SQ vs. other companies

[supersurgilator]

I was just wondering why other companies, like Whirlpool, couldn't make their machines like SQ to meet the energy regulations? How is SQ able to get around the regulations with their Normal Eco cycle, yet still allow for full tub wash and rinses with true HOT water. I understand its because the DOE just tests Normal cycles, but it seems to me that Whirlpool could also build a regular toploader with full tubs of water and keep a separate cycle to pass the energy regulations. WHy is SQ the only one to think of these things?

I also want one of the electronic control models after seeing a video of it in action.

 

[gusherb]

My assumption is that a company like Whirlpool doesn't want anything to do with what they'd consider an old outdated design, plus you can damn well bet that the belt drive top loaders are much cheaper to manufacture then a DD machine.

 

[combo52]

New Washers and Energy Requirements

For one thing the SQ TL washers are not energy star machines, they are just squeaking by using a few sneaky technicalities [ WP and other companies also find ways to bend the rules a little also ], but I suspect that if SQ becomes too successful selling their TL washers they are likely to be banned in states like California pretty soon because of excessive water usage.

 

[user 3941]

SQ HE top loader?

I bet SQ could make one hell of a HE top load washer. I wonder if they are pondering that??

 

[kb0nes]

My hunch is that the belt drive design washer is quite likely more expensive to build compared to a direct drive model, especially if they can use a multi-phase motor and electronics to replace the transmission. Simplicity is the key.

Hunch #2 is that the other manufacturers are no longer placing their eggs in the deep fill traditional top load basket because they know that it won't be around much longer... Water will become an increasingly scarce thing in the future (See also California).

As for Speed Queen making a good top load HE machine, they were more clever and they flipped the axis 90 degrees. The only way to make HE really work is with a front loader. The Europeans have known this for years. If Peabody could set the Wayback machine 15 years ahead, I bet we would see the top load HE's will only be a blip in history.

These are just my views from way up in the cheap seats, perhaps the people in the front row have a better view...

 

[rapunzel]

Water is scarce in some places and not others and washing machines are not a threat to water resources. Water scarcity in many places is the result of lacking infrastructure and long-standing government inertia and mismanagement. HE washing machines are a cosmetic approach to water conservation and the easiest way for governments to show the public that they are being proactive, when they are actually not really doing very much at all. It is easy to ban a certain design of washing machine and pay manufacturers and retailers tax payer funded rebates to market these so-called water efficient designs, but there is so much more to that story and 99.9% of consumers aren't interested anyway. They prefer to buy stars and fancy programs that play show tunes and what not - as long as it is eco verified it doesn't even have to really work.

 

[supersurgilator]

That is true that SQ does stick to the tried and true design, they know what cleans the clothes. I think its kinda funny that they always emphasize a full tub of water for rinse and actual water temps. Does anybody have a link back to that grid thing that shows the requirements for 2015 and again for 2018 which SQ mentioned something about an impellar machine? I can't for the life of me find it so I'm hoping one of you will remember.

 

[frigilux]

"The only way to make HE really work is with a front-loader."

Damn straight! Front-loaders are custom-made for HE.

It's been an exceptionally dry spring in southwestern Minnesota, where we've been in severe drought conditions the past few summers. The pattern the past couple of years has been this: Plenty of rain through the second week in June, at which time the tap shuts off completely for the remainder of the summer. And now no rain even in April? Yikes.

 

[rapunzel]

"The only way to make HE really work is with a front-loader."

The front loaders of today are shite - sorry, for all the eco sentimentality, the front loaders of yesteryear, that used more than today's SQ top loaders, outwashed and OUTRINSED anything and everything on the market today. Washing machines need water. They tweak and tweak and tweak some more to comply with government mandates and to cash in on rebates and other incentives. All the while they push the envelope so far that machines are not really performing all that great. What is the correct amount of water to use in a washing machine? Where is the scientific consensus? There is nothing scientific about it - that is the correct answer. It is engineering for all other purposes and clean, well-rinsed clothes are not the primary objective anymore. When our CR now says that many HE machines (especially front loaders) are not rinsing properly, especially after they initially promoted them as the bees knees of modern laundry, what more evidence does one need that we are being sold inferior products?

I guess when consumer priority has shifted from clean to eco-clean and nobody is interested in investing any time at all in mundane tasks like doing laundry, or housework in general, we prefer to leave it to the 'experts' (whoever they are); to give us products for dummies. This way modern people can have more time on facebook and twitter to gush about their environmental awareness and how they are doing their bit for the planet and to play with their pink bits in front of their computers. That is, after all, much more fun.

 

[gusherb]

Speaking of not rinsing

I'm convinced our Speed Queen rinses better with just one rinse then our HE FL did with 3 rinses (and many here say SQ doesn't rinse well). Yet everything in the end comes out smelling fresher and feels cleaner.
Another thing is, even though our SQ uses upwards of 40 gallons per cycle on the max load setting, I don't think our water usage will be much higher if any higher at all. Things had to get rewashed frequently if they still came out smelling bad, which they did fairly often in the old machine.

The only front loader I was impressed with lately was the 40 pound speed queen washer extractor I used at the laundromat to wash a comforter. That thing raced through 2 wash and 3 rinse cycles in 35 minutes sparing no water in the process and the comforter came out far cleaner then I expected it would.

 

[henene4]

Oh no, not again...

(Who ever gets this quote: Please hand me a towel )
FLs are so bad. And you need full tubs to rinse and wash. And 40 gallons compared to 20 does not change a thing. Things had to be rewashed each and every time. Everything except SQ is bad and not worth a thing! And all this water problem is just hoax!

I actually made a whole travel through opinions about such statements. First, I thought you might not had enough evidence shown to prove these "facts" wrong. Than I was puzzeled about the way people reacted on this topic. Than I was annoyed. Than I got angry and now, I think it's just sad.
I mean, come on, if FLs as what they are would not work at all, about 1 billion people would have dirty, soapy clothes. And I mean, I doubt that the people in Europe would not have recognized. (I know comparing USA and EU FLs is a basic no-go, but its the system people complain about.)
And if somebody in Australia makes that statement, I just can LAUGH at that person. If somebody tells me water isn't a problematic resource in Australia, I just get really sad. And if somebody told me Australian FLs do not wash good, I would have to have a really good day to stay calm.
Today is not one of these days, so here I go, again, producing a huge debate where no one listens to anybody.

First, rapunzel, you spend a lot of time on this site. So do not judge what you basicly do your self.
Second, wrong, there are numbers for water ratios in washers! It's even on the German Wikipedia. A full-tub TL needs enough water to submerge all clothing in water. A FL needs a third per fill, for the maximum water level.
Bad rinsing: Yeah. There are machines that do rinse bad. But I have yet to see a washer that I could not make rinse well. And SQ TL owners on here (and mean those who know) reported average rinsing results on their TLs as well.

Everybody say "Tumbling clothes can't clean them!" I say agitation can't clean them better.
Look, on a traditional TL, laundry can only rub against the agitator with enough force to consider it cleaning. Against other fiber there is basicly no friction as everything is submerged in water. And that water may be a lot, but does not circulate any faster through the laundry than the laundry does through the water.
Have you ever handwashed something? You grab the spot you are cleaning and rub it against another part of what ever you are washing. Than you shortly submerge it into the water, pull it out again to have a flow of water through it. Then you rub it again. And so forth and so forth. Does you TL simmulate that? I guess not, hugh?
Have you ever walked down a stair and took more than one at a time? You know the force you feel on your legs while you are doing this? Imagine doing this about 1000 times. Would work you through, wouldn't it? But your feet would only feel harmed, but physicly probably wouldn't be. But if I beat your legs with a plastic piece about 1000 times, you would not only feel harmed, but would rather likely be. Get the comparison I make?
Everybody knows what to do to rinse out a washcloth thats soapy. You don't submerge it in water and wiggle it about. You wring it out, soak it, and wring it out again. After 2-3 repeats, you have a clean washcloth. After a short wring and a bath in water, you do not.

A FL that is well designed, well programmed and well used is outcleaning, outrinsing and outspinning any traditional TL. It will be more gentle and more efficient. It will, after all, be better.
And I can name you quite some that do manage that:
- LGs with recirculation
- Hotpoint&#92Indesit
- Panasonic (still, best washer used so far)
- The new Gorenjes
- Mieles (as long one selects Water Plus)
- etc.

 

[henene4]

(My previous post was not read by my self again before posting, so please excuse bad grammar, typos and wrong punctuation!)

 

[user 3941]

Touchy subject!

You make some excellent points Henrik. It's very clear that depending on what part of the world you are in, opinions on new/old washing machines can vary greatly.

Americans, generally speaking, don't like change. I mean how many times growing up did any of us hear "They don't make them like they used to" or "Back in MY day", etc, etc. Pertaining to lots of things, not just washing machines, lol. My parents bought my Grandmother both a microwave and a food processor. The microwave sat unused in her kitchen for years and I now have the food processor (she gave it back to us shortly after we gave it to her!). Just as we have lots of people complaining about HE machines, I'm sure back in 1960 there were plenty of people complaining about "modern" automatic washing machines. Who needs an AUTOMATIC machine?!? Go to the wash sink and scrub your clothes on a wash board. How lazy!!! ;-)

I was just at Lowe's last night looking at machines. The sales person was busy with a guy who I'm guessing was 65-70 years old. I lost count of how many times I heard him say "Those environmentalists!!!" By the facial expressions I noticed on the salesman's face, it must have been a bit of struggle trying to find this guy a machine he liked. Oddly, he picked a Samsung HE top loader. LOL. Funny.

He was an in person example of those awful reviews you read on shopping sites about washing machines. I remember when I bought my GE HydroWave last fall, some people LOVED it and some people HATED it. "It sounds like it's broken"; the manual explains that it will sound different than older machines, in fact GE has many YouTube videos that actually reproduce them so you know what to expect. Obviously they don't read the manual. "The agitation is so slow and gentle, it doesn't clean!!!" Again, no idea how the machine works with the 360 degree wash arc. The only thing that mine hasn't been able to clean is my white socks, but then they didn't come clean in the LG front loader I used for 2 years either. White socks are difficult to get clean! Everything else has been perfect. It's mind numbing!

Personally I like top load machines, but again, because that's what I'm familiar with. I grew up with them. I remember countless times standing on a chair in the laundry room with a butter knife stuck in the latch hole and broom stick to push all the clothes down (because I overloaded it). Awesome memories, but things change. I've used front load machines many times and as boring as they were to me (in terms of a spectator), every time I did my laundry, my clothes came out just as clean as they did in our Kenmore DD machines growing up.

Perception and laundry skills have a huge effect on what is actually reality with modern washing machines. I remember reading an article that talked about how a good chunk of people's clothes, don't REALLY get that dirty. Of course you have exceptions…the kids that get covered in dirt, ketchup, chocolate ice cream….the husband (or whoever) that's a mechanic and comes home covered in diesel exhaust and grease…landscaper who looks like they planted themselves in the dirt! And so on…. But generally speaking for most, you throw your clothes in any current washer, and they will come out "clean". I mean all these kids, and mechanics, and dirty landscape or construction workers were around in 1960 when most Americans had never even seen a front load machine, unless you happen to be tortured by going to a laundromat. Even them they were considered more of a commercial device. Using good quality laundry detergent and effective stain treatment (just like Grandma used to do), makes a HUGE difference. Believe me, I spent years buying the big bottle of Xtra detergent for $5 only to find a bottle of Tide on clearance. Night and day….I couldn't believe how much better my clothes (whites in particular) came out.

Lots of thoughts in my post and hopefully I get my point across. I respect everyone here and the varied opinions we all share with each other. That's what makes this forum fun, we get to interact and learn new ideas and points of view. I personally care about the Earth we live in and our environment. Water shortage in the United States varies. I can see areas like southern CA and the desert, where water needs to be pumped in from hundreds of miles away, should be concerned with how much water they use to wash clothes. Here in the northeast, not so much. Granted we have droughts from time to time, but generally speaking, water shortage is not a big issue. But if you look at places like China where you literally get sick from just being outside, as a whole, we need to be responsible with our natural resources and chemicals we pump back into it.

Can't we all just get along? ;-)

Happy Washing!

 

[ea56]

Both Henrik and Joeypete have made some very good points in their posts. We absolutely have to realize that our natural resources can be limited, depending upon where you live. Personally, I used to really prefer a front loader, before they got screwed around with all the unnecessary computer controls. I had a White Westinghouse front loader that we bought new in 1987 and we sold it with the house in 1994. It was still working excellently, with no repair calls after 7 years. It used less water than a toploader, but more than the current breed of front loaders. It was simple in design, yet had controls that met all my washing needs. I could wash a king size down comforter or 2 king size plillows with no problems. It didn't "hunt"around for a sweet spot to begin to spin, when the timer landed on spin, thats what it did. It completed a load in 40 to 45 mins, no ATC, hot water was hot water. And the laundry always came out clean. It never got moldy or smelled. Basically, it was great. Now, if manufactures offered this kind of front load washer again, I'd buy one in a hot second. In the meantime, I'll stick with my GE and be VERY careful about washing with as little water as possible, at least until we are out of the drought here in No. Calif.

 

[washman]

Nothing wrong with change

when it actually WORKS.

Problem is, we've been inculcated to believe that anything new is automtiacally better than the old and by golly since the goobermint thunk it up, it HAS to be without error or flaw.

Poppycock!

"new" these days inevitably means less thought, less design, less quality, more expense and impossible to repair.

I'd go for "new" in a heartbeat IF I could see the quality and durability to justify the price. I'd go for "new" in a new york minute IF it was repairable. As such, most items these days are just that........five star pieces of junk that are insults to manufacturing at best, one step above a streetwalker at worst.

Yet we keep on keeping on, demanding "new" "cheap" "cost effective" and as a result, we keep getting the same song, just sung in a different key.

 

[user 3941]

I totally get that washman! I actually ordered a new Kenmore HE set (made by LG). Really good price and I chickened out at the last minute because all that electronics and sub sconic spin speeds scares me. Granted LG has a good reliability rating but I've had a couple friends spend hundreds of dollars replacing circuit boards. So my quest continues. I'm drawn to the Speed Queen stackable front load set, but the $2800 price tag scares me a bit…. lol

 

[lordkenmore]

>Just as we have lots of people complaining about HE machines, I'm sure back in 1960 there were plenty of people complaining about "modern" automatic washing machines. Who needs an AUTOMATIC machine?!? Go to the wash sink and scrub your clothes on a wash board. How lazy!!! ;-)

There probably were many complaining about automatics. Indeed, my mother told me of women of her mother's generation who were somewhat anti-automatic for some time, preferring Ye Olde Faithful Wringer machine. And they'd swear that the old machines washed better. (Sound familiar? LOL)

 

[kb0nes]

Who needs an AUTOMATIC machine?!?

Exactly John. Those new fangled machines with their mechanical timers are so much less reliable then this rock in the stream

Resistance to change is a big part of the problem. When the conventional wringer machines went away people didn't like altering their laundry habits to suit the new automatic machines. Same is true with a front loader. If the front load machines were so all fired horrible how does that explain all the people that happen to love theirs? Are they just stupid? Or are they just able to make the adjustments to suit the new technology, to make it work. People only get get stinky washers if they don't make the needed adjustments in their habits.

Indeed a large part of modern design is aimed at reducing machine costs, and this of course can result in reliability problems. But in many cases newer design is better or simpler or uses better products like plastics (god forbid), which can end up being more reliable. To make a blanket statement that older is always better is flat wrong, just as assuming anything new is automatically better. Of course one can choose to like vintage things, to some degree ALL of us are here because of that love. I can see the value and appreciate an old washer, or car, or tube hifi amp but I really don't want any of them as a daily driver. I don't believe that they are superior overall. I'm a pragmatic Luddite...

I personally don't think that the government should mandate energy conservation. But this is only because I think that they shouldn't HAVE to! We should all just do whatever we can do to just use less before a mandate is required. Sure there will be those that say laundry uses only a tiny amount of the water or energy that humans consume, but that isn't a valid justification to allow to simply use more.

 

[murando531]

I see a lot of points made here that I completely agree with, from all contributors.

Six months ago, I hated the idea of an HE machine. That opinion and mindset was grown from witnessing and experiencing so-called machines, and not liking what I saw. Now fast-forward, and I have had an HE WP Fusion Oasis in my laundry room for almost five months (technically two of them, but that was simply an isolated issue.) Since having the Bravos XL, my view of HE washing machines has done a complete 180. As hard as it has been to wrap my head around, this machine DOES do a much better job using the low water level that it does. Adding water hinders its performance drastically. Along with that, I've found that it's taking forever to get through a box of detergent because of how little it actually requires to produce fresh clean laundry. I've yet to have a need to pretreat anything, whether it's underarm stains, or food spots, and whatever mishaps have become on my clothes. I've also yet to have a load that wasn't completely saturated in detergent mixture before the wash action even started, nor a load that didn't properly "bloom" and rollover as it should. It took a little while to adjust and to keep an open mind, but now I have absolutely no doubt that when I put clothes into the machine, they're going to come out clean, smelling fresh, well rinsed, and almost spun dry to the point that it takes no time at all for the dryer to be done. That last point, in and of itself, makes me love the machine, and makes a HUGE difference in energy use because the dryer runs 1/3 of the time it would with a traditional washer, and that's with the heat set to low!

That said, I can also see why some users would absolutely despise a top-loading washer that is labelled "HE". Of every high efficiency top loader on the market, the Whirlpool Oasis/Fusion Oasis design is the only one that I've been impressed with. I wouldn't take an LG/Samsung TL if it were given to me, I see Frigidaire's machine as nothing but a spinning ice cream bucket, and I wouldn't give the time of day to anything GE has built. There are countless videos, and even more declarations here on AW of the shortcomings of such designs. The main complaint being that A: the machine doesn't have a recirculation system (which in my opinion is a MUST for any top loading washer), and B: the load is simply swished back and forth, with little to no movement within the actual load itself. Neither has been the case with the Bravos.

To say that most people are against drastic change is true, but it is also true that in the last decade or so, to the people like us that actually pay attention to and care about the subject, change conditioned us to perceive the word as: "what quality that we love and need has been taken away?". It makes it that much more difficult to actually embrace the changes in front of us.

I think and hope that as the machines that clean our laundry and dishes evolve, there will always be choice. It's safe to say that with the variety of companies there are, despite growing fewer through time because of buyouts and mergers, there will at least always be a variety of designs to choose from. In the end it all boils down to what gets the job done properly, and what quirks and methods a person wants to choose to adjust to.

 

[brisnat81]

The Maytag's we used in Hawaii last year, had the option of an eco wash/rinse or by using the Heavy Duty cycle with Fabric softener option you got a full tub of water (That seemed hot) and an agitator, these machines seemed pretty new, so I would say that Whirlpool are still offering the same options.

Rapunzel, the 1970's FL's used about 120L of water, not 180L like a TL machine. (the FL washed 4.5K, the TL 5-6kg) My W423 is 123L per cycle with Pre-wash for a total of 7 water changes. That works out to 17L per fill, rather than 90L. Because the Miele back then also heated the prewash, it meant you were only heating 34L of water, not 90L for a hot wash. It doesn't rinse any better than the new machines because it only spins after 2 of the water changes and then after the final rinse.

I have a mix of Old and new TL and Old and new FL machines, we run 5 Miele front loaders between 3 houses, 4 of which are between 5-10 years old and use 50-60L of water per cycle. I get that in the USA with only 110v you cant easily get a FL that performs like a euro one, but with 240v, you put the clothes in, add a good quality detergent, pick the right temperature and then 40 mins to 2 hours later clothes are clean and stain free.

I grew up with TL machines and the experience I have when I use them now, is the same as I remember with Mum as a kid. You soak whites overnight in a bucket, you need to use Preen/Spray and Wash on stains, collars, etc to get the grime out, and then you add a scoop of Oxygen bleach with the detergent. If you do all of that, then you get clean clothes.

I agree with some of the above points
1) HE Toploaders aren't the best of ideas, clothes need to tumble or flex, not be held against a fast spinning plate, or dragged around by and agitator in no water, if you're going HE, go FL.
2) FL that cant heat the water to an appropriate temperature, wont perform as well as those that do (110v vs 240v)

But I disagree with the following
1) All HE machines aren't bad, in just the same way that all traditional TL machines aren't good. The 60 or 90 second rinse in the Ax12 series maytags is a case in point
2) When you're washing clothes, the focus isn't just on saving the water, its also about not spending money on the energy needed to heat it. If you're only heating 10-15L of water, that's less than 20% of the cost of heating the water for a Traditional TL machine.

Everyone has passionate feeling about this, But brands other than Speed Queen still make machines with Traditional deep fill capabilities and HE doesnt have to equal bad.

Regards

Nathan

 

[arbilab]

Grandma was THRILLED to ditch her Thor wringer for the new Easy Spindry around 1953. Nothing 'automatic' about either, still had to stand there the whole time sticking your hands in suds. But the Easy was...... easier and ultimately did a better job.

Of course, THOSE machines didn't have the goobermint meddling with their gallons/litres or temperatures. They also weren't designed by lowest-cost engineering graduates. Any 'real' engineer will tell you, a graduate engineer plus a dollar will get you a free coffee refill at Denny's. Those machines ALSO weren't designed under the basis of "cut parts down to the last quarter-cent that makes them work then sell it" current corporate dictum.

Not like any of this is an eyebrow raiser to anyone here. Most have witnessed it firsthand. Or like me, secondhand-- out of the market since 1998 but followed it nonetheless. What would I buy today? What I did, a year ago. An all-plastic $250 Chinese twintub. Sure ain't 'touch-N-go' walk away from it automatic. BUT! Goobermint has NOTHING to say about how much/what temp water I use. It's twice as fast as the jiggered automatics, uses less water overall, and takes half the dryer time.

Now besides the fact I have to stand there the whole time with my hands in/out of suds, it uses LESS of EVERY resource and does exactly what needs to be done very well. But I have the low volume/spare time to make that practical; few do.

No argument that the choices have gotten a LOT harder.

 

[lordkenmore]

>When you're washing clothes, the focus isn't just on saving the water, its also about not spending money on the energy needed to heat it. If you're only heating 10-15L of water, that's less than 20% of the cost of heating the water for a Traditional TL machine.

And that is probably a major consideration, and one reason why there is government concern about water use.

Certainly energy savings experts seem more worried about water heating costs. Here is one page that illustrates this, complete with the lecture about the "joys" of washing in tap-cold water.

http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/laundry.html

And frugality types also have been more worried about heating water costs. It seems to me I've heard some cheapskates saying that upgrading your top load to a front load doesn't make as much sense economically if one washes in only cold, which is, of course, their #1 choice.

 

[lordkenmore]

>I personally don't think that the government should mandate energy conservation. But this is only because I think that they shouldn't HAVE to! We should all just do whatever we can do to just use less before a mandate is required. Sure there will be those that say laundry uses only a tiny amount of the water or energy that humans consume, but that isn't a valid justification to allow to simply use more.

Ideally, one could say yes... But that is not the world we live in.

Although the one problem with this argument I see is the "[we] should all just do whatever we can" part. I am not arguing with the basic idea, mind you, but this does open the question of exactly how much one should do and how far one should go... I know, for example, I could be doing more to save electricity. But...the steps I'd have to take would have a huge financial price for me to deal with. For example, I'm posting this from a desktop computer. Should I replace it with a laptop, which uses less energy? Even though it would cost $$$$?

One advantage of government standards--when done right--is that they can give a guideline of sorts. They also can force manufacturers to do things they might not be bothered with otherwise. Sometimes, of course, this may not be a good thing. But sometimes it probably is. For example, car safety is better than it once was, and if the decisions were left to Detroit, we'd still be lacking a long list of safety improvements.

 

[gusherb]

The calculator is fun to play with. After adjusting the parameters to our utility type/rates the difference isn't that huge (at least not as huge as they're trying to make it out to be on that site).

As far as anything I may have suggested earlier, I can definitely understand the need for HE in certain parts of the country/world where water isn't abundant and utility rates are high (or if you use electric vs gas), but where I'm at the drive for HE is pretty much purely based on keeping utility costs low. (And people buying into the marketing hype/That's basically the only option now).

We have access to more water then we could ever possibly need where I live (think the Great Lakes lol). And don't take that as me saying "water is abundant let's try and drain the Great Lakes" that's not at all what I'm suggesting, just that having them run dry anytime soon is not a concern.

 

[lordkenmore]

Another thought: even if there were no energy or water saving mandates, there still could be plenty of washing machines out there that aren't capable of doing the job.

Having lived with an early 1990s Frigidaire top load machine--twice [shudder]--I can attest that a washer can use full tubs of water, no apparent restrictions on hot water, and still be a lousy washing machine...

 

[lordkenmore]

Another thought is that some older technologies might actually beat HE, at least for water heating costs. If one has a 1960s Kenmore washer, for example, it would be expected that it would use a lot more energy to do a given load than this week's Home Depot wonder. But...if that old Kenmore has suds saver, which is used regularly (and partnered with cold rinses), that equation might change.

Of course, this is coming from someone who has dreamed of having suds saver, because his grandma's washer had it, and it was the neatest thing ever... LOL

 

[brisnat81]

I've used the calculator based on the costs we have here, and it gets easy to see when you're paying 30c per kwh and $13 per 1000 Gals how quickly the extra water and electricity usage mounts up.

 

[ronhic]

That's an interesting calculator

I've just done a comparison of the three key costs - water, gas and electricity, Canberra to Chicago based on the costs that Jonathan used above.

 

Off our last bills:

 

Water -AUS$2.75 per Kl (about US$8.50 per 1000 USgallon)

Electricity - AUD$0.17 Kwh (about US$0.13)

Gas - AUD$0.028 per Mj (about US$2.25 per Therm)

 

That makes:

 

Water 200% more expensive

Electricity 15% more expensive

but the kicker is Gas at 800% more expensive.

 

You can understand why Australians prefer to hang their laundry out. Gas dryers are a rare beast here and would be particularly expensive to run. Electric dryers take longer, but in our case, are cheaper to run than gas.

 

Regarding the Top V's Front loader debate, I personally believe that the US has simply gotten it wrong in one key, dynamic way. If you want lasting, thoughtful and genuine change, you don't try and foist it on a reluctant public who are change averse by incentivizing the manufacturers and then hitting them with a big stick if they don't comply. The sensible way to do it is to pay the public when they choose the 'correct path'. So, rather than dish out huge sums to the likes of Whirlpool etc. to change their machines to sell to the public, give the public a rebate when they buy a machine that meets certain energy/water requirements. This then forces the manufacturer to provide what the public demands and enables the public to have choice without feeling that they've had their 'right to choose' removed from them.

 

It's worked a treat here, but then if you explain to an Australian or a European why something is being done, why it's good for them and the country, they'll generally go on the journey with you.

 

Much of what I read on here that's posted by non-Europeans and non-Australians amounts to 'It's my right and I'll do as I please - I pay for it' - a completely different reaction to everyone else.

 

 

[rapunzel]

Brisnat, how large is that front loader of yours that uses 19 liters per fill?

In the 1970s there were very few front loaders on the Aussie market (two perhaps?), but there were lots of horizontal axis washers for sale in Germany, where I used to live at the time. The average capacity for domestic washers was 4.5 kilos and most used between 20 and up to 30 liters per fill, depending on what washer you bought. Multiply that by 5 or 6 fills and you can figure out how much water was used in the laundry process. You say that your mother soaked her laundry in a bucket before wash day. She could have soaked them in the top loader and saved herself some work perhaps? That's what I still do.

My current SQ washer uses 150 liters for a complete cycle and I am very happy with that. It has a capacity rating of 7.5 kilos and is adequate for my household. It certainly washes more clothes and bulky items in one go than any of our German washers did and the SQ as good as never unbalances.[this post was last edited: 4/18/2015-20:18]

 

[rapunzel]

It is not my intention to start another FL vs TL argument. People should buy what makes them happy.

My observation is that, over my life time, the basic design and function of washing machines hasn't changed. What has changed is the economic model under which these appliances are produced. Most are churned out from huge factories in some developing country, with no environmental standards, using components produced by slave labor. They are designed off templates, intended to be disposable and made as cheaply as is feasible. They are now marketed as multitask appliances that come with all kinds of bells and whistles, which supposedly take the guess work out of doing laundry, where these machines can even sense the ineptitude of the user and rectify poor laundry habits all by themselves - or so we are almost led to believe. And, on top of all that, they even save the planet. That's a big ask for a consumable that hasn't really had that much of a design overhaul. With designers and manufacturers casting such a wide focus trying to satisfy so many requirements, focus is out of focus? I don't know, you tell me.

What is the expected average life span of a modern washing machine? 6 years? Well, we know that it is less than ten and then it's off to landfill. In the meantime stain removal may be adequate, but that 50 liters of water that is supposed to wash and rinse 8 or 10 kilos of clothing, is leaving all kinds of residue behind. That doesn't become immediately apparent and since clothes are also disposable consumables, just like the machines that clean them, they probably get tossed out because they start looking dingy and mangy pretty quickly, just like the machine that supposedly cleans them.

It's the same thing with modern detergents. Evil phosphates have been replaced with other stuff that will, over time, reveal itself to be less than ideal on the environment. It's not been researched yet, but in time it will come out in the wash. Most modern liquid detergents, especially HE ones, don't even clean anymore. They brighten and perfume and are designed to 'rinse' out in these new, efficient machines, but do they really?

I must absolutely add, in response to henene4, that any top loader of quality will match a front loader any time, but top loaders are more convenient and flexible than front loaders and that is why they are still so popular all over the world (outside of Europe that is).[this post was last edited: 4/18/2015-20:36]