I have to disagree with ya Frig
Millions of TL machines had roughly the same cycle time and for years, Maytag was CR's top dog in the TL domain consistently. How did these old fashioned water guzzlers get laundry clean?
Fact is, dirt is dirt. It is no more dirtier or harder to remove than in those thrilling days of lead in gas, phosphates, sugar in soda pop. BO is BO. Skid marks are same as they were in the days of top hats and coat tails.
What has changed is A. Phosphates being removed and B. Less water being used in the so-called HE machines. Both combined to give either lousy results and/or excessive cycle times.
I find it utterly bewildering that CR just loves these HE machines but I read one review after another about mold complaints, piss poor reliability, long cycle times, and the need to run special cleaning cycles. Does CR take the cleaning cycle into consideration when evaluating "efficiency"? I think not. What about the so-called "carbon footprint"? That one must purchase, at extra cost, a cleaner and run the machine with NO laundry in it to clean the darn thing must have gone over their heads.
Yes, the SQ guzzles water. That's they way I like it. Once again, there is NO water shortage on this planet. We're not all about to turn back into dust because we cannot quench our thirst. And by the time the world pop hits 10-12 billion or so, we'll either be dead or technology will figure out a way to get the salt out of the oceans thus ensuring future generations the ability to swim, fish, flush toilets, do laundry etc. Heck, they might even still allow you to water your yard.
Until then, I toast SQ and its water usage because it DOES clean my laundry and that, friends, is the rest of the story.
