and Now its time for Amerca's favorite guessing game

[jetcone]

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.

 

[frigilux]

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?

 

[foraloysius]

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?

 

[jetcone]

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)..

 

 

 

Loading…

www.amazon.com

 

[frigilux]

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]

Thanks, Jon!

Next do a solid tub Frigidaire vs. a Westinghouse Laundromat!

 

[foraloysius]

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]

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......

 

[tomturbomatic]

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.

 

[a440]

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

 

[combo52]

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.

 

[tomturbomatic]

To say nothing of radioactive dirt.

 

[mickeyd]

Now everbody wants "water counters" LOL

You thought 8, I thought 7. What did the meter say after each fill ? If you divide 48 by 4 fills, you get 12 gallons per fill.

So let's do the HOT. Wash 12

Rinse 6 + 6 + 6 ................. .18

Now the COLD ........Wash 0

Rinse 6 + 6 + 6 ................. 18

TOTAL ............................48

HURRAY FOR ARITHMETIXXXXXXX Not a whole cigar, but close. The extra gallon of hot must fill the black hole, yes ?

 

[mickeyd]

"Never Mind " E Litella

I see my Arithmetixxxxxx is wronggguee.

Wash HOT 13

Wash COLD 0

Rinse HOT 0

Rinse COLD 35

Total 48

 

[jetcone]

Ah

Thank you E. Litella!

TOM! Forgot about the Atomic Dirt Test, I have that AD somewhere must put it up over the machines!!