Speed Queen Rated Most Reliable Top-Loader by Consumer Reports

[frigilux]

Jeff-- The new issue of CR has their latest washer tests, as well.  They noted that the top-scoring front-loader (LG8500) and it's dryer mate cost an incredible $1600 each.  Add a couple hundred to each for pedestals.  With tax, you're pushing $4,000+ for a washer and dryer.   That's serious bank---for a washer with a 1-year warranty.

 

[tolivac]

4 Grand for a WD pair--CRAZY!!!!I can pay a laundry service or a maid less than that!!!Maybe we will say 4.5 grand with the overpriced tin bases!!This is like buying a 15 grand mower for the half acre lawn!And the bad thing is these have ONLY a 1 yr warrantee-thats CU's speed!!!No wonder why I dropped them-their SILLINESS!A pair costing this much DOES NOT deserve 1st choice!-instead LAST!!!

 

[mrb627]

lG

Pedestals are 299 each, warranty is a 1 year LIMITED, so get ready to buy an extended warranty @ 200 per unit. A lot of money for so much plastic.

Malcolm

 

[frigilux]

Rex-- CR's job is to report how a washer performs in the categories of cleaning performance, water/energy use, capacity, etc.  I can then use that information, their brand reliability information, their user reviews and information from other sources to decide which machine to buy.  They list prices and cycle times clearly.  They tested nearly 150 washers (both top- and front-loaders) that are currently on the market.  

 

While it isn't my daily driver, preferring my Frigidaire front-loader for its performance and water/energy efficiency, I bought a Speed Queen top-loader because it is the last of the classic top-loaders.  I am not a fan of impeller-based HE washers for several reasons.  I am a big fan of modern HE front-loaders. I've steered a number of friends to front-loaders and all of them are very happy with their washers.

 

My problem with user reviews are statements like these: 

 

1.  "The Speed Queen spins clothes much drier than my Whirlpool Duet did."  Well, then something was wrong with your Duet, buddy.  Pull a load from a front-loader and one from the Speed Queen and it's very obvious the one spun in the front-loader contains less moisture.

 

2.  Referring to an LG top-loader: "My wife finds dry spots on clothes at the end of the cycle."  That happened frequently with my Frigidaire Immersion Care impeller-based washer, but not because the clothes had never gotten wet.  The final spins on these machines are long and at high rpms---nearly 15 minutes on my Immersion Care.  I'd pull out shirts, dress shorts, and pants with dry spots on them all the time.  Those dry spots are caused by long, high-speed final spins. 

 

3.  "The Speed Queen's cycle is shorter than a front-loader's, so it saves on energy."  Wrong.

 

4.  "Clothes didn't get clean in my front-loader."  What detergent were you using?  Which cycle?  I've been using front-loaders since 1988 and have consistently been impressed with cleaning performance, especially with my ultra-low water-use 2010 Frigidaire.  I prefer machines with an internal heater, as some loads need actual hot water.  Most can be cleaned in warm, but I want the washer to deliver hot water when I want it.  I join the chorus of jeers to dumbed-down hot and warm water temps.  105 degree water is not hot.  75 degree water is cool, not warm.

 

5.  "The build quality of the Speed Queen is better and the cycle is shorter."  I agree 100%!

[this post was last edited: 7/10/2014-06:42]

 

[frigilux]

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]

 

[frigilux]

In today's dollars:

My parents bought this washer and dryer on sale in 1960 on credit for around $450. Today, that pair would cost $3770.00 (using a simple "purchasing power" calculation; if you factor in wage levels of the day, the cost is even higher).

That puts into perspective the price of today's laundry equipment...and it makes the roughly $1600 for a Speed Queen AWN542 and companion dryer even more of a bargain![this post was last edited: 7/10/2014-09:22]

 

[jeffg]

""Clothes didn't get clean in my front-loader." What detergent were you using? Which cycle? I've been using front-loaders since 1988 and have consistently been impressed with cleaning performance, especially with my ultra-low water-use 2010 Frigidaire. I prefer machines with an internal heater"

That heater is the primary reason you're satisfied with your FL's cleaning performance. Most others in the U.S. still lack them. It's why I usually try to steer clear of discussions about it, invariably the original complaint is made by someone in the U.S. who has a heaterless unit, and the post is responded to by people in Europe and other places where most FLs have them. It's apples and oranges.

 

[daveamkrayoguy]

Looks like, judging from today's Picture Of The Day, that Speed Queen is still The Leader Of The Laundromat!!!!

 

 

-- Dave

 

[frigilux]

The 2010 is the first machine I've had with an internal water heater. However, earlier front-loaders used more water and didn't dumb-down temperatures.

I use warm water for the majority of my loads and no heater is involved. I do jack up the water temp for stained loads of kitchen whites (which starts warm and gradually heats to around 155 degrees) and will sometimes do a bit of a boost for other white loads using the Allergy option (which keeps water heated to around 130 degrees).

But you're right: The thing that stops me from getting a Speed Queen front-loader is the lack of a long cycle and lack of an internal water heater. These new machines use so little water that the first part of the fill is simply purging the lines.

 

[washman]

The pic of the

day is gorgeous!

Love the classic colors!

 

[frigilux]

They are definitely classics, Ben, and I love the orange color the most.

Question for you: Did Speed Queens ever have a suds-saver? Someone was asking about brands of washers with suds-savers in another thread. Thanks!

 

[mrb627]

NIB?

Wouldn't the find of a New-In-Box Vintage SQ Coin-Op be awesome?!?

Malcolm

 

[frigilux]

That would be, Malcolm! While I understand that a perforated tub helps eject dirt, sand, etc., the solid tub Speed Queens are my favorite. I could be easily convinced that solid tub machines provided clearer rinses, as well.

I would spend a few weeks with my sister and brother-in-law each summer when I was a kid, and the three apartments they lived in each had excellent washers: A '64 Frigidaire Unimatic coin op but with the Deep Action agitator (capless, of course); a Speed Queen coin-op like the ones shown in the POD; and a late '60s stacked Westinghouse front-loading pair (non coin-op). Loved all three of them!

Westys (and my '88 Frigidaire FL'er) Memories: The 'bang' of the spin solenoid always reminded me of the gun fired at the beginning of a race. Whenever those machines went into spin, I'd shout "And they're off!"

 

[washman]

If memory serves me correctly

I do believe a SQ model did have the suds saver option. A21W, A22W and A24W I believe.
Not sure if those are wringer or automatic models.

 

[kenmoreguy89]

Actually, I don't really understand or share much of what has been said.....
I told many times I found Top loader washers giving better results than front loaders I used....
The same way I could hear many good opinions about others, that used to have a front loader before...european people also....
Said that, the way top loaders accomplish to get clothes as clean or often cleaner versus the longer times of HE is pretty simple.
Front loader or wash plate or all these low water use systems, will not get water through clothes as good as a top loader would...so the tumbling clothes and whatever is not passed through by water the same way.....hence more time and not a comparable job at the end.
You cannot really put in discussion wash times as if a laundry agitated by an agitator is the same of having a load tumbled or whatever else, as they have two different actions....
I don't use LCB also, actually I hate using it as it damage clothes and find little use out of it...then...really, if I have to be honest, in tests and shares in this website and elsewhere I have seen results coming out of front loaders and HE and such, and could not really believe someone could call them acceptable or consider them good, really laughable compared to what I get with either my filter flo or Speed Queen...
So either I am a magician or my machines have a sort of spell or some folks really have to re-visit their "clean" canons.... And what washes cleaner or not....

 

[kenmoreguy89]

Actually, I don't really understand or share much of what has been said.....
I told many times I personally found Top loader washers giving better results than front loaders I used....and yes, they had heaters from 20 celsius to boiling, of course...which i totally share being important in a low water use machine, in order to keep it or hot bring it hot enough.
I also stated many times, that among all the odd HE systems, an h axis so a front loader is what I find being best and most effective and sensed, but though, never as good as top loader agitator, nor better....
Well, let's be clear...of course if you ask me what I find being better from a Modern DD whirlpool with that whirly thingy and little fins and short strokes (so the majority of today's machines) and a boilwash of your average european machine say Bosch, Miele, Siemens or Aeg electrolux wahetever I would probably put them equal for some machines like say our hotpoint at seaside house, or the candy...but likely the Miele and the bosch at first, but heck could see with my eyes their results will not be as good as what comes out my Speed queen top loader or filter flo or BD whilrpool with the surgi.
The same way I could hear many good opinions about others, that used to have a front loader before and switched to a speed queen top loader (my neighbor is one as to speak), but even a whirlpool also! Among them european people also....I live in Europe.
Said that, the way top loaders accomplish to get clothes as clean or often cleaner versus the longer times of HE is pretty simple.
Front loader or wash plate or all these low water use systems, will not get water through clothes as good as a top loader would...so the tumbling clothes and whatever is not passed through by water the same way.....hence more time needed and potentially not a comparable job at the end.
Much though really depends on many factors though as you said....like water temp, detergent used etc...
But:
I think.
You cannot really put in discussion wash times as if a laundry fully immersed and agitated by an agitator in a traditional machine is the same of having a load tumbled in few inches of water or whatever else similar, as they have two different actions...

I don't use LCB also, actually I hate using it as it damage clothes and find little use out of it as detergent should and MUST do the job.. It should not be even mentioned in a serious wash test or comparison...then...really, if I have to be honest, speaking of wash tests and shares in this website and elsewhere I have seen results coming out of their front loaders and HE and such, and could not really believe someone could call them acceptable or consider them clean, really laughable compared to what I get with either my filter flo or Speed Queen...and what I am used to get.
That leaves me speechless, but in reverse...
So either I am a magician, our hard water is miracolous or my machines have a sort of spell or some folks really have to re-visit their "clean" canons.... And so what washes cleaner or not....

I can gurantee you that I can use both machines correctly....i am born among them...
[this post was last edited: 7/10/2014-17:06]

 

[italmex]

I'm happy for SQ but....Miele?? They lot quality or not on the test to be qualified .....

 

[frigilux]

A celebratory load of bath linens for the mighty Speed Queen! I even broke out the real-deal Mexican Ariel which was smuggled into the US by a friend who was visiting her daughter. Special occasions only.

Photos of the controls were taken without flash for readability.

 

[kenmoreguy89]

I think Miele are well built and durable machines, and are famous for that, but really too much overvalued and boasted, not to mention in the US...can't say what is best though in this sense as I see them built with delicate components not cheap but delicate, so needing proper care, and find odd you cannot put bleach, not that it is an issue as I don't use it, rather I am kinda against it's use as pointed out, but from my perspective that's weird that a laundry machine may actually be ruined by it... But i know of people using it anyway and still having it going strong, so.... they sure are the most durable and well made among their " kind", and electronics are better quality than all the others for sure, as for the general materials...but all this electronic stuff miele have as a peculiar caratheristic perhaps may be more prone to fail sooner than something more simpler even if of lesser quality....but if you put them in comparison with all the others of same kind and technologic components and features, they got more quality in this sense...without any doubt....so you can expect more life also than others for sure. Then as for performances, beside more programs and well designed washing profiles, I cannot speak very much for the latest models, but the older ones I have seen in oeration so 80s 90s and 2000ish model's results were comparable to the ones of the * better* but though cheaper makers and models such as Bosch or Siemens and AEG of the time.....all among the top anyway speaking of euro front loaders....at least it was once, until 2000 ish for the bosch ans siemens..and such.
I remember well the bosch wfk2031 i used for a few months while in austria....it was as good as a Miele, i liked it considering it was a front loader....

But much changed seeing recently the later ones ( since mid 2000ish), in many ways, materials and such, and results also, i have seen stuff coming out these bosch and siemens like maxx and onda, and oh lord, they were as crappy as a candy, hotpoint, whirlpool or a brandt sangiorgio...
They pointed on cheaper prices and less quality as they gained fame over europe, especially after the euro currency were they started being sold massively everywhere and thousands models....now bosch is a general MOL name as it may be candy or european whirlpool...but people wanting the real *better* front loader gets a Miele.....

Miele of course is among the better if not the actual better european machine, in reliability, service and everything,.... And still has this title....after all the years...Good for them...but let's say that it's not that all this comes for free...you pay for it..

[this post was last edited: 7/10/2014-19:04]

 

[washer111]

Miele & Bleach

Freddie, I think this has to do with the large amount of rubber components used in the machine (Hoses, Boots, Detergent-Dispenser to Tub hose) as well as the stainless-steel drum in the machine that could be damaged by the bleaching product. 

 

With modern detergents, there should be very little, if any need for bleach other than for sterilisation. I understand that Europeans rely on the longer cycles, better temperatures and better detergents to get their stuff clean. 

 

I (honestly) cannot understand why an FL would have trouble for your cleaning. Excluding lack of knowledge, since you clearly understand laundry, I wonder what the problem could be?

In the U.S., you can blame detergents, since it seems they are still inferior to European products. 

For the rest of the folk you mention, I imagine poor knowledge and laundering habits (as well as a lack of attention-to-detail) have caused their "Dingy-Duds" to become noticeable, to say the least.

 

Myself - I am quite sold on the concept of an FL machine. This past week I dealt with a white shirt that had become yellowed in that pit-area from the poor-performing 'Planet Ark' detergent I previously used. The stain was ironed in, and washed at Warm-Hot temperatures and even soaked in bleach.

A little bit of pre-treating, and the stain is GONE. 

 

However, depending on the circumstances (For example, if you were a student with solar-heated water), I'd take the TL machines, like an F&P ANYDAY, merely because of the better operating economics, as opposed to a machine with a heater. Water costs be damned!