SQ water usage

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

Help Support AutomaticWasher.org:

S

supersurgilator

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 23, 2007
Messages
453
Location
Indiana
For those of you that have a newer SQ washer, any idea how much water it uses for a large load? I know the specs say 27 gallons or something close to it, but I'm assuming thats for the eco cycle. The only thing I have found was a manual for one of the new Australian models and it states 26.2 gallons for the eco cycle and
46.5 gallons in the regular cycle. I'm assuming it would be about the same, even although 46.5 sounds like a bit much to me.
 
Given the tub size and such, 46.5 gallons sounds about right for a full load.  They're being purposely deceptive with the volume of water to appease the tree huggers.  Face reality, it ain't gonna be water wise.  It's a top loader that fills with water.  Personally, no one in their right mind should use that "normal" (eco) cycle if they just have to have a traditional top loader.   My Lady Shredmore used 46 - 48 gallons for a typical normal cycle. 
 
The medium water level which fills nearly to the top takes in 17 gallons according to our water meter. I'm guessing the high water level takes in 21 gallons or so. My rough calculation came in at 43 gallons per cycle so 46.5 doesn't surprise me. Our last water bill was up to 4,800 gallons from 4,000 the months prior to the new SQ. it'll probably drop some now that I've washed every possible thing I could find in the house Hahahaha.
 
Here in Oz SQ washers are rated 70 liters per complete fill, which is equivalent to 18.4 gallons.

I don't understand why they don't re-introduce the suds saver function on top loaders. I bet that, when used correctly, it would make these machines more effective and efficient than the highest rated HE front loaders. I used to have a washer with that function and used it frequently without finding it inconvenient or a chore.

By rights, twin tubs, if used as originally designed, are most certainly more efficient and effective than all other types of washers on the market; they just require a bit more hands on involvement. Twin tubs are certainly a lot quicker than most HE machines. I would think that, apart from wearing a loin cloth, twin tubs would be the perfect choice for all those eco warriors who are so worried about how much water washing machines use.[this post was last edited: 5/15/2015-21:51]
 
Jerrod

Just a few dollars. The last water bill was about $62 this one was $70 The jump in sewer charges is more then the jump in water. 5 dollars of that increase was the sewer.
$17.75 of that is trash collection, $7 of it is for storm water hookup (for the sump pump) and then there's some other surcharges added into that mix too.
 
"Could you please tell us why you aren't the Minister for Environment?"

Considering that most politicians have no formal training or experience in their appointed portfolios, it wouldn't be to the nation's detriment if I or anyone else had a go at it. Unfortunately I don't possess many of skills and qualities that are required of career politicians. In my chosen career I have to be skilled, knowledgeable, truthful, professional and always act with integrity, compassion and for the benefit of others. That is why I would never qualify to become Minister for the Environment. How about you?
 
Suds save machines

Do a good job at reducing water usage in a top load machine when used correctly.

 

My mother had a solid tub Simpson Fluid drive (4 speed programmed - Leon has one) that, if memory serves correctly, used 13 Imp gallons per fill, so 26 gallons per wash cycle. Capacity was noted at 10lb

 

90% of the wash water could be reused if your tub was set up correctly, with heavy soils settling to the bottom.

 

Mum used hers like this, topping up the detergent with another 1/3 dose:

 

Whites - hot wash

Suds save

Coloureds - warm wash

 

sheets - hot wash

suds save

sheets - warm wash

 

Towels -warm

suds save

Dads work clothes (builder) - warm wash

 

Over the 6 loads of washing it was possible to reduce water usage from around 700 litres to around 540 litres. 90 litres is still a significant amount of water to wash 4.5kg/10lb of washing, but puts it on-par with most front load machines from the 1980's.

 

 

 

 
 
So I was thinking, the 17 gallon tub must be the one used on the coin op machines? I have a brochure from 2004 when the coin op machines was listed as 2.5 cu. ft and the water usage was 33.5 gallons per load. I think it said the tub held 15 or 16 gallons? That seems about right with the ratings of the newer ones
 
Anyone who knows anything about anything other than subterfuge is immediately disqualified as minister of anything anywhere. (Is that the most 'anys' you've ever seen in one sentence?)

Twinnys: I'm no eco-nazi but I'd just as soon use no more resources than it takes to get the job done. So yeah I run a twinny. I can do my entire laundry with something on the order of 15 gallons including a fill rinse. And if you drank the final rinse/spin water it wouldn't hurt you. No automatic ever invented can do that. So any eco-nazi using an automatic is not only a loudmouth phony but a lazy one to boot. "YOU should save water but *I* can't be bothered."
 
"no more resources than it takes"

Well, you forget human work is a resource, too. And saying that someone isn't concerned about the enviroment because he&#92she is just not willing to spend 1-2 full working hours on doing 2 loads of laundry and rather uses 5 gallons more is just plain wrong. Sorry, but as much as I'm concerned about saveing, there is no practical way for me and everybody that lives with me to do laundry in a that manual way. It's not lazy. But for 6 people, I'd like to see you doing your laundry in a twinny. It might work for you. But the idea of an HE AUTOMATIC laundry system is to save you work time and still do the job efficent.
Oh, and, how much laundry are you doing with 15gal of water?

On suds saver systems: I guess, they are usable. But they produce more work than saveings in my opinion for today standards.
First: Soil today is different than 30 years ago. 30 years ago, laundry was more likely to be heavy soiled with stuff like mudd, dirt or other "heavy" substances. Today, it usualy is sweat, dust etc. While dirt, sand and so on settle down in a laundry tub quite fast, sweat residues will basicly always stay in solution. So your wash water won't be that self cleaning.
Further, as far as I understand the set up, one had to move the drain hose after the wash drain from the laundry tub into a drain for the rinse. Then you had to move it back to the suds for the next wash and then back to the drain again. Quite a lot of timing, isn't it.
Last but not least, I know that at least half of the persons I know do one load laundry. They don't pile until the weekend. If there is a load, it's washed right away. Suds saveing is imposdible in that way.
 
Having owned a top loader with suds save function I can personally attest to it not being of any significant inconvenience or labor intensity. I never considered plugging the laundry tub, pressing a button and turning a dial, labor intensive. Admittedly it did add a few more moments to the laundry process, but, theoretically (I've not had the chance to test this) you could easily do that and still SMS or watch porn on your I-phone at the same time - so no harm done. There was no need to fiddle with hoses (unless it was my own), the machine and laundry tub were specifically designed to make saving suds incredibly easy and convenient.

Reusing suds during the laundry process was effective and common practice for centuries. It works exceedingly well if done correctly, i.e. proper rinsing is absolutely essential. As far as I know laundry suds were never self-cleaning. Their purpose is to clean the clothes that one puts in them. That is why chemicals are added to dissolve and suspend the stuff that is meant to get washed out. Then follows the rinse to take it all away and down the drain, leaving clothes clean and fresh. However, I am just an old fossil, set in my ways, what would I know?

Has dirt really changed? Is there now modern dirt and old-fashioned dirt? Are modern machines specifically designed to deal with 'modern' dirt? What would happen if I put old-fashioned 30 year old dirt into a modern washer? Is this a trick?[this post was last edited: 5/17/2015-11:21]
 
You got me wrong...

... and got me wrong pictures in my head.

First: Dirt it self hasn't changed. But the soiling of clothing has. My father still wears his work socks, shirts etc. at least 3 days. I wear my shirts one day. While 30 years ago a bigger percentage in the EU and the US worked in "dirty" jobs (farming etc.) with those different soils, that amount reduced until today. So the average soiling has indeed changed by today.

Self-cleaning suds: Whirlpool displayed it so nicely. As your wash water sits in the tub being saved, heavy soil particles settle to the bottom, lighter soils float on top of the suds. As the suds are returned, those lighter soils as well as the heavier once stayed in the tub. The wash water cleaned it self to a certain degree.
With todays soiling, that process is less effective.
But on the other hand, todays laundry is generally less heavy soiled and thus suds might be reusable still.

Laborintensity: So, just to get it right: You plug your laundry tub, place the drain hose into it, start the first cycle. The washer washes, drains and then spins, draining into your saveing area aka laundry tub. The rinse starts.
Now, you want to drain the rinse water away and not into your saved suds. So, while that 5-10 minute window, you'd have to be at your washer in time to move the drain hose out of the tub so the water drains away. After another 5-10 minutes, your laundry would be done. You'd move it to the dryer, fill the washer with the next load. Now you'd place the hose back into your saved suds and let them be pumped back in. You'd unplug the tub as you don't want to save the suds again and let the washer finish it's cycle.
So, you'd need one additional visit to your washer that has to happen in a 10 minute window. You'd have to move the drainhose 3 times within that procedure. For me, that looks like work. Not much, but enough to cause inconvenence. Especially if laundry us situated in areas where a laundry tub might be more common to find like a basement or a garage.
 
Suds saving wouldn't work for me with the way I laundry... but I could imagine reusing the rinse water for the wash, as some washers automatically did (Fagor and Electrolux, for example).

A twin tub would be fun to use but too labor intensive in the long run - at least for me.
 
Suds saver washers had two drain hoses.  One for the wash drain (if selected to "save" suds and the hose used to drain the rinse water.  If "save" wasn't selected, then the hose used for rinse water was also used by wash water.  The suds save hose was selected by a diverter valve.  Also, one shouldn't have added the next load of laundry until after the sudsy water was returned for the subsequent load.  Otherwise, too harsh on clothing because usually the agitator agitated while suds were being returned. 
 
If Speed Queen offered a ToL model with suds save function I would snap it up in a heartbeat.

Bob described the suds save set-up correctly. One hose drains the sudsy water, to be reused, into the holding tub and another drain hose drains the rinse water, via a diverting outlet, down the drain. When the cycle has completed clean clothes are removed, the program dial is turned to suds-return, which activates the agitator and reverse pump and the sudsy water is siphoned via the dedicated hose back into the empty machine. Once the machine is full some more detergent, maybe hot/warm water and a new load of clothes are added and the laundry process continues. With that next load one would unselect 'suds save' to allow 'all' the water to go down the drain. Top loaders use different amounts of water depending on the size of a wash load. Sometimes only half of the saved suds were needed for a smaller load and the suds that still remained in the tub could then be used for a third load. If needed, one could always add fresh water and more detergent.

When one becomes familiar with this facility it is incredibly easy to use and very effective. Anyway, nobody in my house ever got Cooties from saving suds and our clothes were as clean and fresh as a newborn.

Of course if one suffers from some form of ADD suds saving might present an insurmountable challenge; it does require a degree of pre-planning, not just the common laundry dump and run. Perhaps more utility stars stickers, colored, flashing lights and tinkly tunes are what is really needed to keep consumers focused and happy.[this post was last edited: 5/17/2015-23:05]
 
Inventors step forward

Someone needs to invent a standalone unit that would convert and washing machine into a suds saving unit. Amazed it hasn't happened already.

Malcolm
 
"you forget human work is a resource"

No, I am retired, human work is a SURPLUS. I have LOTS of it. Whereas money for supplies and utilities is a paucity, to be supplanted by surplus time whenever possible.

Yeah it just happens to save the whales. As if 5 gallons weren't a teaspoon to a whale. Or as if whales didn't do just fine for a half million years before I was born. Besides, what did they ever do for me?

Not only is the twin the least resource-intensive way for me to meet my laundry obligation, it also escapes being confiscated as contraband in my retirement poorhouse.

You launder for SIX people? Then our perspectives are going to differ, now aren't they?
 
"Someone needs to invent a standalone unit that would convert and washing machine into a suds saving unit."

They kind of do that already on the international space station, I believe. Of course a self-contained unit designed for domestic use here on earth wouldn't have to be that sophisticated, but could include a basic filtration system to allay the fears of people like henene4, that a dissolved snot ball might contaminate the entire wash.

Personally I don't see why placing normal laundry tubs into laundry spaces has become such a challenge. Once upon a time, when houses were much smaller, large laundry tubs, that could easily hold 25 gallons of suds, were standard issue. Now our houses are among the biggest in the world and come equipped with super-sized laundry rooms, some of them as big as a standard-size English bedsit, but with built-ins. However, laundry tubs have largely disappeared or been replaced with something the size and appearance of a kitchen sink. Clearly those who design these spaces don't really care to understand what that space is or could be used for and it all seems to be more for show rather than function. [this post was last edited: 5/18/2015-08:32]
 
I emailed Speed Queen about the amount of water in my AWN432 for each fill level and this is what they replied:
The approximate water usage for each is:

Gallons:
Mini
16.3
Small
18.0
Medium
19.7
X-Large
21.5
 
@arbilab

As I am not entirely sure what you want to say, I'll try to cover all options. And this post is not ment ironic.

1. If I somehow attacked you: Sorry. That REALLY wasn't my intention.
2. If you say that I misunderstand you: Well, human worktime is still a resource for you. It's just there plenty.
3. If you want to say I'm one of the Eco people: Yeah, kind of. Not because of my surroundings. Because of me.
One day we'll all die. But that day most likely will come earlier for you than for me. I really don't want to offend you with this, but by the time you're gone by, I'll be round about 30-40, maybe. This means by statistic I'll have still ~40 years to go. And if climate change should be more drastic than we can think of, that will then be my problem. Not yours. Or the problem of a following generation.

And to all who think I'm crazy about reusing wash water: Yeah! I would really hate the idea to reuse the water that dissolved the dirt in about 10 pounds of laundry to wash another 10 pound load. I think it's neither appropiate for its gain nor somewhat "clean" for me. (And btw, what happened in this thread is exactly what I ment when I said people get into extremes on here to easy on another thread.)

I thought Whirlpools machines once used the same hose to do so? Or was I wrong about that?
 
" (And btw, what happened in this thread is exactly what I ment when I said people get into extremes on here to easy on another thread.)"

Nobody is being 'extreme' - we are discussing our experiences with something that you are unfamiliar with. Anyway, nobody is forcing you to buy a top loader with suds save function, but I would like to have that choice again, because I believe, based on my experience, that it is a very good idea.
 
Hi Henrik,

The Cheaper Simpsons and Hoovers in Australia could do Suds Save with one hose, the process was as follows.

Load Clothes and Detergent
Turn Suds Save switch on
Start the Wash cycle

At the end of the Wash the machine stops before it drains, you put the plug in and then set the Suds Save switch to Normal. The pump then starts. Once the machine finishes draining, you put the hose into the standpipe and the rest of the cycle continues as normal.

The water returns via a syphon action, not pumping, so the process for that is as follows

Put the hose back into the Laundry tub full of water
Set the Program Dial to suds Return
The machine then fills with approx. 3 inches of water
The machine then pumps the water into the laundry tub
The machine then stops and all going to plan, the water starts syphoning back into the machine.

This system let them add a suds save option to a basic machine, with nothing more than an option switch and a slightly different timer.

Regards

Nathan
 
Hi maylingsmom

On my SQ the mini or smallest fill uses approx. 6 to 7 gallons, not 16, and I can set any kind of water level from that to the maximum of approx. 19 gallons. The figures they quoted for their lower fill levels don't sound right. 19 (US) gallons is equivalent to 71 liters. 16 gallons = almost 61 liters, that's almost full. Maybe the people at SQ have got their numbers wrong?[this post was last edited: 5/18/2015-17:15]
 
Henene4

Nobody is suggesting that you buy yourself a top loader with suds save function. I, however, would love to have one, but can't get it anymore because, with all this focus on 'eco', the smartest among us have decided to do away with such a simple and effective way to save water. It proves though that 'modern' isn't always better and younger generations don't do things smarter and they are just a bit clueless.

[this post was last edited: 5/18/2015-18:50]
 
Rapunzel-- I thought the numbers for mini and small sounded off. I have thought about pouring water in myself to see if I can figure out roughly how much it is.
 

Similar threads

H
LG launched the DD dryer in the EU
Replies
5
Views
326
logixx
logixx
Unimatic1140
An Interesting Test with a New Meter
2
Replies
43
Views
3K
kb0nes
kb0nes
M
Speed Queen Washing Machine - Export Model Differences
Replies
8
Views
1K
MickGearz
M
M
Older Maytag VMW washer in great condition: A Find
Replies
0
Views
699
maytaglover68
M
DADoES
HE Toploader Water Usage
2 3 4
Replies
91
Views
1K
bpetersxx
bpetersxx

Latest posts

Back
Top