Assuming the AWN 542 goes away at end of 2014

[washman]

The proof I find sufficient to convice me

is the 1 year factory warranty offered. My plastic GE profile had at least a lifetime warranty on inner and outer tub along with a 10 year transmission warranty.

If these machines are so reliable, why only warrant them for a year. Heck, my old GE dishwasher had a lifetime warranty on the plastic tub. New one? A year.

As I stated before, if warrantees reflect confidence in a product, then GE, Whirlpool, et al must not have much.

 

[combo52]

'''''' New Washers Do Not Last? &#39

The length of the warranty that a manufacturer offers on their product has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to due with how long a product will last.

 

Often products with the best warranties are the products with the poorer repair records and past histories of problems, but if you are have convinced yourself that shorter warranties mean the products ware out faster, good for you and it makes it easy to see how you have reached many of your other opinions in life, LOL.

 

[joe_in_philly]

Please don't speak for me, mtn1584.  My Whirlpool made Kenmore HE3t FL washer is now over 10 years old, and going strong. While I loved my previous GE Filter-Flo washer, the washer I have now saves me money every month by using less water, energy, and additives. My clothes are cleaner and last longer. It is true, I was shocked at how little water it used when I first got it, but the superior results sold me on FL washers. While I can appreciate the benefits that my FL washer has provided me, I respect that other people enjoy restoring, fixing, collecting, and using traditional TL washers. The reason I am a member on this site is because I enjoy being a part of the automatic washer family, watching the videos, and participating in the discussions. I think we should all make an effort to respect each other's experiences, and appreciate our differences.

 

[DADoES]

 
<blockquote>Everyone on this site who has bought a front load washer, and I mean all of you, complain that these machines use too little water to effectively clean clothes, and all of you have tried and some succeded at adding more water to your washers.</blockquote> I also take exception to this statement.  While I have not *bought* a frontloader, I did use a Whirlpool Duet in my home for several months last year.  I did not make any effort to increase the machine's water level, and I found it to be an *excellent* performer.

 

[frigilux]

My 2010 Frigidaire (ultra-low water use) does an excellent job of cleaning. I have never added a drop of water to the machine.

This is what I've found: Some people see how little water is used by new front-loaders and immediately assume it won't clean. This is a fallacy. Most do an excellent job straight out of the box. Being compelled to add water to a front-loader says more about the user than the appliance.

I've steered quite a number of people toward purchasing LG and Frigidaire front-loaders. All but one had active families. All have liked their machines.

 

[mtn1584]

Let me clarify myself.....

the overwhelming majority of the people who belong to this site, not all of you as I previously stated.
Mike

 

[mtn1584]

I rest my case.....................

Post# 476798..............one of the many posted throughout the years.
Mike

 

[kb0nes]

There are people in the world that actually believe that a 50's car is superior to a modern vehicle too. Perhaps in a few (very few) ways they are, but in virtually EVERY measurable (objective) aspect of performance a modern car is VASTLY superior. Just look at how modern cars can go for 100,000 miles with nothing but oil changes. How many sets of points and plugs would it take for a 57 Chevy to get to 100k miles?

I think that largely the same is true of appliances, technology has improved things in many ways. Of course the mandated safety engineering that improved cars so much doesn't apply to appliances to the same degree. Also since appliances are more of an overlooked and less expensive necessity, perhaps their durability is not considered as often.

I'm in no way saying that modern appliances (or cars) have the same panache or style of the vintage units. I would very much appreciate taking a Sunday drive in a 50's car or doing my laundry in a vintage machine. But when it comes to day in and day out serviceability I want something a tad more modern. Drum brakes and bias ply tires have NO business on todays highways.

Personally I have a number of old tube HiFi amplifiers that I love to take for a "Sunday drive" from time to time, but they aren't nearly as accurate as modern gear. Some prefer them though but I feel that is due to agreeable distortions that they like. So now we break into the realm of subjectivity vs objectivity.

I think that much of what I read of people not liking the new appliances is subjective. A preconceived notion that they aren't as good or can't wash as well with less water etc. The issue needs some objectivity also, proper testing which is difficult to do. Eugene has demonstrated a few tests where he has normalized many of the variables to be fairly objective.

One of the big variables is that MANY people never learn to adapt to a modern frontload machine for example. This is why some people never get a funky smelling washer but others do. You can drive nails with the side of a hammer but it works better if you learn how to use it as designed. Like many things in life when change happens we can either adapt or not. Change isn't always for the better, but nor is it always for the worse. Keeping an open mind is a good thing.

Bottom line we all likes what we likes, and there is nothing wrong with respectful disagreement. For me I strive to find products that give me the best performance with the least impact on my wallet and on the Planet. I am but one person that lives on this rock, and I don't have the right to use more resources then I need to.

 

[washman]

Pardon me combo52 for disagreeing

Seems your holier than thou attitude is really coming through here. And it's beginning to really annoy me so I will say this once.

Put your mouth and attitude in park will ya? I'm an adult and I do not appreciate being talked to like I am your child or something. You are not at all required to agree with anything I say but your "superior" attitude, to put it mildy, sucks.

And how do you know how I came to "other" opinions in life? Are you ghost writing my biography or something? You don't know jack squat about me so button it up.

Just because you sell/repair washers does not make you the be-all-end-all source of knowledge. You live and I presume work in MD. Are your experiences such that it applies to all other 49 states also?

Fact is, I did my research thoroughly before buying the SQ. And before you harp on about how I think SQ is the only TL worth buying let me tell you if Maytag, GE or Whirlpool made a TL that worked like my old GE, trust me I would buy one in a heartbeat. No kidding.

But fact is, they don't. I browsed newsgroups, forums, reviews. I went out and kicked the tires so to speak. I spoke to salesmen/women. I went on each manufacturer website that showed reviews. I read them all good and bad. Short of geting POS data from every place that sells washers and calling each customer one by one and asking questions (which is unrealistic)I feel I did my homework and made a sound decision.

You may not agree but so be it. Life goes on my friend.

 

[washman]

kb0nes, you make a compelling point in your last sentence

My question is, who or whom makes the decision on what constitutes using more resources than is necessary? Who decides if you are using too much water to wash clothes?

 

[thefixer]

The U.S. Dept of Energy sets the standards supposedly based on feedback from manufacturers, consumer groups and environmental advocates. In 2010, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers and its Major Appliance Division member companies signed an agreement with a nationwide coalition of energy and water efficiency supporters to dramatically increase the energy and water efficiency of home appliances. That is from an article by the American National Standards Institute.

 

[washer111]

Even the worst junk today are on average outlasting 50/60 AW

Sorry, but I cannot possibly believe that. Those new machines haven't even been around that long (around 10 years) so there is no comparison as of yet. I can understand that statement if you direct it at machines that have some, "different" designs to other machines at the time (Unimatics, Philco etc.) - who probably did have service problems. 

 

However, in comparison to modern machines at "Regular" ones of the 50s and 60s, modern is junk. Check out review sites. Over here, Whirlpool BD machines are befallen by transmission breakages, Simpson machines are known to just be nutty and break many control boards (Ours did in some odd manner. We needed a "Daugher Board"), Maytag's create too much lint, LG/Samsung also do control boards, Even my favourite brand, Fisher and Paykel have got a number of lemons amongst their midst. 

 

You have told us on numerous occasions how you have had huge problems with service on a number of brands of machines, notably F&P, LG and GE machines (Especially if we go into dishwashers). Please don't contradict yourself. 

In light of all that though, I do find numerous posts you author to be an interesting reading experience. They offer a different side to the story in the eyes of the repairman. 

 

As for mtn1584's statement, I am "one of them" that he mentions. Do I really think that 1 Low-Water Wash + 2 Low-Water rinses are adequate on my Miele? NO. I've programmed "Water Plus" to (hopefully) increase the water level during washes/rinses and add an additional rinse. This helps quite a bit with washing and rinsing on the Cottons cycle. 

For my laundry, it is nice as I use Minimum Iron. This boosts the already generous water complement and gives me 3 rinses with water all the way up the glass. It doesn't spin as much in between ( A pulse to around 800 and back), but the rinsing is still better. 

 

[repair-man]

In my experience...

I don't find that modern appliances are reliable at all. A lot has changed since I started my repair business in 1990. The repairs on the older machines where usually a lot more reasonable. I personally have seen way too many 2 - 5 yr old appliances sent to the crusher because the cost to repair was unreasonable in comparison to replacement. Although I absolutely agree that modern cars are far superior to the classics as far as safety, reliability and even performance.

 

[jeffg]

Not sure what you mean by safety. I would much rather hit something while driving a 1974 Cadillac than a 2013 Ford Focus.

 

[kb0nes]

Not to hijack the thread, but...

The auto safety aspect I mentioned goes far beyond mere survivability. Safety is about avoiding the accident also. Cars today can turn and stop far better then their predecessors. It would be hilarious if one were to compare the Autocross lap times of that Focus to the 74 Cadillac If I had to avoid an accident I'm much rather be in the Focus then the vintage Cadillac...

Indeed it is surely true from the survivability standpoint, the older car has a mass advantage, and a heavy steel frame. This isn't all its cracked up to be though as head accelerations from impact may well be higher due to the lack of energy absorption.

 

[launderess]

Who decides if you are using too much water to wash clothes?

Pipe:

Loading…

https

 

[chestermikeuk]

"And The Short version"

"DOE's analyses indicate that today's standards would save a significant amount of energy and water over 30 years (2015-2044) —
an estimated 2.04 quads of energy and 3.03 trillion gallons of water.
In addition, DOE expects the energy savings from today's standards to eliminate the need for approximately 1.30 gigawatts (GW) of generating capacity by 2044"

Thats an awful lot of infrastructure, but would be a great source of jobs and manufacturing - Interesting!!
I`ll settle for my front loader over twin tub and sudz save any day, todays machines give us the best of energy, water and detergent savings!

 

[frigilux]

I'd like consumers to demand water- and energy-efficient appliances of manufacturers, but that isn't always realistic since there isn't a common platform for us to research and demand those changes.  It makes sense that a government agency, like the Department Of Energy, which can study the possibilities and then implement those changes, acts as the catalyst.  We have more efficient appliances, cars, and homes as a result.  

 

Is that system of implementing change perfect? Of course not. Manufacturers in a free market system will always opt to meet the challenges of increased efficiency in ways that are the least expensive for themselves.  The cheapest way for manufacturers to meet energy-use mandates in washing machines is to lower water temperatures and water levels.  Front-loading washers, by the nature of how they work, have proved themselves far more capable of adapting to decreased water and energy usage while still providing excellent results. This is why it has been the dominant format in many parts of the world for decades.

 

Unfortunately, top-loaders are not as well-suited to decreased water usage. HE top-loaders, often using new (or at least new to us) methods of agitation like impellers have tried, with wildly mixed results, to meet those challenges. 

 

The tipping point of mandates for me:  Not being allowed the choice to use truly hot water.  As I've said before, I have no problem with machines defaulting to energy-saving settings. I have a problem when a washer dictates that I'm not allowed to use water hotter than 100 (or so) degrees under any circumstances--especially if that washer is a modern front-loader, which uses so little water to begin with.

 

How do I know if I'm using more resources than are needed?

 

Washer A:

<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>> cleans a 12-lb. load effectively using 35-45 gallons of water (about 8 gallons of hot water if using the "warm" setting)

<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>> leaves enough moisture in fabrics to require 45-50 minutes of time in dryer

<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>> has a 30-40 minute average cycle time

 

Washer B:

<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>> cleans a 12-lb. load effectively using 13-17 gallons of water (about 2-3 gallons of hot water)

<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>> leaves less moisture in fabrics; requires 30-40 minutes of time in dryer

<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>> is gentler to fabrics

<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>> has a 45-75 minute average cycle time

 

If I choose Washer A, then I am also choosing to use more natural resources than are needed to get the job done. I realize that one's time is also a resource of sorts, but I work all day and often have rehearsals, meetings, or performances in the evening.  Still, I manage to get 7 or 8 loads of laundry done in a week without a problem, even though my washer of choice has a longer cycle time.  Unless I'm hanging successive loads on a clothesline, a 30-minute wash cycle isn't going to save a lot of time if the dry cycle takes 45-60 minutes.

 

HAVING SAID ALL THAT...I just purchased a traditional top-loading washer that requires more water and energy to operate than does my front-loader.  I enjoy it more for the nostalgia factor than anything else. I see it as a wonderful artifact. It does a great--but not better--job of cleaning a load of fabrics compared to my front-loader. As the novelty of using the Speed Queen abates, I will use it less and less, because the front-loader does the same job using fewer resources, and it treats fabrics more gently.  It also handles big, bulky items like queen-sized bed comforters more adeptly.  To me, that's just common sense.

 

 

 

 

[this post was last edited: 10/17/2013-09:10]

 

[mark_wpduet]

I'm one of the GUILTY ones

who tried to make my Duet HT add more water............but in the end, it's back to factory settings because I couldn't get it right......this was a long time ago. The machine is now coming on 9 years old and having used it all these years, I'm comfortable now with the amount of water it uses....but I wasn't at first.

I think the rinsing is good........But my biggest complaint isn't the amount of water used during washing. Low water washing with concentrated detergent is great. I was just really paranoid about the SAME amount of water used for rinsing that made me cringe. I still wish the rinses would use slightly more water (not much) but a couple of gallons.

Still VERY happy with this washer and can't believe how OLD it is and still works great

 

[DADoES]

 
<blockquote>I don't find that modern appliances are reliable at all. A lot has changed since I started my repair business in 1990. The repairs on the older machines where usually a lot more reasonable. I personally have seen way too many 2 - 5 yr old appliances sent to the crusher because the cost to repair was unreasonable in comparison to replacement.</blockquote> You're comparing cost-of-repair of "old" vs. "new" ... not reliability or repairability.  Labor, diagnostic fees, "service call" fees and such nowadays are comparatively much higher than in years past.  Cost is what veers many consumers away from repairs, not the appliance actually being unrepairable.

The 1962 Whirlpool washer my parents had suffered numerous repairs from Jan 1962 to Jun 1976 -- wig-wags, pumps, belts, water valve, lid switch bracket rusted off, tub ring clips rusted, agitator cracked, two bearing overhauls, brush-filter cartridge replaced at least once.  The local dealer charged little as $2 to $10 labor/service fee in some cases back in the day.

Now, a broken motor coupler (that could be had for $12 to $15 online for a DIYer), labor/trip charge to call-out a service tech may be $100 to $150, plus $25 to $30 for the part.