One more thing: Due to the high cleaning performance scores of some new front-loaders, the scores for all front-loaders have been recalibrated. Example: My 1996 first generation Frigilux rated an 'Excellent' for cleaning by the standards of that era. Today, it would probably only be rated 'Good'.
Frigidaire lengthened the wash portion of the cycle on their front-loaders in 2012, which improved cleaning performance scores. Unfortunately, they shot themselves in the foot by dumbing-down warm water to a point where the rating has dropped back to 'Good' despite the longer cycle.
<p>And can we finally put to rest the myth that all modern washers have only a 5-year lifespan? Granted, build-quality (except for SQ) is not what it was on vintage machines. Manufacturers figured out that if they made it economically unsound to repair rather than replace a washer, they can sell people a new one--which shows up on Wall Street. Keeping warehouses full of spare parts and a fleet of repairmen does not show up on Wall Street. At any rate, I am quite confident that my 2010 front-loader will give me 10 years of solid service. Aging former front-loaders from my house are still in use in others' homes: a 1996 first-issue Frigidaire (although it has had the bearing and a timer replaced) and a 2002 Frigidaire, which has had no repairs.
Our 1960 Kenmore had annual visits from the repairman for one thing or another, but the machine could be repaired. My parents probably bought the machine again in repair costs, but that was how things were done in the 1960s and '70s.<p>
<p>And not every vintage washer lasted 20 years. I recall seeing many 8 to 12-year old washers behind the appliance store waiting to be hauled to the dump. It is only through restoration, not natural lifespan, that so many wonderful vintage machine exist in the AW family.
Has the natural lifespan of washers decreased since 1965? I'd have to say yes. But this notion that every new machine is junked by year 5 is false.[this post was last edited: 7/10/2014-08:14]
