Bleccchhhhh!

[veg-o-matic]

I just read the February Consumer Reports.

I rate it "Not Acceptable."

Remember the Good Old Days where CR actually printed INFORMATION? Take a look at the report on washers; there's nothing there.

No information about cycles, speed combinations, water levels, temperature selections. Nada. Zilch. Zippo.

There *were* pictures, though. Two. A Kenmore and a Whirlpool, both taken from about 300 yards away.

They mention that the Neptune TL and that GE Whatever (the grey one) both have newfangled washing mechanisms.

How's about showing us what they look like? Not everyone has seen them, you know.

Quirks? In the 60's, they'd mention how GE and Hamilton would oversuds (with photographic evidence), how funky lint filters and softener dispensers would interfere with loading (more pictures), how well each model spun, etc., etc. Now, there's nothing. I feel like I don't know any more than I did before I read the article.

Tub size? They practically chuck us under our collective chins while they tell us not to worry out pretty heads about it.

Oh, and one more thing, guys. How's about testing some models that Average Joes like myself would buy? I don't want an $1100.00 washer. I'm not that rich (or foolish, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.)

A friend of mine is refrigerator shopping. CR did fridges a few months ago. Know how many bottom-freezer models they rated?

ONE. And a foreign one, at that (LG.)

End of vent, at least for now. But just wait until I get started on dog owners who don't clean up behind them!

veg the old crank

 

[gyrafoam]

Having been a subscriber to CU for over 30 years now, I have to say that in my opinion in the past 8 years there have been major changes in the way they test and then provide information. When the "Calypso" first hit the market and was rated by CU, I had some pointed questions and sent a letter to their research department. Never got a response. Nothing. They constantly report on appliances, without any in depth information. I still don't understand why the exact same model Kenmore washer can go down the exact same assembly line as the exact same Whirlpool model and they will each have a different rating, usually one inferior to the other! This year when they want me to renew my subscription I will decline. I can learn more about how new appliances REALLY are just by reading the information provided by the people on our web site.

 

[westytoploader]

CR...OY!

Yep, CR has gone downhill, period. I've "vented" a few times over their poor excuse of a vacuum report. Now I pretty much subscribe just for the hell of it, and I do find the information on things such as cell-phone providers good.

Washers, forget it. CR thinks the majority of the subscribers have 6-figure salaries, luxury cars, and $300,000 homes, and can easily afford an $1100 "Quick Pick" Duet or He3T. NOT ONE decent-priced FL was recommended, and how can a Roper possibly differ so much from a Whirlpool that the two have drastically different ratings? How can a $300 plastic GE be recommended, while a $420 machine scored only "fair" for washing? And you're right Bob, not once to they mention tub size; apparently that's obviously not a concern for them anymore. I think they last mentioned tub size in the late 1990's, I think 1996 or '97 but I'm not sure.

I bought a huge lot of vintage CR on eBay, and with it there are washer articles from 1972, 1975, and 1991. The 1972 and 1972 reports are virtually the same, covering such things as the 1-18's lint filter that comes out during wash, the Filter-Flo oversudsing, the Norge spitting suds out through the lid, and how the Roto-Swirl was less effective than the straight-vaned Norge. And did I mention PICTURES?? Lots of 'em too!

The 1991 report is a drastic change from the last two, but still much better than today's report. The plastic-tub machines are "new and improved" to them, and the GE Filter-Flo's design is "dated and not fully competitive." However, groups of machines were rated closely, with the Whirlpool top-rated, and the Kenmore/Kitchen-Aid coming behind in a close second. The WCI machines that had the 6-vaned agitator scored better than the others, which makes sense. To test capacity (something they obviously don't do anymore), they don't factor in tub size. Instead, 3 colored "flags" were thrown into the wash along with whites, etc, and it was timed how long the "flags" took to reappear, if ever. Now THAT was a test.

My two cents...

--Austin

 

[re563]

I Stopped believing in CR when one year, (can't remember off the top of my head), they rated the whirlpool dishwasher with silverwear in the door as a poor cleaning choice "as the silverwear in the door was too far away from the spray" and caused poor cleaning. (I believe those were their exact words). The next year when they rated dishwashers again the whirlpool came in the Number 2 spot with them saying something like "the whirlpool, having the silverwear basket on the door not only creates more loading space in the lower rack but also cleans silverwear better than most"---OH REALLY--not to mention some of the things that you all have stated, such as how can washers that run down the same assembly line (Whirlpool, Kenmore, KitchenAid, Roper )vary so much in ratings. I know that Kenmores are built to their own specifications but still,IT'S A WHIRLPOOL FOR GODS SAKES!!!!

 

[mrcleanjeans]

consumer DEports

Austin,you are SO right about the vacuum reports, actually you are all right in your gripes.On vacuums, for example , one year, a Kenmore Powermate canister was excellent in deep cleaning, then in a year or so, dropped to fair with that SAME powernozzle.I believe the explaination is in the nozzle adjustment.The booklet sayed for the best and deepest cleaning,set on the lowest setting, which used to , by the way, called AUTO,which CU must have done.However, they change crews and , IMHO,disregarded those instructions the next time and then set it on MEDIUM , since they always test on medium pile carpets, thus the drop.In 1974, Consumers RESEARCH got it right. As an example,a Kirby Classic Omega was lowered, per instructions,till a change in sound was noted,and remved 19 units of dirt.then,in that same report they retried the test one notch lower,removing 57 units of dirt and had a similar experience with a dial a nap Eureka.By the way, I could site countless contradictions on CU, but we all know how they are. They should do what CR did in 1974 for vacs.As for washers, I wont even go there.They are screwy to the max in that area.

 

[partscounterman]

Another Magazine

I also want to say bleccccchhhhh to the current version of Better Homes and Gardens. It used to be full of ads for household products, furniture, appliances and food products.

Now all the ads are for drugs-and I don't mean the recreational kind. Yawn.

The articles feature overdone homes that normal people cannot afford.

 

[gansky1]

Have you noticed that BH&G is starting (as are other home mags.) to emulate Martha Stewart Living? It's hard to tell one from another anymore...

 

[tolivac]

I used to subscribe to BHG-dropped them becuase of the ads for drugs and very little info or ads on household products such as appliances and vacuums and home cleaning products-instead get out my OLD BHG magazines(from the 50's)that have ads galore for all kinds of COOL home products-Rainbow,Hoover,Lewyt Vacuums,Maytag wringer and automatic washers with "Gryafoam" action.and not only good ads,but INTERESTING and useful articles too! If you run into any BHG from that era-very useful.I got mine at a book sale from a used bookstore that was closing down.also got some farm magazines from the 1940's also very good.Love the old farm equipment ads.