Assuming the AWN 542 goes away at end of 2014

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

Help Support AutomaticWasher.org:

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. 
 
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.
 
Not sure what you mean by safety. I would much rather hit something while driving a 1974 Cadillac than a 2013 Ford Focus.
 
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.
 
"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!
 
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]
 
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
 
 
<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.
 
Mark-- You have no reason to feel guilty; that's not my intent. I certainly don't feel guilty using the Speed Queen, but I am cognizant of the fact that I'm using more water & energy than is needed to get the job done.

While I haven't found it necessary to add water to the front-load washer, if I think a load requires an extra rinse, I have no problem pushing that button. I use bleach in anywhere from 1-4 loads per week, and naturally, I always use an extra rinse for those loads; the bleach being dispensed (quite wisely) in the first rinse.

I sometimes use the Steam option because I like the hot, extended 1st rinse and the warm 2nd rinse--love it for loads of bath towels. The same goes for the Allergy option, which heats the wash water to around 130 degrees (cold rinses). Those options increase energy usage only a little, and don't increase water use at all.

Funny but true: On which washer did I raise the maximum water level by about 6 or 7 gallons? The already high energy-/water-using top loader, LOL! Doing so increases the maximum capacity of the machine enough to justify it. And I'm getting better about using only enough water in the SQ to do the job--items move well, but are not swimming in gallons of open water. I so wish SQ made a model with a suds-saver. I grew up with one, and would put it to good use! It makes your 2nd (or even 3rd if items are lightly soiled) load almost as energy/water efficient as a front-loader. The Australians still get them; why can't we?
 
On the issue of old vs new can I say that comparing motor vehicles with domestic appliances is a case of apples and oranges. Yes, many modern cars need less maintenance and they may have better safety and other features, but thousands of people still manage to come to harm or die in them every year and most modern cars won't be around in 20 years.

Regarding HE features vs non-HE, I reckon it should be up to consumers to choose. All machines should come with HE cycle options that consumers should be able to override at any time. Who came up with the idea that a washer should wash and rinse 10 kilos of laundry in 50 liters of water and declare this to be the gold standard of good domestic laundry practice? In reality it's all a bit arbitrary.

Washing machines of the past were better because they were not only functional, purpose designed, highly effective and aesthetically pleasing, they lasted a long time and could be repaired at reasonable cost.

Most modern durables (whitegoods), are not at all durable and I'm griping about the pretense regarding ecology and economy, when, in fact, this is negated by the short life-cycle and disposable nature of such products. Instead of selling a washing machine for its quality, convenience, flexibility and cleaning/rinsing attributes, it is now sold for its green attributes. It's a neat concept, but under existing economic systems and conditions, it is also disningenuous and ineffective.

What is the reality? Consumer choice diminishes every year through products that become more homogenized, generic and dumbed down to fit in with modern economic and corporate goals? Aren't they now designed to appeal to a less sophisticated and discerning clientele because that has been identified as the new trend in modern consumer behaviour? People who consider doing laundry a dull chore and approach it from that angle. This is not anymore about providing the best possible product and variety to the market, but decreased expenditure vs increasing profits in an environment that is controlled by fewer global players and limited competition. Washers aren't doing anymore than they did 20 or 30 years ago - in fact most of them do less now.

Modern or new isn't necessarily better.
 
Here's my question: How many people kept cars for 20 years in the 1950s-1980s? I certainly don't recall many. There are examples, but it wasn't the norm. In fact, I'm an example: My 1994 Geo Prizm (a rebadged Toyota Corolla) will be twenty in a couple of months, and has, so far, given me 258,000 nearly trouble-free miles! I certainly couldn't say the same for my 1969 Oldsmobile Delta 88, 1982 Chevrolet Cavalier, or 1986 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 (but god, did I love that car).

I spent far more money on repairs to my GM cars than I have for the Prizm/Corolla.

As for appliances, the notion that "back in the day" nearly everyone kept their washers for 20-25 years is simply not true. If it were, appliance manufacturers would have gone bankrupt! Again, we can all cite examples, but that wasn't the norm.

Our 1960 Model 80 Kenmore was around 24 years later, but only because my stepfather replaced all the innards in 1976 with those from a very low-use mid 1960's machine he found at an estate sale. He loved the colorful, easy-to-select cycle buttons and other features/bells & whistles of the Model 80, so he decided to give it a full transplant rather than replace it.

Nearly all the wonderful vintage washers in the collections of the AW family are still functioning because they were either acquired with little prior usage, or more often, lovingly restored by their owners. Their "natural" lifespans would have been over many years ago.

I will agree that manufacturers today are far more motivated to sell you a new washer than to make it affordable (or easy) to repair your current machine. Repairs don't go ca-ching on the stock market, and it's expensive for them to warehouse parts and keep a fleet of repairmen on the payroll.

Despite the seemingly high prices for appliances these days, their purchase constitutes a smaller percentage of most peoples' incomes compared to when my parents bought their Kenmore pair in 1960.
 
You are right, many people didn't keep their cars and washers for 20 years. Largely because people were on the move, leaving their appliances behind and getting somethign else with a new place. Then there are those folks who want to keep up with the Joneses and need to get the latest toys to show off to the neighbors, but mostly people don't look after their stuff well.

From an engineering perspective the simple, solid designs of the past can last forever, provided that they are dilligently maintained. You are right, they just don't make things like they used to for the reasons you have stated above.

Which one do you think would be easier to resurrect to life and function - a modern Chevy Malibu that was left out in a paddock for 5 years unused, or a 1950s Bel Air that's been sitting in a barn for the past 40?

The houseproud wife and mother, who wiped down her washer, kept it clean and covered in between uses, how often do you see that nowadays? I bet you that none of the washers sold today will be around and working in another 30 or 40 years time; nor will there be the level of interest in collecting and restoring them.

The reason this website exists is because these older machines represent something that all the new disposable stuff doesn't - imagination, quality, innovation and pride in excellence.

I also firmly believe that the skills base of people involved in design and manufacture has changed. In the past the people who designed our products used only their brains and acquired learning to conceptualize what they wanted to create. They put those ideas on paper and then went out and built a prototype with their own hands. They were intimately involved in every aspect of that process and personal pride was a big part of that.

Nowadays people design stuff off templates that they have in their graphics programs. They are given a directive of what type of product is desired by a manufacturer. After they collate a number of blueprints of different designs they bring in other people to decide on the final design. Then they get someone else to build the prototype because they don't have the skill, time and inclination. Like everything else these days, it's a streamlined production process that has lost the intimacy and connection that people once felt about the things they made. I know that is the way of modern economics and thinking, but for all the affordable big box store stuff we can now consume we are losing out in other ways. Tell me that this is not so and then explain why so many of us are amazed by and interested in vintage products. I'm sure its more than just nostalgia and a longing for something more substantial and meaningful than instant gratification through disposable junk.
 
Here is what one finds interesting

Because these new washing machines use so little water one is now told they must be routinely "cleaned" to prevent foul muck from building up inside.

Can honestly say never remember reading such advice in all the years one poured over washing machine owner manuals of old. If these machines do not use enough water to keep themselves clean what does that say about the clothing put into them?
 
"Here is what one finds interesting"

So do I and I can't agree more. It's a sign of the times though. A lot of past konwlege is cast aside for the 'new and efficient'.

I know this is a different issue, but when I grew up doctors used to re-use syringes on patients and hospitals were kept clean to the highest standard. Cross infection rates in hospitals were lower than they are today. Yet, even with all the new disposable medical equipment and infection prevention protocols - hospital acquired cross-infections are at an all-time high. With all this brainpower put into standarization of technologies, procedures and practices for efficiency and efficacy, it is surprising that the outcomes are actually worse. Someone is missing something somewhere it would seem and I don't think hospitals have ever been as dangerous to be in during the immediate post-war era as they are now.
 
A number of photos have been posted here with softener/detergent scum built up on the outer side of inner tubs, as well as the outer tub, of traditional top-loaders. The build-up doesn't happen on the inner side of the tub due to contact with fabrics, which are constantly wiping the tub during tumbling or agitation.

My front-loader prompts me to run a clean the machine every 50 cycles using either liquid chorine bleach or Tide Washing Machine Cleaner. I don't find that objectionable.

Every wash load emerges fresh and clean, despite very low water consumption.
 
To white

Frigilux, nor do I feel one iota of guilt using my SQ. After all, I pay the water bill, not the DOE, so basically it is none of their business.

Nevertheless, some interesting comments were made regarding the plethora of cheap stuff these days.

I'll add that this mindset extends to furniture as well. Good luck finding some USA made case goods anywhere. Oh they can be found, but not at Budget Furniture or Value City.

I purchased a Smith Bros sofa about 2 years ago. I was told when the sale was done by the salesperson that this was the easiet Smith Bros sale she ever made. I asked why. She replied lots of people come look at it then they say, "do you have anything cheaper?" And she dutitfully sends them over to some sub $400 sofa that is certainly meeting the required price point. OTOH, we spent more time deciding on the color and fabric than haggling over price.

I bought some Mobel case goods some years ago. I was told by that salesperson they were going to stop carrying it because of the same reason in example #1 above. Sure, looks great, but have anything cheaper? And off they go to the poorly made poorly finished stuff from the Far East. Et Cetera.

I submit this premise: An entire generation of know nothings has been bread, taught, and inculcated that when in doubt, cheaper is always better. And we'll dress it up with "looking for a good deal. Wanting to maximize my purchases. Or better yet, I cannot afford the good stuff."

Nonesense! Much like the so-called"worst recession in 50 years" we were told to believe, when I see 3 new car dealerships in my community expand, I question a recession. WHen I have to wait 70+ minutes EACH Friday to get in the local Texas Roadhouse, I question this recession. When the outlet mall parking lots are filled to capacity, I have my doubts. Finally, when $800 I phones fly off the shelves and the poor indentured servants in Guangdong China cannot make them fast enough, I question this so-called recession.

So when people insist the have to buy cheap because they cannot afford a better quality product, I seriously question their finanical management or even worse, their concept of reality.

Fact is, just because you don't want to spend x amount of dollars is not a valid reason to justify you cannot afford it.

Ollie's bargain outlet promotes "good stuff cheap". Rubbish! Literally and figuratively. But it sure has plenty of traffic and customers.

I would presume again, this year, for the holiday season, that the newest plasma, LED, LCD, or whatever boob tube will be the hot ticket. And I am certain the sheeple will line up, camp out, take precious vacation days, to be the first on the block with the fabulous flat screen for the unheard of low price _______ (fill in the blank).

Funny thing is, was that not the case last year? The year before? And the year before that? Thus, I have to question why all of a sudden are we buying tv's like they're going out of style?

When does it end? This massive push to generate prosperity with a chicken in every pot has resulted in some very cheap junk out there. What is even more depressing is the flip flop generation accepts this as the norm. So what if my HE super duper Algore approved DOE certified washer craps the bed? I didn't pay much so oh well, guess I'll buy another one. And I can finance it with my _______ (fill in the blank) credit card, pay 19% interest and call it a day.

Yeeeeesh.................
 
Ben--  I'm with you when it comes to purchasing things I use on a daily basis:  Buy quality!  I recently accompanied a friend to Home Depot to purchase a new toilet.  He wanted to get a very inexpensive model that I knew was rated only 'fair' by Consumer Reports.  I pointed out a much higher rated one, with an elongated bowl for comfort no less, but it was around $80 more.  I said, "Look, this is something you'll use every single day and keep for years.  Do you want to buy a cheap piece of crap you'll have to flush 2 or 3 times to get the job done?  What's an extra $80 bucks factored over 15-20 years?"  But no, he just couldn't get past the lower price of the other one---and he is not a hardship case by any stretch of the imagination.

 

If people want to base their purchasing decisions strictly on an item's cost, that's their choice--even if you and I know it's not an effective way to get the best value-for-money.  If someone chooses to spend extravagantly on smart phones, phone plans and fast-food restaurants while skimping in other areas, that's where their priorities lie. It's none of our business.

 

I'm glad you were fortunate not to be adversely affected by the recession of 2007. I was also one of the fortunate ones; my job remained intact, although I did experience both a $5,000 pay cut and an increased workload due to the elimination of co-workers' jobs. My 401k lost nearly 30% of its value. While it's performing better now, the money lost during that 2 to 2-1/2 year period is gone for good, as is the money I lost in the salary reduction.

My two nephews, who had a new, but thriving commercial contracting business in Minneapolis predicted the recession months before it happened. They had been contracted to build restaurants for a national chain in 5 states. Preliminary work had already begun and subcontractors hired when suddenly all the major investors pulled out of the project. My nephews warned us that something terrible was about to happen with the economy, and six months later, it did. Unable to secure enough substantial contracts, their business went under in early 2009 and took many construction workers' jobs with it. 

That recession, the deepest and longest one on record, was officially over in June of 2009 according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. I'm not surprised that car dealerships and other businesses in your area have experienced resurgences and growth since that time. But let's be clear: While the recession technically ended at that time, many families were recovering from it long after that---and some still are.

 

Having seen how the recession of 2007 affected a number of my friends as well as family, I would definitely not term it a "so-called recession."

[this post was last edited: 10/18/2013-07:39]
 
Launderess's Post

I think powdered detergents and warm rinses are what also helped keep tubs clean. When the cabinet on our 1990 WP DD was removed, for the first time (in 2011) in 21 years, I expected to see some kind of stuff on the inside of the outer tub, but (aside from the usual water line) there was literally NOTHING on the inside of it, it looked brand new, I was amazed. 
 
To rapunzel

Amazing how most old hospitals had smooth 'granite' looking walls/floors that could/would be washed and sanitized. What do we have now? Carpeting in some areas and clothlike material EVERYWHERE on walls.

I'm sure THAT gets 'sanitized' often! We seem to be great at coming up with some smart new regulations/methods and then forget BASIC cleanliness procedures.

Oh,yeah,hospitals save money cleaning less often,using low paid crews who don't give a flip about sanitizing. I had 2 surgeries in a MAJOR hospital Jan '12 and March '12. Visible dirt around the edges of my room AND where the surgeries occurred did not instill confidence!

My current courier/delivery job involves delivering infusion products primarily to people(at their residence) who got infections post surgery in hospital. I guess ''let the infections continue'' so I can be busy.... :/
 
I was also one of the fortunate ones

A very sorry state of affairs indeed when someone takes a $5000 pay cut, an increased workload, a 30% hit to their retirement savings and yet considers themselves to be one of the "fortunate".
 
A very sorry state of affairs...

I managed to keep my job, house, and health insurance. Millions of others (and a number of friends and family members) did not. I was fortunate by comparison. Happy about it? No. But I was better off than many.
 
Certainly it is one's business to spend as they see fit

I just question the priorities, that's all.

washman++10-24-2013-08-33-37.jpg
 
I was fortunate by comparison

No offense intended, I was simply referring to the state of the economy in general.
 

Similar threads

K
Maytag DC washer LAT8426AAE woes
Replies
2
Views
223
koda2
K
H
Speed Queen TV2000wn - early review / permanent lid switch fix
Replies
5
Views
1K
appledude1
A
panasonicvac
LG Washer/Dryer 5 year Update
Replies
8
Views
849
panasonicvac
panasonicvac
W
Why are my crisper drawers so cold?
Replies
8
Views
718
wendy
W
countryford
1953 Hotpoint
Replies
6
Views
462
Unimatic1140
Unimatic1140

Latest posts

Back
Top