Got my issue of CU today and looked at the laundry equipment tests as the first thing. Found some things kinda interesting.They still liked the Maytag Neptune TL-but commented that it tangles clothes.They really liked the KN HE3,The WP Duet,and the LGWM2032.For TL machines they went for the WP"Gold",KN1584,and the WPLSW9700.For dryers they liked three KN models and a GE.CU will disappoint FP fans-CU rated their machines as having higher than average repairs.They rated Roper TL machines as fewest repairs-and FP,KN Calypso as the most.WP Calypso had fewer repairs(can you belive that??)For FL machines Maytag had the highest incidents of repairs.GE the fewest.Dryers-again Roper for electric ones,and Maytag for gas dryers.
Feb 2005 CU washer-dryer reviews
- Thread starter tolivac
- Start date
Help Support :
There are probably fewer WP Calypsos in the field than KMs.
Bad rating on F&P or not, my GWL08 and DE04 are coming up on 5.5 years old with no repairs, and made it through standing in 12" to 14" of water for about 8 hrs during the November flood.
Bad rating on F&P or not, my GWL08 and DE04 are coming up on 5.5 years old with no repairs, and made it through standing in 12" to 14" of water for about 8 hrs during the November flood.
FP and the flood
WOW-thats pretty good-maybe you should write or E-mail CU about it.My dad had a Maytag washer that went thru the Rapid City S.D. flood of 1972.-it was recovered and rebuilt(or restored) by the local Maytag dealer.It worked for another 20 years.The machine was bought in June 1972 and was only a week old when the flood hit.I kept telling them to submit the washer story to Maytag-Maytag was running ads in magazines and TV about the "disasters" that various Maytag machines went thru -submitted by thier owners. Your FP machine sounds pretty tough to withstand that flood.Glad it survived.My dads Maytag looked pretty grungy-the cabinet was scratched and dented.
WOW-thats pretty good-maybe you should write or E-mail CU about it.My dad had a Maytag washer that went thru the Rapid City S.D. flood of 1972.-it was recovered and rebuilt(or restored) by the local Maytag dealer.It worked for another 20 years.The machine was bought in June 1972 and was only a week old when the flood hit.I kept telling them to submit the washer story to Maytag-Maytag was running ads in magazines and TV about the "disasters" that various Maytag machines went thru -submitted by thier owners. Your FP machine sounds pretty tough to withstand that flood.Glad it survived.My dads Maytag looked pretty grungy-the cabinet was scratched and dented.
Over the years I have sent more than a few letters to different departments of CU---NEVER once recieving a response. After recieving this month's issue and reading the "Washer & Dryer" article, again I am convinced that they tend to change the criteria they use to judge the machines from time to time so that no one machine tends to stay at the top for long---confusing to many people. I have never gotten them to explain why the exact same Whirlpool washer moving down the assembly line as it's Kenmore cousin will get a different rating! Oh well, they are interesting to read.
I wonder if they include the age of the machines into this. I think a cheap machine would sooner be replaced than a more expensive one. This could lead to a lower repair rate for cheaper washers. Suppose both a Roper and an F&P machine have to be repaired after say three years. If the Roper is replaced by a new one and the F&P is repaired, does this mean the F&P has a higher repair rate? Just wondering.
Louis, you're probably right. It has been some years since I last responded to a yearly questionnaire, but replacement probably does not equal repair.
Thus my 12-year-old KitchenAid toploader would be downgraded for having the drive coupler replaced (at a cost of about $16), whereas it would have gotten a higher rating for being replaced at 11 years, having had no repairs.
Skrewy.
Thus my 12-year-old KitchenAid toploader would be downgraded for having the drive coupler replaced (at a cost of about $16), whereas it would have gotten a higher rating for being replaced at 11 years, having had no repairs.
Skrewy.
I have not particulary though highly of CU's testing. For some odd reason, not just washers and other appliances but automobiles have this same problem with nameplates. A Buick Park Avenue, Pontiac Bonneville, and an Olds 98 can come off the same assembly line, with nothing different than sheetmetal and upholstery. Yet, these three vehicles get vastly different ratings by CU. What's really odd is when a completely re-designed car from the ground up gets either a good rating or a bad rating just because it carries a nameplate of a previous reputable or unreliable model.
Their car reports are also terrible in the fact that they rate ALL vehicles on the same basis no matter what specialty the vehicle is designed to for. Of course, an SUV is not going to corner like a sports sedan, and a sports sedan is not going to haul the weight that a pickup truck will, etc. CU typically blasts the Astro van (a favorite of my service department) for it's rough ride in comparason to the other minivans. I would like them to run a handling test though between the carlike minivans (Dodge caravan, Ford Windstars, etc), and an Astro loaded down with 1200 pounds worth of appliance parts to see who then comes out ahead!
Their car reports are also terrible in the fact that they rate ALL vehicles on the same basis no matter what specialty the vehicle is designed to for. Of course, an SUV is not going to corner like a sports sedan, and a sports sedan is not going to haul the weight that a pickup truck will, etc. CU typically blasts the Astro van (a favorite of my service department) for it's rough ride in comparason to the other minivans. I would like them to run a handling test though between the carlike minivans (Dodge caravan, Ford Windstars, etc), and an Astro loaded down with 1200 pounds worth of appliance parts to see who then comes out ahead!
astro Vans
Cbyrvanr:would make sense that vans such as an Astro should be tested with weight aboard to simulate cargo-thats what the car was designed for-to carry packages or cargo.-unlike minivans which were for passengers.I would think the weight would smooth out the ride-the Astro would have "stiffer" suspension-surprized CU doesn't realize that.
Cbyrvanr:would make sense that vans such as an Astro should be tested with weight aboard to simulate cargo-thats what the car was designed for-to carry packages or cargo.-unlike minivans which were for passengers.I would think the weight would smooth out the ride-the Astro would have "stiffer" suspension-surprized CU doesn't realize that.
kenmore1978
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2004
- Messages
- 2,119
CU tests
"A Buick Park Avenue, Pontiac Bonneville, and an Olds 98 can come off the same assembly line, with nothing different than sheetmetal and upholstery. Yet, these three vehicles get vastly different ratings by CU."
Actually, often there ARE big differences between GM cars, much more so than Ford or Chrysler siblings. Traditionally, GM division engineers are allowed MUCH more leeway in tweaking their particular make of car than Ford or Chrysler engineers. Has always ben this way since GM was initially made up of separate car companies. A lot of things ARE shared, but a lot of things are, to this day, NOT shared. When Cadillac and Oldsmobile were designing theeir new V8's for 1949 and Chevrolet and Pontiac were designing their V8's for 1955, the engineers from each division did not talk to each other at all and those engines are TOTALLY different from each other
"What's really odd is when a completely re-designed car from the ground up gets either a good rating or a bad rating just because it carries a nameplate of a previous reputable or unreliable model."
CU always says that if a car has been re-designed,or is due to be re-designed, that they have no data on the new model and when they are going to test it. They don't stick the new model with the rep from the old model until they have checked it out.
"A Buick Park Avenue, Pontiac Bonneville, and an Olds 98 can come off the same assembly line, with nothing different than sheetmetal and upholstery. Yet, these three vehicles get vastly different ratings by CU."
Actually, often there ARE big differences between GM cars, much more so than Ford or Chrysler siblings. Traditionally, GM division engineers are allowed MUCH more leeway in tweaking their particular make of car than Ford or Chrysler engineers. Has always ben this way since GM was initially made up of separate car companies. A lot of things ARE shared, but a lot of things are, to this day, NOT shared. When Cadillac and Oldsmobile were designing theeir new V8's for 1949 and Chevrolet and Pontiac were designing their V8's for 1955, the engineers from each division did not talk to each other at all and those engines are TOTALLY different from each other
"What's really odd is when a completely re-designed car from the ground up gets either a good rating or a bad rating just because it carries a nameplate of a previous reputable or unreliable model."
CU always says that if a car has been re-designed,or is due to be re-designed, that they have no data on the new model and when they are going to test it. They don't stick the new model with the rep from the old model until they have checked it out.
Similar threads
