Thread Number: 54548
Speed Queen Rated Most Reliable Top-Loader by Consumer Reports
[Down to Last]

automaticwasher.org's exclusive eBay Watch:
scroll >>> for more items --- [As an eBay Partner, eBay may compensate automaticwasher.org if you make a purchase using any link to eBay on this page]
Post# 769446   7/9/2014 at 16:14 (3,549 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

frigilux's profile picture

Just received the new issue of CR and they have enough data on Speed Queen top-loaders to add the brand to their list. SQ takes the checkered flag! TOP-LOADERS Speed Queen: 6% needed repair Maytag/Whirlpool: 9% Kenmore: 10% GE: 12% FRONT-LOADERS LG: 6% needed repair Samsung: 8% Kenmore: 10% Whirlpool: 11% Electrolux: 12% Maytag: 13% Frigidaire and GE: 15%




This post was last edited 07/09/2014 at 21:03



Post# 769454 , Reply# 1   7/9/2014 at 16:40 (3,549 days old) by mrb627 (Buford, GA)        
Finally!

mrb627's profile picture
This is awesome news. But no surprise, really!

Malcolm


Post# 769460 , Reply# 2   7/9/2014 at 16:49 (3,549 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

frigilux's profile picture

Ben (washman) is going to celebrate this news by buying a round for the entire AW membership!


Post# 769463 , Reply# 3   7/9/2014 at 16:55 (3,549 days old) by DaveAMKrayoGuy (Oak Park, MI)        

daveamkrayoguy's profile picture

Seems as though when it comes to major home appliances, reliability comes first!!!!

 

 

 

-- Dave

 

 

 


Post# 769479 , Reply# 4   7/9/2014 at 17:34 (3,549 days old) by washman (o)        
Your attention please

In honor of this well deserved award, I hereby announce that you are all invited to my Youtube Channel to witness this finely crafted machine in action in various washing situations.

As far as a round of membership goes.............well let's just say the check is in the mail. Or I gave at the office.

My question is, what was the range of years this survey covered and what was the sample rate for each machine?


Post# 769482 , Reply# 5   7/9/2014 at 17:38 (3,549 days old) by washman (o)        
Actually Frig

I will celebrate in the following manner:

1. Go give the SQ a well deserved hug.
2. Run a load through, just for kicks and grins.


Post# 769503 , Reply# 6   7/9/2014 at 18:21 (3,549 days old) by wayupnorth (On a lake between Bangor and Bar Harbor, Maine)        

wayupnorth's profile picture
Its about time SQ was recognised as making the same reliable old school machines that do what you set them to, not as they want you to do. My 30 year old Maytags fill to the top use hot when I push the button, set it and forget it. But if I ever have to replace them, it will definitely be a SQ top loader.

Post# 769507 , Reply# 7   7/9/2014 at 18:39 (3,549 days old) by kb0nes (Burnsville, MN)        

kb0nes's profile picture
Eh what do they know, they are just a "philosophically left-leaning product testing organization with an anti-business slant" that are a shadow of what they used to be :-)

It is good news though. But a darned shame that we don't see their front load models represented in the results.

It would be interesting to see the sample sizes though, there were far fewer SQ machines in the sample. Of course that could skew the results in either direction though.


Post# 769508 , Reply# 8   7/9/2014 at 18:47 (3,549 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

frigilux's profile picture

Ben--  I meant buy a round of drinks for everyone at AW,  not purchase a membership for everyone at AW!  I don't drink anymore, so you can make mine a Coke with a wedge of lemon...no, wait...LIME.  I feel reckless.

 

As for the CR-related questions:  I believe their survey covers 5 years of ownership.  Have no idea what the sample rate for each machine is.  They once explained the formula they use to determine reliability, but I don't remember what it is.  Maybe I'll send them an e-mail and ask that question.  I'll also ask why they still haven't tested Wisk Deep Clean pods!

 

Phil--  It would be interesting to see where a SQ front-loader would be placed on their reliability list.  I'm sure the sample size for those is still far too small.  It took this long for SQ top-loaders to make the cut.  By the way, very interesting thread you have about rating the wattage of a microwave!

 

 


Post# 769512 , Reply# 9   7/9/2014 at 18:57 (3,549 days old) by washman (o)        
Ah ok Frig

A round of drinks is certainly in order here however, everything has a price.

I could do this IF the next wash in involved classic SQ and Frigidaire TL machines, not just on display but in actual use. And I want to bring some laundry to run through!

OF course I couldn't afford to buy at a bar but I could somehow bring enough beverages for all those attending.


Post# 769532 , Reply# 10   7/9/2014 at 20:14 (3,549 days old) by murando531 (Augusta, Georgia - US)        

murando531's profile picture
Did anyone notice their review on the SQ AWN542 on the website? They gave it a 29, with poor marks on water, noise, and energy, and only good on performance. Take a look at the user reviews though! The COMPLETE OPPOSITE! 4.7/5 on 135 reviews, and there are numerous reviews telling CR to reevaluate their score.

Post# 769535 , Reply# 11   7/9/2014 at 20:29 (3,549 days old) by murando531 (Augusta, Georgia - US)        

This post has been removed by the member who posted it.



Post# 769544 , Reply# 12   7/9/2014 at 20:43 (3,549 days old) by JeffG ()        

I got as far as the "good" ratings for washing performance and energy efficiency. Apparently taking 35 minutes to do the job instead of 80 or 90 means nothing to CR.

Post# 769556 , Reply# 13   7/9/2014 at 21:10 (3,549 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

frigilux's profile picture

A "Good" rating for cleaning performance is completely understandable.  There's no way a SQ, with its 14-minute wash agitation can compete with an HE machine's 40 to 60-minute wash, especially since there's less water in the HE tub, concentrating the detergent.  CR's test is a tough one, full of those heavily-stained swatches.

 

A 10 to 14-minute wash is fine for a load that isn't full of heavy stains, or if those stains have been pretreated with Resolve Spray 'n' Wash or a similar product.

 

Cleaning performance on very tough stains is improved quite a bit by letting the machine agitate a few minutes, stopping it for a 30 to 45-minute soak, then letting it complete the cycle.  No extra water, detergent or energy required; no excessive wear to fabrics from extra agitation time.  Of course it pushes the total cycle time into HE territory.  But again, the soak isn't needed for most loads.


Post# 769563 , Reply# 14   7/9/2014 at 21:19 (3,549 days old) by JeffG ()        

"There's no way a SQ, with its 14-minute wash agitation can compete with an HE machine's 40 to 60-minute wash"

It not only can but does, millions of times every day.


"A 10 to 14-minute wash is fine for a load that isn't full of heavy stains, or if those stains have been pretreated with Resolve Spray 'n' Wash or a similar product."

We use LCB and either add it during the final five minutes of washing or, in the case of extremely soiled loads, a separate rinse cycle. It still amounts to 35-45 minutes compared to double that on many HEs. I just wish CR gave more weight to time efficiency in their ratings. Or please explain the discrepancy between these ratings and owner reviews.


Post# 769571 , Reply# 15   7/9/2014 at 21:32 (3,549 days old) by washman (o)        
I have to disagree with ya Frig

Millions of TL machines had roughly the same cycle time and for years, Maytag was CR's top dog in the TL domain consistently. How did these old fashioned water guzzlers get laundry clean?

Fact is, dirt is dirt. It is no more dirtier or harder to remove than in those thrilling days of lead in gas, phosphates, sugar in soda pop. BO is BO. Skid marks are same as they were in the days of top hats and coat tails.

What has changed is A. Phosphates being removed and B. Less water being used in the so-called HE machines. Both combined to give either lousy results and/or excessive cycle times.

I find it utterly bewildering that CR just loves these HE machines but I read one review after another about mold complaints, piss poor reliability, long cycle times, and the need to run special cleaning cycles. Does CR take the cleaning cycle into consideration when evaluating "efficiency"? I think not. What about the so-called "carbon footprint"? That one must purchase, at extra cost, a cleaner and run the machine with NO laundry in it to clean the darn thing must have gone over their heads.

Yes, the SQ guzzles water. That's they way I like it. Once again, there is NO water shortage on this planet. We're not all about to turn back into dust because we cannot quench our thirst. And by the time the world pop hits 10-12 billion or so, we'll either be dead or technology will figure out a way to get the salt out of the oceans thus ensuring future generations the ability to swim, fish, flush toilets, do laundry etc. Heck, they might even still allow you to water your yard.

Until then, I toast SQ and its water usage because it DOES clean my laundry and that, friends, is the rest of the story.


Post# 769577 , Reply# 16   7/9/2014 at 21:40 (3,549 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

frigilux's profile picture

Jeff-- CR tests in warm water without chlorine bleach.  LCB can be used for loads of, say, kitchen whites, but not in a load of colored shirts, etc.

 

There's absolutely no denying that CR doesn't give the SQ a single point for time efficiency.  I'm used to the longer cycles on my front-loader (most cycles are between 45-65 minutes; Sanitize is 95) so it doesn't bother me.  I understand that time efficiency can be a more important factor for others.

 

A load spun at 1300 rpm in the front-loader spends substantially less time in the dryer, so at least part of the time in the washer is made up there.  Naturally, it saves a lot of time on a big load of bath towels, but far less on a load of dress shirts, which you're probably not going to spin at 1300, unless you like to iron.

 

Ben-- A vintage Maytag or Kenmore would probably not score a whole lot better than the SQ against today's front-loaders, or even a few HE top-loaders (however, I'm no fan of impeller machines, myself). 

It would be interesting to see the results if CR would test a few vintage machines amongst the HE.  

 

How did vintage SQs fare in cleaning performance compared to Maytag, Kenmore, and Frigidaire?  I'll have to check out the archived issues of CR.  I know the Westy and Bendix front-loaders did not do as well as the top-loaders back then.


Post# 769578 , Reply# 17   7/9/2014 at 21:42 (3,549 days old) by JeffG ()        

The "carbon footprint" claim imo is most ridiculous, and outrageous. The industry has people paying sometimes $2K or more for W/D sets with one-year warranties.

Post# 769581 , Reply# 18   7/9/2014 at 21:48 (3,549 days old) by washman (o)        
Reminds me of this

A new whiz bang car comes out made from post consumer recycled plastic, gets 70 MPG, uses re-manufactured tires, and uses special gas that costs 10 bucks a gallon.

Sounds great right?

Only you can't go over 30 MPH. You can only drive it on M-W-F. You're not allowed to let it idle and max speed in reverse is 2 MPH. And when it rains all the exterior lights come on.

That's what comes to my mind with 1 hour + cycles in HE machines.


Post# 769585 , Reply# 19   7/9/2014 at 21:55 (3,549 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

frigilux's profile picture

Jeff-- The new issue of CR has their latest washer tests, as well.  They noted that the top-scoring front-loader (LG8500) and it's dryer mate cost an incredible $1600 each.  Add a couple hundred to each for pedestals.  With tax, you're pushing $4,000+ for a washer and dryer.   That's serious bank---for a washer with a 1-year warranty.


Post# 769634 , Reply# 20   7/10/2014 at 02:56 (3,549 days old) by tolivac (greenville nc)        

4 Grand for a WD pair--CRAZY!!!!I can pay a laundry service or a maid less than that!!!Maybe we will say 4.5 grand with the overpriced tin bases!!This is like buying a 15 grand mower for the half acre lawn!And the bad thing is these have ONLY a 1 yr warrantee-thats CU's speed!!!No wonder why I dropped them-their SILLINESS!A pair costing this much DOES NOT deserve 1st choice!-instead LAST!!!

Post# 769637 , Reply# 21   7/10/2014 at 03:22 (3,549 days old) by mrb627 (Buford, GA)        
lG

mrb627's profile picture
Pedestals are 299 each, warranty is a 1 year LIMITED, so get ready to buy an extended warranty @ 200 per unit. A lot of money for so much plastic.

Malcolm


Post# 769656 , Reply# 22   7/10/2014 at 05:16 (3,549 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

frigilux's profile picture

Rex-- CR's job is to report how a washer performs in the categories of cleaning performance, water/energy use, capacity, etc.  I can then use that information, their brand reliability information, their user reviews and information from other sources to decide which machine to buy.  They list prices and cycle times clearly.  They tested nearly 150 washers (both top- and front-loaders) that are currently on the market.  

 

While it isn't my daily driver, preferring my Frigidaire front-loader for its performance and water/energy efficiency, I bought a Speed Queen top-loader because it is the last of the classic top-loaders.  I am not a fan of impeller-based HE washers for several reasons.  I am a big fan of modern HE front-loaders. I've steered a number of friends to front-loaders and all of them are very happy with their washers.

 

My problem with user reviews are statements like these: 

 

1.  "The Speed Queen spins clothes much drier than my Whirlpool Duet did."  Well, then something was wrong with your Duet, buddy.  Pull a load from a front-loader and one from the Speed Queen and it's very obvious the one spun in the front-loader contains less moisture.

 

2.  Referring to an LG top-loader: "My wife finds dry spots on clothes at the end of the cycle."  That happened frequently with my Frigidaire Immersion Care impeller-based washer, but not because the clothes had never gotten wet.  The final spins on these machines are long and at high rpms---nearly 15 minutes on my Immersion Care.  I'd pull out shirts, dress shorts, and pants with dry spots on them all the time.  Those dry spots are caused by long, high-speed final spins. 

 

3.  "The Speed Queen's cycle is shorter than a front-loader's, so it saves on energy."  Wrong.

 

4.  "Clothes didn't get clean in my front-loader."  What detergent were you using?  Which cycle?  I've been using front-loaders since 1988 and have consistently been impressed with cleaning performance, especially with my ultra-low water-use 2010 Frigidaire.  I prefer machines with an internal heater, as some loads need actual hot water.  Most can be cleaned in warm, but I want the washer to deliver hot water when I want it.  I join the chorus of jeers to dumbed-down hot and warm water temps.  105 degree water is not hot.  75 degree water is cool, not warm.

 

5.  "The build quality of the Speed Queen is better and the cycle is shorter."  I agree 100%!




This post was last edited 07/10/2014 at 06:42
Post# 769661 , Reply# 23   7/10/2014 at 05:56 (3,549 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

frigilux's profile picture

One more thing:  Due to the high cleaning performance scores of some new front-loaders, the scores for all front-loaders have been recalibrated.  Example:  My 1996 first generation Frigilux rated an 'Excellent' for cleaning by the standards of that era.  Today, it would probably only be rated 'Good'.  

 

Frigidaire lengthened the wash portion of the cycle on their front-loaders in 2012, which improved cleaning performance scores.  Unfortunately, they shot themselves in the foot by dumbing-down warm water to a point where the rating has dropped back to 'Good' despite the longer cycle.

And can we finally put to rest the myth that all modern washers have only a 5-year lifespan? Granted, build-quality (except for SQ) is not what it was on vintage machines. Manufacturers figured out that if they made it economically unsound to repair rather than replace a washer, they can sell people a new one--which shows up on Wall Street. Keeping warehouses full of spare parts and a fleet of repairmen does not show up on Wall Street. At any rate, I am quite confident that my 2010 front-loader will give me 10 years of solid service. Aging former front-loaders from my house are still in use in others' homes: a 1996 first-issue Frigidaire (although it has had the bearing and a timer replaced) and a 2002 Frigidaire, which has had no repairs. Our 1960 Kenmore had annual visits from the repairman for one thing or another, but the machine could be repaired. My parents probably bought the machine again in repair costs, but that was how things were done in the 1960s and '70s.

And not every vintage washer lasted 20 years. I recall seeing many 8 to 12-year old washers behind the appliance store waiting to be hauled to the dump. It is only through restoration, not natural lifespan, that so many wonderful vintage machine exist in the AW family. Has the natural lifespan of washers decreased since 1965? I'd have to say yes. But this notion that every new machine is junked by year 5 is false.


This post was last edited 07/10/2014 at 08:14

Post# 769688 , Reply# 24   7/10/2014 at 08:52 (3,549 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

frigilux's profile picture
In today's dollars:

My parents bought this washer and dryer on sale in 1960 on credit for around $450. Today, that pair would cost $3770.00 (using a simple "purchasing power" calculation; if you factor in wage levels of the day, the cost is even higher).

That puts into perspective the price of today's laundry equipment...and it makes the roughly $1600 for a Speed Queen AWN542 and companion dryer even more of a bargain!




This post was last edited 07/10/2014 at 09:22
Post# 769708 , Reply# 25   7/10/2014 at 10:26 (3,549 days old) by JeffG ()        

""Clothes didn't get clean in my front-loader." What detergent were you using? Which cycle? I've been using front-loaders since 1988 and have consistently been impressed with cleaning performance, especially with my ultra-low water-use 2010 Frigidaire. I prefer machines with an internal heater"

That heater is the primary reason you're satisfied with your FL's cleaning performance. Most others in the U.S. still lack them. It's why I usually try to steer clear of discussions about it, invariably the original complaint is made by someone in the U.S. who has a heaterless unit, and the post is responded to by people in Europe and other places where most FLs have them. It's apples and oranges.


Post# 769711 , Reply# 26   7/10/2014 at 10:48 (3,549 days old) by DaveAMKrayoGuy (Oak Park, MI)        

daveamkrayoguy's profile picture

Looks like, judging from today's Picture Of The Day, that Speed Queen is still The Leader Of The Laundromat!!!!

 

 

-- Dave


Post# 769712 , Reply# 27   7/10/2014 at 10:49 (3,549 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

frigilux's profile picture
The 2010 is the first machine I've had with an internal water heater. However, earlier front-loaders used more water and didn't dumb-down temperatures.

I use warm water for the majority of my loads and no heater is involved. I do jack up the water temp for stained loads of kitchen whites (which starts warm and gradually heats to around 155 degrees) and will sometimes do a bit of a boost for other white loads using the Allergy option (which keeps water heated to around 130 degrees).

But you're right: The thing that stops me from getting a Speed Queen front-loader is the lack of a long cycle and lack of an internal water heater. These new machines use so little water that the first part of the fill is simply purging the lines.


Post# 769734 , Reply# 28   7/10/2014 at 12:35 (3,549 days old) by washman (o)        
The pic of the

day is gorgeous!


Love the classic colors!


Post# 769756 , Reply# 29   7/10/2014 at 14:04 (3,549 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

frigilux's profile picture
They are definitely classics, Ben, and I love the orange color the most.

Question for you: Did Speed Queens ever have a suds-saver? Someone was asking about brands of washers with suds-savers in another thread. Thanks!


Post# 769759 , Reply# 30   7/10/2014 at 14:08 (3,549 days old) by mrb627 (Buford, GA)        
NIB?

mrb627's profile picture
Wouldn't the find of a New-In-Box Vintage SQ Coin-Op be awesome?!?

Malcolm


Post# 769775 , Reply# 31   7/10/2014 at 15:14 (3,548 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

frigilux's profile picture
That would be, Malcolm! While I understand that a perforated tub helps eject dirt, sand, etc., the solid tub Speed Queens are my favorite. I could be easily convinced that solid tub machines provided clearer rinses, as well.

I would spend a few weeks with my sister and brother-in-law each summer when I was a kid, and the three apartments they lived in each had excellent washers: A '64 Frigidaire Unimatic coin op but with the Deep Action agitator (capless, of course); a Speed Queen coin-op like the ones shown in the POD; and a late '60s stacked Westinghouse front-loading pair (non coin-op). Loved all three of them!

Westys (and my '88 Frigidaire FL'er) Memories: The 'bang' of the spin solenoid always reminded me of the gun fired at the beginning of a race. Whenever those machines went into spin, I'd shout "And they're off!"


Post# 769779 , Reply# 32   7/10/2014 at 15:33 (3,548 days old) by washman (o)        
If memory serves me correctly

I do believe a SQ model did have the suds saver option. A21W, A22W and A24W I believe.
Not sure if those are wringer or automatic models.


Post# 769780 , Reply# 33   7/10/2014 at 15:53 (3,548 days old) by kenmoreguy89 (Valenza Piemonte, Italy- Soon to be US immigrant.)        

This post has been removed by the member who posted it.



Post# 769781 , Reply# 34   7/10/2014 at 15:55 (3,548 days old) by kenmoreguy89 (Valenza Piemonte, Italy- Soon to be US immigrant.)        

kenmoreguy89's profile picture
Actually, I don't really understand or share much of what has been said.....
I told many times I personally found Top loader washers giving better results than front loaders I used....and yes, they had heaters from 20 celsius to boiling, of course...which i totally share being important in a low water use machine, in order to keep it or hot bring it hot enough.
I also stated many times, that among all the odd HE systems, an h axis so a front loader is what I find being best and most effective and sensed, but though, never as good as top loader agitator, nor better....
Well, let's be clear...of course if you ask me what I find being better from a Modern DD whirlpool with that whirly thingy and little fins and short strokes (so the majority of today's machines) and a boilwash of your average european machine say Bosch, Miele, Siemens or Aeg electrolux wahetever I would probably put them equal for some machines like say our hotpoint at seaside house, or the candy...but likely the Miele and the bosch at first, but heck could see with my eyes their results will not be as good as what comes out my Speed queen top loader or filter flo or BD whilrpool with the surgi.
The same way I could hear many good opinions about others, that used to have a front loader before and switched to a speed queen top loader (my neighbor is one as to speak), but even a whirlpool also! Among them european people also....I live in Europe.
Said that, the way top loaders accomplish to get clothes as clean or often cleaner versus the longer times of HE is pretty simple.
Front loader or wash plate or all these low water use systems, will not get water through clothes as good as a top loader would...so the tumbling clothes and whatever is not passed through by water the same way.....hence more time needed and potentially not a comparable job at the end.
Much though really depends on many factors though as you said....like water temp, detergent used etc...
But:
I think.
You cannot really put in discussion wash times as if a laundry fully immersed and agitated by an agitator in a traditional machine is the same of having a load tumbled in few inches of water or whatever else similar, as they have two different actions...

I don't use LCB also, actually I hate using it as it damage clothes and find little use out of it as detergent should and MUST do the job.. It should not be even mentioned in a serious wash test or comparison...then...really, if I have to be honest, speaking of wash tests and shares in this website and elsewhere I have seen results coming out of their front loaders and HE and such, and could not really believe someone could call them acceptable or consider them clean, really laughable compared to what I get with either my filter flo or Speed Queen...and what I am used to get.
That leaves me speechless, but in reverse...
So either I am a magician, our hard water is miracolous or my machines have a sort of spell or some folks really have to re-visit their "clean" canons.... And so what washes cleaner or not....

I can gurantee you that I can use both machines correctly....i am born among them...




This post was last edited 07/10/2014 at 17:06
Post# 769785 , Reply# 35   7/10/2014 at 17:01 (3,548 days old) by italmex (milano)        

I'm happy for SQ but....Miele?? They lot quality or not on the test to be qualified .....

Post# 769788 , Reply# 36   7/10/2014 at 17:24 (3,548 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

frigilux's profile picture
A celebratory load of bath linens for the mighty Speed Queen! I even broke out the real-deal Mexican Ariel which was smuggled into the US by a friend who was visiting her daughter. Special occasions only.

Photos of the controls were taken without flash for readability.


  Photos...       <              >      Photo 1 of 6         View Full Size
Post# 769791 , Reply# 37   7/10/2014 at 17:35 (3,548 days old) by kenmoreguy89 (Valenza Piemonte, Italy- Soon to be US immigrant.)        

kenmoreguy89's profile picture
I think Miele are well built and durable machines, and are famous for that, but really too much overvalued and boasted, not to mention in the US...can't say what is best though in this sense as I see them built with delicate components not cheap but delicate, so needing proper care, and find odd you cannot put bleach, not that it is an issue as I don't use it, rather I am kinda against it's use as pointed out, but from my perspective that's weird that a laundry machine may actually be ruined by it... But i know of people using it anyway and still having it going strong, so.... they sure are the most durable and well made among their " kind", and electronics are better quality than all the others for sure, as for the general materials...but all this electronic stuff miele have as a peculiar caratheristic perhaps may be more prone to fail sooner than something more simpler even if of lesser quality....but if you put them in comparison with all the others of same kind and technologic components and features, they got more quality in this sense...without any doubt....so you can expect more life also than others for sure. Then as for performances, beside more programs and well designed washing profiles, I cannot speak very much for the latest models, but the older ones I have seen in oeration so 80s 90s and 2000ish model's results were comparable to the ones of the * better* but though cheaper makers and models such as Bosch or Siemens and AEG of the time.....all among the top anyway speaking of euro front loaders....at least it was once, until 2000 ish for the bosch ans siemens..and such.
I remember well the bosch wfk2031 i used for a few months while in austria....it was as good as a Miele, i liked it considering it was a front loader....

But much changed seeing recently the later ones ( since mid 2000ish), in many ways, materials and such, and results also, i have seen stuff coming out these bosch and siemens like maxx and onda, and oh lord, they were as crappy as a candy, hotpoint, whirlpool or a brandt sangiorgio...
They pointed on cheaper prices and less quality as they gained fame over europe, especially after the euro currency were they started being sold massively everywhere and thousands models....now bosch is a general MOL name as it may be candy or european whirlpool...but people wanting the real *better* front loader gets a Miele.....

Miele of course is among the better if not the actual better european machine, in reliability, service and everything,.... And still has this title....after all the years...Good for them...but let's say that it's not that all this comes for free...you pay for it..





This post was last edited 07/10/2014 at 19:04
Post# 769797 , Reply# 38   7/10/2014 at 18:12 (3,548 days old) by washer111 ()        
Miele & Bleach

Freddie, I think this has to do with the large amount of rubber components used in the machine (Hoses, Boots, Detergent-Dispenser to Tub hose) as well as the stainless-steel drum in the machine that could be damaged by the bleaching product. 

 

With modern detergents, there should be very little, if any need for bleach other than for sterilisation. I understand that Europeans rely on the longer cycles, better temperatures and better detergents to get their stuff clean. 

 

I (honestly) cannot understand why an FL would have trouble for your cleaning. Excluding lack of knowledge, since you clearly understand laundry, I wonder what the problem could be?

In the U.S., you can blame detergents, since it seems they are still inferior to European products. 

For the rest of the folk you mention, I imagine poor knowledge and laundering habits (as well as a lack of attention-to-detail) have caused their "Dingy-Duds" to become noticeable, to say the least.

 

Myself - I am quite sold on the concept of an FL machine. This past week I dealt with a white shirt that had become yellowed in that pit-area from the poor-performing 'Planet Ark' detergent I previously used. The stain was ironed in, and washed at Warm-Hot temperatures and even soaked in bleach.

A little bit of pre-treating, and the stain is GONE. 

 

However, depending on the circumstances (For example, if you were a student with solar-heated water), I'd take the TL machines, like an F&P ANYDAY, merely because of the better operating economics, as opposed to a machine with a heater. Water costs be damned!


Post# 769815 , Reply# 39   7/10/2014 at 20:10 (3,548 days old) by italmex (milano)        

I did not ask about bleach, I only ask about why on consumer report the name Miele is not in.

Then if we talk that Miele was, Miele is and Miele will be, it will become a never ending story.

From the w1 model they stop talking about the 20 years life. Maybe the washer is not so good, who knows.

What I'm sure about is that at this moment and in future, cause technology, life style, etc, most people will not be interested in a 20 years old washer. In less than half of this time a new washer will come through you door to make you happy.


Post# 769905 , Reply# 40   7/11/2014 at 03:28 (3,548 days old) by kenmoreguy89 (Valenza Piemonte, Italy- Soon to be US immigrant.)        

kenmoreguy89's profile picture
Italmex
What I wrote is just my opinion about the Miele, and the consideration about bleach is just a personal one.....
As for reliability.....I told I could not really say what I think most reliable among a speed queen or a Miele as they are very different in components, speed queen do not have displays, many electronics or fuzzy or such stuff...so less delicate things that could get broken....and cause expensive repairs.
But that's not the mater anyway as Miele, does not make agitator toploaders, it used to make semiautomatic agitator machines in the past, but not automatics and not certainly today.
But as everything it's my opinion about I like to share, like every one here does, and be taken accordingly to what it is....I do not trust at all CR and such guides....so could not care less of what they say as IMO it's all or anyway most made up.....
Let's say Miele gets a small slice of US market, for many reasons and in certain areas more than elsewhere....and are not as known as may be a domestic maker such a speed queen or stuff you find everywhere.....so maybe it's not like Miele is substantially less reliable than a Speed Queen, but simply less known, and sure most expensive.....
So I believe they also keep count of many factors like this, but as stated, I believe very little of what these reports says as are made with many nonsenses and various marketing and pseudo theorical driven facts, leaving little space for practical, omitting many aspects, and putting sone opinions and stetements that actually fnds little application in reality.......
But as per title thread, from my understanding, CR was anyway speaking of top loaders not FL and not washers in general, and in all honesty I find pretty obvious they rated most reliable the Speed Queen, even a donkey would realize that if it's not blind, deaf or something......if they said otherwise, it was the confirm to me that CR is not mostly but 100% unreliable and money/marketing driven IMO.
That's all......

Washer 111
Hi!
I don't think this is something related to components, or at least, likely yes, but not certainly of a front loader n general.
Boots and gum parts are much or less the same in every friont loader, they all have boots and gum parts, as for electronic componets such as sensors etc... You find similar components in other machines too...so...why in some machines bleach is perfectly okay and In Miele is not is pretty beyond me....
It's not a peculiarity of front loaders at all as I could tell you thousands makes in which bleach is perfectly okay....
Then, the speech about europeans, well, I think it's more like a culture thing, an habit, in this country bleach is used by many folks, not the most but many, not where I live anyway, but the bleach position in this country is, pretty tangible by the bleach commercialization, and another particularity is that it's use is more common in certain areas than in others, example, in southern italy is an habit more common than in the north and more common amng old people than younger, then, it also change country by country, while in Germany or who knows France apparently is not much common, can confirm you that in Spain the "lejia para la ropa" it's very very common.....and like spain other european countries....
As for what europeans relies for laundry, what I could see they rely much on is elbow grease for pre-treatment and pre- wash treatments and soaks, especially for stains, rather than their machines only.....as I think it should beinstead.
That's another speech I wanna do, as many people consider pre-treating a normal due thing, well, for me personally it's not....
If I have to pretreat all the times or most of the times, then what I have a washer for? i belive this should be the job of the machine, and if it's good just toss in dirt and should come out clean that's it...
And speaking now of front loaders, this is a thing I could sse they cannot give me, unless pretreatment is done.....
Letting apart the washing system that may be discussed infinitely, all my experiences about are that the same dirts and stains that gets perfectly clean in my toploaders in the front loaders I used doesn't, of course there were better and worse machines, but even the best one didn't remove them all, or at least not completely...unfortunately...
Darks always stays stained with cooking oil which seems the most difficult stain to get rid off darks in a FL , sauces and such also, they're usually stupid stains IMO that are noto hard to wash at all, not to mention the even thougher ones as motor oil and such, they stays the same they were, and the whites yes they get dingy, but dirt dingy as if dirt was still in them, not the normal yellowing,, and the stains in whites, I could selext the longer cycle and highest temperature one, but many stains would still be there....not completely removed, even the socks....so here I have to do them by hand or rewash second and third times....or do massive pretreating before, especially items that cannot stand boilwashes.
As for the people I am talking of, I could see both in here, and elsewhere test and results shared and claimed as if they were great, while items still had very noticeable halos and such...i cannot really call great, nor acceptable, nor what I am used to get for sure.
Or claims such machines removed stains they coukd never get rid off as if they were inpossible ones, when usually for me are a walk in the park, then comes those who says these machines washes cleaner than their previous one, and seeing the resukts and such claims, then, I cannot really think how they laundry was before, thing that I cannot really understand how that is possible...why...how...
Probably the same way they wonder how I do get these results with my top loaders when they cannot.
So what should I think.....
As said, I came to think that what for others is heavy dirt and though stains for me are easy, or viceversa.
That many people are actually happy with mediocre results, and for various reasons they got even worse results with their previous top loader machines.....
I learned that many people are probably and lilely unable to use one kind or another, so according to their previous habits and other factors such as water temp, detergent, and people's capacity to use a machine, a top loader may be considered better or worse....so much worse than what it may potentially give you if used correctly.
People expecting the job done in the same amount of time (too short cycles) , too less detergent, overloading etc.....
I also know the average laundry of today isn't as dirt as it once was.....so the are people being happy whatever they get.... one example is my aunt that washes stuff just worn few hours and stronger stains than a little sweat goes to dry cleaner or directly the trash bin, but she's full of money and it's not realist, though very afraid of every stain, it's not like she likes to dump everything, she rather avoid maniacally dirt and stains occurance for her, husband and sons.....but my granma for example when she came to know the top loader through my mother, she wanted one too at all costs as she seen the results, and she's still very happy with one....and found it much better than any she had before,
I am an old fashioned guy, I still use clothes for everything in my house, I get dirty alot, am not a picky sissy afraid of dirt as the average person of today, I get very dirty, and know I will get them clean again with no troubles and dramas today's people do for everything....
The average european person of today does not get as dirt...they really have other canons for what is impossible, though or light stain......
But again, or our machines are sort of blessed, or I cannot use front loader properly, which I exclude as I think I can knowing them very well, or don't know....
All i can say for certain is what I can see...
Just that am not completely happy with front loaders as I am with top loaders, unfortunately.....
There are many resons and facts involved in the top loader vs front loader thing though...
I can't enter in everyone's home to see what these facts may be.....i do have my findings, and my ideas, results of findings and experiences through the time, but cannot really determine with universal certainty what it's correct or not, right or wrong, as everything change, nor can anyone really I think, so I can say that I FOUND HE and front loader worse, and top loader the better ones, but cannot say that they're worse or better as a universal matter of fact....i will never be enough tired to remark this.



.




This post was last edited 07/11/2014 at 06:59
Post# 769912 , Reply# 41   7/11/2014 at 04:58 (3,548 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

frigilux's profile picture
POD July 11: Two in a row for your brand, Ben!

Post# 769919 , Reply# 42   7/11/2014 at 05:27 (3,548 days old) by kenmoreguy89 (Valenza Piemonte, Italy- Soon to be US immigrant.)        

kenmoreguy89's profile picture
Well.....let's celebrate this good american company and let's be proud of it, known for exporting laundry greatness worldwide, and one of the last american companies with a moral behind.....so rare today.
Also caring of social and human issues like breast cancer in a sincere way.... Beautiful people.
Yay for speed queen!


Post# 769922 , Reply# 43   7/11/2014 at 06:13 (3,548 days old) by kenmoreguy89 (Valenza Piemonte, Italy- Soon to be US immigrant.)        

kenmoreguy89's profile picture
Oh....washer111, another thing...
I have tried the most known brands available in the US, and really could not find difference in quality compared to what we have here, actually some were better, especially in correlation of price-quality, so do not really know how all these persistent claims about european detergents being "better" have reason to be.....
I am speaking of HE/low foam or all machines products....not just regular ones.
I found that there are great ones, good ones, fair ones, and crappy ones just the same of here.....




This post was last edited 07/11/2014 at 07:01
Post# 769935 , Reply# 44   7/11/2014 at 07:33 (3,548 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

frigilux's profile picture
I agree, Freddy; Speed Queen is one of the great American companies. It's wonderful to see more Speed Queen dealerships popping up in Minnesota.

While the AWN542 doesn't get daily use at my house, it is really the only modern top-loader I'd recommend to anyone.
Lacking the patience and knowledge to restore and keep up a vintage washer, the Speed Queen provides a vintage washer experience with the convenience of having parts and service available for it.

It is great fun to watch the SQ at work--especially the spin drain--and I love the sounds and rhythms of a classic top-loading washer. The AWN542 is a very flexible machine with its multiple agitate/spin speed selections and cycles. And it certainly does clean well.

Believe me, I would buy a Speed Queen front-loading pair immediately if they would increase the capacity, add an internal water heater, and provide more cycle flexibility. The pair I see at the local SQ dealership confirms they are built like tanks.



Post# 769938 , Reply# 45   7/11/2014 at 08:14 (3,548 days old) by washman (o)        
Got both pics of day

And yes, the SQ is by far and away the best TL machine today. NO fussy electronic controls to short out and still made of metal in most places.

Post# 769943 , Reply# 46   7/11/2014 at 08:30 (3,548 days old) by DaveAMKrayoGuy (Oak Park, MI)        
"SQ: Still made of metal in most places!" -- WashMan

daveamkrayoguy's profile picture

...Including  the  TUB!!!!

 

 

 

--  Dave


Post# 769956 , Reply# 47   7/11/2014 at 09:44 (3,548 days old) by Yogitunes (New Jersey)        

yogitunes's profile picture
Speed Queen solid tub....SudsSaver!

theres a lot of plumbing going on........


  Photos...       <              >      Photo 1 of 5         View Full Size
Post# 769968 , Reply# 48   7/11/2014 at 10:59 (3,548 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

frigilux's profile picture

Thanks for the info, Martin!  This gives me some lunch-hour reading and alleviates any doubt as to whether or not Speed Queen offered a suds-saver.  Can't say I ever recall seeing one. 


Post# 769979 , Reply# 49   7/11/2014 at 12:54 (3,548 days old) by Yogitunes (New Jersey)        

yogitunes's profile picture
there were so many models and options....none I have actually seen, but have seen in the tech manuals.....

there was even one that had a lint filter in the 1 o' clock position.....the water overflowed, and returned to the tub......much like the first GE FilterFlos...I would like to have seen this one...


Post# 770076 , Reply# 50   7/11/2014 at 20:11 (3,547 days old) by washman (o)        
Just did a load of my bath towels

Using the dwindling supply of Sears detergent, powder. I noticed that when I pour it in, even in HOT water, some undissolved bits remain floating on top. Methinks the Sears is getting old and tired, like me some days.

But not to worry, I have a relatively fresh bottle of A&H liquid in reserve, ready to do battle against ring around the collar and any other washday tasks that crop up.

It is the low sudsing concoction; so far, I like it. I think for the money, it offers good results with my laundry. Naturally, I don't have children and their attendant grime and mess. If I did, I would probably be a Tide user.


Post# 770083 , Reply# 51   7/11/2014 at 20:50 (3,547 days old) by Yogitunes (New Jersey)        

yogitunes's profile picture
Sears UP.....for the most part, I have kids with grime and ground in dirt, and it seems to work fine....hot/warm washes, and sometimes for extra kick, I may add two scoops, or some color safe bleach......

mostly I prefer a small scoop each of SUP and Tide powder with bleach, mainly for the scent from Tide....


Post# 786324 , Reply# 52   9/29/2014 at 19:36 (3,467 days old) by washman (o)        
The Sears is gone

and I used up the last of the new Oxydol. Won't buy either again. I'm running A&H with oxiclean and some sort of new scent. Low suds, cleans ok for the money. Tide still performs best, but the cost...........yeeeeesh!

Post# 786408 , Reply# 53   9/30/2014 at 00:37 (3,467 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

frigilux's profile picture

Have you tried Wisk Deep Clean liquid, Ben?  Cleaning nearly on par with Tide, reasonably priced, nice scent.


  View Full Size
Post# 786483 , Reply# 54   9/30/2014 at 12:43 (3,467 days old) by washman (o)        

Does it still tackle "ring around the collar"? Or was that Era? I keep forgetting.

Post# 786487 , Reply# 55   9/30/2014 at 13:05 (3,467 days old) by kenmoreguy89 (Valenza Piemonte, Italy- Soon to be US immigrant.)        

kenmoreguy89's profile picture

No it  doesn't now that is Sun.Corp onwed (it was lever before)  as far as I know, and yes ring around the  collar correct it was Wisk!
One of the first  liquid detergents, actually since the early days of the Metal canned Wisk, they moved toward this aspect of liquid in general, I mean, the early adverts would show that you could use it directly on the stains as well as collars...and they thought it being a "plus" of the product...they defined it "instant" and claimed a lot of other 💩 💩 💩. LOL






Buahahahah!






This post was last edited 09/30/2014 at 13:33
Post# 786533 , Reply# 56   9/30/2014 at 16:44 (3,466 days old) by washman (o)        
Well

if it does not tackle ring around the collar, then to hell with it. I cannot stand those dirty rings! I tried scrubbing, washing, but I cannot seem to make them go away!

Post# 786539 , Reply# 57   9/30/2014 at 16:58 (3,466 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

frigilux's profile picture
It most certainly does take care of ring-around the collar!

Post# 786541 , Reply# 58   9/30/2014 at 17:00 (3,466 days old) by washman (o)        

You swear on a box of PODS Frig? Would you bet your SQ on that?

Post# 786552 , Reply# 59   9/30/2014 at 17:21 (3,466 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)        

frigilux's profile picture
Absolutely! Either format vanquishes ring-around-the-collar. Wisk Deep Clean is good stuff.

Post# 786561 , Reply# 60   9/30/2014 at 18:37 (3,466 days old) by kenmoreguy89 (Valenza Piemonte, Italy- Soon to be US immigrant.)        

kenmoreguy89's profile picture

To clarify:
I didn't mean that it doesn't clean the ring around the collar, just that doesn't make of it it's pecularity  (that really isn't anything out of ordinary) like before, even because I think a  detergent should  handle it  for granted, I consider the various rings around the collar or cuffs, simple-basic dirt... how is that a tough dirt/stain worth a commercial  it's always been beyond me....
Wisk adverts of the "ring around the collar" series always left me. "yah and so?" O.o

Also

I am "against" the pretreatment operation also as I think a good machine as a good detergent should be able to deliver you with clean wash, without you doing anything else than loading your machine and start it...
About my views on this particular Wisk, it's good value for money and no better than what is considered TOL nowadays, though couldn't see  differences from it and the original clean in blue bottle (always sun corp)....it's triple  for what reason? To me it was just the same...


I am not a fan of liquids at all, I don't find them to clean as good as powders does...


Post# 786566 , Reply# 61   9/30/2014 at 19:11 (3,466 days old) by mrb627 (Buford, GA)        
Wisk Deep Clean

mrb627's profile picture
Not sure how this thread got side tracked, but I'll throw in my two cents. WDC is the only liquid detergent I buy repeatedly. It is awesome!

Malcolm



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