Alliance Energy Saving Toploaders

Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support :

pulsator

Well-known member
Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2002
Messages
2,373
Location
Saint Joseph, MI
Once I figure out the price for this machine, I'm probably going to buy it, but I have a question perhaps someone on here can answer. The machine I'm buying is an OPL Continental Girbau Econo-Wash toploader, made by Alliance. But it has 6 cycles instead of the usual 3. There's normal, delicate, and permanent press, but then there's also 3 energy saving versions of the same 3 cycles. The ad claims that the machine only uses 23.7 gallons of water on these energy saving cycles. How does this work? Is it just a low water level wash or does it do something Fisher Paykel-like and perhaps rinse only buy a series of spray rinses? I've got my mind set on buying this machine, but I'm just curious what these energy cycles are about!

 
Sorry

but clothes need adequate water to be washed and rinsed. No "government standard" exists to convince me out of common sense.

I'd be leery of those "eco" cycles, especially in a top loader. It isn't too economical when clothes have to be washed again and again to remove odors, pet hair or what have you--or having to do many small loads to compensate for the lack of water.
 
Ponga la estrella en el culo.

I'm wondering if the energy-saving cycles are a series of spray rinses INSTEAD of a deep rinse.

WP tried that for about five minutes. (And they got their #@$% coveted "Energy star".)

When I was selling washers for Sears I did not even hear of ONE being sold.
 
23 and more gallons is 90 litres of water! I fun my washer 2 times at full load with that water! I don't think it's all that energy saving!!! Why don't you buy a front loader if you want an energy wise machine? There are some that wash 6kg of laundry with only 37 litres of water (less then 10 gal)
 
from what i see in that brochure, does not look like water level adjustment. looks like machine with do a partial drain ONLY after wash, or a spray rinse instead of deep rinse.

call me naive, but i think the spray rinse idea CAN work, if the spray is delivered very evenly into the basket. even from top to bottom so it hits the entire load. this is very hard to do without the spray coming from the center of the basket.
 
Noticed the lack of a water level adjustment as well. The only way the unit can use twenty some odd gallons of water for a complete cycle is if the rinses are "spray" rinses.

Alliance makes a twin tub washer that only spray rinses, and it does a remarkable job. Unit sprays a fine almost mist of water to saturate the load, before ramping up to speed. Repeated enough times such a thing can rinse very well; sort of a variation of the old Hoover manual spray rinses where one saturated a load, spun then repeated.

The important thing about spray rinses is that the water not only must be directed a certian way, but it cannot hit and bounce off the laundry. Tub should slow down a bit to allow laundry to absorb water, then ramp up to speed to wring the water out. Such a process can and will dilute detergent residue as well as deep rinses, but use less water.

L.
 
L, that's exactly what F&P's shower rinse function does. Spinning slows down to 23 RPM, the clothes are saturated while the pump continues to run, then it revs back up to 670/700 RPM to squeegee the load. This process is repeated three times, I think. Or maybe twice, with spray rinses as well. Normal spray rinses are at 300 RPM.
 
Think the only saviour for top loading washers, are going to be effective spray rinse designs. This would allow units to use a decent amount of water for the wash process, and still keep the government happy. With the advent of dryer sheets, adding fabric softener for the rinse becomes less of a problem. Yes, know many here hate the things, but Amercians by tons of the stuff.

What will also help spray rinses, would be the development of clean rinsing detergents. Some liquid detergents foam up too much during spins which can cause a suds lock.
 
WP's first Resource Saver washers gave very good rinsing for a spin rinse. They not only sprayed water on the clothes, but they also partially filled and used one of the two way valves to recirculate the water onto and through the spinning laundry. Then the two way valve would switch from recirculate and drain out the sudsy water. The machine would spin some and then repeat the process two more times. The WP catalyst washer proved that the wash solution can penetrate laundry in an excellent manner if it is forced through the fabrics by spinning the tub and having the spray aimed so that it hits the load right. I always use one of those garden watering devices that breaks the force of the water into soft gentle "rain." Water spraying through one of these does not bounce off the laundry, even at high spin speeds because I angle the spray so that it hits the spinning clothes in the direction they are spinning and more from the side than the top of the tub. Like in a Maytag spinning counter clockwise, the spray is introduced moving from right to left so that it is spun into the clothes.

John had customers who were very satisfied with the first Resource Savers, but when they were cheapened to just spray rinses, he would not sell them. The F&P method of slowing down the spin speed during the spray rinses makes a lot of sense which, I guess, is why it came from a company outside of the United Corporations of America. Here greed and stupidity have replaced innovation, engineering and progress, except when progress means progressively cheaper quality and progresively larger corporate profits.
 
Jamie,

You would be better served to get the Maytag OPL topload washer. Especially since it is the old design and will be discontinued when they close that plant in October.

The washer you are considering is very good by commercial standards. According to a conversation I had with SQ at the Clean show, the water savings occurs by the machine doing a PARTIAL DRAIN after the wash. Eeeeeewwwwwwwww...
 
Tom

"Here greed and stupidity have replaced innovation, engineering and progress, except when progress means progressively cheaper quality and progressively larger corporate profits."

That sums it all up right there! I could not agree more.
 
all those super durable nuts and bolts they talk about, that are rust resistant (proof if you ask me) used to be made by my company; Rockford Products, in Rockford, IL.
When Whirlpool bought them, they took their business else ware. We lost $31 million in sales due to the loss of Maytag, and we're not bankrupt.
Of course, management greed did not help at all, but Maytag's loss was a huge hit.

They'll probably use Taiwanese zinc coated bolts now, that will chip, and rust out in 3 years.

Yay to progress.

View attachment 8-7-2007-20-12-49--johnb300m.jpg
 

Latest posts

Back
Top