CR's take on Speed Queen TLs

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

Help Support AutomaticWasher.org:

Marky_Mark

Marky_Mark

Well-known member
Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2014
Messages
739
Location
Living in Palm Springs and Madrid. From Liverpool.
The CR website is currently showing ratings for the electromechanical AWN542 and the electronic AWNE92SP113TW01.  They score differently.  Are there genuine differences or is it just inconsistent evaluations by CR?

 

Overall Score.....for the 542 was 29.....for the AWNE was 39 out of 100.

 

Ratings on a scale of poor, fair, good, very good, excellent.  Cycle time: 35 minutes for both models.  Tested on most aggressive normal cycle, which in this case was the "normal-eco" cycle for the electronic version and the "regular" cycle for the manual timer version.  Warm wash.  No additional cycle options selected.

 

Washing performance:

542 (knob control): good

AWNE (electronic): very good

 

Energy efficiency:

542: good

AWNE: very good

 

Water efficiency:

542: poor

AWNE: poor

 

Capacity:

542: good

AWNE: fair

 

Gentleness:

542: good

AWNE: excellent

 

Noise:

542: good

AWNE: fair

 

Vibration:

542: excellent

AWNE: excellent

 

Rinsing performance:

Curiously, CR doesn't test washing machines for this, which I have always found very surprising.

 

The only reason I can think of as to why the electronic version scores more highly for washing is that perhaps its normal-eco cycle's wash time is longer than the manual version's regular cycle.  Any thoughts?  I wonder what the difference was between the wash water temperature of both machines.

 

Both machines are awarded the minimum score of "poor" for water efficiency.  However I'm guessing the manual version, without the spray rinse, will have used more water.

 

Capacity is judged by CR's testers as they continue to add more laundry until they consider the machine can't roll the load over properly anymore.  I'm not sure why the electronic version scored lower.

 

I guess one of the reasons why CR considers the electronic version to be much more gentle on laundry could be as a result of testing it on the normal-eco cycle.  With only a spray rinse, the clothes won't be exposed to additional agitation during the rinse.  I would have thought the wash agitation would be the same in both machines but I don't know about the actual wash time.

 

Electronic version's score for noise is worse.  I could understand why -- the electronic version's post-wash spin-drain is slow speed, producing a noise that could have been considered more intrusive/annoying by the human noise testing panel.

 

If CR had tested the electronic version's Heavy Duty cycle and the manual version's regular cycle, after making the necessary modifications to the water level and hot inlet valve, I wonder if there would have been any difference at all.

[this post was last edited: 1/30/2016-12:26]
 
I can see how they might score differently regardless of CR's arbitrary rating system, they're two different generations with relatively different ways of operating. going by half of those side by side ratings I would be inclined to discredit CR, several of the answers are not logical.
 
The current Speed Queen manual control model AWN542's Normal cycle is an eco cycle with only spray rinses and no deep rinse. You only get a deep rinse on the Heavy/Perm press and delicate cycles. My sister just got that model and I told her to never use the Normal cycle. So no difference between the mechanical and the electronic version as far as rinses go.
 
You must mean the AWN432 because the AWN542 went away and was replaced by the AWNE82. The 542's don't have the Normal Eco selection, or the new style fill flume for the spray rinsing, and have the water valve that mixes more cold than hot for warm. (I believe 30/70 ratio)
 
The AWN542 tested by consumer reports apparently had 5 cycles written around the control knob: regular, permanent press, delicate, hand wash, soak.  Could it be that the model tested by CR didn't have the newer eco-normal cycle?  Perhaps your sister has the newer version?  How are the cycles listed on your sister's model?  Does her machine actually fill the tub or would it need the adjustment that several kind members have documented on this site?

 

EDIT: After I posted the above reply I then read gusherb's reply which has some good info.
 
CR only cares...

CR only cares about energy efficiency! That's why I read real consumer reviews! No wonder why everybody else has thousands of complaints! When I say everybody else, I'm saying everybody else who makes washers and dryers!
 
I guess noise and capacity are due to testing with inconsistent measures. With the extended spin on the '16 models, a 'badly' balanced load will have more impact on noise, and due to the exact same drum and agitator on both, most likely the worse capacity is connected with some bad loading habbit...
 
For all their faults CR is by far the best (perhaps only?) source of really unbiased reviews. Sure we can arm-chair quarterback them and pick endless nits of their methods etc. But in the end they actually buy the products they test, they do direct comparisons using established methodology (yea I know we may not agree its right) and report the differences head to head.

To say something as ridiculous as "I read real consumer reviews" is highly telling. While end user reviews are interesting and may show trends, there is ZERO way to determine the percentage of machines that didn't fail and that continue to work fine, means that any conclusions drawn are statistically flawed. Add to the mix the fact that glowing performance reviews of mundane household goods are only written by a tiny percentage of satisfied users, means that all end user reviews WILL be skewed towards problems.
 
I prefer to just buy several competing items and compare for myself, perhaps share my own reviews when I'm done comparing and have chosen a winner. Sadly this doesn't work for cars or large appliances, but it works for most things. I find consumer reviews to be highly emotionally biased, based on gobbly gook and god knows what else, and often not touching on the right points. Amazon reviews as of late seem to be the worst offender of that.

For example I was researching space heaters, every single model I read reviews on would've led me to believe that if I purchased the item being reviewed that it would burn my house down and kill everyone in it. Not to mention the ignorance 95% of the reviewers displayed, complaining about a certain model of heater not bringing their 500 sqft high ceiling great room from 40° to 78° in 10 minutes. (While claiming that other models do...) for instance.
 
CR: Also, remember that the difference between any two categories (Good and Fair, for instance) can be as little as 1 point. Don't get riled up over the difference in ratings for the two Speed Queen models. They are probably very close. One model, for instance isn't at the top of "Good" for capacity and the other at the bottom of "Fair." CR gives the most weight not to energy and water efficiency, as some here believe, but to cleaning ability.


I don't have a problem with the way CR tests; that has actually improved since vintage days. My problem with them is the wretched "dot" rating system. GIVE US THE FREAKIN' NUMBER actually scored in each category! I want to know if a product is only a point or two away from "Good," which in CR-speak is actually not that great. Something may be rated "Very Good" but only by the skin of its teeth.

[this post was last edited: 2/1/2016-07:31]
 
You might be right about the model number change. Anyway, there are 3 cycles: Normal/Eco, Heavy/Perm Press, and Delicate. Infinite water level. 3 Wash temp selection. A button for an extra rinse. All rinses are cold. And the tub fills all the way to the top. She is very happy with the machine except it stopping when the lid is raised. When I get a chance I'm going to do the clothes pin trick for her. She bought it in Oct of 2015.
 
Absolutely loving my 9 series. Just to address a couple points that you brought up I feel the capacity is fantastic in this SQ Awne9. As a comparison, our last washer the Maytag Neptune while the capacity was same or just a smidge higher took many more loads to complete our laundry than the SQ two loads. I feel confident the SQ can be loaded more and have a more thorough cleaning with clothes than a typical front laoder due to the amount of water that is being used.
Rinse cycle is a very strong point on the SQ which leaves almost no laundry residue behind. I love the smell of good soap just don't want to wear it.

Noise is minimal or no worse than the Neptune we had. I've left the door open and sat in our family room to test and didn't find it intrusive or annoying.
 
Plus 1 on the Speed Queen AWNE92. Only thing we don't like is the lack of temperature control on the fill valve; however, there are workarounds for this.

If CR wanted to throw stones at the current SQ line, maybe they should land closer to the dryers??

Nothing worse than over drying your clothes, and SQ may have been a little late to the game in adding moisture sensors. Read to many complaints about their new moisture sensor models.

Have a Whirlpool LGC7858AW0 from '93 that we don't seem to be able to kill. Sensor still works perfectly, so we didn't consider purchasing the matching dryer for the 92.

Nick
 
Yes those are very good points about CR and Which?  I subscribe to them both, but interpret their findings very carefully as they are testing to a very specific set of criteria.  Definitely a case of YMMV.

 

Nick, of all the many dryers tested by CR, the Speed Queen ADE41F (electric) / ADG41F (gas) is the lowest rated dryer.  But the newer Speed Queen with the electronic moisture sensors does far better in CR's tests.  However I've heard people, like you, mention that they've read reviews suggesting the moisture sensors can be inaccurate.  But I can't actually find those reviews myself.  Does anyone know what the problem is and under what circumstances some people are having issues?  I've heard that some people find the clothes are not dry enough.  Interestingly, the Speed Queen electronic dryness levels I've seen appear to go: damp, less dry, near dry, dry.  I haven't seen settings for extra dry etc.  But using "dry" with the "heavy duty" cycle could equate to the same thing.

[this post was last edited: 2/2/2016-05:29]
 
My problem with Consumer Reports is that they don't really explain their criteria(when I last had them). And their comparisons may not make any sense. For examples (dated now from maybe 2010 when I last subscribed):

1. They were comparing laptops and their catagories were based on screen size. Ok, not crazy, but also sort of missing a lot of catagorization possibilities. You probably shouldn't compare a netbook and an ultrabook because they have the same size screen. Anyway, they ended up saying that a Macbook by far was the best laptop in the mid size screen category. I won't argue the conclusion, but will point out some flaws in comparison:

* The Macbook recommended was 3x the price of the average of all the other tested laptops.
* The Macbook didn't run the same software as all the other tested laptops.

This comparison pretty much tested 2 entirelly different sets of products that superficially looked the same on the outside and in the loosest sense did the same thing. It's like if they catagorized washing machines soley by capacity, and didn't differentiate FL from TL from Portable. Comparing a $400 portable machine with a $2500 FL because they might both have 3 cu ft capacity might well be missing the point(s).

2. Comparing Subaru Impreza's to many other small sedans.

This one is less egregious, because Subaru themselves are competing here. There did seem to be a major point that was generally missed though in the ratings - an AWD car is fundamentally different from a FWD car in terms of cost, complexity and gas mileage. Pointing out that the Impreza got worse gas mileage was IMO like pointing out that a SUV weighed more - it ought to be obvious. And while the Camry is a perfectly good car, and in this case probably one of the best sedans available, it's not AWD so if you need that... well. The grouping seems a bit suspect.
 
I wonder how rinsing compares between the old mechanical timer Queens and the new electronic models.
AFAIK the new ones only use the slow spin speed for the spin right after the wash in all cycles. I wonder why ?
Maybe the theory behind is that the spray rinse works better this way, but why on earth doesn`t it ramp up to regular speed after the spray has finished ?
The slow interim spin would be a total dealbreaker for me.
 
I think the slow wash spin speed is silly myself, but watching my machine many times over my best guess is it's to keep the water from the fill flume from breaking up Into droplets as the tub picks up in speed. In low it's just starting to pick up speed when the water kicks on for its 50 second duration and the clothes are well covered by the fill flume usually. If one uses Normal Eco it'll do the entire spray rinse cycle in low, stop, and kick over to high speed for the final spin.

As far as rinsing goes I find it to be quite acceptable and better than our old AmanaQueen which had the waterfall fill flume. I only ever need the extra rinse when bleach is being used.
 
Yes I think you're right.  The new ones spin at 473 RPM for the post-wash spin, whereas the older ones used to spin 50% faster at 710 RPM.  Having said that, the spray rinse on the new ones appears to be 50 seconds (at least on the heavy duty cycle) whereas on the old ones it was 30 seconds.  I don't know if the flow rate has been altered.  So with the new fill flume, it could be that the new longer spray rinse is actually more effective overall despite the slower spin speed.  I wonder what difference all this makes to the overall rinsing effectiveness after the deep rinse. 
 
The slow interim spin would be a total dealbreaker for me."

Don't. Whatever it's doing, however it goes about it's job I am in absolutely ecstatic on how the towles have come out smelling like natural cotton again. Not mildew or excessive detergents. Awesome rinses. After shaving I can't help but enjoy the clean scent of properly washed towel. Again. It's been a long time.
 
Thanks, Mark.....

You never really know about things like large appliances until you've lived with them for awhile. That's why we want CR to be right. Large appliances are difficult to return.

Anyways......we don't have that much to offer, but enjoy the banter just the same.

Nick
 
In my opinion, CR might be able to predict the reliability of something. But that would only be by previous years of usage. If the design of a machine changes, the reliability would probably change too.They can test things to see if they in fact do what they are supposed to do. But a lot of that has to do with HOW you use the product in question. So the test results they come up are really not that useful as far as how well something works. Considering how they used to always report that Norge washing machines were the very best for washability results and recommended them above all others is a good example. Norge were very trouble prone and did not last very long at all without many problems and repairs for the owner. Yet Frigidaire along with a few others, would last 20 years or more without problems in servicing. As is obvious, there are still many old Kenmore & Whirlpool and Maytag machines still around that are in use even today. You can scarcely find an old Norge anywhere now, yet they were top rated back in the day.
 
I prescribed (sic) to CR for decades. But I don't any more (early 00s). IMO they editorially forewent any pretense of global objectivity in favor of marketing buzz du jour, mostly water use.

Water is the LEAST expensive element of laundering while arguably MOST critical. While in the home, toilets use no less than 10x what washers do and you don't have to WEAR the finished product of toilets.

IOW, who cares about water other than CR editorial board and the goobermint? IOOW, why are they publishing irrelevancies?
 
I -- and many left coast millions -- care about water

. . . because we've gone through three periods when it was scarce around here over the past 40 years, and consciousness about water usage has been ingrained since the mid '70s.

 

Due to Dave's issues with incontinence after his stroke, and the fact that adult briefs are lousy at overnight containment, I find myself doing a lot of king size laundry.  If we had a huge capacity SQ TL, we'd have exceeded our water allotment on a consistent basis over the past year of rationing.   And as my nine year experience with an Amana SQ clone taught me, the rinsing would be, pardon the pun, piss poor. 

 

The Affinity FL pair we have now aren't perfect, but the washer gets the job done better than the Amana/SQ old-school system, and uses a fraction of the water to do it.   Even on occasions when I use the extra long spray hose from the adjacent laundry sink faucet to add water, I'm still using far less than with a TL machine.  

 

I will never again own a TL machine for my daily driver.  It's irresponsible when one's water supply is not only finite, but unpredictable.
 

Similar threads

L
CR Tests Tide powder
Replies
14
Views
703
user 12105
U
M
Older Maytag VMW washer in great condition: A Find
Replies
0
Views
649
maytaglover68
M
M
Speed Queen Washing Machine - Export Model Differences
Replies
8
Views
1K
MickGearz
M
kalanikaau1
All the more reason...
Replies
8
Views
182
gelaundry4ever
G
M
The Speed Queen TC5
Replies
2
Views
708
panasonicvac
panasonicvac

Latest posts

Back
Top