Search results

I don't see any need to hurry as long as you have a washer that works now. But then, I believe in saving money for when I need it, not just spend it when I have it. I also don't believe you're going to change the weather in Texas by buying a FL and selling your TL. But if you really want a...

Let us know how it works, but looking at it again I'm thinking it still doesn't quite answer your original question. It appears it just skips to the final spin and you still won't get a delicate rinse, even if it gives a slow spin. Unlike the "rapid advance" that's supposed to step through...

However I did find something that might answer Ladd's question that was posted by Ladd: https://www.automaticwasher.org/cgi-bin/TD/TD-VIEWTHREAD.cgi?79215_35 reply #69. I haven't tried it, it would be interesting to see if you really can get a slow spin that way. Quote from Ladd: " FWIW: I...

Rapid Advance As I recall, we tried the rapid advance thing on another thread and neither of us could get it to work. For one thing, there is no Extra Rinse button, and holding the start button for 3 seconds cancels the cycle entirely no matter what knobs you have selected, including Extra...

When you just want it to spin, make sure you don't have extra rinse selected when you select the spin cycle. When both are selected it will fill, rinse, and then spin.

Yet supposedly SQ's reason for the redesign was to meet increasing regulations, which makes me think they're somehow supposed to be more efficient. They're said to have brought the "classic" design back when they found a "loophole". I didn't say the TRs claimed to be HE.

speed queen perfect wash The Speed Queen TR series has the same capacity and apparently uses the same tub and basket, so until someone can verify, I assume a full fill would use substantially the same as the TC. It still isn't clear to me exactly what the resource saving advantages are of the...

Two rinses is standard on all Neptune TL cycles. And apparently a spray rinse is "standard" on the "normal" TC5 cycle. So a lot depends on how the user decides to use the machines and how others decide to skew the numbers.

I don't need three rinses in the TC5, and I find the volume adequate. I consider it a shortcoming if these "HE" machines need three rinses. Can John back up any of his claims?

A full fill on a Speed Queen TC5 top load washer is 19 gallons, or 38 gallons for a full wash and rinse, a normal cycle. Only about 6% more, far from twice as much as 36 gallons as John claims. I understand there are top loaders with larger tubs than the SQ, but I doubt many of them typically...

Reply # 7 From what I can find electricity usage has leveled off in the past few years, but not down year by year as claimed. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/use-of-electricity.php Given that usage has at least leveled off, how much of that is in fact due to more energy...

Yet we are impressed enough with a 2005 washer lasting 18 years to make an entire thread out of it. That in itself would seem to say something.

Reply 19 "I've noticed that the further back in time one goes, the better quality hoses were made." But the quality of assembly is better today, and they're lighter weight, and use less resources! I would never use hoses over two-thousand-thirty years old. (Reply 17)

What's the point? To show that some "HE" washers really don't save resources? That at least one "HE" washer washes well, but needs a lot of water to do so? Or just to tweak Jerome because he makes generalizations you don't agree with?

My Hotpoint did the same after 20-some years. I think it's soon going to quit on you in the middle of load. Even if it does last a few more loads, Pieces of "shrapnel" may not be good on delicates. Just don't be like me and think you can go buy another cheap washer that will last for another...

Reply #70: "The motor in the TR washers use 1/4 of the power of the TC washers..." Where do these figures come from? Do the TC motors have a power factor of around 20% or less, or do the TR models have a power factor of well over 100%. Do the TRs also defy physics? According to the serial...

Yes, according to the "energy guide", for what that's worth, a TR uses approx. 10% less. Big deal if it cleans even as much as 80% as effectively as a TC. I'm just using the 80% figure as an example, it may well not be that much, I don't have any more basis for it than John seems to have for...

"TR has a much smaller motor" So, as I recall, the TR series uses a 1 hp motor, the TC series uses a 1/2 hp motor. But what really matters is the load on the motor. So I guess I'm still incapable of understanding John's reasoning as to why the TR uses a more powerful motor, and how it uses...

BTW, when the TC drains, the belt slips until the tub is up to speed, so it's not like it puts an extreme load on the motor as our physics expert and mechanical engineer would have you believe. The TC motor turns an agitator through the water, so I believe the main force would be water...

What a cop-out of an answer, "you're just too stupid to understand". Though I still find it interesting that you don't seem to think that idiots like me have any business buying and using TLs, yet you see uses for commercial applications. So just keep up with your hyperbole, facts you can't...