CR Downrating Front Loaders

[johnrk]

I own about a half dozen old issues of Consumer Reports where they've tested washing machines over the years. My oldest issue is from 1950 and the last one, in the late 80's. BTW the top rated machine in that 1950 issue is the Bendix Economat with the rubber bladder tub! These were all not TOL models tested.

I wanted a front loading White-Westinghouse for the whole 9 years I was in college and never could afford one. I consoled myself with the fact that I loved the two GE's that I had over those years. But I never could understand, after reading a bunch of CR's covering washers and those little ratings books they put out for some years, why they always placed the front loaders at the bottom.

Looking at my Aug '62 issue, the bottom two machines were the Ward's and the Westinghouse front loaders; CR stated their washing ability was considerably poorer than any of the top loaders. This occurred more than once over the years. They would also down-rate the front loaders because they had one speed instead of two. In the Feb '88 issue they simply passed over front loaders, stating that while the Euros liked them, that Americans just want bigger machines.

Question: were those earlier-generation machines, whether washers or combos, really worse at washing? I know they weren't as energy-efficient as today's, but they were still more efficient (particularly with detergent) than the top loaders. Was there some design change that has completely reversed CR's opinion of front loaders? We all know that CR is notorious for getting a certain paradigm and sticking with it, and I'd just like to know what, in the washing/rinsing action itself, might account for such a reversal.

 

[frigilux]

1) CR tests washers using the designated 'Normal' cycle at the longest wash time (or soil level setting) for that cycle. Today the test is conducted in 'cool' water (around 80 degrees) with their highest-rated detergent.

2) The longest wash time on a 1950s-1980s front-loader (many of which were made by Westinghouse / White Westinghouse and rebadged for various brands) was 12-15 minutes. Today, the wash tumble time on the Normal cycle at the heaviest soil setting is 30-60+ minutes. The detergent solution is also significantly more concentrated than it was in vintage front-loaders because today's machines use less water per fill. All of this explains why the cleaning scores of today's front-loaders is so much higher than those of yesteryear.

3) The final spin on today's front-loaders is more than double the speed and three times the length of vintage machines. This increases their energy-saving scores because clothes spend less time in the dryer. The spin speed of my 1987 Frigidaire front-loader (again, a rebadged White-Westinghouse) was probably 450-500 rpm lasting about 5 minutes. My last front-loader, a Maytag 8100 (circa late 2015) had a top spin speed of 1400 rpm lasting 11 minutes. NOTE: The machine did not spin at 1400 the entire 11 minutes. You'd hear it gradually ramp up from around 1100 rpm during the last few minutes.

These improvements helped boost the overall scores of front-loaders to the point where they now surpass most top-loaders (HE or otherwise).

4) There was a period of a few years, roughly 1990-1993, when no front-loaders were being produced for the US market. Electrolux had purchased White-Westinghouse, shut down production of front-loaders, and designed the first generation of Electrolux-based machines. Maytag was also busy designing the first Neptune front-loaders. These were a great improvement over the White-Westinghouse washers, but not as good as today's machines.

 

[gyrafoam]

The high-sudsing detergents of the time did not help either. They cushioned the "drop" of the garments into the water and didn't do much for clear rinses either. I saw many a housewife remove sudsy clothes at the end of a cycle. Most had not bothered to measure it either.

The CR does not have to follow or guarantee the advice it gives. If they give out bad advice they certainly are not going to be there to give back the money. Much of it has made little sense over the years IMO.

 

[launderess]

White Westinghouse LT800E

Was actually very highly rated by CR in 1987 according to my copy of buying guide.

Machine scored tops across the board for water efficiency, unbalanced load handling, and linting. Only negatives were for extraction and brand repair frequency.

CR goes on to note that the machine required a special low sudsing detergent, but we know that already.

They also had some niggles about the permanent press cycle being shorter than most, and that machine didn't offer more than one speed for washing(most front loaders then or now still don't), but did have a second lower spin speed.

For some odd reason CR claims the two tested front loaders (Westhinghouse and a cousin sold under the Gibson brand name) had less capacity than standard top loaders tested. But since they used less water it all balanced out in the end.

Overall don't see any down grading by CR of front loaders. In fact those ratings were streets ahead of early Bendix and other front loaders that CR nearly universally panned IIRC.

Truth to tell CR gets a hair across their behinds about this or that until it proves popular or something, then you hear a different story. For years CR really didn't like front loading washing machines (going by their reviews). Then as various forces intervened and changed the market place, now H-Axis washers can do no wrong, and it is top loaders with central beaters on their hit list apparently.

 

[launderess]

Just to balance things out...

For much of the 1980's CR rated Maytag (710 and 712) as their number one choice for top loading washing machines.

 

[combo52]

CRs Rated The First Bendix Combo

As a great cleaning machine, they also were generally very pleased with most of the dozen different combos they tested in 1960 in terms of cleaning ability.

 

Westinghouse built their 3 belt FL washer from 1959 through the end of 1988. In June of 1989 a redesigned version of this machine reappeared in both free standing and stack-able models.

 

This new machine was rated as the best performing AW washer by CRs, but in a year or so when all the repair problems appeared CR only recommended them with caution.

 

John L.

 

[yogitunes]

CR....unbiased my @SS!!!.....

I know people who read this and obey it like it was the Bible.....that magazine isn't worth buying, you run into the store, flip through the pages, take note of anything worth reading, take that advice like a grain of salt, and toss it....

for all of their history, there is not one thing they stay dedicated to and on track with....today something is bad, tomorrow, the same item is the best ever...what the heck is all this flipping back and forth......

I gather the idea of new millennials taking over as time goes on, but if you work for places like this, and if the subject of washing machines comes up, they should go back and re-read what they posted from past issues....that might change their minds on what their reporting....the job of any good journalist is research...

people in general can't form an honest opinion.....thats human nature.....if a person is set on a GM product, you wont convince them that a Mopar item is superior....and so goes the people who write these articles...

 

[tomturbomatic]

Early tumbler washers had relatively small drums and that, combined with the poorer cleaning ability of early low-sudsing detergents, led to poorer performance unless the loads were kept smaller. One of the things that CU said about the combos was that washing ability was better than with tumbler washers because the drum was larger. The best cleaning combos, beginning with the Duomatic and continuing through to the big 33" Kenmores heated the wash water and really hot water was even more important with older detergents, but is still a factor in good cleaning and prevention of gunk growing in the machines as we have seen in modern HE washers. I have read the CU issue with the letter from the subscriber asking if tumbler washers were still being made in the US since she had not seen any tested in many years. CU gave a host of reasons why they had not tested them, but they were not good reasons.

Through the 50s and into the time when Westinghouse introduced the flat front machines in the 60s CU did not like tumbler washers and after that point, it was grudging approval. They admitted in a test sometime in the 1940s that even though their testing showed the performance of the first Bendix Home Laundry showed it to give inferior performance compared to that of the non-automated methods and machines, women loved the convenience of the machine and sales were high. I think this sort of put CU's nose out of joint for tumbler washers because people were flocking to a machine that CU did not like.

I can tell you, though, from growing up in the 50s when there were many Westinghouse washers in homes because they were sold by the Georgia Power Company and they could be paid for on the monthly power bill and many of the Bendix Automatic Home Laundries in homes, that their owners were not hanging out less than clean laundry. They might not have scored as high on CU's reflectometer tests, but the laundry coming out of the machines was clean.

 

[Chetlaham]

Yogi- my honest opinion is that its deeper than that. CR is manufacturer propaganda masquerading as independent unaffiliated opinion. I see a lot of down playing and over playing to level the field, then a little boost on one side to seal a person's opinion. It creates this perception that there is true neutrality, with a mental take-away that makes the consumer feel like they made up their own mind with raw facts. Nothing is further from the truth, everything is baked in a manner where you like what they want you to like and dislike what they want you to dislike. The illusion of free will and free opinion.

 

[panthera]

It's that way everwhere

I have friends in Germany who are certain that Stiftung Warentest is really the marketing division of the major manufacturers, all housed in one building.

ÖkoTest, until a major overhaul in the early 1990s, rated the packaging materials higher than the washing machine's performance - Seriously.

I imagine it is not easy to set up fair tests that actually mean something to consumers, but my impression of CR beginning in the early 1980s was that they'd dumbed down so far as to basically be worthless.

 

 

[Chetlaham]

Worthless to us. Meaningful to those who put their faith in CR. Few know the truth like the folks on this site.

 

[washman]

CR may be free from "commercial" bias but that does not mean they are free from any other sort of bias.

 

Example, in the 80's they could not get enough of Japanese cars. If it has a Jap name on it, it was golden. Period.  End of story.

 

I recall when they rated the Toyota Starlet, some time in the early 80's. The fact it had a manual choke did not seem to matter (given that nearly every other make was either TBI or an electronic feedback card with automatic choke)

 

The summary on their so called "predicted repair incidence"............no data, new model but like other Toyotas, we expect it to be reliable.

 

Now find an review of an American car that is a new model, doesn't matter GM, ford, or Mopar. CR will say with regard to 'predicited repair incidence" no data new model but previous _______  have been unreliable.

 

Tell me that is not bias and I have a bridge I can sell you cheap.

 

[foraloysius]

They were right about that Toyota Starlet though. One of the most reliable cars ever!

 

[hilovane]

A word I've heard used to describe Consumer Reports is "persnickety."
And, yes; even when they're right, there is still an element of bias.
Their testing of washing machines, dryers, and "condiments" (detergents;
fabric softeners; etc) does not seem to reflect the real world, as I've also
seen evidenced by many of the regular contributors to this site.

 

[maytag85]

I never really cared for Consumer Reports period. Whenever you watch their washing machine buying guide video on YouTube, they seem to overload their test machines (they use a couple of Kenmore 80/90 series washers) and you will notice that they will try to wash a large load on a small/medium water level. Clothes won't get clean in a top loader if you don't use the correct water level. In one of their "Best Ways to Stop Flushing Money Down the Drain" they say "if you are hanging on to a old washing machine because it still works, you may be wasting as much as 40 gallons of water per load" but not every top load washer uses 40 gallons of water (some top loaders use 40 gallons of water). I can't believe that they are basically saying "get rid of your old washing machine that still works", well if it still works and gets clothes clean, I have no reason to get rid of it!

 

[yogitunes]

I agree with you guys.....

I just laugh when someone mentions CR as any sort of guide to making a purchase...

I have a brother-in-law who goes by every single word they type, as if this educated person can't make a simple decision on his own...and apparently he can't...

there was criticism from them back in the 80's over a car I loved owning, the car may have not the best reviews, but their comments of the car was that it 'talked' to the owner, they felt it was childish and useless....fast forward to 2000's, and their over whelmed with the praise of cars today that 'talk' and have 'voice commands' from their owners.....

an honest opinion for any car like this, it may not be your cup of tea, but offering feedback can show beneficial information for the drivers habits...

but at the same time, my opinion of that car, it verbally alerted me to a few malfunctions I may not have caught at an early stage before damage to said vehicle....

your mileage may vary....

 

[gyrafoam]

CR only surveys its subscribers, not America "at large". It makes sense that more of their readers have Toyotas than Rolls Royces.
When salespeople see customers walk in with a copy of CR in their hand, they are already thinking "idiot". Sometimes they are lucky and the "checkrated" item pays a big "spiff" to the salesperson.

 

[maytag85]

It seems like Consumer Reports reviews products that seem to have poor build quality, and products that seem to have a short life span. Only the gullibles will fall for whatever Consumer Reports says is the "Best Buy", and in reality it is the WORST buy! Reliability is the most important thing when buying something new.

 

[tomturbomatic]

They also have a bias against 4 cylinder engines, calling cars with them "underpowered," "rough running" and other similar terms. The kicker for me was when they said that a short tub Maytag was not overcrowded with a 12 pound load and a standard tub Kenmore was. This was in the early 60s at the start of the capacity wars. Consumer's Research said that the AMP had a capacity of 5 pounds of dry fabrics, but CU said it held as much as others. They also hit the combos that heated their wash water, but never correlated the hotter water in the machines that heated it with their superior washing performance.