New Ratings on Washers in Consumers Reports!

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

Help Support AutomaticWasher.org:

peteski50

peteski50

Well-known member
Gold Member
Joined
May 20, 2001
Messages
5,680
Location
New York
I just bought the June, 2007 consumer reports and it is sad reading in my openion. To try to make a long story short the top loaders were rated poorly. Because of all these stupid energy star rules their are big differences in cleaning performances. The front loaders were rated better of course. But the cycle times run extremly long in most cases and they are very costly. Their is so much done to make them look good like the new fancy colors like sears has along with the crazy matching cabinets that are a waste of time as far as I'm concerned. It bothers me that you cannot even see through the windows in a lot of cases. And one of the biggest complaints about the front loaders is that they don't use enough water.
So what do you buy???????????????????
Peter
 
a new house

with double tub laundry sink, I think we are all going to have to start soaking overnight the day before wash day. top or front load with all the water sparing, at least maybe the dam# things could rinse and spin.
 
What does one buy? An F&P IWL16 of course! That is, assuming IWL16 doesn't yet have dumbed-down temps. My IWL12 doesn't, I can get a full-fill wash at choice of six temps -- tap-cold, 68°F, 95°F, 115°F, 125°F, and tap-hot, with targets adjustable on a range of -6°F to +6°F. Also choice of water-saving shower rinses, single deep rinse, or double deep rinse (the Muddy cycle has TONS of rinsing if that's your fancy). Energy-saving EcoActive wash action, or traditional deep wash. 1010 RPM spin.
 
Actually your F&P came in quite low in the ratings.

Bascially CR puts that only three or four top loaders give anywhere near acceptable cleaning results, and of those one or two were "HE" style top loaders. The rest of the lot was a pretty poor showing, indeed rather sad really.

Front loaders, according to CR used to be gentle on clothing, but not anymore, with many tested actually becoming quite rough.

CR puts most of the blame on top loaders poor performance from the tough energy restrictions,which cause such machines to use less water. However CR also puts down "HE" style top loaders saying they cost more than front loaders but do not give the same performance in terms of cleaning, energy savings, and so forth.

What we are seeing is the result of the rather stingy water requirements forced on appliance makers. Top loaders especially need water, lots of it to do their job. Front loaders cannot become too water starved either, otherwise there is excess wear on clothing due to their being beated about/rubbed against each other without some cushioning effect of water. Add to this the rather long cycle times of many American front loaders, and you have some serious problems.

Personally they will have to part my vintage Miele out of my cold dead hands. Though not a huge fan of guns, someone might be staring down the barrel of a S&W if they even tried to take my machines. This wet-wipe school of laundry is for the birds.

L.
 
From the same people who brought us low flow toilets! *LOL*

My take on this water saving thing is it was thought out by people who either do not do laundry or do not care how it turns out. Any self-respecting housewife is not going to chuck dirty laundry from the washing machine into the dryer, but rather rewash the offending item(s), which simply uses more water.

Same with dishwashers, if a normal cycle cannot do the job, people will use heavy or add additional washes/rinses, all of which use more water.

L.
 
Sorry, Launderess, but I have to take issue with several points made in post 208882:

*The Fisher/Paykel washer was not low-rated. Its overall score was still well into the Very Good area. In fact, it scored only 9 points lower than one of the Oasis/Cabrio models, which scored a 73---also in the Very Good area.

*Only three of many frontloading models tested scored low (Fair) in gentleness to fabrics. Two of those were the new Kenmore HE5 and its Duet eqivalent, which have cycle times of 105 minutes. CR opines the long cycle probably has something to do with why those machines are rougher on fabrics. Most other frontloaders scored Very Good or Excellent in gentleness.

*The poor cleaning scores received by a growing number of toploaders is attributed to dumbed-down water temperatures, not the amount of water used. Decreased water levels do, however, negatively affect the capacity scores.

I don't have a 'wet-nap' frontloader. As you can see from CR's water efficiency scores, my original-issue Frigidaire FL is a relative water hog in comparison to many other FLers. It also scores lower in cleaning ability than most of the very-low water usage machines. CR determines cleaning scores by washing both a standard 8-lb. load and a load at the washer's maximum capacity. So even when they're fully loaded, the wet-nap machines seem to be cleaning well. I'd be more curious to find out how well they're rinsing, actually.

Having said all that, I agree completely with your point that lowered water temps and the resulting poor cleaning scores will only cause users to wash some items twice. I'll add one more to that: It's stupid to decrease maximum water levels on TL'ers, thus restricting their capacity. Doesn't it use more water and energy to split a large load into two rather than letting the machine use 6 more gallons of water per cycle which would allow a user to take advantage of its maximum capacity?
 
I don't understand why front-loaders went to such low water levels.

IMHO, it would have been smarter to transition in to it (extremely low water levels) over a decade when everyone in this country eventually got used to front-loaders.

Also if the gov't tightens water use restrictions further there appears to be no room to "move" to meet the standards.
 
In Europe our machines were not always that water-efficient. The older FL machines over here used plenty of water and were hot and cold fill. The water was typically at least 1/3 way up the glass until the late 80s / early 90s.

Hot fill began to be abandoned as water levels dropped as it just became pointless to even attempt to fill from the hot water supply - There is also a preference for heating the biological detergents up from cold to about 40C as the enzymes activate more effectively that and the fact that 60C+ washes are less common thesedays.

Many of the earlier water saving machines didn't do a great job on rinsing and were way too stingy with the water supply! Some of the BOL models are still like that.

Things are changing a lot though as most of the newer machines use innovative combinations of water scoops in the padels, special drum surfaces that pick up the water and slosh it over the clothes (i.e. the newest bosch/siemens, the miele honeycomb, the Hoover Vortmax etc) recirculation pumps and sprays (Zanussi Jetsystem being the first to do it)

Are the FL machines that are rougher on fabrics of US or European origin ?
I get the impression that some of the US manufacturers are still not quite there with their FL machines just yet. Which is very odd, considering that the likes of Whirlpool or Electrolux (which owns a good few US brands?) operate on both sides of the atlantic and should have decades of FL experience from Europe to learn from!

In general, FL machines should be very low-wear on fabric as the clothes don't really move against eachother very much, rather the water moves through them as the drum turns.

I wonder if the wear is being caused by those tilted drum machines? They seem to cause the clothes to fall back and twist much more than a fully horizontal axis.

Or, could it be the HE detergents used over there?
 
For my two cents, my LG uses extremely low water levels and it does a brilliant job of washing, rinsing and extracting, no complaints whatsoever. If I'm in a rush, I can set it to do a complete cycle in less than 30 minutes. Also, it can do a sort of conventional cycle ( 1 wash, 2 rinses, 1 spin) in less than 50 minutes.

Because of Peter's experiences, though, I would, if I were to buy a new washing machine, choose between the new larger Miele and the new Large Asko (the Asko already is the front runner, because it still can be set to deliver 200 F water, apparently).
 
wear and tear

I personally believe that a front loader with low water levels and long cycle times does cause a lot of wear and tear of clothes because they just rub against each other. I agree with Laundress.

IMO washers and dishwashers are in a sad state and have been for a time.

A dishwasher that uses less water but takes 2.5 hours to wash a load must cause wear and tear on the dishes too. Government is short sided and stupid. Remember the low flush toilets that took three flushes to remove everything?

Courtney in Waynesboro VA
 
mrx wrote:

"In Europe our machines were not always that water-efficient. The older FL machines over here used plenty of water and were hot and cold fill. The water was typically at least 1/3 way up the glass until the late 80s / early 90s."

Too right they weren't, plus they washed and rinsed beautifully. A standard-sized 10 lbs front loader could use as much as 44 gallons per cycle. As a rule they also lasted a lot longer than the current fare of front loaders.

My brand new SQ top loader uses about 39 gallons per cycle to wash and rinse 16.5 lbs of clothes. In our household that amounts to approx. 9.5% of all the water that we use per month, which is not all that much.

Cleaning and rinsing performance, durability, flexibility as well as simplicity and functionality were the primary criteria for my choice. Our machine can wash all machine and handwashables that we use in our home. This includes doona covers, sandshoes, sneakers and soft toys. More importantly, I can take care or all our laundry needs using only three different cycles.

After doing a bit of comparative shopping I concluded that a lot of TOL washers rely more on gimmicks rather than durability and quality. I read somewhere that most people only ever use between two or three cycles on their washing machines anyway. It negates the point of having 15 or 20 different specialty cycles. In my books washing clothes should be practical and easy, not complicated by superfluous choices.

With most cheap to moderately priced washers life-span is estimated at 6 to 10 years. I think a washer that lasts 15 to 20+ years makes more economic and environmental sense.
 
You are all soooo right!!!!
That is what I've always been telling!
We have just bought another old washer Hotpoint 9605 Top Loader Electronic de luxe 1050!
I hope the latest machine will last until I shall close my eyes for ever - after me the Flood! (Devil-may-care!!)

Ralf
 
Its the wonderful thing about miele :) WATER PLUS!

You can override all that stuff on any Miele I've ever seen.

Turn water plus on, increase the water level on all washes/rinses (programmable option-- often requires a cryptic combination of key presses and knob turns)

It will then by default bring the water level of all the rinses up to an old fashioned 1/3 way up the glass.

Washes are still relatively low water volume though.

Clothes come out stunningly well though.
 
Consumer Reports

I was at Costco today during my lunch hour. Stopped and read the lastest copy of Consumer Reports with the lasest washer reviews in it. It down rates every top loaders on the market except the Cabrio and Oasis. I read it in a hurry didn't care to buy it. I guess the people at Consumer reports assumes everyone can afford one of the high end/highly efficient machines when a traditional top loader cost way less.

But the front loaders were off the scale compared to top loaders. Once again most people can't afford a high priced front loader even if it does clean better then a TL.

I know Consumer Reports now are more concerned with what saves the most energy versus what is actually a good product for the US public to buy.

It also seems that each time the reviews are published the article get smaller and smaller. Use too back in the 70's I could read for an hour with all the information they used to provide.
 
Frigilux:

No worries, was recalling the rankings from memory, so if you had the real numbers at hand so much the better.

Miele "Water Plus" option:

IIRC was removed on some models of washers after the 1900 series, but may have been reintroduced with the latest series. There was a work around posted over on THS for the 1200 series, that involved some reprogramming, but it wasn't as easy as the old days of selecting the option by pushing a button.

My Miele w1070 uses about 32 US gallons for the "cotton" cycle (normal which includes the pre-wash), and about 28 for the short cycle (minus pre-wash). This includes five rinses for the cotton cycle regardless of pre0wash. This gives great results in all but cases when I've added too much detergent in error.

I'm sorry, but one needs water to launder clothing, and by continually reducing water levels, there are bound to be problems. Add to the fact American washing machines (front loaders) are increasing in size, but only have 120v heaters, and that also factors into long cycle times.

All these problems, IMHO come from people who probably haven't done laundry/housework in their lives, telling the rest of us how things should be done.

L.
 
Water plus was never removed on the W1200 series - the button was just renamed "sensitive". It still works the same way as the water plus option on models from other countries, but for some reason or another Miele thinks Americans are too stupid or dumb so didn't put instructions for altering the sensitive option in the manuals.

Although I prefer to use the water plus option mainly for fun purposes, I can use low water levels on our Miele just fine and our laundry is laundered and rinsed properly, our whites aren't dingy and I never have to rewash anything. What's more, whether there is a water shortage or not I can feel better when I've done laundry knowing I haven't used more water than is necessary. I've used several machines that have employed low level washes and rinses, and out of them the only low water machine that didn't do a good job was the Bosch we had - the Zanussi and AEG machines I've also had have done a perfectly fine job with low water levels. However, the Miele we use now uses less water, I believe, than the Bosch we had for 3 or 4 years, and only rinses twice as standard but with medium levels - however it employs fast interim spins, and this combination seems to be able to rinse the laundry well compared to the 4 low rinses and slow spins on the Bosch - so it just goes to show that washers can be made to be water efficient, if it is done right.

Sure, low water levels are boring, but we can't let it cloud the fact that if done properly water efficient machines do work.

Jon
 
Launderess, you know I have nothing but massive respect for your wide-ranging knowledge!

One more question for those of you with the very low water usage FL'ers: Do the rinses use more water, or are they as 'wet-nap' as the wash cycle?
 
Frigilux - the lowest rinse level in my machine reaches the lip of the door seal (that's if it's sensed there is a small load) - for a standard load the water is usually an inch up the door. With water plus selected the water is 4 or 5 inches up the door.

The water in our old Bosch however wasn't visible at all - only on the rinses of the Delicate cycle!

Jon
 
Miele 1918 "Water Plus"

On my machine, I would say the normal water level is about 2 inches below the door. Pressing the "water plus" button adds about 1 gallon of additional water to the Cotton cycle wash and all rinses, and to the Perm Press wash, so the level is then about 1 inch below the door.

It's the programmable options that allows the user to raise the water level on the Cotton cycle rinses to the "high" water level, which is about 1/3 the way up the glass. The high water level is the default rinse water level on the Perm Press cycle and the default water level for both wash and all rinses on the Delicate cycle.
 
Now that is funny.

On my Miele, the default rinse for all cycles is the high level which is the normal wash/rinse level for "Delicates". I know this because one time set the program selector to delicate cycle after using a cotton wash program, and the machine didn't add anymore water. However, if one sets the machine to "Woolens" which has the highest wash and rinse water levels, the machine will add more water (assuming one chose another cycle for washing, such as cottons). Down side to this is that being a timer controlled machine, if all that water is not pumped out within the alloted time for say "Cottons", the timer will still advance. This will cause the washer to abort the graduated spin/final spin as a machine protection system. Again, tried this once and the machine simply wouldn't play ball.

My machine uses so much water during the rinses for in "Cottons" that heavy, thick/thirsty items like towels will really sop up allot of water. So much so have to take care as one can hear the drum literally bounce down low as the towels tumble about. Still, makes for great rinsing as again, if using the proper detergent by the third rinse the water is almost always totally clear.

L.
 
If you want a modern front loader with higher than average water levels, very good washing performance, and average gentleness, consider the Neptune 6500. It uses an average of 25 gallons per load - about twice as much as other modern front loaders. I would recommend, however, getting an extended service agreement. Mine was for a total of 7 years and cost $120 (for the 7500). It has saved me hundreds in repair bills.

And yes, I think the 7500 is a great washer. The only thing it really lacks is a window. But then with all the smoked gray windows in modern front loaders, not sure if there's much difference.
 
I also shop for washers at the swap shop at this point-GO VINTAGE-preferably BD KN or WP machines.I have looked at the "pretty" FL machines at BB and Lowes,HD,but can't get motivated to buy them because of their high prices-at how some of them are priced-might as well send out your clothes-it would be cheaper.most areas have a local laundry service.Its the same idea as the high priced lawn tractors-it would be cheaper to have a lawn service do your lawn.And with those high prices on the laundry equipment--how is the water savings going to offset their high prices-Can't justify it for me.Maybe if these were more reseanably priced-it would make more sense.
 
CR clearly states that depending upon water and energy costs, one may never recoup the extra costs for some "HE" machines. Even in areas with high water/utility costs, it still may take ages of use (with the same machine), to offset the extra cost.

Problem with many of the domestic front loaders sold in the United States is they are big on flash and short on substance. Who needs 15 different cycles and a washing machine that speaks seven languages? Start with a solid built machine like the SQ front loaders, add a decently powerful internal heater, and perhaps a simple range of cycles (mechanical timer or electronic), and that should be that.

Top loading washing machines are going to become history if makers cannot figure out a way to deliver good results and meet the energy mandates.

Really is a pity Americans do not seem to like 220v washing machines. A high powered heater would go along way towards solving much of the long cycle times, especially with American TOL detergents, which are pretty agressive and designed to work in short wash cycles.

L.
 

Similar threads

W
Whirlpool Washer Rant!
3 4 5
Replies
132
Views
10K
DADoES
DADoES
Unimatic1140
An Interesting Test with a New Meter
2
Replies
43
Views
3K
kb0nes
kb0nes
W
Whirlpool and Samsung are reducing the maximum spin speed on their washers
2 3
Replies
78
Views
2K
DADoES
DADoES
N
Frigidaire FFTW1001PW - Repair vs. a New TL?
Replies
8
Views
458
gelaundry4ever
G
servis-dream
from a crazy idea to blueprints, the story of PiWosh's WSR184 (2024-2025)
Replies
5
Views
519
servis-dream
servis-dream

Latest posts

Sponsored
UnlistMe
Back
Top