The BIG Question

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

Help Support AutomaticWasher.org:

W

washerfan

Active member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
36
I have been thinking about this on and off for weeks.

What is the best system for washing?

FRONT LOADERS

PROS: It makes sense they would be the better choice. Clothing gets picked up and dropped into a pool of wash water. In terms of commercial use (hospitals, hotels, etc.) they seem to all use front loaders which hold a lot of laundry.

CONS: I think the biggest problem with U.S. home models is that not enough water is used. It is nice the Frigidaire 2140 and similar models allow one to adjust the water level to a higher level. It seems to me the vast majority of pictures posted here of the European models have water levels much higher than their U.S. versions. The only other thing that really sucks about most front loaders are the long wash times. The 2140 is bearable at 1:05 for HEAVY with an extra rinse and spin.

TOP LOADERS

PROS: They are fun to watch and use lots of water. Washing takes less time.

CONS: Most of the new ones sold suck so most try to find older models. That is fine and good, but parts eventually get harder to find. Maybe Maytag is an exception to this as a lot of parts were used for decades. It also seems using an agitator of any type would be harmful to clothing.

The nice thing is that wash times are lower than front loaders. I would say the norm would be about ~40 minutes though I did have a Kenmore Oasis that was computerized which took about 1:30 on HEAVY with the max level of water for the tub.

I know this all sounds kind of silly, but it is really messed up. We can only have ONE washer in the house and I want it to be the best one I can get.
 
Are you for real????

Using more water is not a pro.We need to conserve and if you were to understand the way front loaders work,you'd probably change your mind.

front loding washers do not need as much water,detergent,bleach or fabric softner because tumbling clothes, as oposed to agitating them,uses less water,detergent,bleach and fabric softner. It doesn't need a pool of water to float the clothes in just enough to saturate them with water and detergent.You see very little, if any, in through the window.As it tubles the clothes,they cross each other and two things,friction and gravity take over. I have had the Asko,Miele,LG,Frigidaire,GE and Westinghouse front loaders and every single one of them had either a short or quick cycle option.My LG was the best.Its Quick Cycle was only 28 minutes and great results. I set the program I wanted then pushed the Quick Cycle option which eliminates the spin between the was and three rinses.it only has one spin and that's the final one just after the final rinse.

There were different programs that used different options and the Perma Press cycle did fill with around one more gallon of wash water than most other cycles but,using the right detergent(Wisk HE)and pre treating stains prior to washing made my washday a fun chore especialy when I'd hang my wash outdoors and get complements from my neighbors.I'd rather wash 20 pounds of dry laundry in 7 gallons of water than 18 pounds of laundry in 28 gallons of water.I dare anyone to even attempt to wash a queen size down comforter in ANY top loading/agitator washer!Have fun cleaning up the feathers!!!
 
I don't really get this whole idea that it is so essential to save water. GIVE ME A BREAK!

Water is "wasted" all the time. People wash their cars, water their plants & yards, shower frequently, wash dishes, etc.

Yet all the sudden, we are "wasting" water washing clothes? PLEASE!

I learned a long time ago in college that out of all the water on our planet (and if memory serves), 98% is in the oceans, 1.9% is in the glaciers, and 0.1% is the fresh water man has used since the beginning of time.

Instead of making all of us feel bad for "wasting" water, why doesn't the gov't. attempt to find a way to beneficially use the 98%?
 
I'm sure that saving water in Hawaii is a much bigger deal than it is in most places in the continental US.
 
Yeah that is true, but it would make the point of trying to find ways of using salt water even more important.

But still, I ponder what the better system is. I know the first washer was supposedly a front loader so why were top loaders made? Did they work better than front loaders?
 
Mmmmm

Front load washers tend to be more expensive to design, and manufacture to start with.

Then you get to the service side of things. They tend to be dearer if something does go wrong.

Both top load and front load machines were pretty much level-pegging when it came to the 'market', but automatic machines which were relatively simple and more convienient overall won the day in the USA...that means top loaders.

Early front loaders could not be opened once started without a flood. Many today still can't be so you can't 'add the sock' you forgot. I'm not 100% certain, but I believe that they didn't reverse tumble either until the 1960's which could result in a rather large 'ball' of washing and a severe out of balance load. Add to this the higher cost and the need to bolt many of them down (and some top loaders too) and you can see why many more chose top load...

...but then

Top load machines do use a HUGE amount of water and are known to be rougher on clothes when loaded to their stated capacity (in laundry dry weight rather than cu.ft <how many standard QS sheets to the cu/ft????>.

On the note of water use....

People in parts of the US may be flippant with water use, but I can promise you that in other parts of the world, we are not.

Canberra, the capital city of Australia, has had stage 3 (out of 5) water restrictions for over 4yrs. Our dam capacity is sitting at 43.5% today and is continuing to fall as we have not had good rain for weeks. We can water garden beds on an odds and evens basis (house number:date) but not lawns using a hand held hose with a trigger spray. We may not wash cars with potable water at all. i.e water you can drink. We may not wash paths or driveways unless there has been a hazard caused...say something slippery on the drive. We may not wash windows using a hose. All toilets to new houses and replacements are to be dual flush 3 and 6 litre. (3/4 and 1 1/2 US gal). No topping up of swimming pools without a permit and no filling of new pools without a permit. Most new shower roses are 9 litre (2 1/4gal) per minute MAX flow.

Water saving is a way of life in this city, and many others in this country. As an example, Goulburn, a town only 60miles away from here has been so restricted that they have a daily maximum per person of 150 litres (37.5 gal) for everything..washing, showering, toilets etc....try running an older style top load machine for a family of 4 with that water allowance...
 
So far the best would be a front loader....but shop for a good quality...the best we have seen on here is the Speed Queen FL...maybe a little higher in price but built solid...stainless steel...all metal construction...and an excellent guarantee...of the many problems with the new ones not being built well and short life span...this would be the best bet....that's what I'm going for next...

with a FL: low energy use, low water use, low hot water use, low detergent use...high spin speed=less dry time, all pluses in my book, although I do still like watching a TL washing...never get away from that, but if I only had one machine to use it would be a FL definately!
 
Maybe FL is better...

But perhaps not the ones we can get here. I've seen too many people on here talk about the Energy Star machines being water-throttled to uselessness. It's like you have the choice of a top loader that "uses too much" water, or a front loader that clearly doesn't use enough. US FLs don't have any effective soak option.

In a place where water isn't restricted, it literally doesn't matter. Your use of wash water does not amount to someone else not being able to have water.

In the US anyway, a top loader is much better. It's fast and cheap. You can get a large and nice top load washer for about $400, and plenty of brand selection at that price point. A front load matching that capacity would be 2.5 times as much. Sadly, they've jacked the prices of the FL matching dryers up for no reason, too. You can buy a nice W/D traditional top-load pair for for less than either appliance costs in a FL type, even though there's no reason for the dryer to cost more.

I noticed recently that nicer TL washers no longer have a water level adjustment. They're automatic, and I guarantee they'd use less water than I would choose to. My Ultimate Care II allowed for adjustment of agitation and spin speed independent of the cycle choice. That sort of choice appears to be gone as well. I'm sure extra rinses will soon be gone, too.

Soon, the top loaders will look cheaper and get more expensive, and they'll probably make the EnergyGuide sticker on them red. The front loaders look nice with their designer colors and stainless drums, but people will switch back if they aren't doing the job and have frequent costly repairs. The only way to force people out of TL machines is to price them out of them. FLs have not gotten cheaper as they got more common.

Adding 1100 rpm spin back to top loaders would make a more meaningful difference to everything than saving water would. By reducing drying time, there would be a big difference in total energy use.
 
Waaher Fan

I guess its is not a WASTE when I can wash a 100 lb load in my machines here in LESS water than a top loader uses for a 20 LB load??? Front load and Side load machines have always been the ONLY machines used in commerical laundries.

5-5-2009-10-27-10--sudsman.jpg
 
Commercial FL

If I could get a Dexter commercial type FL for the same price as a Kenmore top loader, I would.

That said, a $400 Kenmore vs. the $3,000 for the Dexter D-300 that's actually worth having, $2,600 will buy a lot of clothes, detergent, and water.
 
Dave

your would be shocked at what commerical washers you can buy on ebay for 400.00 dexters too. I bought a 100lb for only $50.00.
 
How about the Pedestals ?!?!

I wish someone could explain why they charge $200-250 or more for just a piece of painted sheetmetal, with a drawer, to set these front loaders on?? For the cost of 2 pedestals, you can buy a decent top loader complete. These have GOT to be a gold mine for the manufacturers.
 
TLHA!

Nothing to add.... alwasy ever the best fusion: TL convenience with FL efficiency!

<object width=425 height=344><param name=movie value=></param><param name=allowFullScreen value=true></param><param name=allowscriptaccess value=always></param><embed src= type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowscriptaccess=always allowfullscreen=true width=425 height=344></embed></object>
 
Hi I have to correct you if you dont mind: Quote "It seems to me the vast majority of pictures posted here of the European models have water levels much higher than their U.S. versions".

This is not true, in fact the opposite is true, European models are required to have lower water levels than our American counterparts, the reason for this is we have a strict rating system in Europe.
America did not sign the Kyoto climate change conference therefore you lucky guys can use as much water and electricity you want!.

You may have seen the European front loaders on this forum that are older machines (pre 1990), these 'real' machines used alot of water.
 
I'd hang my wash outdoors and get complements from my ne

Chuck, I agree with you. I just recently convinced two of my friends (who have a family and do a lot of wash) to get a fron loader. They are so happy with the results. They see a big difference in how much cleaner the laundry was.

I just think that the "NEW" frontloaders are a little too skimpy on the water. I think they can add a little more to the rinses. Afterall....the old front loaders from the 60's 70's and 80's still used at least half the amout of water of a top loader, so is this not enough??????

Any comments appreciated.
 
water level adjustment

When I had my first Frigidaire front loader,I had previously had a Kenmore compact front loader that was made by Zanussi.It would fill about 1/3 up the window.So,when I saw how the Frigidaire didn't come anywhere near that,I pondered the thought of increasing the water level.after a few adjustments,the water level was just under the opening.I did that with the Frigidaire,Kenmore and KitchenAid washers I owned.I didn't notice any improvement in cleaning levels but did notice better rinsing.
 
Thanks all for your comments. I didn't mean to flare any tempers. I am just searching for an answer to a question and it seems that question is being thought of by others.

I do miss the simplicity of the old top loader, but I do think the front loader of today is the better choice. I got my Frigidaire 2140 new for a little over $600. I am not so sure it washes any better than the top loader. It certainly doesn't rinse as well even after raising the water level for it to just under the door opening. I may have it sold for $500 and have been debating about getting a Speed Queen top loader with the extra rinse option.

Perhaps my reference to European front loaders using more water was indeed related to older models. But, the point is that it certainly takes more water to rinse well.

I am almost convinced most governments lack common sense. Low water flush toilets are simply flushed more than once when there is "stuff" left in the toilet. Low water washers are also used more than once on the same load if needed.

Water is kind of a weird subject. I think most of it used for human consumption comes from rivers. Probably close to the same amount from lakes. Anyway, a town up river treats the water to make it acceptable for human consumption then consumers use it and it is usually put back in the river down stream after being treated at a water waste plant. That water then is treated be another community down stream and the cycle repeats itself over and over until the water empties into the oceans.
 
I forgot to mention if I could have a old dream machine, it would be a Maytag A806 top loader from around 1975 in turquoise.
 
in all honesty

Front loaders are capable of washing perfectly with very little water, i.e.the water does not need to be visible when the machine is on. I do beleive that if the wash results of modern and vintage front loaders were compared, the modern ones would generally have the upper hand due to longer cycle times and more accurate control over temperature, not to mention profile washes.

Modern machines CAN rinse well, providing the spins between the rinses are very fast and water levels are adequate (what adequate is is debatable).

Personally I do not see how a top loader can rinse better than a front loder with only one deep rinse, but it's been a long time since I used one.

There is something quite fun about top loaders, but if I could only have one machine it would have to be a front loader.

For me the most important thing in a machine is reliability and wash/rinse results. Water/energy usage, as well as fancy features and capacity/spin speed/styling are an afterthought for me.

Matt
 
Have posted links to eBay auctions for commercial washing machines and the like here in the group for ages.

Most if not all are in the category listed above, but sometimes they are found under "Major Appliances" sub-category "washing machines" and or "washing machines and dryers".

If you really want to cry, check out the same listings for any of the European eBay sites. We're talking some serious commercial laundry equipment.
 
Front, Side, & Top Loading

H-Axis washing machines have long dominated the commercial laundry market, leaving aside laundromats for a good reasons.
Capacity, gentleness of wash action, and ability to do more wash with less water than a top loading washing machine with a central beater.

Indeed once one goes about washing machines rated for say 25lbs, you aren't going to find a top loader, certianly not one for 100lbs of laundry or more.

Top loading washing machines, later automatic top loading washing machines came to dominate the American market for several reasons.

In the early days of washing machines, there were all sorts, including tumblers (like the Thor washer in another member's post), and wringers. What all these machines had in common was the fact none spun laundry dry. In a commercial laundry workers unloaded the washers into extractors, but that was neither practical nor safe for wide household use. So women dealt with wringers, automated and hand crank.

Meanwhile Bendix was at work on their front loader, and due to their work and patents, no other manufacturer could build nor improve upon the design for their own use without paying royalties, if Bendix allowed it at all. Front loaders then only tumbled in one direction, causing Madame's laundry to emerge often in one tangled mess. Indeed these machines were nicknamed the "rope maker".

Since Bendix had the front load market tied up, American laundry makers continued to innovate and develop the top loading model. These machines gave acceptable results for most American housewives, especially when coupled with the ample supply of hot to very hot water from the taps, and chlorine bleach used for stain removal and whitening.

What is also important to remember top loading washing machines were a natural evolution from the way most women did laundry; that is in a tub using a dolly stick to "agitate" the wash water.
 
Once Again

Keep in mind the four variables of good laundry practice:

Time
Mechanical Action
Water Temperature
Chemical Action

Be it by hitting it against a rock, beating it with a wooden paddle, scrubbing it against a wash board, you name it, women have been using heavy mechanical action to get through their wash day. While it can be hard on textiles, the more mechanical action one applies, the less time one has to spend "washing", especially with high water temperatures.

Considering the above a top loading washing machine suited what many women felt was the proper way of doing laundry. More importantly it allowed them to get the job of doing tons of wash over quite quickly. In the days of large familes, this was important.

Finally remember low sudsing detergents are a must for front loading washing machines, and aside from Dash, and a few others they were hard to find. Until around WWII and probably for a good while after, soap was the most often used product for laundry, and soap requires hot water to clean and creates lots of froth. The last bit rules out their use in front loaders.
 
Wow Laundress! Thanks for all that information! :)

So Bendix had all the patents essentially? I assume the proliferation of front loaders today is due to their patents expiring or the company not being dominant?
 
That I Do Not Know

Am sure others will chime in however.

IIRC Bendix held patents on suspension systems and so forth, but the suspension system is the key to any decent front loader, both then and now. Without a great system, you are limited in many ways, especially how fast the washer can spin. Well you could try high spin speeds, and also risk the machine taking off and going for a walk, if not falling over one someone.
 

Similar threads

spinspeed
What are your thoughts on Asko washing machines
Replies
20
Views
3K
solsburian
S
W
Rental Woes...
Replies
7
Views
681
stan
stan
D
Is there a decent washing machine (TL/FL) available from Home Depot for under $1k?
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
DADoES
DADoES
mark_wpduet
Friend Called.. They got a new Maytag TL Washer
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
johnb300m
johnb300m
N
Whirlpool Direct Drive WTW5700SW0 -- Bearing Kit Replacement 285203
Replies
0
Views
567
npolite
N

Latest posts

Back
Top