Speed Queen TR7 with a transmission!

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

Help Support AutomaticWasher.org:

A

aussiestayover

New member
Joined
Mar 2, 2023
Messages
4
Location
England
Hello, As a lover of top load washing machines I've been following the comments made on You Tube about the 'new' Speed Queen TR7.

As an Australian living in London I had enquired about shipping over a washer and dryer of the old model with the silver console (AWNE92SN303AWO1) as its known down under but was too late and the TR7 came out to replace it. The TR7 is known down under as - AWN92 Black.

I have only come to appreciate in the last weeks that the Australian model is fitted with a transmission and not the new 'Perfect Wash' system with the agitator bolted to the stainless steel wash tub.

Have a look at the link posted...

The only things I don't like on these Speed Queens are the 'Soak' program which pumps the water out after a time (My old 2002 Whirlpool direct drive Ultimate Care II doesn't do that, and the matching Speed Queen dryer which doesn't come with a hamper door or removable lint screen.

Apart from that I might just buy the pair now I know it still as a transmission with a decent wash... Does anyone want to buy a kidney (only slightly used) to help me finance it?

https://speedqueenhome.com.au/awne92-black/
 
Pentagon Washing Machine Contracts

It does strike me as possible that the Pentagon isn't satisfied with the choice and quality of washers available in the US today that they would make a deal with Speed Queen, a GSA contractor, to supply more of what they want for installation on military bases and such. The TC5 may be the washer that comes closest to be suitable for their purposes, but they want something with more configurable options as SQ may be phasing out the mechanical controls entirely. So I don't know what Alex may have heard, but it may not be all that implausible.

https://speedqueencommercial.com/en-us/military/
 
US military laundry purchases

When there was a shortage of Speed Queen front load washers a few years ago it was because the US military ordered tens of thousands of them.

I can’t imagine the US military would be stupid enough to buy top loading washers. They’re way too wasteful.

They also buy lots of Speed Queen dryers.

John
 
Yeah, we know John, anyone who buys a TL today is stupid, there's no purpose for them. FL are so wonderful! You make me think of a used car salesman trying to get me to trade in my truck on a Yugo with all the stats you come up with, then when challenged on them you run to another thread.

Maybe they found that the physics-defying FLs didn't work as well for all their purposes as expected. Or maybe they have need of both. Maybe they have need to get a load done in less than an hour or two. Maybe space and time factors matter in some situations. Maybe today's military is stupid (and I say that as a vet) and maybe they're more concerned with mission over waste.

Do you really believe waste is the first factor the military considers? But then, who knows about today's military? They probably really need FLs because the TLs are just so harsh on their pretty dainties.
 
I don't know, but I suspect there may be something to what "panasonicvac" heard. There is often a basis to rumors, and the only reason I can see the Pentagon being involved is for considering approval to purchase.

But another thought is that I believe there are supposed to be costs analysis done when the government purchases equipment. Given that FLs cost significantly more than TLs, and they probably replace equipment based on an expected cost-effective life cycle before it fails or needs significant repairs, they could have determined that FLs, at least in certain uses, don't recoup their excessive costs in waste during their term of service. I don't know what the government pays, but I know the SQ FLs are significantly more expensive than TLs.

Maybe they even consider the weight of the machines that may need to be transported to various areas. SQ FLs are also significantly heavier. John has argued that heavier machines are inherently more wasteful.
 
Speed, queen, commercial laundry

Hi Jeff , both of my front load speed queen washers the one that’s 18 years old and the one that’s three years old go through a quick cycle in 32 to 34 minutes even with an extra rinse selected.

Anybody that knows anything about engineering can see why a front load washer has a potential to last much longer than a top load washer. It’s just a much simpler machine.

Speed Queen engineers told us when we went through training about 12 years ago that they expect their front load washers to last 25,000 loads, we have seen them last almost 50,000 loads and heavy use situation’s.

Speed Queen claims and they’re advertising for home use that their machines last 10,500 loads but again anybody that knows anything about mechanical things and engineering. It’s obvious that , we have seen them last almost 50,000 loads and heavy use situation’s.

Speed Queen claims and their advertising for home use that their machines last 10,500 loads but again anybody that knows anything about mechanical things and engineering. It’s obvious that any dryer from just about any company will outlast two washing machines, yet they make the same claim for the dryers. Speed Queen does not want to over promise longevity, because people will hold them to it. There are just too many variables. Once machines get into consumer hands.

I’m only presenting the facts. You can have top loading washers all you want as can anybody else we live in a free country, being in an army family I don’t appreciate these disparaging remarks you’re making about the military, the US military has hundreds of people who work very hard to keep costs down.

John
 
There's probably a very good chance that this rumor I've heard was just made up or misrepresented. I first found out on YouTube in a comment section and to be honest I forgot who it was that said there was a TC7 being developed. Even though it doesn't say much of where it came from, sometimes I find the comments to be true and sometimes I find them to be false. I could contact SQ to see if maybe they could shed me some light about the possibly of getting a TC7, I'm probably going to do so anyways because I also need to ask if their stainless steel FF7 and DF7 models have been discontinued or not. They're no longer listed on their website and I hope they're not gone for good.
 
As I pointed out, I also come from a military family and an a vet myself. You sure like to twist things. I was mocking what you said about the military being stupid, and by implication, anyone who uses a TL being stupid, as if there's no reason anyone ever would. I don't appreciate that.

Maybe a FL, everything else being equal, will last longer than a TL, but again, is the military going to keep a machine for 50 years, assuming they would last that long? My points stand about the initial costs and everything else. I know while the military owns and maintains most of their equipment, I don't know if that includes washing machine maintenance or not. As far as I know they may have some kind of contract maintenance for that, the costs and duration of which may help determine which machines to get. When I was in the military I don't recall a career field that would cover that, but maybe there was.

How well is a "quick load" going to work for what ever purposes the military may select their machines for? Maybe well, for the hundreds of people working to keep costs down, but not so well for those in the field or for the types of equipment they wash, would be my guess.

I think if you'll consider what I said, mission should come above what many, including you, might consider waste in the military.
 
By the way, I wouldn't think that anyone who knows anything about mechanical things and engineering, and cares about longevity, would think machines are less wasteful based on their lighter weight.
 
Jeff, you have to think about whole of life costs. Weight uses energy to ship and energy in materials to build. The bigger something is, the less you fit in a container and therefore the more trucking you need and the more fuel thats consumed.

Its a fine balance between Weight, Material type, Longevity, Energy consumed during operation, Effectiveness at its designed purpose, location of manufacture, freight, recyclability etc etc.

All of these things make up the total energy used by a product. Its not just how much it costs to run per load.
 
Thanks. But life costs are exactly what I was talking about, as explained on another thread, a washing machine that uses a lot of plastic parts that is designed to last 10 years, if you're lucky, isn't at all likely to be more resource friendly than a machine that last 20 years or more, even considering shipping costs and all. A washer is generally shipped to a home once, as least I'm not planning on moving ever again, and I've never moved with a washer. A 120 lb washer that has to replaced 2 or three times or more than a 150 lb washer isn't going to save resources used in transportation and such. So there is a lot more to it. Sometimes you have to use a little common sense. My whole point was that machines based on planned obsolescence save nothing, and the idea that they are 100% recyclable with no additional resources used is a myth. I believe washers used to be considered "durable" products, I, at least, now consider most of them disposable. As for size, aren't most of these cheap machines actually larger than the old ones, if anything?

I thinks it's strange to live in a disposable society that pretends to care about conservation.

I know SQ TLs weigh significantly more than the cheap Maytags, and I also expect the SQs to last significantly longer, and I suspect the SQ FLs also weigh more than most of the competition.

I just find it funny that John thinks lighter machines are better as he seems to forget that front loaders tend to weigh significantly more.

I'm also curious how long John has seen SQ TLs last, surely longer than the 10,400 or whatever cycles they claim, or is it just the FLs Speed Queen doesn't want to over claim longevity on? Frankly, he seems to be so biased for some reason that I'm not sure I can expect a candid answer. (I don't meant that to offend, but that's my observation.) Even if they only last 10,400 loads, at a couple loads a week, or even 3 loads a week, I still expect it to be my last machine (hopefully).

As for being stupid for not getting a FL, along with all the other points I made on other threads, here's a math equation for you: if I average no more than about 2 loads a week. I use well water, my water is heated with electricity, and my total electric bill averages less than $40 a month including recurring monthly fees and everything, probably around $25 not including fees, I don't know what the share for laundry would be, a couple bucks, maybe? How long would it take me to recoup the $800 more for a SQ FL over a SQ TL in energy savings? Feel free to add in the detergent too.

Then John has brought up one good point: the weight! The Maytag I had that lasted almost eight months, thanks to it's light weight engineering, I was pretty much able to toss that thing around, I moved it and installed it myself, and it was almost a pleasure to toss it out the door after Whirlpool gave me a full refund after failing to fix it or send the replacement machine they promised. The Speed Queen tried to fight me some up the steps and over the threshold, but was still manageable. I do appreciate that it is more maneuverable than a FL would be so I don't have to call other guys to help if I need to move it for some reason. Another point for TLs!

Stupid and wasteful or not, I do like my old traditional (more or less, we in fact are not as free as we used to be in our selection) TL washer.
 
Some people still use top loaders

One great example is my mom, she uses one because her back doesn’t really allow her to bend awkwardly, and she feels it’s much easier for her to use a Toploader Because she can easily grab things out from the bottom with a pair of tongs and she always finds it awkward When she has used a front loader, ask me how, plus it’s also a personal choice as well as people who have a Toploader generally want to stick to what they know
 


I thinks it's strange to live in a disposable society that pretends to care about conservation.

 

I still laugh about that to this day. The people that used to give me crap about having and using the same old stuff/same old vehicles/same old clothes forever were the ones that always preached the green religion while constantly buying and trashing everything they owned because "New" and "Shiny" enticed them or they simply didn't take care of their stuff.....usually a combination of both. They were also the same ones that always complained about never having enough money or being in debt.
 
Lighter build, doesnt have to mean lower quality. The traditional style TL machines ended production here for the most part by the mid 80's. Simpson, Westinghouse, FisherPaykel, Hoover all of which had traditionally designed machines, moved to top suspension, pressed steel cabinets with plastic or plastic and metal tops.

These machines were good performers, lasted for 10-20 years and were easily repairable.

Its not about weight, its about design and quality of components.
 
In my experience, weight far more often than not is an indication of the quality of the product and it's likely longevity, whether it's machines, power supplies, etc. I don't think it's an accident Speed Queen weighs around 50 lbs more than a Maytag, and is likely to last much longer.

Manufacturers love light weight stuff. Plastic is cheap, but not at all likely to be more durable than heavier materials, like steel, in most applications. Yes, plastic tubs or such may last, but not so much for plastic actuators, splines, etc.
Most companies will use cheaper, lighter, materials if possible. Yet if two similar machines weigh significantly different, you can almost bet on it that the heavier machine uses more quality parts.

People today seem to have come to expect mediocre products, and accept planned obsolescence is normal. I guess maybe I've come from a time I expected more from products. I bought a cheap Hotpoint washer that lasted me for well over 20 years until the hub rotted. I thought I could just go to Home Depot or somewhere and buy another cheap machine that would last for decades. I found out that machines were very hard to get during the covid panic, and I ended up getting one of the first ones I could. I thought Maytag was a good brand. I found out things sure had changed, Maytag was far worse in quality than the cheap machines of a couple decades ago. Not only do I find that sad, I also find it sad that people think that's acceptable. They really don't make things like they used to.

It may not be all the manufacturer's fault. Dan seems to have gotten my point, people like new and shiny things every few years whether their old ones are still completely adequate or not, so what incentive do the manufacturers have to make things that actually last? But then, I guess there are enough other people that think like me that companies like Speed Queen should be doing well.
 
In my experience, weight far more often than not is an indic

Not always. I'm not sure how it is today, but about 20-ish years ago some manufactures (I think Whirlpool kicked it off) were building stupid heavy weighted washer lids, giving sort of a false reality that the machine was more solid built than it really was. The somewhat flimsy lids on Maytags has always worked just fine for me. The heavy duty part of those 225 pounds of goodness was in the cabinet, tubs, and driveline...where it really mattered.
 
Louis is right. The term is offensive.

 

It is also offensive to people who actually give a damn if the planet is still inhabitable in 100 years - comparing us to Nazis is childish and ignorant.

 

Plastic isn't the enemy and light weight isn't the enemy. Here is what I think is going on... People who have no experience of materials engineering seek a simple way to distinguish quality from junk. They bang a side panel and if it seems tinny they assume the whole machine is junk. They look at a tub and if it is plastic, they assume is is cheaply made. Weight becomes a fools guide to quality.

 

Here in Australia and New Zealand, we have fairly high wages by world standards, and good working conditions. Labour is a high proportion of manufacturing costs. In the 1980s when Japanese washing machines were becoming popular, the local companies had to cut costs to keep selling machines. They basically produced an Aussie machine that was similar to the Japanese machines, saving weight where they could, cutting costs where they could, but still with a view to quality - materials engineers and metallurgists working out which metal or which grade of plastic would still be reliable for each component. This "new" generation of machines was very successful, buyers  and repairers were skeptical but the machines have proven themselves over decades. They certainly wash better, spin faster and last longer than the heavily built machines they replaced. These models, with incremental changes over time, are more or less still in production, though unfortunately the Australian companies were bought out by international giants who moved production to Thailand to further cut costs, and closed the Aussie factories.

 

Fisher and Paykel did a similar thing in New Zealand, replacing a heavily built UK design made under license with their own "clean sheet of paper design" which was very light weight, with tinny sides and light weight plastic top and lid, plastic outer tub, but superbly engineered. I still own a Fisher and Paykel top loader from about 1990 which has had only two repairs in all that time - a rubber drain hose and a water fill valve. These components are the exact same as those used on big heavy top loaders. It is not a museum piece - it is still used most days, it was used by my parents until they went to aged care, then it went to wash for friends of mine. It is proof that the right grade of plastic or nylon, and the appropriate use of light weight sheet steel, is every bit as durable as old fashioned washing machines that weigh more than twice as much. All those extra unnecessary grams/ounces have to be paid for, they force prices up. Plastic doesn't rust, too. Fisher and Paykel used to advertise the mechanical simplicity of their Smart Drive machines with the line "if a component isn't there, it can't fail." (No belts, no transmission, etc.) I would add "and it doesn't have to be paid for, either."

 

I once bought a new box trailer to tow behind my car. It was heavily built and looked solid, but all mild steel, it rusted out in 4 years as it was poor quality steel and poorly painted. When I was replacing it, it was so badly rusted it was falling to pieces on its last trip to be traded in on a new one. I had to stop at a hardware store and buy some screws to hold it together for its final journey. I replaced it with a lightweight galvanized sheetmetal trailer, an Erde trailer from France, which has now had well over 20 years of hard use and is still exactly as good as new, no deterioration at all. It probably weighs half the old trailer, which makes it light and easy to tow, too. It is a prime example that clever design and appropriate choice of materials is better than dinosaur engineering.

 

Unfortunately many modern machines are genuinely cheap rubbish, lightly built from inappropriate materials, cheapened up in companies where bean counters rule over engineers, or made in cheap-labour countries by manufacturers that copied a quality product without understanding the engineering behind each component, so it looks the same but works really poorly and fails quickly. But that is a product of poor engineering, not light weight and using plastics.
 
Yes, some components can be made lighter and cheaper. I've already said that.

If you think that you can't tell the quality of a machine to some extent by inspecting it and looking at how it's made, well, call me a fool, but that's not my experience.

Toyotas years ago were known for being exceptionally made vehicles. I have an '83 and an '87 Toyota Pickup. Small parts, like clips, on the '83 are metal, on the '87 they used plastic. No problems with the '83. On the '87 I've had door and tailgate latches break and had to take the door apart to wire it up, and had to replace the tailgate latch, the clip that holds the hood support on the '87 has long since broken, etc.

I'm sure Toyota had engineers telling them that the plastic parts are just as good, and it's possible not many people would keep a truck long enough to know they're not before they trade it in and go buy another Toyota. They only ones who might know are fools like me who actually keep and repair things as long as practical.
 
BTW Jeremy, not to put words in your mouth, but I assume "fascist" is probably the word you were looking for. People tend to get the words confused and one of them I think is particularly offensive, but I trust that's not exactly the way you meant it.
 

Similar threads

M
Speed Queen Washing Machine - Export Model Differences
Replies
8
Views
1K
MickGearz
M
E
Speed Queen Washer AWN412
Replies
3
Views
424
Chetlaham
Chetlaham
T
Trouble Choosing a Speed Queen Washer
Replies
5
Views
634
panasonicvac
panasonicvac
H
Speed Queen TV2000wn - early review / permanent lid switch fix
Replies
3
Views
1K
HighpowerXTL5K
H
eemac
The Speed Queen FF7 is great!
Replies
17
Views
1K
pstehle
P

Latest posts

Back
Top