unfairness

[frigilux]

I don't think today's appliances are lousy because they use less water/energy. Washers don't give out in 8 years because they're highly efficient; they give out in 8 years because of the quality of the parts put in them.  We choose not to have them serviced and repaired because the cost of doing that is prohibitive.

Our built-like-a-tank 1960 Kenmore washer needed servicing many times during its life.  The difference is that it was far cheaper to have the washer serviced than to replace it.  That's not so true, today.   

 

[kenmoreguy64]

I think we have a couple things going on here worth talking about.

First, the difference between automobiles and appliances is not a men vs. women thing, not in my opinion anyway, it's just a difference in the loudness of the consumer market voices who relay their opinions.

Far-be-it from any consumer group, company, or even government agency to tell the American driver what they can drive and what they can't. We WERE in the early 1980s in a very energy-conscious, conservative time in automotive history, and Ford, GM and other brands responded with smaller vehicles, and with smaller engines which at the time were how we tried to make vehicles burn less fuel per driver. In the early 80s we DID NOT have the variety of vehicles on the market which got fuel mileage figures as we have now. For example, four out of the eleven houses on our street in 1982 had the GM midsize sedan as their family main car - today that same group would probably have a mid-size or full-size 4x4 SUV, and I'd bet the GMs of 1982 got better mileage.

My point is that consumers play a very huge part in both markets. Consumers wanted cars with performance beginning in the mid-80s, as we forgot about oil prices, and we dug ourselves our own hole from which we now are digging out. We never should have started to purchase the 12-16mpg SUVs in the first place, not in the huge numnbers we have done for so many years.

Appliances on the other hand don't have the passion behind them in consumer's minds, and if one is more energy efficient, we like that. It doesn't get parked in our driveways and garages, we don't have status symbols with our washing machines, or appliance fantasies, and thus consumers don't care in the masses that this year's dishwasher uses less water than last year's, and that its cleaning performance may have suffered. The Eneregy Star and similar focuses have driven appliance design as a result of the market, just as we found more guzzling SUVs on the market for the same reason - consumer demand.

The build-quality of parts and overall machines is a direct response to consumer demand too. Prices for appliances have NOT risen with inflation, in fact I paid $100 LESS in 2010 for my Admiral washer than I did for my generally equivalent Kenmore 70 belt-drive in 1986. Think about that for a moment. At a similar time though, the 2004 Mustang I bought in 7/04 was more than 2.5 times more expensive than the 1984 Mustang I bought in 10/84. Employ this same logic now on the price of washers, and $358 multiplied by 2.5 would yield a $895 top-load washer on the market today. If we were willing to pay that price (are we? NO), then we might get similar build quality.

In a summary, I think we have nobody to blame but ourselves as a mass of consumers for both the state of the automotive scene AND the state of appliances (in terms of appliance quality, price, and energy use). I think the U.S. government may be gradually nudging the market with legislation to make sure we don't fall off the wagon like we did with the automotive industry.

 

[revvinkevin]

"If I can go any Chevy dealership and buy a gas guzzling V-8 that gets about the same gas mileage as they did in the 1960's, why can't I buy a water guzzling washer/dishwasher/toilet that uses the same amount of water as was used the 60's?"

Dan, a comment and 2 questions:  Today's V8's (all engines in general) are much more efficient then those of the past.   Try to get mid 20's or better MPG out of a 1960's - early 70's Corvette, V8 Camaro or Mustang like you can in today's models, it's not gonna happen.   You'll be lucky if you get high-teen's or even 20 mpg.   

And my questions: Why do you need to use SO much water when washing clothes/dishes?  And what are you flushing down the toilet that 1.6 gallons won't handle?   Are you one of those that uses a 1/2 a roll of toilet paper each time you use the toilet?   I don't mean to offend, I'm just asking.   I have the low flush toilets never have any problems.

Friglux, Launderess, ronhic, Dadoes, Kenmoreguy64, heck, everyone makes some VERY good points!

To echo Hoover1100... as much as I love vintage top load machines, they are often rougher on fabrics and use a lot more energy and water in the process. I cannot justify using a vintage top loader as an every day machine myself, but they are fun for the occasional use!    I much prefer using a front load washer because it uses a lot less water, holds a lot more clothes and does a great job cleaning everything.   

Sure most of the new FL machines use so little water (on the normal cycle) that it's ridiculous and mine is no exception, but then I don't see the need to have the water level 1/2 way up the door glass either.   Once I learned my 2009 Kenmore Elite Steam washer uses more water on the "Express" and "Bulky Items" cycles, I use those most of the time.   

See the photos below.  It may not be easy to see, but the "bulky items" fill is about a 1/2 inch (or so) higher then the "express" fill.

Personally I'm OK with low flush toilets and more efficient washers.   I'm all for preserving our planet and it's natural resources.   Why do we need to be so wasteful? 

Kevin

 

[3beltwesty]

One also has the waste in time when a modern FL washer uses so less water that a rare group of super dirty blue jeans requires pushing the extra water button and an added prewash cycle; and they are not completely clean.

I went through after Katrina with hand washing using 5 gallon buckets to wash clothes, or old tubs that washed ashore. Later I got the 1976 FL westinghouse rebuilt. Now it is apart to replace the worn shaft and I used the local laundromat then got a new LG FL washer. The old washer uses more water works better with extremely dirty rags and clothes; stuff I get with the on going house rebuild. Thus I find myself probably adding a laundry sink for extremely grubby prewashing. I suppose time does not matter to some. The old machine was done in 42 minutes, the new machine to wash SUPER dirty stuff requires about double the time but uses 1/2 the water. Thus the new machines are really designed for retired folks who have no schedules, ie who cares if the wash time is double since one has no job.

The old machine has a water level knob, something that post WW2 Westinghouse added over 60 years ago. In that era there was the "weight to save" scale that came out about 1950 that one adjusted ones water level based on the clothes to be washed.

Today the modern machines use a lookup table based on the machines pretumbles, sensing torque. Thus one can load up a modern FL washer with super dirty stuff and 10 minutes later the stuff is still being sprinkled; and other stuff is about dry. The whole modern cycle is based on conserving water and a do not care about ones time. My neighbors Whirlpool FL does this too. The old machine would be done washing in 15 minutesand into the rinse and the new machine is still goofing around with little sprinkles. The bottom line is with a modern FL washer I spend more with degreasers, spot removers but the extract speed is higher thus drying time is shorter. Thus the plan here is to rebuild the older machine to use it more for clothes that require more water, ie super dirty stuff. The more modern FL washer is probably better for normal clothes with less soil.

 

[suburbanmd]

Low wash levels aren't the big issue

I agree that low wash levels are fine, as long as the load is completely soaked. I've seen laundry forum complaints about machines which don't even do that. Good low-flow toilets are ok too. Anyone who complains about 1.6gpf probably hasn't used a Toto Drake or American Standard Cadet 3. I think they both outperform the old swirling toilets.

Does anyone dispute that too-low rinse levels and "dumbed-down" wash temperatures are bad? The tax credits are also responsible for those.

 

[ronhic]

It's quite simple really....

...we don't...

People get a tad too hung up on various governments trying to encourage socially and environmentally responsible use of resources.....many think they are being 'TOLD' or 'FORCED' into doing things....

...in some respects, they are correct, and Americans inparticular are more likely than others to buck up at any government telling them what they can and can't do as individuals. So, they choose a different path and target corporate bottom lines with incentives (efficient machines) or fines (CAFE fuel economy average) and then further target the individual with an incentive...rebates from local authorities and disincentives, increased utility charges or higher fuel taxes to encourage them to do the 'right' thing.

Sure, you as a householder may well be the one paying the bills and want that choice, but as 'citizens' of a country there is a very strong arguement that there is in fact an OBLIGATION to consider the next person/neighbour who is entitled to access that particular resource, be it water, petrol, food etc....just as you are entitled.

The simple facts of the matter are that there is only so much water on the planet...and nature sends it where she does. Most is not usable to sustain life and many country's, the USA included, have gone through periods of extreme drought in various areas....living through that will certainly make a person think twice about using more water than absolutely required to get the task done....

For the first time in nearly 20years our dams are at 100% capacity, yet we are still on water restrictions to some degree.

Goulburn, a town about 60miles from here, was at one point nearly out of water (around 15% capacity). They had had no significant rain for years. Gardens were dead, cars were dirty and people were restricted to 25 gallons of water per person per day for EVERYTHING....people were using their washing machine and dish water (not dishwasher) to keep 100yr old trees alive and to flush the toilet with...

Live in that environment for a while and not only will you be TOLD, but you will be FORCED to do the right thing. People who were caught here watering gardens when we were on stage 4 restrictions (2nd strictest) a couple of years ago had their water turned down on the council side of the meter to a trickle AND copped a fine into the bargain...

So really, using more than you need isn't just bad, in this country it is deemed downright irresponsible and you'll get more tut-tutting than an unwed mother living in sin in the 1940's would have by wasting resources....

Now, should we have a chat about recycling?

 

[ronhic]

dispute that too-low rinse levels and "dumbed-down"

No, they're not bad at all.....

Ultimately, you don't NEED scalding hot water or much water to rinse if the machine is set up correctly.

The vast majority of Australians wash in cold water to save money (most hot water heaters here are still electric storage)....and our consumer magazine tests machines and detergents in cold water....

We didn't need any incentive (says I who still wash in warm water....) as a population, apart from saving money, to switch to cold water. Manufacturers still offer machines that will take hot water direct from the tank at whatever temperature is available and are not penalised for doing so....

Further more, the vast majority of front-load machines here are cold water connect only and heat to whatever temperature you select and it wasn't that long ago that top loaders could be had with heaters too....our energy rating labels take account of this by telling consumers how much power each machine used for the 'energy label' cycle. We have a similar label for water efficiency.

So basically, we are informed the moment we look at a machine/toilet/dryer/TV as to how much that unit will use given certain parameters....

Loading…

www.waterrating.gov.au

 

[ronhic]

...and for energy

Loading…

www.energyrating.gov.au

 

[qsd-dan]

Today's V8's (all engines in general) are much more efficient then those of the past. Try to get mid 20's or better MPG out of a 1960's - early 70's Corvette, V8 Camaro or Mustang like you can in today's models, it's not gonna happen. You'll be lucky if you get high-teen's or even 20 mpg.

I was waiting for someone to comment on that topic

It isn't efficiency that has brought us increased MPG's in modern day V-8's, it's gearing, more specifically, overdrive transmissions. Install an OD transmission in a 60's car with a stock engine and a proper tune, and you'll get the same, if not better, MPG's.

Better? Yup.

Why?

Because EFI engines are tuned to burn a strict 14.7:1 fuel ratio during cruising speeds. Get any leaner than that and NOX starts to rise. On the other hand, we didn't care about NOX back in the day, so carbed engines ran as lean as 17:1 during part throttle cruising speeds, hence better MPG's.

What?! So you're saying EFI engines are dumping extra fuel into the cylinders and out the exhaust (and your pocket book) just to lower NOX? Uh-huh

Considering the fact that older cars generally weigh a ton, and couple that with the fact that their aerodynamics are worse than a brick, it really is impressive what they can pull off MPG wise with an OD trans and carefully selected differential gears.

Back in the late 1980's when I became interested my grandfathers 1959 Pontiac, he used to rave how it got 20 MPG's at 65 MPH with a carload of kids and gear. What? A 4,300 pound wagon with a big ass gas guzzling 389 w/ a 4 barrel carb getting 20 MPG? Riiiiiiight.

It wasn't until years later that I found out it's indeed true, even with today’s crappy gas. Why? Gearing. Pontiacs (as well as Cadillacs and Oldsmobiles of the time) had 4 speed auto transmissions with an insane 3.96 first gear. Hell, the 2.55 second gear was steeper than first gear on any other auto trans or manual transmission at that time. But they were also equipped with rear end gears as low as 2.56. This combo gave you more than enough power to get moving in the lower gears, but the engine was only turning 2000 RPM’s on the highway. I know a guy with a '59 Bonneville who removed the original 3.08 gears and installed 2.56 gears. He gets slightly more than 25 MPG on the highway in that 4,500 beast and can light up both tires at a standstill with a Safe-T-Track (posi) rear end!

Why do you need to use SO much water when washing clothes

Because my clothes get more than office dust on 'em Remember, WATER is the main ingredient for getting clothes clean. Dump a bunch of soap on clothes and nothing happens unitl you add water. The more water there is (with the proper amount of soap, or course) the more dirt it can quickly remove and keep suspended from re-depositing.

Why do you need to use SO much water when washingdishes

Because I enjoy my dishes being cleaned very well and put away almost within the hour Does it really make any sense using a cup of water in the dishwasher and throwing it around a bunch of dirty dishes for 45 minutes to an hour? I prefer to use ample amounts of water and have it changed out often....just like my KDS-19 does.

And what are you flushing down the toilet that 1.6 gallons won't handle? Are you one of those that uses a 1/2 a roll of toilet paper each time you use the toilet?

LOL! I don't use much TP, but I do have a high fiber diet

My main issue with them is that 1.6's plug up quickly with mineral deposits due to our hard water. I get about 4-5 years before they're plugged up to the point that they refuse to flush without wanting to overflow. Funny, but the original 5 GPF American Standard toilet from 1970 hasn't had that issue yet It replaced a 1.6 toilet upstairs and the pink '54 took the place of the '70 downstairs. Also, when the 1.6's are working correctly, I still have to hold the handle down, every time, before clean water emerges from the bowl. Not so with the guzzlers. Just flush and walk away. Instant clean water.

Here's a quote from a person in the water/wastewater field speaking about 1.6 GPF toilets:

The problem is they use so little water that the solids don't flow in the pipes properly. Water is the carrier for human waste but there's grease and other materials that go in there that stick to the inner walls of the pipe. This creates a need to flush sewers more often which uses a lot of water. On a private residence, they tend to plug up septic fields.

I guess you can say that I feel like I'm doing my part in keeping sewer lines from the street and beyond just a little bit cleaner But I can't lie. It's very comforting to know I can pull this off, if needed.

<object width="480" height="385"><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="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

[mattl]

Dan, love the video.  I posted in another thread about a very similar topic.  I dumped about equal amounts of waste tissues from the basket into my '65 American Standard and my brand new Toto 1.6g toilet.  The AS swirled the tissues around and flushed well, the Toto plugged I feel simply because it did not 'swirl" - it just tried to push a big gob straight down.

I have to agree with many of the points made here. But, my old '95 LK does a heavy duty load of clothes in lots of water in 23 minutes and takes an hour to dry.  My new older duet takes an hour to do the same, but dries in 30 minutes, so it nets out about the same per load.  since I got the Duet in Sept, I've used it pretty much exclusively.  Why, it does use MUCH less water and the clothes are as clean if not cleaner than before.

I think we should all have the option to use as much water or electricity as we want, but I bet most people would use the setting that gave them the performance they'd like with the least cost.

 

[mark_wpduet]

To RevinKevin

Is that a joke on that "normal cycle" picture? That literally looked like 2 cups of water....I realize it would add somewhat more if there were actually clothes in there, but still.. If it's not all I can say is WOW! My Duet from 2004 uses a little more water on the normal cycle than the picture I saw for the Bulky cycle of your machine.....I would be using the Bulky cycle on everything if that were the case based on those pics.

 

[hoover1100]

hmmm

I guess you can prove to people all you want that things can be perfectly washed and rinsed in VERY little water with indisputable evidence and they will still refuse to accept the fact.

However, that tiny minority of people are not big enough to make it financially viable for manufacturers to produce wasteful machines for. So it's hardly unfair, it's just the way the market works....

As for toilets, well, the only toilets I've ever known clog or not flush away completely have been whilst on holiday in America. This includes toilets old or new. I have no explanation why (and tbh, I don't really care enough about toilets to bother finding out), but that's my experience anyway...

 

[3beltwesty]

Re Water usage

In a commercial washer for a hotel or giant commercial cleaners; they have insanely low amount of water used compared to today's best FL washers. The washer is run as a continuous process, dirty clothes are fed in end and come out another. The water "flow" of the process is opposite of the flow of clothes. There is no cycle or batch for one load, clothes are fed in the North end and come out clean at the South end. The water flow in the process is the opposite direction. A washer like this uses a tiny fraction of what today's best new FL washers use. Thus if you want to feel bad, just spend several million on a new washer.

It is also "indisputable evidence" that 1.5 hours after a modern FL washer's washing that there is still dirt and grime in the rarer "super dirty loads" that is still there, thus we rewash the failed stuff that was not washed properly. The spot removers in the USA are suppose to be applied; then one waits 2 to 5 minutes, then washes. A modern FL washer that "farts around" and spends 10 to 15 minutes with sprinkles, thinking means the tough spots do not come out all the time.

Thus here with the newer FL machine(s) I have used the lack of water is not always welcomed. Post Katrina many of us had clothes that went under muddy water that were saved via washing real soon. Both neighbors Whirlpool and Maytag FL washers when filled with muddy clothes really did not clean all that well. Thus many of us prewashed clothes in tubs by hand; or used another neighbor's old TL that used more water to get the job done properly.

 

[mark_wpduet]

3beltwesty

Hi

Did you see the post of the guy who bought the New Frigidaire FL washer that is very water efficient and he wanted to see of he could get the dirties "rare" load that you speak of clean? It got them cleaner than his water hogging TL.

My issue has never been with low water washing because I think items can be washed in low water/concentrated detergent......My main issue has always been the rinsing.

 

[3beltwesty]

True; Rinsing is often the issue

Here with the "rare super dirty load" with the old machine I might wash it for 15 minutes, then stop the machine and let it soak as required; then go through the several rinses.

Just opening the door often resets the program or forces pump cycle. I guess one cannot assume today to not open the door if water might come out. ie folks cannot accept personal responsibility. 50 years ago one just turned the dial to pump some out if the water looked high. Most of us learned this after one spill.

Washers are more like cars; to use manual choke or manual water level control is too complicated.

With the Katrina submerged clothes and items; on had a massive issue with rinsing. The items basically were submerged in a muddy mess, one would have a cup full of dirt in one pair of bluejeans in the fabric even after removing the grass and big stuff. Even when one prewashed items in a 5 gallon bucket the modern FL washers I used did not use enough rinsing. Thus one basically washed items manys times; say 2 to 7 times to "save" the times.

If one did not "get" to the stuff within several days to a week; it basically rotted and smelled like manure and was thrown away. The embedded dirt from Katrina was mostly marsh muck; basically like cow manure.

Items washed quickly after the event several times were saved; other stuff chucked. If one imagines mixing one cow patty per pair of bluejeans, a water saver machine designed for minor dirt just did not work with a single wash.

With plastic tubs that washed ashore here I prewashed the stuff is 2 of them and used another 2 for rinsing. These tubs are huge, about 2x4 feet and 18 inches deep. On had say 60 gallons of water in each and threw in the stuff in one and let them soak all day to remove the salt and muck; then moved the items to another tub. I did not even have electricity for 2 weeks. A modern FL washer would not remove a gallon worth of dirt with one wash. Neighbors nearby who had power prewashed dirty items in tubs and pails too.

The issue is like washing a truck. In Los Angeles a 4WD truck is often for show, folks get them washed in the summer to remove the surface dust. In Mississippi in hunting season; a 4WD truck can get so muddy that there is mud everywhere; and more water / rinsing is required.

 

[hoover1100]

RE: wash times

I will reiterate the fact that a modern, energy efficient machine can perform just as well, if not better than many older machines using much more water/energy.

As for the wash times, yes they do take longer, but it is an AUTOMATIC washing machine, therefore you do not need to wait for it. With an older machine you often have to "fart" around pre-treating, have to wait around to add bleach in many machines, and have to wait around until final rinse if softner is desired in some cases. I just chuck in all the clothes, no matter how dirty they are, add detergent/softner and turn it on. Then, I do not have to think about it again until I decide to unload the machine, and can be guaranteed it will be perfectly clean, providing I have chosen the correct cycle.

Therefore, my modern machine is more automatic, easier to use, and consumes less of my time or patience whilst providing as good, if not better results all round. It also costs a lot less to use.

The facts are there, and that is all I have to say on the matter.

Matt

 

[3beltwesty]

The new machines are poor in TIME efficiencyHere

Here the facts are that my newer machine will wash as good as the old one with normally dirty clothes; But instead of being done in 42 minutes flat it is more like 75 to 120 minutes. If one presses the settings on the newer machine for typical real dirty stuff like construction work and uses a prewash and high dirty setting; it is easy to get a 120 to 150 minute wash cycle. The average wash load on the new machine for me is not large.


With a big load the new machine wins since one has more stuff to dry. For a small load like I normally have I can be done washing and pulling shirts out of the dryer to hang up while the new machine is still washing.

Thus for a practical matter if I wanted to wash something before leaving home for work; I just have to get up 1/2 to 3/4 hour earlier. The short wash is so short like 22 minutes that cleaning is not so great, or for some stuff.

Here time matters; thus the trade-off of saving a few cents in water versus 1/2 hour of extra time wasted is rather poor.

The old 1976 machine used the least amount of water of any home washer in a 1978 Consumer Report test. With clothes that are not really that dirty I often use a 5 or 10 minute wash instead of 15 minutes,and thus the total cycle time is just 32 to 37 minutes.

Having being use to being able to wash a few dress shirts and have them dry on hangers in 45 minutes is what I have done my entire life. It has been done like this for business trips and the such.

Today's new FL machine may use less water, but it requires more time than an older FL machine, thus hard to get use to .

One has miser government spec'ed machine that got the maker a 200 buck tax kickback; saves me a few cents water per load but takes 1/2 longer to do the same task a Westinghouse automatic machine did in 1976.

The old 1976 machine uses 0.22 to 0.25 KwHr for a 42 minute load, about 4 cents. The newer machine has been measured at just 0.15 to over 1 KwHr per load. To remove spots, with a prewash and longer cycle/dirt setting, a 90 minute cycle consumes more KwHr than the old beast.

Here time matters besides saving a few cents on water. The new washer is like a new car that gets slightly better gas mileage, but takes 1/2 hour longer to get to work. For a short wash the old washer is vasty superior.

For many washes time like weekends and evening does not matter so much. It probably does not matter to retired folks either. It is troubling how for 1/2 century one could use Westinghouse FL washers and wash and dry in 45 to 60 minutes 1 hour flat; and todays machines can have average cycle times of 90 minutes before they go in the dryer. The older machines are like star trek in time savers for small loads. They were designed and built without government rules

 

[DADoES]

 
Folks are too hung-up on time. If one has so many things to to do, surely there's something else can be attended during the additional 30 mins. Need a few shirts done for a business trip in the morn? Plan ahead and start them washing the night before.

 

[3beltwesty]

I agree; Time does not matter to many folks

I agree; Time does not matter to many folks. They have a rigid job, no emergencies, they are retired, etc,

Here to wash clothes a workday evening means; 3 loads has the washer is running for 4.5 to 5 hours with the new machine; and about about 2.2 hours with the old machine.

With the old machine by the time the load was done the dryer stuff was done or way before. 3 loads of wash with the old beast would 3 hours tops; with 2 hours with a quicker time. It is about 5 to 5.5 hours with the new machine.

thus as a practical matter here it takes 1.5 to 2x the time to wash clothes with a modern FL washer here.

 

[3beltwesty]

UK machines are 24" versus USA machine are 27"

Your new FL washers you use in the UK are smaller than in the USA, that might have a bearing too.

The "load level" on my new FL machine goes from 1 to 4 bars. In about all loads it is at 1 bar, once maybe in 10 loads it is 2. I once got it to three washing with the machine full, too full.

If I wash just 5 T shirts the new machine may spend time because the load is too small and thus get confused. To fake off the machine one can wet one t shirt to add mass,so it gets on with life and gets the cycle going. If one only places 3 shirts and it says 1 hour 15 minutes; 1/2 hour later it might say 1 hour 2 minutes. The machine gets confused with a light load and has to resense. My neighbors Whirlpool FL washer does the same thing; the time estimate is close with some washes and can be low with a confused wash.