Do you have any first hand experience with the new speed queen? Are you really basing your entire argument on a handful of YouTube comments?
CNET 2018 speed queen review
- Thread starter lorainfurniture
- Start date
Help Support :
Yes, because real world reviews videos and peoples experiences don't mean jack right? Just figured i'd throw it out there that people are not hating these machines like you think. Let you be the judge. I hated this machine too when i saw your video, i despised it, as more videos came out i saw that it is actually not a bad machine. In comparison to a new cabrio this thing is way better. As good as the maytag commercial cleaning wise? Probably not. But the maytag is very rough on clothes, by the way, i am going to purchase a TR3, and trust me, if it is not up to my standards it is going back, (im asking about a return policy before i buy) i will let the group know how it does, i currently have an LG front load with turbowash, 4.3 capacity, it is 5 years old.
They Have Tweaked The agitation since it came out ?
We are aware of no changes to this machine since it came out and if they did it needs to be offered to existing owners.
I think many people may like this washer at first, but like the owner in reply #81 I am afraid that many people will realize over time that things are just not as clean as they were with their old washer.
We are aware of no changes to this machine since it came out and if they did it needs to be offered to existing owners.
I think many people may like this washer at first, but like the owner in reply #81 I am afraid that many people will realize over time that things are just not as clean as they were with their old washer.
Flutetunes
Use flutetunes.com and set the metronome at 88 beats per minute. Looks like both machines oscillate on the long strokes at the same frequency.
http://https//www.flutetunes.com/metronome/
Use flutetunes.com and set the metronome at 88 beats per minute. Looks like both machines oscillate on the long strokes at the same frequency.
http://https//www.flutetunes.com/metronome/
They might make the same amout of rotations per stroke but do it with more force. It's very obvious in watching kirks videos his machine is much more vigerous, he even washed 5 pairs of jeans and they moved alot, jeans are even stiffer than dickies AND kirk only used cold water which doesn't help eather. Alot of people comented and noticed a difference too. I'm not the only one.
gusherb
Well-known member
You do realize that could just be a trick the camera is playing on you right? I bet if they both used the exact same camera you’d see the exact same thing. I personally don’t notice any difference.
what a shame...
What a shame. Speed Queen washers went the way of everybody else in terms of wash quality.
What a shame. Speed Queen washers went the way of everybody else in terms of wash quality.
I personally prefer results from controlled tests using stained swatches versus anecdotal reviews from people taking videos of washing clothes. My 2017 SQ performed well on those controlled tests. I expect even better performance for my machine because those tests were done on the EPA cycle using cold water whereas I primarily use the heavy duty cycle with warm water.
Prior to CR and CNET's reviews, there were a bunch of videos produced by two different people with a totally different take on the machines. Both gave convincing accounts of the machines performance. I was open to the possibility that both reviews were correct and that one person may have had an early release model that was subsequently refined.
The most recent controlled tests have settled the issue for me. Based on those test results, I would not buy the new model if I was looking for a washer today. I am puzzled why consumers feel compelled to spend a grand on something that tests so poorly.
Prior to CR and CNET's reviews, there were a bunch of videos produced by two different people with a totally different take on the machines. Both gave convincing accounts of the machines performance. I was open to the possibility that both reviews were correct and that one person may have had an early release model that was subsequently refined.
The most recent controlled tests have settled the issue for me. Based on those test results, I would not buy the new model if I was looking for a washer today. I am puzzled why consumers feel compelled to spend a grand on something that tests so poorly.
While I don't discount personal experience
It's awfully hard to ignore when a professional testing organization gives one of their favorite brands a bad rating.
Back when CR had to give GE's Twenty-Five Hundred a higher rating than KitchenAid, they felt it necessary to write a detailed explanation. It was clear they really, really, really hated having to praise GE.
So, yeah - when two organizations which previously worshiped at the alter of the Speed Queen say the things their saying, it's clear:
This is a steaming pile of you know what.
Oh, and as to the cleaning some folks have experienced: With today's detergents, just soaking in water for 20 minutes can remove a fair amount of soil. Just, over time, the sebum and everything else will build up.
It's awfully hard to ignore when a professional testing organization gives one of their favorite brands a bad rating.
Back when CR had to give GE's Twenty-Five Hundred a higher rating than KitchenAid, they felt it necessary to write a detailed explanation. It was clear they really, really, really hated having to praise GE.
So, yeah - when two organizations which previously worshiped at the alter of the Speed Queen say the things their saying, it's clear:
This is a steaming pile of you know what.
Oh, and as to the cleaning some folks have experienced: With today's detergents, just soaking in water for 20 minutes can remove a fair amount of soil. Just, over time, the sebum and everything else will build up.
48bencix
Well-known member
Wishing and Hoping
I think a lot of us really want Speed Queen to make the new washers better. We really liked the washers through 2017. We are just sad that we have been let down.
I think a lot of us really want Speed Queen to make the new washers better. We really liked the washers through 2017. We are just sad that we have been let down.
lordkenmore
Well-known member
I personally prefer results from controlled tests using stained swatches versus anecdotal reviews from people taking videos of washing clothes.
It's worth noting that at least one video (which was done by Lorainfurniture) does do what I consider a reasonable controlled test. It may actually be better than some tests in that it does two rounds with different temperature/detergent each time. Thus the results reflect the washer, and not any possibility of: "well, maybe this one detergent doesn't work so well in this machine!"
It's worth noting that at least one video (which was done by Lorainfurniture) does do what I consider a reasonable controlled test. It may actually be better than some tests in that it does two rounds with different temperature/detergent each time. Thus the results reflect the washer, and not any possibility of: "well, maybe this one detergent doesn't work so well in this machine!"
The ketchup test on white towels appears to have been done very well. As I mentioned, both testers were convincing leading me to believe that LF's machine may have not been up to the final release specifications. LF's machine visually appears to me to have weaker agitation. The two new controlled tests indicate that the new SQ washer cleans specific stains poorly and I wouldn't buy it because at some point, most of my items will get a tough stain.
lordkenmore
Well-known member
I wouldn't buy it because at some point, most of my items will get a tough stain.
That's my feeling, too.
There has been some arguments along the lines that many people don't really need much cleaning power for their typical laundry. I'm like that--most of what I need is freshening. But I do have the occasional item that has a stain that want totally and completely gone. Indeed, I was reminded of one shirt that I wore to an event a couple of years ago that got a bad stain on it. It was a nightmare getting it clean using Tide (although it was Tide Free and Gentle, which probably is not the most powerful version), and a reasonably decent WP DD. I ended up washing it more than once, and air drying on wood rack to avoid setting the stain. But it did come clean in the end. With that 2018 SQ, I might still be trying to get the stain out...
That's my feeling, too.
There has been some arguments along the lines that many people don't really need much cleaning power for their typical laundry. I'm like that--most of what I need is freshening. But I do have the occasional item that has a stain that want totally and completely gone. Indeed, I was reminded of one shirt that I wore to an event a couple of years ago that got a bad stain on it. It was a nightmare getting it clean using Tide (although it was Tide Free and Gentle, which probably is not the most powerful version), and a reasonably decent WP DD. I ended up washing it more than once, and air drying on wood rack to avoid setting the stain. But it did come clean in the end. With that 2018 SQ, I might still be trying to get the stain out...
The vast majority of modern washing machines are capable of removing most stains these days. Over the past 50 years there hasn't been that dramatic a departure from the fundamental designs on which both top and front loaders are based. Modern manufacturers know what designs work best. When consumers put their clothes into a washing machine now and they pick a cycle that is appropriate for the kind of wash they are doing, they can generally expect reasonable and consistent outcomes. Mostly, if any type of modern machine underperforms, the issue originates with the user. However, in this case Speed Queen have designed a washer that has put the guesswork back into doing laundry.
Why would anyone even begin to entertain this absurd idea that Speed Queen have intentionally designed their latest washer for only very lightly soiled clothes? Or, maybe, this washing machine works best if consumers throw in detergent and a prayer? Amen![this post was last edited: 5/6/2018-20:07]
Why would anyone even begin to entertain this absurd idea that Speed Queen have intentionally designed their latest washer for only very lightly soiled clothes? Or, maybe, this washing machine works best if consumers throw in detergent and a prayer? Amen![this post was last edited: 5/6/2018-20:07]
I am not sure I understand why the test wasn't done with a hot wash.
If they would have treated the stain strip like how most normal people wash a stained item, the stain strip would have likely come clean. No fun though, if the goal is to trash the machine doing the washing. Like golf, it’s the golfer and not the club to blame for a bad round.
SQ has been the back of the class for decades --
"the golfer and not the club" - so true, love that, but it does seem that SQ has entered the PGA Tour with a bent club.
While most of us wouldn't have approached a stained fabric this way in daily washing practice, it is a reliable measure of a machine's ability to remove soil. All other variables controlled for, water quality, detergent brand and amount, incoming water temps, etc., I'm pretty confident that CR is giving each machine a level playing field and a fair shot. They have simply put the identically stained fabrics in each washer and pushed "start".
How each machine controls it's water temp could be a variable, some measure temperature directly, others may just be 60/40 mix of hot & cold for "warm", but this doesn't invalidate the testing procedure, only measuring the washer's ability to produce results as the machine is designed.
Speed Queen has rarely had more than an average rating from CR testing, going back decades. In the 70's, they were dinged for small capacity, average or below cleaning results and poor spin performance. In the 80's many of the same problems were found but with the perforated basket. CR didn't care for their front-load models early on and results only improved slightly with the change in cycle length in the second iteration of f/l washers with the larger door. While cleaning improved some, they were hit with a narrow range of cycle options and inflexible settings as well as poorer spin results when held up against machines that were spinning above 800 rpm. The top loaders have been maligned in recent years for below average (of all the machines they test) in cleaning and again, capacity and extraction ability. Apples to apples comparisons have never been shining moments for SQ, and they aren't now, obviously.
For those who wanted the "old school" washer with a full tub of water and an agitator, those low CR ratings meant little vs. their expectations and results. The same is true with this new washer, there will be some who get the results they expect and those who do not in the varying ways they utilize the washer.
I love my small-door SQ front load washer and get great results load after load despite CR's findings. Real-world laundry isn't in a lab, it's in a basement or laundry room and YMMV.
"the golfer and not the club" - so true, love that, but it does seem that SQ has entered the PGA Tour with a bent club.
While most of us wouldn't have approached a stained fabric this way in daily washing practice, it is a reliable measure of a machine's ability to remove soil. All other variables controlled for, water quality, detergent brand and amount, incoming water temps, etc., I'm pretty confident that CR is giving each machine a level playing field and a fair shot. They have simply put the identically stained fabrics in each washer and pushed "start".
How each machine controls it's water temp could be a variable, some measure temperature directly, others may just be 60/40 mix of hot & cold for "warm", but this doesn't invalidate the testing procedure, only measuring the washer's ability to produce results as the machine is designed.
Speed Queen has rarely had more than an average rating from CR testing, going back decades. In the 70's, they were dinged for small capacity, average or below cleaning results and poor spin performance. In the 80's many of the same problems were found but with the perforated basket. CR didn't care for their front-load models early on and results only improved slightly with the change in cycle length in the second iteration of f/l washers with the larger door. While cleaning improved some, they were hit with a narrow range of cycle options and inflexible settings as well as poorer spin results when held up against machines that were spinning above 800 rpm. The top loaders have been maligned in recent years for below average (of all the machines they test) in cleaning and again, capacity and extraction ability. Apples to apples comparisons have never been shining moments for SQ, and they aren't now, obviously.
For those who wanted the "old school" washer with a full tub of water and an agitator, those low CR ratings meant little vs. their expectations and results. The same is true with this new washer, there will be some who get the results they expect and those who do not in the varying ways they utilize the washer.
I love my small-door SQ front load washer and get great results load after load despite CR's findings. Real-world laundry isn't in a lab, it's in a basement or laundry room and YMMV.
In a reasonably recent Choice test, one of the "good old" Speed queens was one of the worst washers tested, with dirt removal rated at 54%. Miele had the highest rated for dirt removal at 86%. Others rated over 80% dirt removal included Asko, Beko, LG, Samsung, Bosch and F&P front loaders. The worst front loader for dirt removal was 72%. The best top loader was LG at 75%. Most top loaders by F&P, LG, Samsung, Haier, Simpson got over 60%. Only a Panasonic and an LG were worse than the Speed queen, the LG was the top loader component of a 2-in-1 TL/FL where the TL component got only 24% for dirt removal, an abysmal score.
This was the "old school" Speed Queen, imagine how bad the newer version would be? (They aren't sold here yet.) These scores are all just dirt removal, not overall scores, though the SQ was third worst overall out of 73 washing machines tested.
This was the "old school" Speed Queen, imagine how bad the newer version would be? (They aren't sold here yet.) These scores are all just dirt removal, not overall scores, though the SQ was third worst overall out of 73 washing machines tested.
I think the swatch tests are valid and interesting but hard to know how it compares to ordinary laundry problems (gray white socks, sweat stained sheets, ring-around-the-collar, anti-antiperspirant build up) that show up on fabrics over time.
Can't imagine new SQ would fare well on these either. A top loader as gentle as the SQ just isn't going to cut it. FLs do well because their detergent is concentrated and the cycle times are long.
You can't have you cake and eat it too like the new SQ tried to do.
Can't imagine new SQ would fare well on these either. A top loader as gentle as the SQ just isn't going to cut it. FLs do well because their detergent is concentrated and the cycle times are long.
You can't have you cake and eat it too like the new SQ tried to do.
A possible factor in performance of frontloaders and HE/impeller toploaders vs. deep-fill toploaders like the 2018 SQ: assuming they're washing only the one stained test-swatch piece in the test load for stain removal, the FL and HE TLs will reasonably do better due to more agitation friction. The piece will just float around in the SQ TL, although that also is what a load of multiple items tends to do depending on the size of the load vs. the water level. Underloading the SQ makes for more floating and less "grab" and slosh from the agitator.
whatsername
Well-known member
Throwing just one test swatch in a machine and running it wouldn't be scientifically rigorous. Reviewed.com, for example, uses an 8 pound test load in all of its washer tests. The video in this link seems to indicate they add clean towels as the majority of the test load.
http://laundry.reviewed.com/how_we_test
http://laundry.reviewed.com/how_we_test
jeb
Well-known member
Reply to #108. If you pretreat the stain, you are not testing the washer you are testing the pretreat product. I think the idea is to prove how well the washer does on its own (showing how much less pretreatment will be needed).
twintubdexter
Well-known member
<span style="font-size: 14pt; color: #008000;">Perhaps Speed Queen will redesign the machine and leave the agitator out, after all, it really doesn't do much of anything but take up space. I think that's one of the major disappointments about this machine...you recognize the agitator and know what it's supposed to do, but it doesn't.</span>
lakewebsterkid
Well-known member
One side note
Recall the 4 factors of laundering and cleanliness: 1. temperature 2. time 3. mechanical action 4. chemical action.
When CR used Heavy Duty instead of Normal, the cleaning score went up just a bit. This heavy duty cycle should have used at least 20*F warmer water, a longer wash time, and hopefully the same detergent and amount for consistency. The small increase is likely due to the warmer water, better enzyme activity, and slightly more wash time. The single speed 720 degree arc is not powerful enough to really remove soils. I agree with DADoES that the tests were not performed in the best manner, and should be performed with other clothes in the load. However, CR and CNET did this and had poor results that align with those portrayed by Kirk and Eugene. Bash the Whirlpool Cabrio all you want, but they have consistently rated higher in all review tests that I have witnessed so far. The Immersion Care washer did use an incredibly long wash time, and so did the Neptune TL, which both scored very high in CR testing at the cost of gentleness. SQ might need to add major amounts of wash time to these machines in order to be competitive.
Recall the 4 factors of laundering and cleanliness: 1. temperature 2. time 3. mechanical action 4. chemical action.
When CR used Heavy Duty instead of Normal, the cleaning score went up just a bit. This heavy duty cycle should have used at least 20*F warmer water, a longer wash time, and hopefully the same detergent and amount for consistency. The small increase is likely due to the warmer water, better enzyme activity, and slightly more wash time. The single speed 720 degree arc is not powerful enough to really remove soils. I agree with DADoES that the tests were not performed in the best manner, and should be performed with other clothes in the load. However, CR and CNET did this and had poor results that align with those portrayed by Kirk and Eugene. Bash the Whirlpool Cabrio all you want, but they have consistently rated higher in all review tests that I have witnessed so far. The Immersion Care washer did use an incredibly long wash time, and so did the Neptune TL, which both scored very high in CR testing at the cost of gentleness. SQ might need to add major amounts of wash time to these machines in order to be competitive.
The fisher and paykel agitator model only recieved "fair" for stain removal and has a cycle time of 55 min (5 min longer than speed queens heavy duty) which is comparable to speed queens results, why isn't anybody slamming fisher and paykel?
I think fp is a turd from a repair standpoint. I’ve never done my laundry in one yet.
brisnat81
Well-known member
I'm curious about the Why on that Eugene, at least from the Washer's perspective?
Is it that parts are hard to get in the US?
They're one of the few machines you can almost fully rebuild with a Phillips head screwdriver and a pair of pliers, so I'm just curious.
Cheers
Nathan
Is it that parts are hard to get in the US?
They're one of the few machines you can almost fully rebuild with a Phillips head screwdriver and a pair of pliers, so I'm just curious.
Cheers
Nathan
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Wanted: Maytag 906 Dual Pressure Switch
- Latest: 10050cielodr
-
-
-
-
