If Speed Queen made Dishwashers

If they did begin manufacturing dishwashers like that, they'd be so expensive you'd almost have to give up owning a car. Appliance corporations can build their machines as they please, but if they don't comply with energy regulations, they don't get subsidized by the government. Without funding as it is now, a set of top tier frontloaders would probably be twice as expensive as they currently are.

Another reason they may not take hold as well as traditional-design top loaders have for Speed Queen is that current modern dishwashers still do their job perfectly even with the lower water and energy usage, so long as the machine is used and loaded properly. The same can be said about some HE top loading washers, but far too many people are either too lazy to simply learn the minor differences in how to operate one versus a conventional TL, or they're too stubborn to allow the machine to prove itself because they won't move past their issue of wanting to see a lake of water and a mountain of suds in the machine. Dishwashers typically have no way of monitoring the interior, so the low water levels are "out of sight, out of mind".


Forum Topics & Rules Manuals & Literature	New users Click-here to sign-up

Post# 885763 6/17/2016 at 20:56 (2,862 days old) by chetlaham (United States)
Checkrate/Likes 1 This has been a fantasy of mine for a few years. I have always wanted Speed Queen to make a line of no BS long life dishwasher appealing to the middle of the line like Whirlpool did with their power cleans. Powerful motor, self cleaning filter, and water usage in the Pots and Pans cycle. Simply design and simple racks. Sound insulation to help. 1,000 watt heater, 1/3 HP motor and cycles under 1 hour. Do you think such a machine would catch on? Or does Speed Queen know the market will not catch on.

Post# 885771 , Reply# 1 6/17/2016 at 22:07 (2,862 days old) by appnut (TX)
Checkrate/Likes 3 It's called energy guideline mandates that will keep this from being reality.

Post# 885786 , Reply# 2 6/18/2016 at 01:42 (2,862 days old) by murando531 (Augusta, Georgia - US)
Checkrate/Likes 3 If they did begin manufacturing dishwashers like that, they'd be so expensive you'd almost have to give up owning a car. Appliance corporations can build their machines as they please, but if they don't comply with energy regulations, they don't get subsidized by the government. Without funding as it is now, a set of top tier frontloaders would probably be twice as expensive as they currently are. Another reason they may not take hold as well as traditional-design top loaders have for Speed Queen is that current modern dishwashers still do their job perfectly even with the lower water and energy usage, so long as the machine is used and loaded properly. The same can be said about some HE top loading washers, but far too many people are either too lazy to simply learn the minor differences in how to operate one versus a conventional TL, or they're too stubborn to allow the machine to prove itself because they won't move past their issue of wanting to see a lake of water and a mountain of suds in the machine. Dishwashers typically have no way of monitoring the interior, so the low water levels are "out of sight, out of mind".

Post# 885798 , Reply# 3 6/18/2016 at 03:52 (2,862 days old) by chetlaham (United States)
Checkrate/Likes *Energy useage* Doesn't it only apply to the normal cycle? Or all cycles?

Post# 886103 , Reply# 4 6/20/2016 at 10:32 (2,860 days old) by johnb300m (Chicago)
Checkrate/Likes 1 @chetlaham IME, yes, the miserly energy ratings are usually rated for the Normal wash cycle. On my machine I've noticed the other cycles use more fill sequences, even on lighter soil loads. Normal does seem to use as little water changes as possible.

Post# 886577 , Reply# 5 6/23/2016 at 10:05 (2,857 days old) by chetlaham (United States)
Checkrate/Likes So Speed Queen could in theory develop a machine with a 3.2 gallon normal wash (wash-purge- rinse) and then develop a heavy, super, and pots and pans cycles that use 8, 10, 12 gallons of water?