Modern washing machine energy usage claims: propoganda, or real?

[aump945]

Hi all,

This is my first post here I'm sure there have been posts on this topic before, but I couldn't find a comprehensive post on the topic - just random complaints here and there.

Anyway, I'm in the market for a new washing machine, and am trying to sort through what's real and what's marketing BS.

All of the review sites (e.g., Consumer Reports, Reviewed.com, The Sweet Home, etc) claim, in the strongest terms possible, that TL machines are worse than FL machines in every respect.

However, I am wondering if the testing methodology used to arrive at this claim is slanted - perhaps heavily - to favor the new eco-friendly FL machines. I've listed a few of the possible reasons for this below:

1. The cleaning tests appear to always (?) use a cold-water wash rather than warm or hot.
2. The "standard" cycle time is always (?) used to determine cleaning ability. This favors the longer cleaning time of a FL machine over the shorter cleaning time of a TL machine.
3. Soaking ability of TLs is disregarded in determining cleaning ability.

All of the above points seem to result in cleaning ability tests that consistently show FL machines cleaning much better than TL machines. However, this ignores the fact that TL machines probably *can* clean as well - or better - than FL machines if the testing method is altered. For example, what if the TL machine was filled with hot water, oxyclean, and the soiled fabric allowed to soak before washing?

In short, it seems to me that the inferior cleaning ability of TL machines may be the result of the testing method rather than inherent inferiority.

Moreover, the review sites mentioned above seem to heavily weigh the eco-friendliness of washing machines. They claim that some new FL machines use over 75% less water and energy than TL machines. As far as I can tell, this claim is true. However, the implications derived from this truth seem to be greatly exaggerated - probably on purpose. In other words, it sure looks a lot like propaganda to me.

For example, compare the 2 energy guide stickers at the bottom of this post. The first is for a cheap ($500) Samsung FL. The second is for a Speed Queen TL. You can see that, indeed, the Samsung uses 30% less electricity than the Speed Queen. But the point that all of the review sites omit - glaringly - is that the yearly difference in energy use is just $4 with an electric water heater, or $2 with a gas water heater. Unless I am misunderstanding something about the way that the Energy Guide stickers work, there is NO FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE in the cost to operate the "inefficient" TL machines relative to the eco-friendly FL machines.

With that said, I don't think the Energy Guide sticker accounts for regular hot or warm water washing. However, this cost is marginal if one has a reasonably efficient water heater (natural gas or electric heat pump).

The review sites also tout the vastly reduced water usage of FL machines (a datum not mentioned on the Energy Guide sticker). Again, this appears to be a fact. And again, this appears to make almost no difference in cost of ownership for most people with normal access to water. Water is very inexpensive in most parts of the country.

Finally, the review sites seem to give short shrift to the common complaints about FL machines: they mold, stink, and leak. Also, as mentioned above, they cannot truly soak clothing.

What do you all think? Is there a vast left-wing conspiracy against clean clothing? Are FL machines actually better than TL machines? Or are my feelings that I'm being misled justifiable? Thanks for reading!

...

As an aside, I can't understand how Consumer Reports gives such low ratings to Speed Queen machines. The SQ TL beats the #1 rated FL machine (Maytag) on vibration and gentleness, and also cleans in 1/2 the time (35 minutes vs 70 minutes). Unsurprisingly, the SQ has slightly lower washing performance (due in part, at least, to the much shorter cycle time) and the worst possible ratings for noise and water usage. Consumer Reports gives the SQ a score of just 41 to the Maytag's 86...but based on the separate criteria that comprise the score, this vast difference in score makes zero sense. So...propaganda?

 

[DADoES]

 
The various machines are tested using the designated Normal cycle at the default settings on the premise that is how the typical consumer will largely use the machine.  Said cycle and settings are typically the most restricted in energy and water usage.  If getting toploaders to clean better and/or equivalent to frontloaders requires soaking and other changes to the cycle ... then that reasonably indicates frontloaders clean better at the default cycle settings.

The differences in energy use are minimal in impact to the individual consumer point-of-view.  Hundreds of thousands / millions of the machines in use has a sum-effect on a larger scale.

Marketing propaganda is in everything. 

 

[washman]

They also leave out how long a SQ will last compared to a modern FL machine. Typically, with eco-sanctioned products, the cost of repairs more than offset any energy savings.

FWIW a recently married co-worker and his wife ditched their often repaired LG or Samsung FL machine that required 3 rewashes before it got clothes clean with a SQ TL. They called me right after the first wash.

They were impressed.

 

[kb0nes]

Welcome Nicolas, I hope you end up finding something useful here. This will be a BUSY thread with lots of of personal preference bias.

 

[mattl]

Let the bias begin.....

Having used all 3 of the major types of machines the only type I would buy and what I recommend to family/friends is a good quality FL machine.  LG and Electrolux get my votes at the moment, though I own Whirlpool.  I used a TOL TL for a while, found it to be lacking in every way as compared to my FL.  There are those here that are respected who are perfectly happy with the new wash plate TL machines, I won't discount their experience, but TL's are not for me.  I'd buy an agitator model long, long before I'd even consider a wash plate machine.

 

I feel the lift and drop of the clothing into the wash water far outperforms swishing it  around.  I also like the option of Steam, though it is available on some high end TL machines, it's is less common on those.

 

I'm sure there are those that will completely disagree with me, that's fine, just tossing out my experiences.

 

[frigilux]

 

[henene4]

As far as I understand, energy guide does not consider the water usage.

And 15 vs 40 or something gallons is quite a big difference like, 2 2/3 to 1 ratio... Even though tap water is cheaper in the US, that still quite effects it.

And on testing systems: People say they are biased. The thing is, no matter how unrealistic or "wrong" they test, they are consitently wrong.

 

[qualin]

I might as well chip in I guess...

The top loader vs front loader debate has been a long ongoing argument in this forum, with arguments going back and forth between which one is better.

The one thing I will mention is that a standard, traditional (Non-HE style) top loader is one of the fastest styles of washing machines that I know of. I can't think of any other washing method which cleans as quickly as a non-HE top loader. I mean, to put it into perspective, every traditional top loader out there usually gets a load of clothes clean in roughly around 25 minutes.

The other side to Non-HE top loaders is that they also use the most water, most detergent, most fabric softener (If you use it) and the most bleach of any machine style out there. In saying that though, I would sooner spend the extra money on the operating costs of a traditional non-HE style top-loader, than buy what I would consider to be am ineffective HE-Style washplate style top-loader. (Some people may disagree with me here.)

Now I personally did purchase a front loader because I know they cost less to operate than a traditional top loader. However, the cost savings of switching to a front loader were completely eclipsed by the amount of savings I've had by switching from an electric to a gas dryer. My utilities bill almost literally dropped by about 20 percent right away.

Fortunately, in Canada, using the metric system it's extremely easy to find out exactly how much water my machine uses. With my old Non-HE style top loader, it would use about 180 litres of water per load. My front loader uses approximately around 75 litres of water per load.

Working that out, water and sewage right now costs me $3.09 per 1000 litres. That means that a load would cost me $0.56 and $0.23 per load in water/sewage. I'm not going to factor in detergent, bleach or fabric softener, but if I did, it still would be pennies.

Over the entire lifespan of the machine, assuming I did at least one load per week, this works out to 52 loads per year or $29.12 or $11.96, a savings of $17.16 for the entire year for my utilities bill. Yay, that's just enough for one meal here.

In other words, what I'm trying to drive home is that looking at the energy use sticker is completely pointless because it's penny-wise, pound-poor. Who cares how much energy a machine uses, as long as it gets your clothes clean effectively? What I can't understand are people who pinch pennies by thinking they want to buy a front loader, but then trash the machine in five years to buy another one, without realizing that a decently made non-HE top loader would never cost anywhere near that amount to operate!

I honestly believe that a Non-HE top loader with the correct water temperature and cycle type can clean just as well as a front loader if both are loaded correctly. I can't deny though that TL's do a much better job at soaking than a FL ever could.

The one reason why FL machines seem to clean better is because of the incredibly long cycle times. 90-120 minutes as opposed to 25-35 minutes. Put anything in any machine for two hours and it'll get cleaned well. I agree with you that the testing methods are "rigged" and that they're unfair.

The other thing I wanted to mention is that even though FL's _might_ use up to 75 percent less water, the cost savings are still small, at least IMHO. If anything, if anyone has to re-wash things because they didn't get cleaned the first time around, I'd say that would negate any savings. Money, time or otherwise.

FL machines only mold and stink if they're not left with the door open so they can dry out. I also make it a point to wash with the occasional load of hot water. If I do find that it does stink for some reason, nothing that an empty load with some bleach won't take care of PDQ. As for leaking, that's just a reliability issue. Top loaders can leak too.

I'm not sure what Consumer Reports has against Speed Queen, but noise is something I honestly don't care about as long as the clothes get cleaned. That's just life. The more noise, the better IMHO, it means the machine is actually doing work.

I think comparing FL's to TL's is like comparing apples to oranges. They're different beasts which accomplish a task through very different means. I'd love to see how a SQ TL compares with other TL's on the market.

 

[arbilab]

(mostly unilateral editory)

Energy schmenergy.  Consumers conschmumers.  As you already spotted, the energy differences are almost entirely irrelevant.  And unlike a couple decades ago, so is Consumers.  When I cancelled them, the only valuable report was used-car repair records.

 

Hasten to add, eco schmeco.  Yes, CAL and AUS have  real water shortages.  Don't know why water is so expensive in EU, probably has to do with infrastructure financing.  US water development is heavily if not entirely subsidized (meaning, your kids will pay for it).  Bottom line, none of these highfalutin nanny agencies account for the environmental impact of landfilling 3-5yo appliances so shoddily designed and built they cannot practically be repaired.  So the whole save-the-planet ballyhoo is a sham.

 

Agipellers can be shown to work, a half load at a time @ 90min each, if you're willing to spend 4 days doing a week's wash that used to take 1.  Agitators are almost extinct, and lots rougher on fabric than tumblers.

 

Raised on a W tumbler, got back to FL when my 25yo Maytag quit in 98.  But even FLs have been eco-nazied, gizmodized, and cost reduced (NOT price though, despite the efficiency of making many more of them with common parts among many brands) to the point I wouldn't want a new one of what's on sale today.

 

So back to whether your quandary is justified, I'd say yes.

 

 

[vacerator]

When the washer

is new, the energy savings are real. As mine has aged, it uses more water, but because it does, is also easier on lighter clothing.
Now this may not be the case for front loaders.
Also, the thermistor is calibrated so that in summer warm weather, selecting a warm wash temp. almost always lets in no hot water at all. Thus, no difference between selecting warm, cool, cold, or tap cold.
Consequently, yes, shooting the thing in the waist with my 12 gauge seems tempting. Like one Australian on youtube tosses a concrete block into fast spinning front loaders with worn bearings, or other too costly to bother repairing units. He also has filled a few with petrol and set them ablaze while spinning.
So, what happens to the scrap metal from these 7-ish year old machines?
They may end up reconditioned in a used appliance shop if they are in good external shape and if the owner sets them on the curb on trash day. Or they get shredded and recycled into other things, which also uses energy.
So, is there really any true energy saving other than for the consumer when new?
No! A more durable appliance which can last ten to fifteen years with a few simpler less costly repairs would save more overall energy.
I am sure the Energy Star board or council would scoff at me for this, as well as manufacturers, but who cares. It's my wallet.
Now, if they were replacing a five year old worn out machine free of charge, then maybe I wouldn't mind. Then I could afford more doctor visits, or new glasses, a trip, new furniture, newer car, or "donate more to charity for under developed nations!" Need I say any more?
Of course, I'm sure there attitude is that we are lucky to have nice appliances, because in some parts of the world, they don't even have nice homes to put them in.
Well, it isn't, never was, nor never will be a perfect world. Call me spoiled.
I grew up middle class. So I say to the Ogliarch'(s), suck it!

 

[vacerator]

My dad

used to say, the roads are often paved with good intentions, but then often need repaving sooner than later because they were paved poorly, and cheaply.
One other example is seen in former eastern block, some western European, and even American housing architecture.
LeCourbiseur's brutalist concept of streets in the sky public housing schemes failed more often than not. Pruitt Igoe in St. Louis was finished in 1955, and demolished in 1972. Only middle and upper class high rises succeed and endure longevity.
Cheaply built on site cast concrete panels to house hundreds if not thousand in housing estate projects which end up becoming new slums almost within a decade, two at the outside.
So, while I am a proponent of better living for all people the world over, I am not of commie block housing, or other dumbed down ideals. There is a public housing complex in Polermo Sicily and what is piled up outside of it? Broken down abandoned appliances! Then the estates are abandoned. Crime, drugs, gang infested concrete jungles.
I believe people should earn enough to live well doing their jobs, have good jobs, and be able to afford a single family dwelling.
I have seen some newer manufactured homes which fit this ideal.

 

[henene4]

Factor in throwing away a applaince every x years

If you go that way, you have to factor in:

- energy used to clean the water your TL uses more
- energy needed to provide the water
- energy needed to produce detergent/softner/bleach
- extraction effectiveness (150-200g vs 400+g)
- enviromental impact of the clothing you have to rebuy more with a TL

You see, for you the savings seem mininal (even though they are bigger then 50%), but summ it all up, and tge picture might change.

 

[vacerator]

Which is why

I said, maybe not for front loaders.
Also factor in the cost of a Miele front loader with the 20 year bearing stateside price of about $3,000.00.
A bearing job on a Whirlpool Duet is about $800.00 and the initial price of about $1,500.00 Almost apples to oranges?

 

[johnb300m]

ohh jeez

I'll try to make this brief.
All I see are non-data-backed claims and "feelings" and nothing of any empirical study or testing.
I get that the testing results of machines by CR and Reviewed.com might not jive with folks' preconceived and tightly held notions. Lord knows I have my qualms about them.
But they test their products in very standard and repeatable, scientific procedures in controlled environments to the best of their abilities.

If I were to test all these different machines, I would do my best also, to use the same water, same laboratory-grade additives with laboratory-grade garments and measuring devices. And then I'd run all the machines on their DEFAULT settings. These are the settings chosen as defaults by the manufacturers, and should be taken as face value for what they choose to be a "normal wash load."
What better way than to discover differences in machines and manufacturers?

The second you add in ANY modifications to the machines' programming, you are introducing variables to an already variable-laden condition.
Again, are the reviews absolutely perfect? No.
But they are the best guides the market has, and at a decent cost of what the test labs are willing to spend for repeatable, and trustworthy test results.

If your 'heart of hearts' cannot accept the results and numbers, well, sorry, science doesn't care about your feelings.

 

[vacerator]

Stay away from the third rail.

That is from "Used People" I think.
So with all due respect, with age comes wisdom. Overhead catenary are better and safer than a third rail.
As we say out in the real world test field, that is better than any testing lab.

 

[kb0nes]

real world test field, that is better than any testing lab

Unless bias and personal preference invalidate the results...

 

[vacerator]

Oh?

Is there no bias among testing labs.? Marketing is marketing. Do test labs do it for free? Who pays them to? Manufacturers. Good review, good bonus, poor review, poor bonus. Read between the lines. It happens still today in code enforcement inspections also.

 

[kb0nes]

Mike, Relax a little! I didn't say there was no bias.

But using scientific methods and attempting to do everything they can to normalize variables makes a testing lab FAR FAR more unbiased then someone that just says a TL machine is always better. Heck I know a lot of people that will offer the 'sound advice' that a TL machine is always better and they have never even owned a FL machine, that isn't bias right?

We are all entitled to like what we like, but facts are facts and opinions are opinions.

And last I checked CR buys all their machines they test so they are beholding to nobody. You may not agree with their testing, especially if they don't agree with your opinion, but they are the best empirical data we have at this point.

 

[murando531]

It tickles me that the stubbornness here is so beyond reality that you could line the machines up in a room, lock the person in there with you, and run the tests and they'd see the results with their own two eyes and STILL have something to gripe about. Sounds like our current political situations in this country. *sigh*

Consumer Reports is adamant about one thing, and that is their vow to not allow manufacturers to bribe them for greater scores. I have my own beefs with CR just as others do, but they do have a very logical testing procedure that I feel gets the job done. CR's job is to say whether or not a product does its job, and how efficiently and quietly it does it. If you put badly stained cloth swatches into a standard TL, a FL, and an HE TL, set them to their Normal cycle, and the HE TL and FL removed more of the stain than the standard, how is there any bias other than the test proving exactly what it was supposed to?

There are good and bad in all three categories of machine, and the good ones do their job, regardless of if you don't believe they do just because they don't work according to preconceived notions of how one thinks a washing machine should do its job.