Talk Me Into Or Out Of A Front Loader

[btjustice]

Do FLs really clean clothes better than a TL? If so or not, why? I realize that FLs use less water than TLs so it kind of defies logic that they clean better. What other benefits/disbenefits are there to FLs?

I found a Frigidaire 2140 new with a couple of small dents in it from shipping marked down to $450. I might go with it.

 

[roto204]

That's a nice machine

When we talk about front-loaders cleaning better than a top-loader, it depends on what top-loader we're talking about.

If we are, for instance, referring to a machine a few years old or older, then you will likely see comparable performance between the two. The front-loader will extract more water, but cleanliness should be equivalent.

If we're talking about top-loaders produced over the last year or two that feature lower water levels and "dumbed-down" temperatures to try and squeak by energy-consumption requirements, then yes, the front-loader will likely perform better and provide cleaner clothes. The front-loader doesn't have to fib water temps to skate by.

Either way, I've heard pretty good things about the 2140 and Frigidaire front-loaders in general.

 

[gizmo]

" I realize that FLs use less water than TLs so it kind of defies logic that they clean better."

Well no, it doesn't really. There is a lot more to washing clothes than just water. There are good scientific reasons why FLs wash better.
1. They use a much more concentrated washing solution. If you use half the detergent but less than one-quarter the water, you can see that the washing solution is twice as concentrated. You can look at it the other way around, that toploaders unnecessarily dilute the washing solution because they ned to float the clothes.
2. The clothes are constantly breaking the surface of the water. The surface tension of the water exerts quite some force when it is broken so it is an effective washing action. Also if loaded correctly, the weight of the clothes on top squashes down on the clothes underneath, forcing water and detergent through the fabric. The clothes are alternately squeezed (when on the bottom) and allowed to soak up and expand (when on the top) which is a gentle but very thorough wash action.
3. Wash times are usually longer.
4. Water temperatures can be higher without blowing the energy rating, as the amount of wash water is so small.

Chris.

 

[btjustice]

gizmo (Chris)...

1) Are you sure it is more concentrated? I thought the whole point of HE detergent was that it didn't make as much suds. Would that not make it weaker? I realize that you use less HE detergent due to the FL using less water.

2) Agreed.

3) I hear this too. Does this not eat into the energy savings since the machine is running longer?

4) Agreed.

 

[mielabor]

about sudsing in front-loaders:

1. The cleaning power depends on the composition and concentration of the detergent, not on the presence of suds. Judging of the washing solution by sudsing should only be done when using traditional soap.

2. Sudsing in a front-loader actually decreases cleaning efficiency as it prevents the squeezing action on the clothes.

Anyone complaining about the lack of sudsing in dishwashers?

 

[launderess]

Yes, the wash water is a more concentrated (or should be) solution of detergents and whatever in front loaders, but there shouldn't be any suds.

You want the concentrated wash to do the cleaning and more importantly keep the removed muck off your laundry to be rinsed away. Using a small volume of water this is important as unlike top loaders one cannot depend upon laundry swimming in a large amount of water to do the job. If the was solution is not concentrated for front loaders, you'll end up with dingy, dirty, tattle-tale grey laundry.

Rinsing is another matter, there one needs lots of water as it is a process of dilution.

Sudsing is NOT an indication of cleaning power when using laundry detergents. Soap yes, but not detergent.

L.

 

[mielabor]

about energy and water use for washing:

1. Most energy needed for washing is used for water heating. Using less water means using less energy. Also: washing at high temperatures for a shorter time uses more energy than washing at lower temperatures for a longer time (within reasonable limits of course).

2. More rinsings with small quantities of water are better than less rinsings with large quantities of water, provided that as much water as possible is extracted from the clothes at the end of each rinse cycle.

Front-loaders are definitely superior in both issues.

 

[toggleswitch]

rinsing more effective:

~provided that as much water as possible is extracted from the clothes at the end of each rinse cycle.

It is my oponion as well that spins between rinses does the most good.

Which manny does not do this? I thought someone mentioned Miele does NOT like to spin too much between rinses in that "It forces the residues back INTO the clothing."

 

[MrX]

Mieles do plenty of spins between the rinses. Obviously if you select a very delicate cycle, this may be reduced.

Our miele's not very new but here's how the cycle goes for a normal cotton cycle:
Wash, drain, spin (gradually speeds up to 1000rpm), rinse + spin, rinse+spin, rinse+spin, conditioner rinse + final spin at 1600RPM

 

[passatdoc]

better rinses

I had a large capacity but not-alot-of-options GE toploader before it broke (nine years old) beyond repair, and I replaced it with a Frigidaire 2140. The GE did not have a second rinse option, and I now realize this is a higher-end option on toploaders. The GE was my second washer and neither machine I owned had a second rinse option.

I don't know whether it was the Frigidaire's better wash cycle or the fact that the clothes get up to four rinses, but white items such as towels and underwear, which looked a dingy yellow out of the GE, suddenly looked as if they had been bleached. They hadn't been bleached, as I never use it, but the contrast was amazing. Various friends have made the same remarks after the first load out of their new front loaders.

I travel several times a year to Europe and usually stay in the homes of friends, who kindly grant me access to their laundry rooms so that I can keep luggage to a minimum. I always noticed that clothes washed in their machines came out cleaner, and I used to assume it was softer water than we have in California. Now I realize that it was the more effective rinsing. If I select Extra Rinse, I get up to four rinses in a wash cycle.

When the appliance store delivered and set up my Frigidaire, I ran a test load of clothing while the men were there, to be sure the machine was balanced properly. I threw in some CLEAN clothing from my closet, WITHOUT ADDING DETERGENT, and not surprisingly some suds were left over....representing the leftover soap in my clothing from my one-rinse GE. Front loaders rinse more efficiently with three or four low volume rinses than a top loader with one mammoth rinse.

You are correct....top loaders do not cut the electric bill, because they run longer. What I noticed after several months of front loader ownership:

water bill down 15%
gas bill (I have a gas water heater) down 20%
electric bill: no change

I suppose that someone with a washer equipped with an onboard heater might run higher electric bills than before, if he or she used the highest temperature settings. In Europe, most washers are cold water fill, the onboard heater heats the water, and the wash cycles are longer as a result. In US, the washers run on both cold and hot water fill, so the heater (which is 120 instead of 240 V) kicks on only if the house water heater is depleted or if a very hot wash temperature (higher than hot tap water) is selected.

 

[peterh770]

Well, I don't think we could talk you into a front loader. The door opening is rather small, and I don't think the capacity could hold a full sized adult. Even with sticks and clubs, we probably couldn't get you all the way in. Maybe you are double jointed? And if you are already in, well it's up to you to get out. Maybe after a few weeks of not eating, getting out would be easier.

 

[btjustice]

I want to thank you all for your comments. Apparently I have 30 days to return the FL for a full refund (no questions asked) if I don't like it so I guess I have nothing to lose if I try the Frigidaire 2140 FL.

If it did what these 2 videos do, it would be an easier decision (I would get a FL without any hesitation)...

http://www.automaticwasher.org/VID/47BENDIX/Bendix_Wash.wmv

http://www.automaticwasher.org/VID/47BENDIX/Bendix_Rinse_Spin.wmv

 

[roto204]

Peter

*rolling on floor*

You're awesome.

 

[panthera]

FL versus TL

I think the biggest difference between the two systems is that FLs have been developed continuously. TLs (I mean the basic agitator in the middle) really hit their peak with the first GE and Unimatics and it has been downhill ever since.
Nothing, absolutely nothing new or useful has been added to them since the first thumpers began making their beautiful sound.
FLs on the other hand, have continued to evolve and, driven by intense competition, improve.
In the end, you should either go with a vintage TL or a Fl. If it were vintage, that would be cool, too - although I would hesitate to recommend the Westinghouses from the 1970s...

 

[gadgetgary]

BTJustice

My ex got the Frigidaire last fall and absolutely loves the machine. He replaced an older TL Whirlpool(shredmore).

The machine holds a lot of clothes, and, does an excellent job(he has two Yorkies).

No complaints with his machine at all.

 

[btjustice]

I went ahead and bought the $450 damaged in shipping version of the Frigidaire 2140 today. Hauled it in and hooked it up myself. It was a pain getting it perfectly balanced but it is perfectly balanced. I can't believe how quiet the thing is! You can't hear it washing unless you are doing a heavy load and even then it is only the sound of the wash falling back to the bottom of the tub. You can hear it drain water like a TL and the spin is noticeable but quiet. I am very satisfied!

I wanted to be sure the inside was nice and clean as it was on display so I ran a heavy wash cycle with extra spin and extra rinse and laundry detergent through it. I am now washing my bed sheets. The wash appears to be nice and sudsy as I would expect it to be in a FL (not super sudsy but what I would think would be the right amount). I can't wait to see if they appear to be cleaner and better washed. Well, they are better washed and it is nice to know that all the soap is out of them thanks to the window in the door.

Thank you all for helping me make the decision to get a FL! I greatly appreciate it

 

[panthera]

de nada

Do remember, please - FLs in general and Electrolux/Kenmore/Frigidaire/some GEs in particular are allergic to chlorine bleach (never mind the bleach dispenser, that was put in my marketing idiots who don't give a flying, er foot, about customers) and must be run with HE detergents. That sudsing is a bad bad thing - it attacks the bearings and contributes nothing to cleaning. It is a holdover from the old soap days and is an added "feature" of the detergent makers to make you "think" it is doing something.
Sorry if this sounds like a lecture - just want you to have all the pleasure of a FL without any of the hassle; chlorine bleach and high suds are the cause of allmost all failures in this unit.
(Europeans use oxygen bleach instead of chlorine)

 

[MrX]

There's a bit of a myth perpetuated on here that European washing machines and detergents operate 100% suds free. While they're generally very low sudsing there will be bubbles. You won't normally see a whole layer / cake of suds sitting on top of the water, but you will get some suds in the water.

If you've a few suds, that's quite normal, if you've a whole layer of white foam, you've put in too much detergent or you're using the wrong type of detergent.

Chlorine bleach in a front loading machine is generally very inadvisable. Oxygen bleach will work better and it's better for your machine, for the environment and for your clothes (the most important bit).

Normally, clothes don't need any bleaching at all. Modern detergents have amazing combinations of enzymes and polymers and other ingredient that will break down and remove almost any stain without any need to oxydise it with bleach.

I find for 99.999% of washes, I can get perfect results using a European biological liquid detergent like Persil Small and Mighty which uses optical brighteners rather than bleach.

For coloured clothes, I use a colour detergent e.g. Persil colour which contains neither bleach nor optical brighteners and it gives excellent results.

Your clothes last much longer, look much better and don't fade anywhere near as much. Things like Jean in particular look far far better for much longer if washed like this.

For white clothes, normal European biological powder detergent which contains oxygen bleach will generally produce fantastic results.

However, it's worth remembering that most of the time in the modern world we're really only removing odours, sweat and the odd bit of splashed food from clothes. Unless you're a car mechanic or something, you're highly unlikely to really need to break down very tough stains.

Enzymes work fantastically well on body odours, food stains, etc.

Bleaching with chlorine in particular is a very harsh and out dated way of doing laundry.

Even dishwashers have moved away from using chlorine bleaches to clean dishes and towards a mix of powerful enzymes. This has resulted in a generation of detergents that no longer etch glass and no longer fade the patterns on your dishes!

In general : don't put chlorine anywhere near clothes!

 

[MrX]

I've tried All HE Small and Mighty (Unilever) and it seems quite similar to the UK/Ireland Persil / Surf S&M versions.

I'd suggest giving it a go, and make sure that you follow the dosing instructions carefully.

For normal washing, it's should be a decent detergent and pretty good for your clothes.

For whites and colour fast items, get a powder HE detergent, not a liquid. This, typically, will contain oxygen bleach in sufficient quantities to clean your whites well.
Check the ingredients on the back of the pack.