Thread Number: 75555  /  Tag: Modern Automatic Washers
SQ TR7, TR5 & TR3 Verified glowing reviews
[Down to Last]'s exclusive eBay Watch:
scroll >>> for more items
Post# 993730   5/10/2018 at 09:55 by mtn1584 (USA)        

I am sick to death of hearing so many bash these machines for the simple fact that NONE of you, with the exception of a few have any experience with them or actually purchased them.

I know of two folks on here who have actually purchased these machines, one is a store owner and the other is a personal friend. Both did not like the machine and both said that it doesn't clean well. That having been said, verified reviews form the Alliance website show purchasers extremely HAPPY with their new washers. One of the three negative reviews on the TR5 is from my friend. Now like I have said, to each his own, however Alliance has verified by way of Serial Number that these machines are actually owned by customers and not influenced by anyone's opinion on this site about these machines.

So are all these folks ignorant? What gives any of you the right to think or say that? An over 90% approval rating on all three models purchased by consumers speaks volumes.

CR and Cnet rated past SQ models poorly as well, so I discount their findings, however folks who spent their hard earned money on these expensive washers seem to be very happy with THEIR purchase. While the majority on this site seem to predict the demise of Alliance in one way or the other, or spend their time making youtube videos on why not to buy a machine they themselves DO NOT own, I choose to look at the majority of reviews by ACTUAL OWNERS and not a group of people who do not have any personal experience with the product.

It is just a dam washer for Pete's sake, a piece of equipment, I am a washer fan just like the rest, however the out cry and damnation of an American company that employs AMERICANS is really getting old. I do not like change and I too was hesitant about this new design, but the majority of owner reviews thus far says otherwise. This may or may change, I don't know, and I don't care. This site has become less and less enjoyable everyday. Some folks are using it as a personal ego booster. "See folks I was right......yada yada yada."

Advice, collecting, congratulatory wishes on new purchases are a thing of the past and it is too bad. I am an intelligent man and I can make my own decisions with the "put em out of business" mentality. I've enjoyed this site for many years, however it's become a BASH this or BASH that product website where everyone jumps on the band wagon without having any vested interest.


Post# 993744 , Reply# 1   5/10/2018 at 11:07 by combo52 (Beltsville,Md)        
New 2018 SQ TL Washer Reviews

combo52's profile picture
Hi mtn 1584, Let me get straight you have two people you know that got this new washer and don't like the cleaning performance and yet you are defending this machine based on reviews from people you don't know. Neither of us can confirm these on line reviews.

Yes I was one of the first to sound the alarm about this new washer, but gives me no satisfaction in being right as this change has affected me in a negative way more than any other person on this site. By this time last year we had sold more than 20 SQ TL washers, this year so far we have only sold two of the new machines so far, that equals a financial loss to us of around $4,500.00 and counting, but you can,t change the facts, we are hopping they are working on a redesign fix for this unfortunate product design problem.

Post# 993759 , Reply# 2   5/10/2018 at 12:09 by twintubdexter (Palm Springs)        

twintubdexter's profile picture

I guess I'm as guilty as the next person in contributing to the Speed Queen "Hoopla"... but in reality all that's needed is to pop several of these pills and then check out any real (not animated) video.



  View Full Size
Post# 993763 , Reply# 3   5/10/2018 at 12:30 by potatochips (Nova Scotia)        

While I agree some members brand bash to irritating ends, I feel this SQ issue may be warranted. Just a damn washer or not, American company that employs Americans or not, you dont need to buy the machine to see the fact in reputable YouTube videos that all this machine does is swirl a bunch of clothes around in water. 

Post# 993767 , Reply# 4   5/10/2018 at 12:42 by pierreandreply4 (St-Bruno de montarville (province of quebec) canada)        
the choice of a washer depends on 1 needs and daily use

pierreandreply4's profile picture
the choice of a washer sdpeed queen or any other brands depends on 1 one needs and daily use if 1 clothes are not that dirty then they will come out perfectly clean and the big question is do you do laundry everyday or once a week or 1 every 2 days like I said it all depends on 1 use of the washer

Post# 993770 , Reply# 5   5/10/2018 at 13:42 by Infusor (Usa)        

Mtn1584, i totally agree with you. You took all the words right out of my mouth. In another thread i constantly was being attacked just because i stated how in consumer reports tests even the fisher and paykel agitator top load only scored "fair" with a 55 min cycle. And the new speed queen scored "fair" for a 50 min cycle. So wash action is NOT the issue! I simply asked why nobody slams fisher and paykel???? Guess what nobody says a word. I said i was going to buy a new TR3 and let the group knoe how it works out, i never even got ONE like or anything or anybody saying im happy we look forward to your input. Nothing but a bunch of bitter people on here complaining that everything modern is junk. By the way eugenes "ketchup" test did had the same results with his pentaswirl as the 2018 speed queen, he even said in the video he couldnt tell the difference, did he slam the kenmore? NOPE didnt say a word! Oh thats right..... its vintage it can do no wrong. People on here a clearly TOTALLY biased!!!!! And it irks me

Post# 993775 , Reply# 6   5/10/2018 at 13:55 by johnb300m (Chicago)        

johnb300m's profile picture
Speed Queen is absolutely being treated as a religion here by some.
It's hilarious.

Just because they're made in a WI factory by Americans, doesn't mean I'm obliged to buy junk.
Besides this is ONE bad washer line, out of multiples of dozens of perfectly good product lines Alliance has.
They'll be fine.
And if they're smart, they'll fix this one junky washer line.

Post# 993790 , Reply# 7   5/10/2018 at 15:25 by Iheartmaytag (Wichita, Kansas)        

iheartmaytag's profile picture
The Hindenburg had glowing reviews. . .Just saying.

Post# 993801 , Reply# 8   5/10/2018 at 16:34 by Infusor (Usa)        

Johnb, junk? Do you even own one? The whirlpool cabrio is junk. "Hindenburg had good reviews" so reviews dont matter? But you think consumer reports and cnet are credible reviews 😂 consumer reports also said the dependable care maytags were poor washers 😂. Biased much.

Post# 993830 , Reply# 9   5/10/2018 at 21:25 by twintubdexter (Palm Springs)        
Glowing reviews from the manufacturer's site...

twintubdexter's profile picture

No surprise there. And the Hindenberg's reviews were really glowing at the end...touche' Iheartmaytag. 

  View Full Size
Post# 993833 , Reply# 10   5/10/2018 at 21:50 by iheartmaytag (Wichita, Kansas)        
Thanks Joe

iheartmaytag's profile picture
You got my pun.
Manufactures reviews: Ford thought highly of the Pinto. Come to think of it they glowed too, but only from the rear.

Post# 993834 , Reply# 11   5/10/2018 at 22:02 by speedqueen (Harrison Twp, Michigan)        

speedqueen's profile picture

Post# 993839 , Reply# 12   5/10/2018 at 23:25 by Infusor (Usa)        

And some people think highly of a new cabrio.

Post# 993840 , Reply# 13   5/10/2018 at 23:27 by Infusor (Usa)        

This is not from speed queens website.

  View Full Size
Post# 993843 , Reply# 14   5/11/2018 at 00:36 by MattL (Flushing, MI)        

I find it really funny how things have turned.  I quite reading posts that started with "Help finding a new washer"  because with out fail the SQ fan boys would come out in full force and try to drown any other voices out.  Regardless if the poster indicated it was out of their price range. Now we get "Don't buy the new SQ"...  and then there are threads like this one.

Post# 993846 , Reply# 15   5/11/2018 at 02:24 by sq9series (seattle)        

"In another thread i constantly was being attacked just because i stated how in consumer reports tests even the fisher and paykel agitator top load only scored "fair" with a 55 min cycle. And the new speed queen scored "fair" for a 50 min cycle. So wash action is NOT the issue!"

You mentioned that the new washer had fair cleaning performance using the heavy duty cycle. However, I don't believe that is an apples to apples comparison to the F&P machine. The F&P machine scored fair using the normal/EPA cycle which likely used reduced water at a cooler temperature.

I believe the F&P machine would get a bump in performance if they tested it using a heavy duty cycle. I don't think CR normally does this but felt compelled to do the test with SQ because the cleaning performance on the normal/EPA cycle was terrible.

My take from CR is that the best this new machine can do is fair using a heavy duty cycle, whereas the previous model, the one I have, scored very good on cleaning performance using the normal/EPA cycle.

Post# 993847 , Reply# 16   5/11/2018 at 02:59 by foraloysius (Leeuwarden, the Netherlands)        

foraloysius's profile picture
What changed your opinion so radically?

In this thread you were rather negative and also came with evidence that Speed Queen removed negative reviews.

Post# 993849 , Reply# 17   5/11/2018 at 05:07 by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.)        

dadoes's profile picture
sq9series:  You mentioned that the new washer had fair cleaning performance using the heavy duty cycle. However, I don't believe that is an apples to apples comparison to the F&P machine. The F&P machine scored fair using the normal/EPA cycle which likely used reduced water at a cooler temperature.
F&P's WashSmart model is a low-temperature agitator machine via the Eco Smart design but it is not low-water (thus the Allergy cycle can provides a full-to-the-top tap-hot fill).  The AquaSmart models are low-water, impeller machines.

Post# 993851 , Reply# 18   5/11/2018 at 05:49 by chetlaham (United States)        

chetlaham's profile picture
Considering that Speed Queen has and was openly deleting negative reviews, whos to say those positive reviews aren't fake? I can't believe no one has brought up this possibility.

Also, I do see positive experiences if customers have switched from poorer machines or do not have dirty clothes.

Post# 993858 , Reply# 19   5/11/2018 at 08:36 by neptunebob (Pittsburgh, PA)        
It could be "cognitive dissonance"..

neptunebob's profile picture
See, I did learn something in psychology class!. What I mean is someone who has spent at lot of money on a SQ (I can't believe a top loader is over $1000) who thought they were getting the best cannot "admit to themselves" that they "made a mistake". IF a consumer told everybody they know that they are buying the best TL washer on Earth, it is human nature to be reluctant to admit you made the mistake of buying what looks like a "clothes swimming pool" that does not clean the clothes. Cognitive dissonance happens in issues like racism so it's understandable it would occur with washing machines too. CD might also explain why SQ management does not want to change the machine, it would be admitting a mistake.

Post# 993875 , Reply# 20   5/11/2018 at 12:57 by Infusor (Usa)        

Yes it is apples to apples genius, both 50min cycles both warm water. Funny how you make excuses for the fisher and paykel but bash speed queen. "Oh well it would do better with a longer cycle" ya well the speed queens heavy duty is as long as fisher and paykels normal and they get same results go figure. " oh well the FP would do better on heavy duty" yeah FP heavy duty is well over an hour. Give speed queen over an hour and it would do great. You are clearly biased

Post# 993882 , Reply# 21   5/11/2018 at 14:29 by henene4 (Germany)        
It is not apples to apples

The SQ can't clean any better, it's its most intensive cycle.

The F&P is doing that on its Normal cycle, it still has at least 2 cycles that would clean even better.

Post# 993883 , Reply# 22   5/11/2018 at 14:48 by Infusor (Usa)        

YES IT IS!!!!!! Cycle time temp everything is the same, do you not have common sense?? There is a cycle on the tr7 called max soil, it has an even longer wash time AND a soak period. You do not know what you are talking about.

Post# 993884 , Reply# 23   5/11/2018 at 14:58 by johnb300m (Chicago)        

johnb300m's profile picture
I would recommend nobody take the bait in here anymore.
This thread is getting downright mean and ridiculous.

Post# 993885 , Reply# 24   5/11/2018 at 14:58 by Infusor (Usa)        

Im done trying to explain common sense to people too challenged to comprehend. WITH THE SAME AMOUNT OF WASH TIME THEY PERFORM THE SAME!!!! Ughh. 50 min and 55 min pretty comparable to me. You are trying to compare a 28 min cycle to a 55 min cycle. Heavy duty is basically speed queens normal cycle. Even says in the owners manual normal eco is only for "lightly soiled items"

Post# 993891 , Reply# 25   5/11/2018 at 15:55 by potatochips (Nova Scotia)        

No one is saying SQ as a whole is the modern day WCI, that all of their products are junk. Were just saying their top loaders are junk. Front loaders are still cool with us. 

Post# 993896 , Reply# 26   5/11/2018 at 17:39 by Infusor (Usa)        

If it was truely just about "cleaning results" then you shouldn't like alot of vintage machines then. Belt drive kenmore with the pentaswirl agitator. It does not remove stains that well. It is junk.

Post# 993897 , Reply# 27   5/11/2018 at 17:48 by Infusor (Usa)        

All stains left after washing.


Post# 993900 , Reply# 28   5/11/2018 at 18:35 by GELaundry4ever (Killeen tx USA)        
I told you!

I told you it doesn't work!

Post# 993910 , Reply# 29   5/11/2018 at 20:00 by Infusor (Usa)        

After a bad review from CNET on the new Speed Queen laundry. This is a letter we received from Speed Queen. We have sold several of these machines our customers have been very happy.

Speed Queen Home Laundry Reviews
Dear Valued Speed Queen Home Dealer:

Over the last several days, you may have been made aware of reviews of Speed Queen’s 2018 top load washer by Consumer Reports and CNET. They were not flattering.

However, they were not accurate, either.

As you may have customers reference these reviews, it’s important that you and your sales staff have all the information to share with them.

Both entities ran tests utilizing the Normal-Eco cycle. This cycle was NEVER designed to handle the heavy soil stains – blood, wine, chocolate, etc. – they used to gauge washability. The Normal-Eco cycle, as stated in the user’s guide, is for everyday cottons and linens. Speed Queen’s Heavy Duty cycle is the most effective selection for maximum stain removal. And in this area, we excel.

Using those same standardized Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) tests, the SQ top load washer Heavy Duty cycle performed 23 percent BETTER than the Normal-Eco cycle and 5 percent better than our 2017 model’s Heavy Duty cycle. These results were more than 5 percent better than a popular competitor’s Heavy Duty cycle.

Reviewers and social media detractors want to spotlight the top load’s new wash action as a problem. However, as the numbers above show, it is actually delivering improved wash quality. In addition, it is 20 percent more gentle on fabrics – a key point to make with customers, as we all know how much we spend annually on clothing, particularly athletic clothes with technical fibers.

The bottom line is that our 2018 redesign made an already great product even better. Speed Queen spent three years in research, development and testing, in addition to thousands of engineering hours designing this commercial quality washer. We built in a Normal-Eco cycle to meet DOE standards for light soil items, while offering users greater flexibility to select the best cycle for their soil level. We made it quieter and ramped up the spin speed to reduce drying time.

While no washer on the market today will remove every stain 100 percent of the time, our 2018 top load delivers excellent wash performance. In addition, consumers get all the hallmarks of a commercial quality Speed Queen product – unmatched commercial quality components, exceptional reliability and industry-best warranties, all from a company with a 110-year pedigree of excellence. Laundry is all we do.

Watch for additional communications on this topic and, in the meantime, visit our YouTube channel to learn about the new product, or visit the Speed Queen Dealer Center to read a letter from Jay McDonald, vice president of North American home laundry sales.
Speed Queen Retail Marketing Team

Post# 993915 , Reply# 30   5/11/2018 at 21:20 by Lorainfurniture (Cleveland )        

I’m a “social media detractor” lol

Post# 993916 , Reply# 31   5/11/2018 at 21:23 by Lorainfurniture (Cleveland )        

In all seriousness, I did all of my testing with the heavy duty cycle. I never used the normal cycle ever.

Post# 993917 , Reply# 32   5/11/2018 at 21:26 by GELaundry4ever (Killeen tx USA)        
I hope...

they improve their wash action, period.

Post# 993918 , Reply# 33   5/11/2018 at 21:40 by speedqueen (Harrison Twp, Michigan)        
You received this letter?

speedqueen's profile picture
Does that mean you are a Speed Queen Dealer?

There was a man on this forum who immediately after purchasing liked it and after using it for a couple months has now changed his mind,

This post was last edited 05/12/2018 at 03:29
Post# 993919 , Reply# 34   5/11/2018 at 21:42 by Infusor (Usa)        

Funny how nobody wants to comment on how the 2017 speed queen left behind most stains according to

Post# 993920 , Reply# 35   5/11/2018 at 21:54 by sq9series (seattle)        

On 2-9-18, Infusor made a one sentence post stating:

"Anybody that thinks that the 2018 speed queen cleans good has very low standards."

Post# 993922 , Reply# 36   5/11/2018 at 22:24 by Infusor (Usa)        

That was in reference to eugenes video. Then i saw other videos (not pre production machine) and realized it was quite good. Hos machine can't even move around 5 pairs of dickies, yet kirks moves around 5 pairs of jeans like crazy.

Post# 993923 , Reply# 37   5/11/2018 at 22:45 by GELaundry4ever (Killeen tx USA)        
speed queen...

needs to improve on their entire wash system.

Post# 993924 , Reply# 38   5/11/2018 at 22:49 by Infusor (Usa)        

What about reviewed.coms review on the 2017 speed queen not removing stains??

Post# 993925 , Reply# 39   5/11/2018 at 22:54 by lakewebsterkid (Dayton, Ohio)        
I will

I will certainly comment on the Reviewed webpage.

"For example, the similarly priced Electrolux EFLS617SIW removed 27 percent more stains than this Speed Queen on its Heavy Duty cycle and 13 percent more stains on its Whites cycle. We got similar results from Kenmore, LG, Maytag, and Whirlpool front-loaders"

They used the Whites and Heavy Duty cycles as their comparison. In CR's testing, these machines using the Normal cycle took nearly 2 hours. These Whites and Heavy Duty cycles are likely the same time. Are you going to admit that Reviewed found significantly WORSE results with the 2018 machine? They did. I find it appalling that SQ is stating that the Normal cycle is designed for light soil loads when it is the NORMAL cycle. Imagine a dishwasher being discussed in the same manner. Would you eat off of those dishes? I sure as hell wouldn't.

Post# 993927 , Reply# 40   5/11/2018 at 23:12 by Infusor (Usa)        

So you are all about "results" when it comes to the 2018 but the 2017 results mean nothing.

Post# 993930 , Reply# 41   5/11/2018 at 23:33 by lakewebsterkid (Dayton, Ohio)        

The results speak for themselves when consistent tests are REPEATED and the results are CONTINUOUSLY WORSE. Do you really not understand the point that everyone is making?! People wanted this machine to live up to the standard that SQ was giving it in their introduction. It doesn't. They said that it cleaned 4% better than the 2017, but all results speak otherwise, then SQ releases a statement saying that this cycle is not for soiled clothes but rather dusty ones. Even they are contradicting what they have said. Also, since they are deleting reviews, doesn't that speak volumes?

Post# 993931 , Reply# 42   5/11/2018 at 23:43 by Infusor (Usa)        

That's my point! According to the 2017 did not do well eather.

Post# 993932 , Reply# 43   5/11/2018 at 23:45 by lakewebsterkid (Dayton, Ohio)        

Again, you clearly don't understand everyone else's point or my own.

Post# 993933 , Reply# 44   5/11/2018 at 23:49 by Infusor (Usa)        

Your point is ignore the facts about the 2017. Because you are biased thats why.

Post# 993937 , Reply# 45   5/12/2018 at 01:45 by thomasortega (Los Angeles - CA)        

Ok, let's add some facts to the discussion?

In a few weeks I'll receive a box of stain strips for test loads on the new model we will release soon and we made ina hurry because of this speed queen situation.

Can any of those members that sell speed queen washers send me one unit for a few days? It will be my pleasure to run the cycle under controlled environment. I can recreate both D.O.E. and INMETRO (Brazilian standard) tests and measure accuratelly the water and electrical consumption and the cleaning performance (analyzing the samples on a spectrophotometer).

And anybody that wants to follow me is very welcome to come to my lab in Los Angeles and watch it happening right in front of your eyes, only to make sure any of the results were tempered.

Unless speed queen managed to find a way to break hydrodinamics laws, that washer is a POS. (Just like many top load washers) And honestly, it doesn't need a complex testing procedure to realize that. The mechanical action is POOR, almost inexistent, a shame to speed queen because until last year they had wonderful washers that I didn't like because they were too "boring" but I always respected because they had a superior cleaning performance and durability that nobody could dare to deny.

ANd about those reviews... Not stereotyping anybody but what is the average profile of Speed Queen users? Lawyers? Doctors? Executives? After a whole day working in an air conditioned office, they drive their mercedes-benz to their 10 million dollar houses and drop their "nasty" clothes in the washer.

Now do the same with a delivery driver or a landscaper... toss their clothes in a speed queen after a whole day at work... will it clean?

Anyway, I won't speculate. Let's do the test using the official standarized testing procedure? My equipment and consumables are available, I just don't have the washer. The company was going to buy one but seeing some videos I was so sure that washer is a POS that I recommended to abort the idea because it wouldn't be any difficult for me to design a washer much better than speed queen.

Next week the prototype should arrive here for testing... What about if we make a comparison test? I can promess I'll give 1 million dollars to speed queen and put a banner in our website saying Speed Queen is MUCH better than the model Avalon by The Laundry Alternative Inc. if speed queen cleans better than the Avalon using the "normal" cycle.

By the way, the Avalon "Normal" cycle is 29 minutes. it has a decent agitator that reminds a little bit the easy Spiralator, it fills with water up to the top (almost touching the balance ring) and it agitates as a washer should agitate, with slow and long strokes and if that wasn't enough, it has 4 different agitation patterns/ speeds.

As Miranda Pristley says, That's all! 

Post# 993939 , Reply# 46   5/12/2018 at 02:21 by GELaundry4ever (Killeen tx USA)        
heavy duty

If available, you should use the heavy-duty cycle, which is the real normal cycle for speed queen.

Post# 993942 , Reply# 47   5/12/2018 at 04:08 by thomasortega (Los Angeles - CA)        

Standarized test is standarized test. 

It has to be the cycle named as "normal", at specific water temperature, with an specific load, an specific way to load the washer and an specific "detergent".

Manufacturers can't simply say "oh, we determined that for testing you must select the heavy duty cycle" It doesn't work like that.
No washer cleans 100% at "normal" cycle. the residual stains determine the cleaning performance score.
The manufacturer also can not say "you must use X detergent and X dose. The detergent is also standarized, so the test can compare models with result fidelity and continuity.

And speed queen will surely have a horrible score, probably the worst ever. That washer doesn't clean as the older speed queens, not even close. And we don't even need a test for that. THe 2018 SQ washers are actually expensive "rinsers" or washers made to remove only light sweat. Stains they will not remove because they don't create enough mechanical action.

It may be great for delicate items, so gentle it is. but again... delicate items often include bras and panties.... and you know panties also have tiremarks or blood stains... will it clean? I doubt! older speed queens, I didn't test, but I'm 99.9999999% sure they will clean perfectly or at least "much-more-than-merely-acceptable".

Post# 993950 , Reply# 48   5/12/2018 at 07:12 by pierreandreply4 (St-Bruno de montarville (province of quebec) canada)        
if you where to buy a sdpeed queen today?

pierreandreply4's profile picture
if you where to buy a speed queen today what would you buy the 2018 model or its vintage counterpart that has an overflow rinse?

Post# 993951 , Reply# 49   5/12/2018 at 07:45 by speedqueen (Harrison Twp, Michigan)        

speedqueen's profile picture
My love for the 1957 model is why I named my account what I named it. I would do anything to acquire one of those!

Post# 993968 , Reply# 50   5/12/2018 at 09:08 by ryanm (New York)        

I hesitate to post here but after using the TR5 for months I don't need any further tests to prove that the results that were reported by CR, CNET and such are correct because I have used the max cycle on most everything and yes when I first got the machine I thought it was going to be OK and thought I made a good purchase until I began to notice more and more articles of clothing that didn't come clean no matter what detergent I used and I had never experienced such evidence of this with any other machine. Keep in mind I am talking about every day dirt not 'farming' dirt, but the kind of stuff that happens when you kneel on your jeans, or your white sox get dirty, or you cook and get food on your clothing, even other stuff. I only wish I had pictures to show folks here what I am talking about then you would see why I was one of those people with egg on my face about this purchase because you just would not believe how poorly this machine performed.

At first thought I may be doing something wrong, so I did do smaller loads and that didn't make a difference. I finally came to the conclusion that the wash action just does not scrub the clothes and that if I stopped the machine mid cycle the same articles were on the top and never got dragged down, if you had a wash cloth on top, it just sat there till the end of a 25 minute wash period (yes this machine does do a long wash cycle on max). If you have heavier items like sheets or towels, forget it, nothing moves at all. Everyone here keeps saying 'longer wash time will work', well it didn't with mine. I don't say this because I want to bash SQ, in fact quite the opposite it is very disappointing to me because I had faith that they couldn't possibly put out something so bad and I do feel their product is build very well BUT I also want clean clothes.

The fact that the company is still putting out the propaganda as we saw in this link is sad because I know they are aware of the complaints as I have been informed of this. I appreciate that some want to 'defend' this new machine or SQ and I understand that loyalty BUT if they had the experience first hand that I have had, I believe anyone would then change their mind on this subject. It is my honest hope that some how in the future SQ will address the fact that you do need a better 'wash action' that somewhat scrubs clothes and does not just drag them through water. Using this much water to wash only 5 pairs of jeans as the test on youtube showed is not the normal way that this machine would be used, most people will not waste that much water on only 5 articles. My point is if you use this for a real 'normal' household load the clothes just don't circulate at all. Those posting 'good' reviews on SQ website may change their minds like i did once they use it for a while, or maybe they just don't pay attention to how their clothes that were once clean are now showing residual stains and dirt all over the place. I only post this to give everyone here a look at an actual member who had this bad experience. By the way on the TR7 many of the 'special' cycles are aIlso ECO cycles too, so for SQ to say don't use ECO means half their special cycles shouldn't be used. Also if you read CR report the TR7 results were so bad that they actually DID use the most extensive cycle to RETEST and said it only made a 'small' improvement in cleaning, and that is what I did too with my TR5 trying to soak before washing or even running wash twice, didn't make a difference. As for me I never use ECO cycle. I know there are those here who will probably bash what I wrote here, but I am only showing my personal experience as a means to bring a 'true user' experience to the group here. At this point I honestly think there are many other washers out there that perform much better and cost less. I learned my lesson, high price does not mean clean.....

Post# 993969 , Reply# 51   5/12/2018 at 09:33 by Johnb300m (Chicago)        

johnb300m's profile picture
Ryan, before you get railroaded, I want to THANK YOU for your earnest, good hearted post of your first hand experience.

Post# 993976 , Reply# 52   5/12/2018 at 11:51 by Infusor (Usa)        

Agitator washers as a whole do not perorm well in CRs tests. Again.... if it was truely about "cleaning tests" nobody would buy them. The ge top load GTW330ASKWW (you know, the one you all like with the big fins on the agitator that is so vigerous it splashes water out of the tub) only got "fair" for cleaning. Why not hostility for that machine then?

Post# 993981 , Reply# 53   5/12/2018 at 12:27 by lakewebsterkid (Dayton, Ohio)        
Ryanm and ThomasOrtega

Both of you, I applaud you. Ryanm, thank you for your honest review. This is exactly what we are discussing here. I would be extremely disappointed in the machine if I had the experience that you have had. ThomasOrtega, I would love to, both, provide you with a machine and travel to LA to witness the tests being performed however I am unable to do either! I also would not be a good candidate for your research since I will reduce the internal validity of the study due to experimenter bias. LMAO!

Post# 993982 , Reply# 54   5/12/2018 at 12:30 by thomasortega (Los Angeles - CA)        

Most people are buying SQ because of the reputation the name has. for decades making excellent washers.

It is sad and hard to believe SQ released such stupid washer. but yes, they did it.

Post# 993984 , Reply# 55   5/12/2018 at 12:56 by Infusor (Usa)        

So i give you proof of people i have talked to that said the machine did great and you dismiss it and say "its just a review" yet if its NEGATIVE you are all about reviews. Just proves all you ignorant and biased people on here are all about attacking me. And literally anything i say. And some peoples vandetta against speed queen. In the words of eugene "its going to be a bloid bath" if thats not vandetta i dont know what is. I guess it doesnt matter anyways, all you people on here do is complain how everything modern is basically junk anyways.

Post# 993987 , Reply# 56   5/12/2018 at 13:19 by lakewebsterkid (Dayton, Ohio)        

If I recall correctly, weren't you the one that started this thread to bash us? We also provided you with a review that started good and turned south once clothes started to not come out clean. You dismissed a member's review, not us. By the way, I own all modern machines and prefer them. A majority of us here have a few "modern" machines and love them. You have been the one attacking people about our discussions in regards to the new SQ 2018 TL and the reviews that CR and CNET gave. If you don't want people to disagree with you, don't start a thread on a public forum. It is actually that easy. Nobody wants to be attacked day in and day out, but you are putting yourself in that position. You clearly can't hold an argumentative conversation without feeling attacked. This is an issue. This forum is to spread the JOY of laundry and washers, and to inform and enlighten those who show interests as well. I am very glad to be a part of this forum despite the fact that my views do not line up with everyone's here. However, that is a part of being an adult. Everyone had the right to their opinion and beliefs, HOWEVER, if I can prove that your's is not true with factual information, I will try to enlighten you to have a greater knowledge base. I tried, and so did others. Everyone here wanted these SQ machines to be better than the outgoing ones. We are discussing the issues because we are all disappointed. Hence, why the subject of our discussion is the SQ and not the Fisher and Paykel or the GE.

Post# 993989 , Reply# 57   5/12/2018 at 13:31 by lakewebsterkid (Dayton, Ohio)        

*started replying on this thread

Post# 993990 , Reply# 58   5/12/2018 at 13:33 by RP2813 (The Big Blue Bubble)        
With such a belligerent tone right out of the gate

rp2813's profile picture

I agree that threads such as this need their own forum for this sort of angry bickering, perhaps an annex like, Dirty Laundry That Won't Come Clean.


I have no skin in this game.  I am not a SQ TL fan, period.  Not even 2017 and older.  I had a Raytheon Amana for nine years, and I learned my lesson. 


As for bashing people on this forum who state flatly that vintage top loaders are better than anything new, well, the home page here clearly explains why that should come as no surprise.  Of the non-pay forums, Deluxe sees the least traffic by a wide margin.

Post# 993997 , Reply# 59   5/12/2018 at 14:44 by twintubdexter (Palm Springs)        
A new prescription from Dr. Twintub...

twintubdexter's profile picture

Obviously me and my "bocca grande" (big mouth) made a mistake suggesting those common sense pills. 

Take these instead...

  View Full Size
Post# 994001 , Reply# 60   5/12/2018 at 15:13 by GELaundry4ever (Killeen tx USA)        
the new sq washer sounds...

The new sq washer sounds like robots swimming in water on a beach somewhere.

Post# 994002 , Reply# 61   5/12/2018 at 15:40 by ea56 (Sonoma Co.,CA)        
Re: Reply #59

ea56's profile picture
Good idea Joe! But in light of the intensity of some of the exchanges perhaps an IV drip of Antivan might be more in order.

Holy Mackerel! They are just washing machines for Christs Sake! Now I know the premise of this website is primarily devoted to the interest and love of these machines, but get a grip!

Everyone has there own likes, dislikes and expectations for their washing machines. One mans poison is another mans treasure. It servers no purpose to denagrate others for their opinions, other than to create ill will. There is quite enough of that to go around in our country and world right now. It might be best to try and get along, live and let live, wash and let wash.

That’s just my two cents worth.


Post# 994006 , Reply# 62   5/12/2018 at 16:12 by GELaundry4ever (Killeen tx USA)        

Why can't we all just get along?

Post# 994016 , Reply# 63   5/12/2018 at 18:29 by stricklybojack (San Diego, CA)        

stricklybojack's profile picture
One reason the GTW330ASKWW gets a pass is it regularly costs about half of the new SQ machine.
It also will go on sale for significantly less than that, whereas SQ machines never seem to go on sale appreciably.
Cost is a factor, but so to is expectation. A lot of people here loved the old SQ TL machine, despite it's many short comings. So then SQ "improves" it, jacks up the price, but takes away the very quality people loved about the old one (besides a substantial metal cabinet), it's ability to wash dirty cloths clean vigorously, using lots of water. The amount of water stayed the same (I guess), however SQ only made a nod in the "vigorous" direction by using an agitator instead of a wash would appear to not have fooled many here.
I too essentially lack a dog in this hunt, no sleep lost. So unlike some disgruntled former fans, I will no doubt be happy to someday buy the new SQ machine --USED-- at a far lower price point. That said, like Bill Clinton, I feel their pain ;-]

Post# 994019 , Reply# 64   5/12/2018 at 18:43 by cuffs054 (MONTICELLO, GA)        

Didn't the video guy put the detergent into the fabric softner dispenser?

Post# 994044 , Reply# 65   5/13/2018 at 01:45 by Infusor (Usa)        

Yes he did put the detergent into the fabric softener dispenser. No wonder these machines get "poor results"

Post# 994046 , Reply# 66   5/13/2018 at 05:50 by thomasortega (Los Angeles - CA)        

There is still hope...

As this new speed queen motivated me to create a new washer in a hurry, I'm having long conversations with the company CEO and the marketing manager to, eventually, invest some money in a speed queen and run the official test only to make a comparison with the Avalon.

And i gave the suggestion to make the test live on youtube, only to make sure nobody would have a chance to say we cheated.

Then i will just sit and laugh.

It is sad, all manufacturers fail someday, once I failed so terribly that for months I thought about quitting my job at Electrolux and never again sit on a drawing desk.

The best quality an engineer or designer can have (and consequently the company) is admit the mistake and work hard to correct it ASAP.

This SQ washer is THE mistake. It doesn't even need a test to know it will never clean as expected when you invest a fortune trusting the SQ tradition. Even one of those silly "Panda" washing machines clean better. Actually, even the WonderWash, our hand crank washing machine cleans better than that "thing".

But, the industry survives with competition. Thanks to this catastrophic mistake, i had the chance to convince the company CEO to invest over 1 million dollars to swim in an ocean never explored by the Laundry Alternative Inc. before: Full size washing machines.

It was my chance to show people it is possible to follow the ridiculus D.O.E. standards (actually find gaps to be able to use a full tub with tap hot water and other two full tubs to rinse), agitate clothes like a vintage washer (almost like a Shredmore) and at the same time have profit not by reducing quality and using flimsy parts or appealing to programmed obsolescence.

In 7 months we did it. AND it will have a super long full warranty (parts and labor).

Sorry Speed Queen. You could've done your homework and every time I came with a crazy expensive idea, my boss would continue saying "Thomas, calm down! we're not Speed Queen, we're just The Laundry Alternative.

Now we can proudly say the same thing... We're NOT Speed Queen, We're much better than that crap.

I'm ready for terrible first impressions. Our new washer is 100% made of plastic (PP and Kevlar) while SQ is made of steel and porcelain. But our washer not only washes much better, Every millimeter of it was designed and overdimensioned to last.

Do you know any other company that gives 10 years full warranty (parts and labor), 15 years on PCB (parts and labor) and 25 years on bearings (again parts and labor) as standard?

This is how we trust the Avalon.

And the Avalon was just a drop in an ocean. It opened the doors to me, My boss finally realized I am able to design excellent washers (i have over 50 models that reached the market on my portfolio) We will have a premium full size HATL washer, just like the europeans and a washer dryer combo on the same platform. The company is changing a lot thanks to this SQ mistake. Until now, our competitors were Panda and Haier, with the super compact washers. Now we want to compete with the big ones, Samsung, Whirlpool, LG, Electrolux.


Sorry, Speed Queen but.... Thank you for making this huge mistake and doing nothing to correct it.

In a couple of weeks, I'll be glad to post here a video with the final prototype that is coming to my lab. No tests needed, just watch 10 seconds of the agitation and you will be sure it cleans better than a Speed Queen.

Post# 994047 , Reply# 67   5/13/2018 at 06:07 by Rolls_rapide (Scotland, UK)        

rolls_rapide's profile picture
Please excuse me for suggesting this, but...

...if agitator top-loaders such as Speed Queen are getting bland results; and wash-plate top-loaders aren't any better...

... wouldn't it make sense just to grasp the bloody nettle and go out and buy a front-loader?

And before anyone says any different, the front-loader, originally being of American invention (i.e. Bendix), has been well tested by a good proportion of the rest of the world - for absolute yonks. And it works.

So - get out of the mindset of using a 'now constrained technology', and embrace alternative technologies. After all, I'm sure there are many on here who once had cathode ray tube televisions, who have upgraded to newer technologies such as plasma, LCD, LED, OLED. And similarly mobile phones to smartphones. And so on.

And for those of you who think that the modern 'Speed Queen' brand is a goddess to be worshipped, just remember this: Hoover Limited in Britain, was once amongst the quality gods - and came an almighty cropper ('Free Flights Fiasco', ultimately Hoover Ltd was bought by Candy). Now Hoover's products are absolute rubbish.

Post# 994048 , Reply# 68   5/13/2018 at 06:14 by neptunebob (Pittsburgh, PA)        

neptunebob's profile picture
With some of the posters here, I am detecting a lot of cognitive dissonance. Rolls-Rapide, you are right about the front loaders, but Speed Queen discontinued their front loaders (though one can still get the stack) so what sense does that make?

Post# 994049 , Reply# 69   5/13/2018 at 06:19 by Rolls_rapide (Scotland, UK)        

rolls_rapide's profile picture
What I am saying is, "Forget Speed Queen altogether."

They decided to stop producing domestic front-loaders, and they've ruined their top-loaders. So now is the time to jump ship to other brands. Simples.

Post# 994058 , Reply# 70   5/13/2018 at 09:12 by panthera (Rocky Mountains)        
This is just plain silly.

panthera's profile picture

Those defending the 2018 Speed Queen are just sailing their barges down the river de'nial.

Whilst watching the villagers wash their clothes CLEANER on the banks than their piece of ill-conceived machinery will ever get them.


Look - we all have our loves and passions. I happen to prefer thumpers (especially in PANK!) to anything else. I am not, however, going to pretend that they aren't just as good at tangling sheets (yes, dahlinks, I do the four zones) as they are at washing - and nothing washes cleaner.


So, come on SQ apologists - you're just hurting your case by telling the rest of us (and the independent testers) we don't know what we're talking about. You sound like corporate shills. Perhaps you are?


Post# 994061 , Reply# 71   5/13/2018 at 10:08 by Imperial70 (******)        
stain removal

I was taught in home economics class to remove the stains before throwing them in the laundry. I still do that today. At the very least I pre-treat them. This post has nothing to do with the cleaning efficiency of any particular washing machine. I just don't like to have to repeat the process.

Post# 994069 , Reply# 72   5/13/2018 at 12:28 by neptunebob (Pittsburgh, PA)        

neptunebob's profile picture
Panthera, you are a college professor, don't you think all those positive reports are an effect of cognitive dissonance. But I guess you weren't a psychology professor, were you?

Post# 994072 , Reply# 73   5/13/2018 at 12:39 by panthera (Rocky Mountains)        

panthera's profile picture
Nah, my faculty worked in the hard sciences.
It strikes me as half stubborn refusal to accept reality (cognitive dissonance) and half willing deceit.
Beats me. If I had SQ's reputation to protect, you can bet I'd have already recalled the defective machines and long since fixed them.

Post# 997750 , Reply# 74   6/19/2018 at 17:30 by wft2800 (Leatherhead, Surrey)        

Let's face it - SQ top-loaders have always been crap, and the 2018 ones are just the shittest of the lot. The old 50s/60s solid-tubs? A Maytag, Filter-Flo, Frigidaire or Norge would wash circles round those things. The modern Raytheon Amana-derived beasts made up to the end of last year? The tubs index like crazy, the agitation is anaemic and the roll-over non-existent. The wash-plate machines don't work (with the exception of the one Bendix designed in the 50s, I forget what it's called, rolls over like crazy!) and are still water-hogs with larger loads... why not just bite the bullet, as RR suggested, and go FL? SQ may not be listening, but now that Maytag has brought out its new commercial TL, I wonder if they could be persuaded to introduce a FL version?

Post# 997758 , Reply# 75   6/19/2018 at 18:06 by speedqueen (Harrison Twp, Michigan)        
Speed Queen always terrible, I beg to differ

speedqueen's profile picture

The 50s/60s solid tub models washed quite well, actually. Even Consumer Reports said that they washed well at the time. Maytag was the anemic one with only 180 degree arc and slower agitation, little turn over when loaded to capacity, The agitator wasn't suited to the narrow, tall tub of an automatic, especially the large capacity "deep tub" models. While I have never used a solid tub SQ, I have owned a Maytag A207(just got rid of it, actually) and presently have a GE FilterFlo in service as a secondary(classic & fun) machine, the FF cleans better than the 'Tag and our modern SQ is on par with either.


The semi-modern "Raytheon" models are quite good machines, they only index for maybe a week after purchase. That is what ours did. It has good turn-over unless you really overload it. The wavy "Flex-Vane" agitator works quite well. We like it far better than the Roper DD machine it replaced.

Post# 997761 , Reply# 76   6/19/2018 at 18:11 by wft2800 (Leatherhead, Surrey)        

True, the Maytags are a bit sensitive to overloading, but as long as you don't... and with the perforated tubs, they extract and rinse better. The modern SQs always index even after multiple years in service unless you go very easy on loadings...

Post# 997766 , Reply# 77   6/19/2018 at 18:34 by speedqueen (Harrison Twp, Michigan)        

speedqueen's profile picture

I own one, it doesn't index.

Post# 997784 , Reply# 78   6/19/2018 at 20:07 by nmassman44 (Boston North Shore Massachusetts)        

nmassman44's profile picture
Here is the thing about a Speed Queen solid tub washer...I know because my parents had two of them when I was growing up and I was doing the laundry...even way back then. Yes they did wash quite well , but thats where it ends. Capacity was lacking and doing laundry for 7 people was alot of work with this 2 plus loads a day. I once decided to just do laundry once a week and when you have 7 people...5 kids and 2 parents...I was doing laundry all day long on Saturdays. Like 14 loads straight, from dawn til dusk.
Water use was eye opening considering how small an "extra Capacity" solid tub was at the time. Extraction of said water from the load left alot to be desired especially from the bottom of the tub. Now if you have a plugged Ejector tube, like I had toward the end of this washer's life, Sand has nowhere to go and detergent residue stayed right at the bottom of the tub. I was using a vacuum cleaner to suck up the powder residue. I put up with alot with this washer.
When my parents replaced this washer with a Maytag A510 back in 1984, talk about an upgrade. Capacity was outstanding compared to the thimble sized wash tub of the SQ. Never had residue and the washer extracted better than the SQ, plus it used water more efficiently. I even saw that clothes were cleaner coming from the Maytag and lint free. If a Maytag washer is loaded loosely to the top row of holes in the washbasket, there is no issue with rollover, or lack of rollover. The 510 and my beloved 613 were all good turnover machines.

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.

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