New machine? Admiral ATW4475XQ

[spookiness]

At Home Depot website and discovered that there is a model ATW4475XQ in addition to venerable bargain DD ATW4475VQ. The specs say the tub size is slightly smaller 3.1 vs 3.2, but otherwise I can't discern any difference. VQ already has ATC, so its not that, and the only other difference is that the XQ has slightly higher power consumption (annually) vs. the VQ.

Curious.

 

[runematic]

The V  model should be disappearing.  The X code means that it is the newer version of the washer.  The X also means that the washer will not fill nearly as high as the previous V coded machines.    The tub size hasn't changed, just the way it is measured.  This probably will be the last of the DD machines.  The world washer replacement marches ever closer.  In fact, the Crosley brand has already been switched over and I believe Amana will be switched sometime this summer.

 

[kenmoreguy64]

Something to add to this...

I noticed on Sunday night the same thing on HD's site. BUT looking at a magnified picture of the control panel, it appears that the new version has just three water levels, vs. the four levels of the older version. This is either a cheaper switch, or it goes along the lines of what was said above, that if there is a lower tub fill, that three levels would spread-out the remaining divisions of the tub sufficiently without having four.

Personally, I am surprised that these lower tub fills are actually fooling anyone. I have heard the same thing happening with Speed Queen's top loaders, but it flies directly in the face of what we heard in the 1980s and 1990s about machine efficiency, and from local utilities today - that running your machine FULL is by far the best way to be energy efficient. If you deliberately set the machine to fill with less water, which in turn makes you run more loads each year then how is that efficient? Makes no sense to me unless someone thinks that consumers are going to put the same amount of clothes into the machine regardless of the amount of water in it.

Gordon

 

[mrb627]

A Trick is a Trick

Gordon,

 

I believe it is just that.  A trick.  They expect the casual user to load a full tub of clothing, add detergent, start the machine and walk away until it is done.  Never knowing that the machine is using less water than they expect.  Some people will know the difference right off the bat, but the majority of users may not.  Isn't this how most Governments work?

 

Malcolm

 

[limitededition]

Washer size

I'm not sure where I read this but I believe beginning on April 1 washing machine manufacturers will have to start to use the real volume of a tub not an I E C equivilent. Has anybody wondered how could a Whirlpool front load washer start out as a 3.8 cubic foot tub and end up a 5.0 cubic foot tub sure they changed the tumbler design by making them smaller and punched out the back of the tub around the spider but the tub is basically the same size and I believe that all German made Whirlpool tubs are interchangable. The Whirpool DD machines increased in tub size by eliminating the lint filter from 3.0 to 3.2 cubic feet, the tubs are interchanble the larger doesn't have a lint filter, some even claim to have a 4.0 I. E. C. equivilant same tub. One last thing I believe the advertising claim for the first Kemore/Whirlpool F/L machines wre 23 bath towels and that claim is still the same it is called marketing

 

[mtn1584]

LOL.............................................

I have often wondered how these WP/KM tubs went from 3.0 to 3.2 cubic ft. I remember when GE came out with their plastic machines, I saw them advertised in a "Lechmere" flyer, anyone remember "Lechmere???" Anyway they were advertised as the largest capacity washers available at 3.3 cubic ft I believe. Amamzingly Whirlpool's same size tub then became 3.2,and eventually 3.5, then I E C 4.0.
How the hell is this possible? Kenmore started out with 16 bath towels, then 18, then 20. I have to laugh. I know that these manufacturers think the average joe is an idiot. For instance my ex-sister in law bought a Kenmore King Size cap t/l thinking that she could wash a King size comforter in it.
Mike

 

[kenmoreguy64]

If the capacity measurements are about to change....

It will be very interesting to see how the dust settles. Here's what I think are a couple interesting notes:

My 1980 built Kenmore 500 washer still has it's consumer checklist on the side, or most of it, as some print has worn off. It states the machine's standard capacity basket to be 2.35 + - some tiny percentage, cu. ft. The first standard cap. DD was quoted to be 2.4 and is now said to be 2.5.

BUT, keeping that in mind, the 1976 - 1978 large capacity Kenmores, which were cavernous as compared to the standard, claimed to have a 2.6 cu. ft basket, so only .25 cu. ft. larger than the venerable standard tub in the 1980 machine. Something is amiss....

Then, the late 1981 and later large capacity machines were always quoted to be 2.8 cu. ft., or larger than the 1976 - 1978 models, which is bull. The 2.8 DOES fill higher toward the top of the machine in fact there is less distance between the tub ring bottom and the rim of the basket, but the older basket will not even fit inside a 2.8 machine's tub, so how could it be smaller???? More measurement hoky if you ask me....

I believe that in 1979 or so the large capacity machine was re-stated to be 2.95 cu. ft, but I haven't seen that in print in a while, since I sold a particular machine that still had an intact consumer checklist back in the 90s.

Anyway, I guess we can conclude that whatever 'measurement magic' is going on with manufacturers today with their 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.5 and 4.0 cu ft. tubs which are all the same, it apparently is not new and was happening 30 years ago too. Probably as universal as the exaggerated (or wishful thinking) claims of men on certain websites and in C/L ads!!! LOL

G

 

[laundromat]

Bye Bye agitator washers---

I,personally,think top loading agitator washers will soon vanish.Machines like the Cabrio and the LG top loaders will take their place for those who prefer top loading washers. If I had to have a top loader,it would be either the LG or the GE Harmony.

 

[pierreandreply4]

i have my doubts that they will completely eliminate agitator washers they might still be avalable but on special order as not all consumers will went a washer with an all electronic controls?

 

[laundromat]

If they eliminated the wringer washers and halted production on them,I see no reason they won't do the same with the oscillating agitator type top loading units.

 

[rp2813]

Looks like we'll all have to buy our TL agitator washers in Mexico before too long.  They still had wringer washers in display windows down there last time I checked.

 

[launderess]

Wringer Washers

Vanished for several reasons. The two main ones were limited sales and product liability.

Even when packed with safety devices a wringer washer just is plain dangerous if one is not careful, especially for small children. Given the "I'll sue" happy culture of the United States you can bet between the legal and bean counting departments of appliance makers, the word was clear.

Even on the other side of the pond loud voices were being raised to get shot of wringers and spin driers. Without fail every so often there would be reports regarding children being maimed or even met their demise from these devices. In the UK spin dryers had to be fitted with tub brakes, and starting methods that were more involved than simply closing the lid (a la Hoover and other early twin tubs). Again this all added to costs and when demand waned in terms of production, things came to an end.

By the time SQ (or was it Maytag?) stopped production of wringer washers, the things were a niche product. Outside of the Amish and a few others there was only export to keep sales going, and that simply wasn't enough these days to justify keeping plant in production.

Much as many of us here *love* wringer washers, consumer groups and or publications railed against them for safety reasons. Most felt there was no good reason to have one once automatic washing machines became plentiful, and advised housewives to avoid the things like the plague

 

[48bencix]

The pair is $498

The HD ad in today's Sacramento Bee shows the Admiral pair is available for $498. Not a bad value for a DD machine, with porcelain tub. I actually prefer a smaller machine because I like to do more smaller loads. We usually do at least one or two loads a day, white clothes, bedding, colored clothes, etc. Not really a bad set for traditional top loaders. I would miss a second rinse, I don't think it has that feature.

My link shows the machine, but not the ad price, you will have to search for that.

http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc1v/R-202563169/h_d2/ProductDisplay?storeId=10051&keyword=3.1+cu.+ft.+admiral+washer&jspStoreDir=hdus&Nu=P_PARENT_ID&navFlow=3&catalogId=10053&langId=-1&ddkey=Search