Energy star water factor question
- Thread starter mark_wpduet
- Start date
Help Support :
ronhic
Well-known member
ok....
I think Brisnat81's comment about shirts is an indication of wear and his comparison to his current machine validates what I have said/implied above and that is that 'Front Load machines are more gentle on clothes'. That is wear is lower and they have less pilling.
I have not said that 'Top load machines can't wash 'gently' What I have said is that wear and pilling is lower in a front load machine. I also used Choice reports to confirm it.
The issue that I was more concerned with was the water usage. Jeff commented about the way a person could wash to obtain gentleness in a Top Load machine. I commented that this is not how the machines were designed to be used or how the majority of us use them. A case in point is Which? UK states the average load is 4.5kg. If I was to wash the way suggested to ensure a 'gentle wash for all', sure it may be gentle but look at the water consumption. An appropriate cycle for the appropriate material and load.
Rapunzel, of course if you wash the embroidery fabric used, multiple times in a front load machine it will show more wear. However, you would then need to wash the Top Load samples the same number of times in a Top Load machine to get a valid comparison. My guess is that the Front Load machine will still show less fraying.
Rinsing does depend to some degree how much of a chemical is used. Choice commented that 'Some (front loaders)may rinse poorly due to thier very low water usage'. Some, not 'lots'.
When it comes to detergent, we all have our own opinions on what and how much to use. Choice state that a Front Load machine uses less and I personally use less of most detergents but it depends on the load size ...yadda yadda yadda...but the more chemical load you put in the wash, the more chance there is for issues with fabric and skin especially if they are not adequately rinsed (which some front load machines may not do).
I stand by what I was effectively implying (if I didn't say it) and that is that 'A Front Load machine is more gentle on fabric (wear/pilling) than a top load machine when used with a normal load (either machine capacity or 4.5kg) on the normal cycle'
...it is kind of interesting that the start of the thread was on 'water usage'
I think Brisnat81's comment about shirts is an indication of wear and his comparison to his current machine validates what I have said/implied above and that is that 'Front Load machines are more gentle on clothes'. That is wear is lower and they have less pilling.
I have not said that 'Top load machines can't wash 'gently' What I have said is that wear and pilling is lower in a front load machine. I also used Choice reports to confirm it.
The issue that I was more concerned with was the water usage. Jeff commented about the way a person could wash to obtain gentleness in a Top Load machine. I commented that this is not how the machines were designed to be used or how the majority of us use them. A case in point is Which? UK states the average load is 4.5kg. If I was to wash the way suggested to ensure a 'gentle wash for all', sure it may be gentle but look at the water consumption. An appropriate cycle for the appropriate material and load.
Rapunzel, of course if you wash the embroidery fabric used, multiple times in a front load machine it will show more wear. However, you would then need to wash the Top Load samples the same number of times in a Top Load machine to get a valid comparison. My guess is that the Front Load machine will still show less fraying.
Rinsing does depend to some degree how much of a chemical is used. Choice commented that 'Some (front loaders)may rinse poorly due to thier very low water usage'. Some, not 'lots'.
When it comes to detergent, we all have our own opinions on what and how much to use. Choice state that a Front Load machine uses less and I personally use less of most detergents but it depends on the load size ...yadda yadda yadda...but the more chemical load you put in the wash, the more chance there is for issues with fabric and skin especially if they are not adequately rinsed (which some front load machines may not do).
I stand by what I was effectively implying (if I didn't say it) and that is that 'A Front Load machine is more gentle on fabric (wear/pilling) than a top load machine when used with a normal load (either machine capacity or 4.5kg) on the normal cycle'
...it is kind of interesting that the start of the thread was on 'water usage'
Hi rhonic
"My verdict - 99% of wear and damage to clothes occurs on the body..."
I don't dispute that front loaders are gentler on clothes. What I am pointing out is that the statement sounds more significant than it actually is.
Now, brisnat's experience with his shirts is proof to him that his front loader preserves his clothes and maybe that is true. Based on my experience I would consider that there may be another reason that has contributed to his shirts' improved longevity, since his switch to a front loader. Collars and cuffs are the first things to go on any shirt. Over the years some of my shirts used to wear out relatively quickly in those places, whilst others, many of which are now more than 10 eyars old, still look like new and they get worn and washed at least once a month. Some of these weren't even expensive or of any notable label, whilst some of my most prized and costly shirts turned out to be disappointingly average in quality.
Unless there would be damage of some sort to the agitator, I can't think of any reason why or how it can cause prolonged and concentrated abrasion in specific areas, i.e. collars and cuffs and not the rest of the shirts, it doesn't make sense. If the wash action is so much more abrasive overall wouldn't that show anywhere on a shirt, not just cuffs and collars? That said, there were and still are some types of top loaders, especially impeller washers, that could be more likely to cause intensified and abrasive friction overall. Though, with most of the center post agitator top loaders available, I can't see how, unless it comes down to the user, chemical and other agents.
I have satin and brokade table runners. They are decades old and look like new, even though I do wash them in my top loader with no issues whatsoever. Had I a front loader, I would get exactly the same results.
Domestic appliances and water consumption, like gentleness, is another one of those issues that sounds much bigger than it really is. People get manipulated into ways of thinking that often distract from the basics and principal purpose of the products they buy or the issues that need to be resolved. I am all for doing the right thing for the environment, but with a good dose of '(un)common sense'.
"My verdict - 99% of wear and damage to clothes occurs on the body..."
I don't dispute that front loaders are gentler on clothes. What I am pointing out is that the statement sounds more significant than it actually is.
Now, brisnat's experience with his shirts is proof to him that his front loader preserves his clothes and maybe that is true. Based on my experience I would consider that there may be another reason that has contributed to his shirts' improved longevity, since his switch to a front loader. Collars and cuffs are the first things to go on any shirt. Over the years some of my shirts used to wear out relatively quickly in those places, whilst others, many of which are now more than 10 eyars old, still look like new and they get worn and washed at least once a month. Some of these weren't even expensive or of any notable label, whilst some of my most prized and costly shirts turned out to be disappointingly average in quality.
Unless there would be damage of some sort to the agitator, I can't think of any reason why or how it can cause prolonged and concentrated abrasion in specific areas, i.e. collars and cuffs and not the rest of the shirts, it doesn't make sense. If the wash action is so much more abrasive overall wouldn't that show anywhere on a shirt, not just cuffs and collars? That said, there were and still are some types of top loaders, especially impeller washers, that could be more likely to cause intensified and abrasive friction overall. Though, with most of the center post agitator top loaders available, I can't see how, unless it comes down to the user, chemical and other agents.
I have satin and brokade table runners. They are decades old and look like new, even though I do wash them in my top loader with no issues whatsoever. Had I a front loader, I would get exactly the same results.
Domestic appliances and water consumption, like gentleness, is another one of those issues that sounds much bigger than it really is. People get manipulated into ways of thinking that often distract from the basics and principal purpose of the products they buy or the issues that need to be resolved. I am all for doing the right thing for the environment, but with a good dose of '(un)common sense'.
ronhic
Well-known member
I'm no scientist.....but
My feelings on the collar and cuff issue and why I believe they fray more in a Top Load machine (from my own, my mothers, sister and Brisnat81's experience) could be due to the following..
- Collars and cuffs tend to be stiffer than the rest of a shirt. Either through multiple layers of material with stitching reinforcement, backing material or a combination of both. This is particularly so with mens shirts.
- The action of the agitator in a Top Load washer interacts with not only the water, but also the fabric and because of the movement created by the agitator stroke, this causes the stiffer material to rub and wear exacerbating any wear and tear from generally wearing the shirt.
- This ends up creating pilling and then thread-bare areas on the collars/cuffs.
- The same movement creates lint
- Many Top Load washers have a lint filter to catch the lint caused by the washing action. Front loaders (European and Asian ones anyway) do not have or need one as there is negligible linting.
- The action of a Front Load machine is different (who'd a thunk?). The baffles are there to move the clothes to towards the top of the drum where the clothes tumble/fall. This is the mechanical action that pushes the water through the clothes. The clothes effectively 'push' the water through 'themselves'
- Because it is a 'tumble/drop/squish' action (and lets be honest, the 'drop' may only be 2-8" depending on load), there is much less movement in general and what movement there is, is weight of wet clothes pushing the water through.
- This gives less friction and less opportunity for wear and pilling and no lint
When it all boils down to it, we care about our laundry otherwise why would we be on this forum? Some of us prefer to launder one way, some the other and we will treat our treasured items (such as table runners etc) with the care they deserve. Some of us have noticed significant differences from one style of washing to the other while some may not have.
Maybe we need to have a wash-a-thon....
Machines at 2/3 capacity, standardised loads (same percentage of each item in each machine) with 2 identical items that are known to 'pill' as the controls. Run each machine through banks of 10 normal cycles with no detergent or conditioner and the 'control' items being line dried between runs.
Now if we could solve the issue of time, inclination to actually do it and put the water in a 'loop' so we aren't being stupidly wastful, we at least could test this ourselves.
My feelings on the collar and cuff issue and why I believe they fray more in a Top Load machine (from my own, my mothers, sister and Brisnat81's experience) could be due to the following..
- Collars and cuffs tend to be stiffer than the rest of a shirt. Either through multiple layers of material with stitching reinforcement, backing material or a combination of both. This is particularly so with mens shirts.
- The action of the agitator in a Top Load washer interacts with not only the water, but also the fabric and because of the movement created by the agitator stroke, this causes the stiffer material to rub and wear exacerbating any wear and tear from generally wearing the shirt.
- This ends up creating pilling and then thread-bare areas on the collars/cuffs.
- The same movement creates lint
- Many Top Load washers have a lint filter to catch the lint caused by the washing action. Front loaders (European and Asian ones anyway) do not have or need one as there is negligible linting.
- The action of a Front Load machine is different (who'd a thunk?). The baffles are there to move the clothes to towards the top of the drum where the clothes tumble/fall. This is the mechanical action that pushes the water through the clothes. The clothes effectively 'push' the water through 'themselves'
- Because it is a 'tumble/drop/squish' action (and lets be honest, the 'drop' may only be 2-8" depending on load), there is much less movement in general and what movement there is, is weight of wet clothes pushing the water through.
- This gives less friction and less opportunity for wear and pilling and no lint
When it all boils down to it, we care about our laundry otherwise why would we be on this forum? Some of us prefer to launder one way, some the other and we will treat our treasured items (such as table runners etc) with the care they deserve. Some of us have noticed significant differences from one style of washing to the other while some may not have.
Maybe we need to have a wash-a-thon....
Machines at 2/3 capacity, standardised loads (same percentage of each item in each machine) with 2 identical items that are known to 'pill' as the controls. Run each machine through banks of 10 normal cycles with no detergent or conditioner and the 'control' items being line dried between runs.
Now if we could solve the issue of time, inclination to actually do it and put the water in a 'loop' so we aren't being stupidly wastful, we at least could test this ourselves.
mark_wpduet
Well-known member
Here is where my water level is after a normal cycle fill. Prior to the adjustment, part of the baffle wasn't completely covered, now it's completely covered. I'd guestimate perhaps one gallon more water is being used.
View attachment 1-7-2009-18-19-25--mark_wpduet.jpg
View attachment 1-7-2009-18-19-25--mark_wpduet.jpg
mark_wpduet
Well-known member
didn't upload first time
@ Jeff
Think of your finest garment, that one you wouldn't even dare to to handwash
When you take it to the drycleaner, anyway it goes into a a frontloader .
Drycleaning machines are nothing else than special frontloaders that use other solvents rather than water. Wetcleaning machines are inverter motor frontloaders that besides regular cycles have special programmes to wash "dryclean only" items in VERY LOW water level, with special revolving -not tumbling- patterns & special detergents/sours.
If frontloaders were so harsh, drycleaners wouldn't use them.
Think of your finest garment, that one you wouldn't even dare to to handwash
When you take it to the drycleaner, anyway it goes into a a frontloader .
Drycleaning machines are nothing else than special frontloaders that use other solvents rather than water. Wetcleaning machines are inverter motor frontloaders that besides regular cycles have special programmes to wash "dryclean only" items in VERY LOW water level, with special revolving -not tumbling- patterns & special detergents/sours.
If frontloaders were so harsh, drycleaners wouldn't use them.
@ Mark
Don't worry, bearings will not suffer because of that increase
Now I understand it !!!
My washer too uses such a low level on cottons, permapress and wool/handwash cycles.
Cotton cycles allow a nearly full tub load, so when i run a load of towels the machine stops many times to add water during the first 10 minutes of the wash part.
This means that very load needs 10 mins to saturate, so the machine "senses" the load size and "adds time" even if "short" is selected. Small loads that saturate faster are washed faster (30 mins full load, 15 min small load)
US timed machines with much shorter wash part times (9-21 mins) probably saturate a load of towels just a while before the wash drain
Don't worry, bearings will not suffer because of that increase
Now I understand it !!!
My washer too uses such a low level on cottons, permapress and wool/handwash cycles.
Cotton cycles allow a nearly full tub load, so when i run a load of towels the machine stops many times to add water during the first 10 minutes of the wash part.
This means that very load needs 10 mins to saturate, so the machine "senses" the load size and "adds time" even if "short" is selected. Small loads that saturate faster are washed faster (30 mins full load, 15 min small load)
US timed machines with much shorter wash part times (9-21 mins) probably saturate a load of towels just a while before the wash drain
ronhic
Well-known member
I agree...
Even my Hoover Electra used to fill, tumble and fill more if depending on the pressure sensor...this was especially evident with a full load of towels.
The Westinghouse/Electrolux/Zanussi that we have does the same but with less water....tumble and fill until the contents are saturated but the water level is still below the door...this takes somewhere between 5-10 minutes of the 40m wash component of the 68m quick 40c program which still gives a decent 30-35m 'wash' plus rinses etc....
Even my Hoover Electra used to fill, tumble and fill more if depending on the pressure sensor...this was especially evident with a full load of towels.
The Westinghouse/Electrolux/Zanussi that we have does the same but with less water....tumble and fill until the contents are saturated but the water level is still below the door...this takes somewhere between 5-10 minutes of the 40m wash component of the 68m quick 40c program which still gives a decent 30-35m 'wash' plus rinses etc....
Dry Cleaning Machines Use Front Loaders
For many more reasons than "saving water".
First, various local and other government laws and rules require dry cleaning machines using solvents be somewhat air tight, to prevent fumes from the chemicals from leaking out, exposing workers and everyone else around to some rather nasty stuff. This simply cannot be done easily with top loading washing machines.
The amount of water in dry cleaning solvent (charging) will vary by what is being cleaned. It can range from minimal with things such as woolens and wools, to perhaps more with cottons,linens and maybe even silk.
True, there is one benefit front loading washing machines have in any commercial setting, they can be designed to hold more than any top loading washer. This has been true since the large rotating cylinder tumblers of old and still holds true today with modern 50lb. 75lb and more machines.
As to the issue of abrasion and wear:
Any washing method will cause wear, and in the case of machine washing if the tub is loaded fully or over full, then you are going to have more rubbing action as cloths rub against each other as well as being banged against the tub/baffles. The solution is simple, increase the water to laundry ratio by loading less laundry.
Ideally, modern front loading machines work on the theory of using a highly concentrated wash liquor, then lots of water for rinsing (well, if one could call it that today).
Older front loaders (like my vintage Miele), used about 5 or six gallons for cottons and PP cycles. However when doing shirts or such, I load the machine only about half full. When doing items of pure linen ( a fiber that loves water), I very much underload the washer to give things room to move about.
Miele's newest washers, have special settings for high water level washes, such as "sheets" and "bulky" items.
For many more reasons than "saving water".
First, various local and other government laws and rules require dry cleaning machines using solvents be somewhat air tight, to prevent fumes from the chemicals from leaking out, exposing workers and everyone else around to some rather nasty stuff. This simply cannot be done easily with top loading washing machines.
The amount of water in dry cleaning solvent (charging) will vary by what is being cleaned. It can range from minimal with things such as woolens and wools, to perhaps more with cottons,linens and maybe even silk.
True, there is one benefit front loading washing machines have in any commercial setting, they can be designed to hold more than any top loading washer. This has been true since the large rotating cylinder tumblers of old and still holds true today with modern 50lb. 75lb and more machines.
As to the issue of abrasion and wear:
Any washing method will cause wear, and in the case of machine washing if the tub is loaded fully or over full, then you are going to have more rubbing action as cloths rub against each other as well as being banged against the tub/baffles. The solution is simple, increase the water to laundry ratio by loading less laundry.
Ideally, modern front loading machines work on the theory of using a highly concentrated wash liquor, then lots of water for rinsing (well, if one could call it that today).
Older front loaders (like my vintage Miele), used about 5 or six gallons for cottons and PP cycles. However when doing shirts or such, I load the machine only about half full. When doing items of pure linen ( a fiber that loves water), I very much underload the washer to give things room to move about.
Miele's newest washers, have special settings for high water level washes, such as "sheets" and "bulky" items.
jerrod6
Well-known member
Mark
In your picture is this the minimum amount the washer will fill to? Many FL adjust the amount of water to the load size so wouldn't your tub contain more water than this if it contained clothes?
In your picture is this the minimum amount the washer will fill to? Many FL adjust the amount of water to the load size so wouldn't your tub contain more water than this if it contained clothes?
mark_wpduet
Well-known member
Jerrod.
Yes, it would. If I tossed clothes in they would absorb that water thus the machine would fill back to that level in the picture. Prior to the adjustment, if I filled the machine without clothes on a normal/heavy duty cycle, it would fill with about 2 inches of the baffle not touching the water, now the baffle is completely submerged and then some. I can tell when I'm running a load that the "sloshing" sound is much more pronounced!
Yes, it would. If I tossed clothes in they would absorb that water thus the machine would fill back to that level in the picture. Prior to the adjustment, if I filled the machine without clothes on a normal/heavy duty cycle, it would fill with about 2 inches of the baffle not touching the water, now the baffle is completely submerged and then some. I can tell when I'm running a load that the "sloshing" sound is much more pronounced!
electron800
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2007
- Messages
- 252
I've often wondered if US FL's used less water than
But from seeing that picture, I'd say that even prior to adjustment that is about the normal level for a modern front loader.
This confirms for me that any problems that people have had with these machines producing poor results is not down to them using too little water.
This means the poor results many people have had in the U.S. from modern front loaders must be caused by either cycles being too short or not vigourous enough, low water temp in machines without heaters, poorly designed HE detergents or simply incorrect usage.
I think it is most probably a combination of cycles being too short and incorrect usage/poorly designed detergents.
As for wear and tear I've never had anything damaged in either a top loader or a front loader. I have only ever used a top loader once or twice, so I can't comment on long term wear but family members have clothes which are about 25 years old and still regularly being worn and washed in front loaders and are not showing signs of wear.
Matt
But from seeing that picture, I'd say that even prior to adjustment that is about the normal level for a modern front loader.
This confirms for me that any problems that people have had with these machines producing poor results is not down to them using too little water.
This means the poor results many people have had in the U.S. from modern front loaders must be caused by either cycles being too short or not vigourous enough, low water temp in machines without heaters, poorly designed HE detergents or simply incorrect usage.
I think it is most probably a combination of cycles being too short and incorrect usage/poorly designed detergents.
As for wear and tear I've never had anything damaged in either a top loader or a front loader. I have only ever used a top loader once or twice, so I can't comment on long term wear but family members have clothes which are about 25 years old and still regularly being worn and washed in front loaders and are not showing signs of wear.
Matt
My two and a half cents... hope you don't get jealous!
Below you can see my 12 year old (3.1 cu.ft) Frigidaire washer which, by todays standards uses a HUGE amount of water (LOL).
I did not modify the water level at all, but I did modify it so it will tumble as it fills. Originally it would sit still as the water flowed in, then after the water level switch was satisfied, would start tumbling. If I was doing a load of towels or something else that really absorbed the water, it would sometimes stop to re-fill 2 or 3 times, very annoying.
Recently I had an *itch* to get a NEW washer & dryer.... but after doing a load at a friends house in their 2 year old FL LG set I decided to save my $2000 for something else! I did not like the really low water lever AND the long cycle time. It took over an hour to complete the load!
Below you can see my 12 year old (3.1 cu.ft) Frigidaire washer which, by todays standards uses a HUGE amount of water (LOL).
I did not modify the water level at all, but I did modify it so it will tumble as it fills. Originally it would sit still as the water flowed in, then after the water level switch was satisfied, would start tumbling. If I was doing a load of towels or something else that really absorbed the water, it would sometimes stop to re-fill 2 or 3 times, very annoying.
Recently I had an *itch* to get a NEW washer & dryer.... but after doing a load at a friends house in their 2 year old FL LG set I decided to save my $2000 for something else! I did not like the really low water lever AND the long cycle time. It took over an hour to complete the load!
ronhic
Well-known member
....over an hour...
That is fast for a 'normal' cycle...
Most European (and asian) machines take between 1 1/2 and 2 1/2 hours on the normal cycle.
I only ever use the full cycle if the load is particularly full (or dirty) otherwise I use the quick wash feature. At 40c (warm) that is still 68min....though
That is fast for a 'normal' cycle...
Most European (and asian) machines take between 1 1/2 and 2 1/2 hours on the normal cycle.
I only ever use the full cycle if the load is particularly full (or dirty) otherwise I use the quick wash feature. At 40c (warm) that is still 68min....though
aquarius1984
Well-known member
HMmm
That Frigidaire looks to be a right hash of machines.
(I am aware as to who makes them but its still a right hash)
*Door of Europoean Zanussi/Electrolux
The wash dial and smaller dials are the same as my Grandparents *Belling Wash Wise 1100/1300. (Gorenje) Can you still adjust the part you grip to suit where you want it in relation to the pointer?
*The drum looks somewhat Gorenjeish but not the same as my grandparents. THeirs was somewhat similar to the Hotpoint one in the UK crossed with an old style Bosch.
That Frigidaire looks to be a right hash of machines.
(I am aware as to who makes them but its still a right hash)
*Door of Europoean Zanussi/Electrolux
The wash dial and smaller dials are the same as my Grandparents *Belling Wash Wise 1100/1300. (Gorenje) Can you still adjust the part you grip to suit where you want it in relation to the pointer?
*The drum looks somewhat Gorenjeish but not the same as my grandparents. THeirs was somewhat similar to the Hotpoint one in the UK crossed with an old style Bosch.
Frigidaire
Oh Kevin ANOTHER washer!!!...Lol....having seen a range of your front & top loaders at the shops and in action I am mighty impressed with the Frigidaire range & hear great reviews as well!!!, your mate Rich with schnitzels,(hi Rich) introduced us to them at the washer convention many yrs ago!!! simple in design & solid in construction, just what you need, looks a decent water level as well!!! I looked at the newer ones in Omaha last year (not last yr 1997) the ones with the square /round door, if I had to pick one I`d pick Frigidaire!!!
My MaytagAsko really has a good range for features IMHO, variable wash times & cycles, I can do a 95d superquick wash from cold in 48mins with 3 rinses & 1600rpm....similarly if I need long extended for white table clothes after after the vac & washer boys have been round then long can be 2.30hrs...Can also add super rinse up to 7 rinses if needed & high water levels across all programmes,
Happy washing, Mike
Oh Kevin ANOTHER washer!!!...Lol....having seen a range of your front & top loaders at the shops and in action I am mighty impressed with the Frigidaire range & hear great reviews as well!!!, your mate Rich with schnitzels,(hi Rich) introduced us to them at the washer convention many yrs ago!!! simple in design & solid in construction, just what you need, looks a decent water level as well!!! I looked at the newer ones in Omaha last year (not last yr 1997) the ones with the square /round door, if I had to pick one I`d pick Frigidaire!!!
My MaytagAsko really has a good range for features IMHO, variable wash times & cycles, I can do a 95d superquick wash from cold in 48mins with 3 rinses & 1600rpm....similarly if I need long extended for white table clothes after after the vac & washer boys have been round then long can be 2.30hrs...Can also add super rinse up to 7 rinses if needed & high water levels across all programmes,
Happy washing, Mike
That Frigidaire looks to be a right hash of machines.
Robert... I'm sorry but I don't know what "right hash" means.
Mike... Another washer? LOL.... well yes I suppose so. But this Frigidaire washer (and matching dryer) has served for the weekly laundry needs since I bought them new almost 12 years ago. We have (probably) done an average of 4 loads per week which works out to roughly 2400 loads run through them. I have to say I've been pleased with their performance and reliability. The ONLY problem I have ever had is.... about two weeks ago I pulled the timer knob to start the machine and the knob came off in my hand! I looked it up on line, 2 days and $18 later it had a new timer knob! (the internet is an amazing thing, isn't it?)
I did not know for a number of years that Electrolux makes this washer for Frigidaire... and they still make it today. I have also seen this same machine sold under the Kenmore and GE names as well.
Yes my friend Rich has the same "square door" set you have pictured and I assume it's also made by E-lux. Differences are it has a "slightly" larger capacity (3.5 cu ft vs. 3.1 for mine), a larger door opening and a lot more cycles. He says he like his a lot, but it's OVERLY sensitive load imbalance when trying to spin.
OH... I almost forgot! While I have not actually timed it, this washer does the "normal" cycle in I believe 35 - 40 minutes. This is for a main wash, 3 rinses and spin after each. If I choose "Heavy wash", that only adds 4 minutes to the main wash time. Being that is has a mechanical timer, even the "extra rinse" option does not lengthen the cycle time . I'm sure I could sit down and time it.... IF inquiring minds really want to know!
Robert... I'm sorry but I don't know what "right hash" means.
Mike... Another washer? LOL.... well yes I suppose so. But this Frigidaire washer (and matching dryer) has served for the weekly laundry needs since I bought them new almost 12 years ago. We have (probably) done an average of 4 loads per week which works out to roughly 2400 loads run through them. I have to say I've been pleased with their performance and reliability. The ONLY problem I have ever had is.... about two weeks ago I pulled the timer knob to start the machine and the knob came off in my hand! I looked it up on line, 2 days and $18 later it had a new timer knob! (the internet is an amazing thing, isn't it?)
I did not know for a number of years that Electrolux makes this washer for Frigidaire... and they still make it today. I have also seen this same machine sold under the Kenmore and GE names as well.
Yes my friend Rich has the same "square door" set you have pictured and I assume it's also made by E-lux. Differences are it has a "slightly" larger capacity (3.5 cu ft vs. 3.1 for mine), a larger door opening and a lot more cycles. He says he like his a lot, but it's OVERLY sensitive load imbalance when trying to spin.
OH... I almost forgot! While I have not actually timed it, this washer does the "normal" cycle in I believe 35 - 40 minutes. This is for a main wash, 3 rinses and spin after each. If I choose "Heavy wash", that only adds 4 minutes to the main wash time. Being that is has a mechanical timer, even the "extra rinse" option does not lengthen the cycle time . I'm sure I could sit down and time it.... IF inquiring minds really want to know!
mark_wpduet
Well-known member
Revinkevin
Thanks for that picture. I've always wondered what the water level was like in the older Frigemore's. That tub isn't tilted is it? It does use a good amount of water but I was imagining since it was an older FL washer that it would come up more. But that still uses plenty of water to wash with. Is the rinse level higher? My Duet drum is tilted so its hard to compare, though there is definitely more water in yours than mine. The Duet does rotate as it fills though. I don't think I want to adjust my washer anymore because watching it wash, I feel like there is a good amount of water in there. I turned on the delicate cycle and the water touched the glass door.
Thanks for that picture. I've always wondered what the water level was like in the older Frigemore's. That tub isn't tilted is it? It does use a good amount of water but I was imagining since it was an older FL washer that it would come up more. But that still uses plenty of water to wash with. Is the rinse level higher? My Duet drum is tilted so its hard to compare, though there is definitely more water in yours than mine. The Duet does rotate as it fills though. I don't think I want to adjust my washer anymore because watching it wash, I feel like there is a good amount of water in there. I turned on the delicate cycle and the water touched the glass door.
Frigemore? No, Frigelux!
Hi Mark, to answer your questions....
> No the tub on this one is not tilted. This machine was built (1997) before they started tilting the tubs (or was the Neptune FL out by then? If so I stand corrected)
> The water level is rigidly fixed, no adjustments, no choices, no higher levels for rinses, no "water+" button and no water level adjustment for cycles (like delicates). I have added extra water through the dispenser drawer, but that is the only way it will go higher. As I am pretty happy with it I have no intention of messing with the water level.
The photos below are my older Westinghouse style (Kenmore badged) front loader. It has a water level adjustment (with reset) and the photos below are the lowest level setting and the highest.
Hi Mark, to answer your questions....
> No the tub on this one is not tilted. This machine was built (1997) before they started tilting the tubs (or was the Neptune FL out by then? If so I stand corrected)
> The water level is rigidly fixed, no adjustments, no choices, no higher levels for rinses, no "water+" button and no water level adjustment for cycles (like delicates). I have added extra water through the dispenser drawer, but that is the only way it will go higher. As I am pretty happy with it I have no intention of messing with the water level.
The photos below are my older Westinghouse style (Kenmore badged) front loader. It has a water level adjustment (with reset) and the photos below are the lowest level setting and the highest.
Similar threads
