Thread Number: 63904
/ Tag: Modern Automatic Washers
CR's take on Speed Queen TLs |
[Down to Last] |
Post# 864804   1/30/2016 at 11:37 (2,979 days old) by marky_mark (From Liverpool. Now living in Palm Springs and Dublin)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
The CR website is currently showing ratings for the electromechanical AWN542 and the electronic AWNE92SP113TW01. They score differently. Are there genuine differences or is it just inconsistent evaluations by CR?
Overall Score.....for the 542 was 29.....for the AWNE was 39 out of 100.
Ratings on a scale of poor, fair, good, very good, excellent. Cycle time: 35 minutes for both models. Tested on most aggressive normal cycle, which in this case was the "normal-eco" cycle for the electronic version and the "regular" cycle for the manual timer version. Warm wash. No additional cycle options selected.
Washing performance: 542 (knob control): good AWNE (electronic): very good
Energy efficiency: 542: good AWNE: very good
Water efficiency: 542: poor AWNE: poor
Capacity: 542: good AWNE: fair
Gentleness: 542: good AWNE: excellent
Noise: 542: good AWNE: fair
Vibration: 542: excellent AWNE: excellent
Rinsing performance: Curiously, CR doesn't test washing machines for this, which I have always found very surprising.
The only reason I can think of as to why the electronic version scores more highly for washing is that perhaps its normal-eco cycle's wash time is longer than the manual version's regular cycle. Any thoughts? I wonder what the difference was between the wash water temperature of both machines.
Both machines are awarded the minimum score of "poor" for water efficiency. However I'm guessing the manual version, without the spray rinse, will have used more water.
Capacity is judged by CR's testers as they continue to add more laundry until they consider the machine can't roll the load over properly anymore. I'm not sure why the electronic version scored lower.
I guess one of the reasons why CR considers the electronic version to be much more gentle on laundry could be as a result of testing it on the normal-eco cycle. With only a spray rinse, the clothes won't be exposed to additional agitation during the rinse. I would have thought the wash agitation would be the same in both machines but I don't know about the actual wash time.
Electronic version's score for noise is worse. I could understand why -- the electronic version's post-wash spin-drain is slow speed, producing a noise that could have been considered more intrusive/annoying by the human noise testing panel.
If CR had tested the electronic version's Heavy Duty cycle and the manual version's regular cycle, after making the necessary modifications to the water level and hot inlet valve, I wonder if there would have been any difference at all. This post was last edited 01/30/2016 at 12:26 |
|
Post# 864833 , Reply# 4   1/30/2016 at 16:30 (2,979 days old) by marky_mark (From Liverpool. Now living in Palm Springs and Dublin)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
The AWN542 tested by consumer reports apparently had 5 cycles written around the control knob: regular, permanent press, delicate, hand wash, soak. Could it be that the model tested by CR didn't have the newer eco-normal cycle? Perhaps your sister has the newer version? How are the cycles listed on your sister's model? Does her machine actually fill the tub or would it need the adjustment that several kind members have documented on this site?
EDIT: After I posted the above reply I then read gusherb's reply which has some good info. |
Post# 864867 , Reply# 5   1/30/2016 at 22:52 (2,979 days old) by GELaundry4ever (Nacogdoches, TX, USA)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
CR only cares about energy efficiency! That's why I read real consumer reviews! No wonder why everybody else has thousands of complaints! When I say everybody else, I'm saying everybody else who makes washers and dryers! |
Post# 864889 , Reply# 6   1/31/2016 at 09:16 (2,979 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
5    
|
Post# 864920 , Reply# 7   1/31/2016 at 12:02 (2,978 days old) by washman (o)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
1    
Hi Frig! |
Post# 864922 , Reply# 8   1/31/2016 at 12:10 (2,978 days old) by henene4 (Heidenheim a.d. Brenz (Germany))   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
I guess noise and capacity are due to testing with inconsistent measures. With the extended spin on the '16 models, a 'badly' balanced load will have more impact on noise, and due to the exact same drum and agitator on both, most likely the worse capacity is connected with some bad loading habbit... |
Post# 864931 , Reply# 9   1/31/2016 at 13:12 (2,978 days old) by imperial70 (MA USA)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
4    
consumer reports does not know what they do not know. |
Post# 865004 , Reply# 10   1/31/2016 at 22:23 (2,978 days old) by kb0nes (Burnsville, MN)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
7    
For all their faults CR is by far the best (perhaps only?) source of really unbiased reviews. Sure we can arm-chair quarterback them and pick endless nits of their methods etc. But in the end they actually buy the products they test, they do direct comparisons using established methodology (yea I know we may not agree its right) and report the differences head to head.
To say something as ridiculous as "I read real consumer reviews" is highly telling. While end user reviews are interesting and may show trends, there is ZERO way to determine the percentage of machines that didn't fail and that continue to work fine, means that any conclusions drawn are statistically flawed. Add to the mix the fact that glowing performance reviews of mundane household goods are only written by a tiny percentage of satisfied users, means that all end user reviews WILL be skewed towards problems. |
Post# 865027 , Reply# 12   2/1/2016 at 05:42 (2,978 days old) by Frigilux (The Minnesota Prairie)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
2    
CR: Also, remember that the difference between any two categories (Good and Fair, for instance) can be as little as 1 point. Don't get riled up over the difference in ratings for the two Speed Queen models. They are probably very close. One model, for instance isn't at the top of "Good" for capacity and the other at the bottom of "Fair." CR gives the most weight not to energy and water efficiency, as some here believe, but to cleaning ability. I don't have a problem with the way CR tests; that has actually improved since vintage days. My problem with them is the wretched "dot" rating system. GIVE US THE FREAKIN' NUMBER actually scored in each category! I want to know if a product is only a point or two away from "Good," which in CR-speak is actually not that great. Something may be rated "Very Good" but only by the skin of its teeth. This post was last edited 02/01/2016 at 07:31 |
Post# 865082 , Reply# 14   2/1/2016 at 14:14 (2,977 days old) by Gusherb (Chicago/NWI)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
1    
You just described the 2015 AWN432. |
Post# 865143 , Reply# 17   2/2/2016 at 05:12 (2,977 days old) by marky_mark (From Liverpool. Now living in Palm Springs and Dublin)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Yes those are very good points about CR and Which? I subscribe to them both, but interpret their findings very carefully as they are testing to a very specific set of criteria. Definitely a case of YMMV.
Nick, of all the many dryers tested by CR, the Speed Queen ADE41F (electric) / ADG41F (gas) is the lowest rated dryer. But the newer Speed Queen with the electronic moisture sensors does far better in CR's tests. However I've heard people, like you, mention that they've read reviews suggesting the moisture sensors can be inaccurate. But I can't actually find those reviews myself. Does anyone know what the problem is and under what circumstances some people are having issues? I've heard that some people find the clothes are not dry enough. Interestingly, the Speed Queen electronic dryness levels I've seen appear to go: damp, less dry, near dry, dry. I haven't seen settings for extra dry etc. But using "dry" with the "heavy duty" cycle could equate to the same thing. This post was last edited 02/02/2016 at 05:29 |
Post# 865157 , Reply# 19   2/2/2016 at 08:23 (2,977 days old) by alr2903 (TN)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
"They don't test rinsing"? Oh my! |
Post# 865174 , Reply# 20   2/2/2016 at 10:24 (2,977 days old) by mrboilwash (Munich,Germany)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
1    
I wonder how rinsing compares between the old mechanical timer Queens and the new electronic models.
AFAIK the new ones only use the slow spin speed for the spin right after the wash in all cycles. I wonder why ? Maybe the theory behind is that the spray rinse works better this way, but why on earth doesn`t it ramp up to regular speed after the spray has finished ? The slow interim spin would be a total dealbreaker for me. |
Post# 865189 , Reply# 22   2/2/2016 at 11:18 (2,977 days old) by marky_mark (From Liverpool. Now living in Palm Springs and Dublin)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Yes I think you're right. The new ones spin at 473 RPM for the post-wash spin, whereas the older ones used to spin 50% faster at 710 RPM. Having said that, the spray rinse on the new ones appears to be 50 seconds (at least on the heavy duty cycle) whereas on the old ones it was 30 seconds. I don't know if the flow rate has been altered. So with the new fill flume, it could be that the new longer spray rinse is actually more effective overall despite the slower spin speed. I wonder what difference all this makes to the overall rinsing effectiveness after the deep rinse. |
Post# 865191 , Reply# 23   2/2/2016 at 11:23 (2,977 days old) by marky_mark (From Liverpool. Now living in Palm Springs and Dublin)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Gusherb, yes I've noticed that on the normal-eco cycle the spinning stops completely for a few seconds and the fast spin starts with more spray rinsing. My guess is that another benefit (intention) of this is to rinse away the fabric softener that will no doubt often incorrectly be added when the normal-eco cycle is used. |
Post# 865309 , Reply# 27   2/3/2016 at 07:28 (2,976 days old) by arbilab (Ft Worth TX (Ridglea))   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
I prescribed (sic) to CR for decades. But I don't any more (early 00s). IMO they editorially forewent any pretense of global objectivity in favor of marketing buzz du jour, mostly water use.
Water is the LEAST expensive element of laundering while arguably MOST critical. While in the home, toilets use no less than 10x what washers do and you don't have to WEAR the finished product of toilets. IOW, who cares about water other than CR editorial board and the goobermint? IOOW, why are they publishing irrelevancies? |
Post# 865330 , Reply# 28   2/3/2016 at 10:57 (2,976 days old) by johnb300m (Chicago)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
7    
|
Post# 865350 , Reply# 29   2/3/2016 at 13:59 (2,975 days old) by rp2813 (Sannazay)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
8    
. . . because we've gone through three periods when it was scarce around here over the past 40 years, and consciousness about water usage has been ingrained since the mid '70s.
Due to Dave's issues with incontinence after his stroke, and the fact that adult briefs are lousy at overnight containment, I find myself doing a lot of king size laundry. If we had a huge capacity SQ TL, we'd have exceeded our water allotment on a consistent basis over the past year of rationing. And as my nine year experience with an Amana SQ clone taught me, the rinsing would be, pardon the pun, piss poor.
The Affinity FL pair we have now aren't perfect, but the washer gets the job done better than the Amana/SQ old-school system, and uses a fraction of the water to do it. Even on occasions when I use the extra long spray hose from the adjacent laundry sink faucet to add water, I'm still using far less than with a TL machine.
I will never again own a TL machine for my daily driver. It's irresponsible when one's water supply is not only finite, but unpredictable. |
Post# 865462 , Reply# 31   2/4/2016 at 09:27 (2,975 days old) by marky_mark (From Liverpool. Now living in Palm Springs and Dublin)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
Over the last 12 months I have washed about 6 loads in hotel commercial top loaders (including Speed Queen) with only a spray rinse. I really didn't notice any difference whatsoever. The clothes felt the same, looked the same and my partner and I didn't have any sensitivity when wearing them.
However there was probably more residue in the clothes that would be detected by "Which?" testing. I would have thought CR subscribers would be interested in this. After all, a washing machine is supposed to wash, rinse and spin the clothes. So wouldn't you think CR would test those three things along with the other tests? |
Post# 865529 , Reply# 33   2/4/2016 at 16:07 (2,974 days old) by marky_mark (From Liverpool. Now living in Palm Springs and Dublin)   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
1    
"Which?" says that they test rinsing by taking laundry out after the rinse cycle and spinning it in a separate spin dryer at 2800 RPM. The alkalinity of the water spun out of the clothes is tested and compared to the tap water used to wash them. As detergent is alkaline, the greater the increase, the poorer the washing machine was at rinsing. To measure how well each washing machine removes detergent during the rinse cycle, we take freshly rinsed washing from the machine, just before the spin cycle, and spin it in a super-fast spin dryer. This dryer spins at 2800rpm, roughly twice as fast as a typical washing machine.
Read more: www.which.co.uk/reviews/washing-m... - Which? To measure how well each washing machine removes detergent during the rinse cycle, we take freshly rinsed washing from the machine, just before the spin cycle, and spin it in a super-fast spin dryer. This dryer spins at 2800rpm, roughly twice as fast as a typical washing machine.
Read more: www.which.co.uk/reviews/washing-m... - Which? To measure how well each washing machine removes detergent during the rinse cycle, we take freshly rinsed washing from the machine, just before the spin cycle, and spin it in a super-fast spin dryer. This dryer spins at 2800rpm, roughly twice as fast as a typical washing machine.
Read more: www.which.co.uk/reviews/washing-m... - Which? |
Post# 865565 , Reply# 34   2/4/2016 at 20:33 (2,974 days old) by Brandon ()   |   | |
Checkrate/Likes
 
     
^^^Yeah! What he said! :D 2800 rpm washer! Drool....we need a "Tim Allen" tool guy to test one to....10,000 rpm!! Muwhaha! Out in a field way, way away from anything. |