SQ vs. other companies

[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]

 

[brisnat81]

Hi Olav

Its a 1978 4.5kg Miele W423, 120L total, Prewash - Mainwash - 5 Rinses. As soon as I can find the owners guide I'll scan the testing/consumption page.

You're correct, in the 1980 Choice review there was the Miele and Bendix FL machines available in Australia. Each was about $700-$1300 vs $300-$600 for the TL machines. I've attached the Miele supplement from where they compared it to the Simpson. Even in 1980, the running costs for the Miele were 4c/kg vs 8c/kg for the Simpson. The Choice review is suggesting 146L for 4.5kg vs 181L for 5kg in the Simpson, for the Miele that works out to 20L per fill for 7 fills.

Mum soaked the whites in a bucket because they took days to accumulate (mainly socks, Jocks and Singlets, with only 3 school uniforms per child, she had to wash every other night.

The early 4.5kg machines are far smaller than what's on the market these days. Have you used a modern 5-6kg FL machine? I have those in the Miele versions, plus an 8kg Maytag Centenial. The Maytag vs the Miele's are about lineball capacity wise, regardless of the rating.

 

[rapunzel]

Having to wash school uniforms as well, there is sometimes the need to launder only a couple of things at a time. On average I collect all my laundry and do full loads whenever possible, but it is great that I can throw in a pair of pants or a shirt by itself, when needed. Front loaders are not really designed for that. Half loads are fine, but anything less is not optimal.

Thanks for that review, I remember those old Simpsons when they came out. They weren't a bad machine at all. I had a compact BOL model that came with the unit I was renting in inner Sydney during the late 80s. It was a heavy machine for its size and washed really well.

 

[ronhic]

You've forgotten

Hoover.
 
Hoover sold front load machines in Australia from the mid-1960's until they stopped manufacturing here, though they are again available. Originally imported, they became locally produced from the mid-late 1970's and stayed that way until around 1999.
 
They were also affordable.
 
My Hoover Electra 550 was $800 in 1994 and lasted (a friend) until 2012. Rated at 4kg, it was promoted in the handbook as capable of taking of load of 8 single bed sheets. That's equivalent to 4 queen size sheets and pillow cases.
 
Choice have just tested washing machines in the past month or so. Choice test using a part load of 3.5kg which is the average that consumers actually wash regardless of the size of their machine. They also test using a cold, normal cycle or one that is as close to that as possible
 
This time they've tested the larger version of my Beko, which incidentally, has the same drum size as the 6.5kg machine.
 
So, how'd it fare compared to a Speed Queen they also tested?
 
Beko:
Cost - $1030
Wash - 77%
Rinse - 87%
Spin  - 69%
Water - 62L
Gentle - 68%
Cycle - 87m
Running Costs - $631
Power - .175kw
 
 
Speed Queen:
Cost - $2300
Wash -  54%
Rinse - 97%
Spin - 53%
Gentle - 63%
Water - 171L
Cycle time - 41m
Running costs - $1633
Power - .202kw
 
So in summary, the Beko is:

- less than half the price

- costs 1/3 the amount to run over 10 years

- is more gentle on clothes despite the longer cycle

- removes 23% more dirt

- uses less than 40% of the water

- and extracts more during spin

 

I'll concede that it doesn't rinse quite as well, but I can introduce another rinse @ 15L if it was required.

 

Given the prime reason is to 'clean clothes', even if every other variable was the same, that 23% better dirt removal score is the kicker.

 

I only paid $600 for my Beko (with 12kg OMO...that's basically $60). My mothers F&P badged Beko is now 7yrs old and hasn't had an issue. If in 10 years I have to replace it, I'll have saved more than double the replacement cost in comparison anyway along with having cleaner clothes that have lasted longer.

[this post was last edited: 4/18/2015-22:36]

 

[lordkenmore]

> 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.

Yes, I have to agree that some approach that "rewards" ordinary buyers for choosing efficiency has a lot of merit. But my Inner Cynic says "Good luck" getting that to happen in the current political climate. I'm sure there are Republicans out there who, in fact, would take the opinion of "I don't care about peasants like LordKenmore, and I don't really care about environmental issues, but I sure do care about big corportations and my big, rich CEO friends of those corporations."

 

[ronhic]

Here it was done by State governments and Councils.

 

....and the American political system is a WHOLE different beast as are the American population.

 

[lordkenmore]

Perhaps one approach to get people to embrace HE washers in the US would be to turn to using subliminal messages on TV programming for the masses to absorb what they watch people make fools of themselves on reality TV or whatever. Perhaps this message: "You want a washer that uses three drops of water. You want this washer. You will go to Home Depot in the morning and buy it. You will..."

 

[ronhic]

If that's all it takes, that's fine.

 

You don't need litres of cream and fillet steak to be a good cook. Likewise, the test above proves you don't need to spend lots of money or use huge quantities of water to effectively wash or rinse clothes.

 

 

[rapunzel]

Whatever CR rates SQ washers has nothing to do with how clean my clothes are. If 88% is the highest rating for clean they achieve in their lab, then that is how clean my clothes are when I've finished laundering them.

The tax payer funded rebate programs, to encourage the purchase of fully imported front loaders, has been a failure and example of government ineptitude. The (tens or even hundreds)of millions wasted on this would have been better spent on keeping our own whitegoods industry alive and wiser heads could have put this money towards more effective water management through other means. Now we've only got iron ore and Chinese people and stores full of (toxic) imported junk, that is environmentally unsustainable, overpriced, poor value for money and probably causes cancer.

State governments and councils have no business micro-managing the public and most of the crap they perpetrate is useless and primarily for their personal benefit and not ours. Australian politics and the people, who populate the upper echelons of our public service organizations, are inherently corrupt, inept and not that bright.[this post was last edited: 4/20/2015-00:17]

 

[midcentnurse]

I'll just say the rest dont make em like they used to.. This old Whirlpool got some of the nastiest work rags clean everytime we used it. A capful of unflavored ALL and the heaviest cycle it had, which as you can see is limited and really clean towels emerged.
It might be hard to see the washer was bought in 1999. They saved every receipt, (EVERY receipt!) I dont know what year the dryer is but works awesome, delicious natural gas