandates in washing machines is to lower water temperatures and water levels.  Front-loading washers, by the nature of how they work, have proved themselves far more capable of adapting to decreased water and energy usage while still providing excellent results. This is why it has been the dominant format in many parts of the world for decades.

Unfortunately, top-loaders are not as well-suited to decreased water usage. HE top-loaders, often using new (or at least new to us) methods of agitation like impellers have tried, with wildly mixed results, to meet those challenges. 

The tipping point of mandates for me:  Not being allowed the choice to use truly hot water.  As I've said before, I have no problem with machines defaulting to energy-saving settings. I have a problem when a washer dictates that I'm not allowed to use water hotter than 100 (or so) degrees under any circumstances--especially if that washer is a modern front-loader, which uses so little water to begin with.

How do I know if I'm using more resources than are needed?

Washer A:

> cleans a 12-lb. load effectively using 35-45 gallons of water (about 8 gallons of hot water if using the "warm" setting)

> leaves enough moisture in fabrics to require 45-50 minutes of time in dryer

> has a 30-40 minute average cycle time

Washer B:

> cleans a 12-lb. load effectively using 13-17 gallons of water (about 2-3 gallons of hot water)

> leaves less moisture in fabrics; requires 30-40 minutes of time in dryer

> is gentler to fabrics

> has a 45-75 minute average cycle time

If I choose Washer A, then I am also choosing to use more natural resources than are needed to get the job done. I realize that one's time is also a resource of sorts, but I work all day and often have rehearsals, meetings, or performances in the evening.  Still, I manage to get 7 or 8 loads of laundry done in a week without a problem, even though my washer of choice has a longer cycle time.  Unless I'm hanging successive loads on a clothesline, a 30-minute wash cycle isn't going to save a lot of time if the dry cycle takes 45-60 minutes.

HAVING SAID ALL THAT...I just purchased a traditional top-loading washer that requires more water and energy to operate than does my front-loader.  I enjoy it more for the nostalgia factor than anything else. I see it as a wonderful artifact. It does a great--but not better--job of cleaning a load of fabrics compared to my front-loader. As the novelty of using the Speed Queen abates, I will use it less and less, because the front-loader does the same job using fewer resources, and it treats fabrics more gently.  It also handles big, bulky items like queen-sized bed comforters more adeptly.  To me, that's just common sense.

I don't find that modern appliances are reliable at all. A lot has changed since I started my repair business in 1990. The repairs on the older machines where usually a lot more reasonable. I personally have seen way too many 2 - 5 yr old appliances sent to the crusher because the cost to repair was unreasonable in comparison to replacement.

Ben--  I'm with you when it comes to purchasing things I use on a daily basis:  Buy quality!  I recently accompanied a friend to Home Depot to purchase a new toilet.  He wanted to get a very inexpensive model that I knew was rated only 'fair' by Consumer Reports.  I pointed out a much higher rated one, with an elongated bowl for comfort no less, but it was around $80 more.  I said, "Look, this is something you'll use every single day and keep for years.  Do you want to buy a cheap piece of crap you'll have to flush 2 or 3 times to get the job done?  What's an extra $80 bucks factored over 15-20 years?"  But no, he just couldn't get past the lower price of the other one---and he is not a hardship case by any stretch of the imagination.

If people want to base their purchasing decisions strictly on an item's cost, that's their choice--even if you and I know it's not an effective way to get the best value-for-money.  If someone chooses to spend extravagantly on smart phones, phone plans and fast-food restaurants while skimping in other areas, that's where their priorities lie. It's none of our business.

I'm glad you were fortunate not to be adversely affected by the recession of 2007. I was also one of the fortunate ones; my job remained intact, although I did experience both a $5,000 pay cut and an increased workload due to the elimination of co-workers' jobs. My 401k lost nearly 30% of its value. While it's performing better now, the money lost during that 2 to 2-1/2 year period is gone for good, as is the money I lost in the salary reduction.

My two nephews, who had a new, but thriving commercial contracting business in Minneapolis predicted the recession months before it happened. They had been contracted to build restaurants for a national chain in 5 states. Preliminary work had already begun and subcontractors hired when suddenly all the major investors pulled out of the project. My nephews warned us that something terrible was about to happen with the economy, and six months later, it did. Unable to secure enough substantial contracts, their business went under in early 2009 and took many construction workers' jobs with it. 

That recession, the deepest and longest one on record, was officially over in June of 2009 according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. I'm not surprised that car dealerships and other businesses in your area have experienced resurgences and growth since that time. But let's be clear: While the recession technically ended at that time, many families were recovering from it long after that---and some still are.

Having seen how the recession of 2007 affected a number of my friends as well as family, I would definitely not term it a "so-called recession."