"Which Used More??"
Today we have the 1956 Bendix going up against the 1960 GE FF. Which used more??
Today we have the 1956 Bendix going up against the 1960 GE FF. Which used more??
and Now its time for Amerca's favorite guessing game
- Thread starter jetcone
- Start date
The GE
Using our new Scientific gallon meters lets see>>>>
The wash on the solid tub GE for a hot fill used: 21.4 gallons
Using our new Scientific gallon meters lets see>>>>
The wash on the solid tub GE for a hot fill used: 21.4 gallons
The GE
for Rinse in--- cold water for all you" Crazy energy-nuts " out there--- used :
Wait for it
wait... 20.6 gallons of cold water!
for Rinse in--- cold water for all you" Crazy energy-nuts " out there--- used :
Wait for it
wait... 20.6 gallons of cold water!
To wash and rinse
in the GE she took a grand total of
42.0 gallons!!
Now which used more the Bendix or the GE?? (Hint: we didn't use the Soak cycle on the Bendix)
Discuss....
in the GE she took a grand total of
42.0 gallons!!
Now which used more the Bendix or the GE?? (Hint: we didn't use the Soak cycle on the Bendix)
Discuss....
Boy howdy, I'm really conflicted on this one. Early front-loaders used a lot more water than today's HE machines do. If the GE wasn't a solid tub, I'd be more certain of my answer.
Probably wrong, but I'm going to say the Bendix used......less....no wait!....more water than the GE. No wait...CRAP. I will be tied in knots 'til the results are revealed.
Probably wrong, but I'm going to say the Bendix used......less....no wait!....more water than the GE. No wait...CRAP. I will be tied in knots 'til the results are revealed.
Is this a trick question?
Front loaders use way less water than top loaders unless the front loader is a washer/dryer and cold water is used in a condensation drying cycle. What do I win for a correct answer?
Front loaders use way less water than top loaders unless the front loader is a washer/dryer and cold water is used in a condensation drying cycle. What do I win for a correct answer?
mickeyd
Well-known member
Could have been an audio hallucination
but once heard that some condenser dryers can use up to 100 gallons of cold water.*
Bad trip or truth?
The Bendix uses more on a regular cycle because of the 3 rinses; this is a guess because I don't know the per gallon rate for the Bendix tub fill. Since the Bendix is big (combo) and old, I'm guessing 7 gallons, which would make only 28 gallons, so now I'll change my answer to GE, unless you're drying the load, then it's the Bendix with 128 !!!!!
So my final answer is: It's a TIE...LOL Thanks, Eugene for encouraging mental convolutions and fireworks for the 4th. Perfect!
* Just remembered at post time that Mother Superior told me this.
but once heard that some condenser dryers can use up to 100 gallons of cold water.*
Bad trip or truth?
The Bendix uses more on a regular cycle because of the 3 rinses; this is a guess because I don't know the per gallon rate for the Bendix tub fill. Since the Bendix is big (combo) and old, I'm guessing 7 gallons, which would make only 28 gallons, so now I'll change my answer to GE, unless you're drying the load, then it's the Bendix with 128 !!!!!
So my final answer is: It's a TIE...LOL Thanks, Eugene for encouraging mental convolutions and fireworks for the 4th. Perfect!
* Just remembered at post time that Mother Superior told me this.
Definitely the GE. Drying in the combo wouldn't count, that would be cheating, wouldn't it...?
kb0nes
Well-known member
that would be cheating, wouldn't it...?
Well it wouldn't be a fair comparison since the GE only washes...
My assumption is that the Bendix will use more, simply because Jon loves proving how wonderful the FF's are
Well it wouldn't be a fair comparison since the GE only washes...
My assumption is that the Bendix will use more, simply because Jon loves proving how wonderful the FF's are
My assumption is that the Bendix will use more, simply because Jon loves proving how wonderful the FF's are
Unless he finds a new combo!
Unless he finds a new combo!
kenmoreguy89
Well-known member
<a name="start_47309.687145"> </a>
<a name="start_47309.687145">"Unless he finds a new combo!"
U kidding right??? LOL</a>
<a name="start_47309.687145"> </a>
<a name="start_47309.687145">"Unless he finds a new combo!"
U kidding right??? LOL</a>
<a name="start_47309.687145"> </a>
kenmoreguy89
Well-known member
Anyway..... I've seen old front loaders that used as much water as a top loader for a same weight load, ..nedless to say that generally FL machines that use more water do provide cleaner clothes rather than ones using less...of course.... this to the face of today's C**P that claim to wash with two fingers of water... ahahah!
BUT Consuming more water or less water comparing the two types does not mean nothing though and that's obvious that FL would in general use some to little less water.... you cannot just compare a front loader to a top loader...they have a different operation, there may be a front loader that use more water than a top loader though.....that's possible!
That would not mean nothing though in terms of washing comparison even if Bendix hypotetically used the double more than GE.. there isn't just any comparison to do based on water consuming in this sense.... but in case the Bendix was proven to use more water would have been nice though to have had these easy water counters back then and compare them to other machines, so GE's FF also and if more bring the data to the Bendix company known for their specialization in FL machines advertising them as revolutionary types as they used less water, and hear what they would have had to say about that....
Just supposing..... anyway I do not find it impossible to be of course.
BUT Consuming more water or less water comparing the two types does not mean nothing though and that's obvious that FL would in general use some to little less water.... you cannot just compare a front loader to a top loader...they have a different operation, there may be a front loader that use more water than a top loader though.....that's possible!
That would not mean nothing though in terms of washing comparison even if Bendix hypotetically used the double more than GE.. there isn't just any comparison to do based on water consuming in this sense.... but in case the Bendix was proven to use more water would have been nice though to have had these easy water counters back then and compare them to other machines, so GE's FF also and if more bring the data to the Bendix company known for their specialization in FL machines advertising them as revolutionary types as they used less water, and hear what they would have had to say about that....
Just supposing..... anyway I do not find it impossible to be of course.
philr
Well-known member
Jon, you should dry the clothes washed in FF in the Filtrator dryer and substract the amount of water saved in the drain pan that you could use for the next wash!
That's what I do with my Filtrator dryers since I don't have a laundry tub or an automatic drain near them to get rid of the condensed water!
That's what I do with my Filtrator dryers since I don't have a laundry tub or an automatic drain near them to get rid of the condensed water!
My 2004 vintage GE top loader used 91 litres per fill, meaning that a full cycle usually was around 182 litres, not including the spray rinse.
That works out to about roughly 48 US Gallons per load.
My Huebsch front loader uses almost half as much water per cycle.
That works out to about roughly 48 US Gallons per load.
My Huebsch front loader uses almost half as much water per cycle.
yogitunes
Well-known member
That was a big hidden MysteryScienceTheater3000 to someone considering a FLer....all the claims were that it used up to half the amount of water of a TLer....
there was no insight that it was doing 3 to 4 rinses per load versus a TLer.....
never understood why they didn't make a big deal of this during advertising.....
what do you think CamBot?
there was no insight that it was doing 3 to 4 rinses per load versus a TLer.....
never understood why they didn't make a big deal of this during advertising.....
what do you think CamBot?
Well now all interesting
Here we go>> The Bendix used 35.1 gallons of HOT and 13.0 gallons of COLD for a wash and 3 rinses! A grand total of 48.1 gallons ..Ding Ding Ding the Bendix is the water HOG!!!
Here we go>> The Bendix used 35.1 gallons of HOT and 13.0 gallons of COLD for a wash and 3 rinses! A grand total of 48.1 gallons ..Ding Ding Ding the Bendix is the water HOG!!!
Gulp
Gulp!! Naughty Bendix
Gulp!! Naughty Bendix
OH and before
MS chimes in, they both did 5 pounds of clothes.
MS chimes in, they both did 5 pounds of clothes.
I knew there was something...!
Now try again both of them fully loaded. I bet the GE on a max. water level turns into a waterhog and the Bendix could do that with the same amount of water or perhaps even less!
Now try again both of them fully loaded. I bet the GE on a max. water level turns into a waterhog and the Bendix could do that with the same amount of water or perhaps even less!
Well now Louis
fully loaded for one is going to be quite different than fully loaded for the other. If you note the GE on wash used 21.6 gallons but on rinse 20.6? I believe that shorter gallon fill on rinse was a gallon of water already in the clothes. So different sized loads would throw off water use.
fully loaded for one is going to be quite different than fully loaded for the other. If you note the GE on wash used 21.6 gallons but on rinse 20.6? I believe that shorter gallon fill on rinse was a gallon of water already in the clothes. So different sized loads would throw off water use.
Holy schnikees, I thought the horse race would be much closer than that! Six gallons more for the Bendix...wow. I'm assuming the solid tub GE was filled to the highest water level as the Filter-Flo was activated in the photo.
Thanks for doing the comparison, Jon. Now...which two washers will be next in line for the thirst test?
Aside: Love those little water flow monitors. Where did you get them and how much did they cost?
Thanks for doing the comparison, Jon. Now...which two washers will be next in line for the thirst test?
Aside: Love those little water flow monitors. Where did you get them and how much did they cost?
Well then, let's say do this with a 10 pound load, or perhaps 12 pounds. I'm sure that would make a difference. Can the Bendix handle a full GE load?
BTW, what level did you use on the GE?
BTW, what level did you use on the GE?
The GE has a water saver option
<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>which you can manually activate at any time but this was NOT USED< repeat NOT USED so the GE was let go to fill to the maximum.
Yes Louis both machines can handle a 12 pound load.
Jeff, I was very surprised as well, once a long time ago in a galaxy far far away I had manually filled the Bendix to what I thought was the fill level and it took 8 gallons but I was obviously way off back then.
These little gadgets are available thru Amazon.Com (a website)..
http://www.amazon.com/AbsolutelyNew...F8&qid=1373034218&sr=8-5&keywords=water+meter
<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>which you can manually activate at any time but this was NOT USED< repeat NOT USED so the GE was let go to fill to the maximum.
Yes Louis both machines can handle a 12 pound load.
Jeff, I was very surprised as well, once a long time ago in a galaxy far far away I had manually filled the Bendix to what I thought was the fill level and it took 8 gallons but I was obviously way off back then.
These little gadgets are available thru Amazon.Com (a website)..
http://www.amazon.com/AbsolutelyNew...F8&qid=1373034218&sr=8-5&keywords=water+meter
Thanks for the Amazon link to the water flow meters! I'm interested to know how much is used every time I water around the perimeter of the house, or the garden in the back yard.
golittlesport
Well-known member
Thanks, Jon!
Next do a solid tub Frigidaire vs. a Westinghouse Laundromat!
Next do a solid tub Frigidaire vs. a Westinghouse Laundromat!
Hmmm, still, it would be interesting to see how the machines would do with a 12 pound load. I guess they both would use a bit less water.
kenmoreguy89
Well-known member
If any kind of water level selector was not used, so both the GE and Bendix did fill on their max level I don't see how the Bendix would use less...
It all would be related to the load they did and amount of water that actually was still in clothes....both in GE and Bendix, I think there is no way it would change for a greater load size...there would more clothes in the Bendix but also in the GE! So it's just a proportional reasoning I think...
Also:
To mention is the fact that probably the Bendix as most of older combo of the era had a slight slower spin speed than a top loader, what I'll say is just a guess not a know fact from me.... but if so the Bendix in the test actually used less water than it would have needed for the rinses IF the spin Rpm and so relate water extraction was identical to the GE...so even spin speed plays an important role to determine this... if that is the case, I say that if there was the possibility to lower the spin speed of the GE or increase the speed of Bendix to be the same thing, the results would have been even more different......
It all would be related to the load they did and amount of water that actually was still in clothes....both in GE and Bendix, I think there is no way it would change for a greater load size...there would more clothes in the Bendix but also in the GE! So it's just a proportional reasoning I think...
Also:
To mention is the fact that probably the Bendix as most of older combo of the era had a slight slower spin speed than a top loader, what I'll say is just a guess not a know fact from me.... but if so the Bendix in the test actually used less water than it would have needed for the rinses IF the spin Rpm and so relate water extraction was identical to the GE...so even spin speed plays an important role to determine this... if that is the case, I say that if there was the possibility to lower the spin speed of the GE or increase the speed of Bendix to be the same thing, the results would have been even more different......
Jon, your electric Duomatic uses slightly more water because each fill has to fill that area to the left of the strainer, that sort of delta shaped area below the condenser stack and over toward the path to the pump. The gas models don't have that area to fill with water. I'll would bet that if you tried that test with your Bendix washer, you would find that it used less water. Of course, its drum is smaller, also. CU speculated that one of the reasons that modern front loaders are not as gentle with fabrics is that they use so much less water that there is more rubbing of the fabrics against one another than there would be if there were more water in the drum.
I love it.
Who cared back then right?
I wonder what the utilities were running back then?
Cheap for Electric and even cheaper for Gas and Water.
Good Ole' days!
Both are such great and fun machines.
Do you find your play-time vs. idle-time make a big dent in your current bills?
Brent
Who cared back then right?
I wonder what the utilities were running back then?
Cheap for Electric and even cheaper for Gas and Water.
Good Ole' days!
Both are such great and fun machines.
Do you find your play-time vs. idle-time make a big dent in your current bills?
Brent
Great Comparison Test Jon
And cool little water meters, I would think that the size of the load would not effect the results much of these older machines and I believe that neither machine was rated for more than 9-10 pounds of dry laundry.
I also believe the surprise results come from the fact [ as Tom mentioned ] that the Bendix condenser combs had a large sump area at the bottom of the condenser.
But now the testing should begin and I will wager that the Bendix will do a SUPERIOR JOB of removing sand and grit from laundry along with lint and pet hair. And it will certainly be more gentile with the clothing rinse far better and may even clean better.
Tap Tap Tap, we are waiting for additional test results.
And cool little water meters, I would think that the size of the load would not effect the results much of these older machines and I believe that neither machine was rated for more than 9-10 pounds of dry laundry.
I also believe the surprise results come from the fact [ as Tom mentioned ] that the Bendix condenser combs had a large sump area at the bottom of the condenser.
But now the testing should begin and I will wager that the Bendix will do a SUPERIOR JOB of removing sand and grit from laundry along with lint and pet hair. And it will certainly be more gentile with the clothing rinse far better and may even clean better.
Tap Tap Tap, we are waiting for additional test results.
Similar threads
