It struck me tonight how appliance makers caved so quickly to so-called energy standards and forced us to purchase washers and dishwashers that use so little water that the next cleaning term is going to be "spit shine" while the auto makers had the clout to tell the govenment that they were not going to be cowed into doing anything that they did not want to do. You can still buy huge vehicles that get less than a dozen miles per gallon. You are not forced to buy some shtick dreck that won't reach 60 mph with the gas pedal pressed to the floor when you purchase a car. I think it has a lot to do with males being associated with motor vehicles and women with appliances.
unfairness
- Thread starter tomturbomatic
- Start date
That has been one of my arguments for a while now. 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? Hey, if I'm willing to pay for the extra amount of water (gas in an auto), then there should be options for me to purchase one. I can also apply that logic to quality of design and parts which is also regulated, 'cause God forbid we apply a little more metal here and there for a longer lasting design.
But we're talking about a perfect world where logic is exclusively used. We can't have that now, can we
But we're talking about a perfect world where logic is exclusively used. We can't have that now, can we
launderess
Well-known member
They Didnt' *Have* To, And Nothing Is Stopping
Appliance makers from opting out of the "Energy Star" program. Problem is consumers have been led like so many sheep to look for that label, that it is doubtful how many units not marked otherwise would sell.
More proof of the above (appliances being a mature market), is seen in how only a handful of companies own almost every major appliance brand name, past and present. Maytag would have gone to the Chinese if Whirlpool didn't act, and that is a sad comment on the state of affairs.
Aside from new bells and whistles, the laundry appliance market is rather mature, especially for top loaders in the United States.There just isn't that huge a market to warrant the costs for R&D and everything else. Now Maytag (ahem, Whirlpool), and the lot could simply bring back their water guzzling top loaders, but state and local governments have weapons at their disposal. Here in NYC at least our water rates keep going up, to the point that during last summer's sparse rain, many homeowners didn't water their lawns much if at all. Aside from parts of NJ, there wasn't a drought, just people didn't wish to pay huge water bills.
It is far eaiser and cheaper to take the Energy Star money from the federal government than fight. This is how I see things.
Appliance makers from opting out of the "Energy Star" program. Problem is consumers have been led like so many sheep to look for that label, that it is doubtful how many units not marked otherwise would sell.
More proof of the above (appliances being a mature market), is seen in how only a handful of companies own almost every major appliance brand name, past and present. Maytag would have gone to the Chinese if Whirlpool didn't act, and that is a sad comment on the state of affairs.
Aside from new bells and whistles, the laundry appliance market is rather mature, especially for top loaders in the United States.There just isn't that huge a market to warrant the costs for R&D and everything else. Now Maytag (ahem, Whirlpool), and the lot could simply bring back their water guzzling top loaders, but state and local governments have weapons at their disposal. Here in NYC at least our water rates keep going up, to the point that during last summer's sparse rain, many homeowners didn't water their lawns much if at all. Aside from parts of NJ, there wasn't a drought, just people didn't wish to pay huge water bills.
It is far eaiser and cheaper to take the Energy Star money from the federal government than fight. This is how I see things.
ronhic
Well-known member
...and the lot could simply bring back their water guzzling
It is an interesting thought, but we certainly get them here for those that want them.
To put that into perspective, Speed Queen has recently come back onto our market under its own name, rather than being rebadged 'Kleenmaid'. In the last round of Choice tests, and rated at 7.5kg by Speed Queen, it scored 64% for dirt removal and used 166 litres of water (that's 43 US Gallons!). The only thing it actually did well was rinse, scoring 86% which is excellent.
By comparison, the slightly larger capacity (8kg v's 7.5kg) Simpson Ezi Sensor, also a top loader, scored 76% dirt removal and used 85 litres of water to do it....thats 22 US gallons. Rinse performance was deemed OK at 67%.
Additionally, the Fisher and Paykel Aquasmart 8kg machine removed 81%, nearly equalled the rinse effectiveness of the Speed Queen at 74% and used less water again with 76 litres (just under 19.5 gallons).
I suppose my point is that water hungry appliances have seen their day for the average consumer. Our market sells both and quite simply, most people don't want them. This is evident when you look at the number that are now available compared to even a couple of years ago - manufacturers are simply not going to keep making something that isn't selling. Now if this is purely because many councils offer an incentive to purchase an efficient machine, I don't know, and water isn't that expensive that it would dissuade someone who wanted a more traditional machine from buying one, but when you can get results from an efficient machine as I mention above, why would you wish, as seems to be the case of the vast majority of Australians, to buy one that is going to cost you more to run in the longer term?
Oh, and before anyone mentions reliability and Speed Queen in the same sentence, Kleenmaid, who used to rebadge Speed Queen for our market are rated 3rd from the bottom out of 13 brands....only time will tell if this has changed.
It is an interesting thought, but we certainly get them here for those that want them.
To put that into perspective, Speed Queen has recently come back onto our market under its own name, rather than being rebadged 'Kleenmaid'. In the last round of Choice tests, and rated at 7.5kg by Speed Queen, it scored 64% for dirt removal and used 166 litres of water (that's 43 US Gallons!). The only thing it actually did well was rinse, scoring 86% which is excellent.
By comparison, the slightly larger capacity (8kg v's 7.5kg) Simpson Ezi Sensor, also a top loader, scored 76% dirt removal and used 85 litres of water to do it....thats 22 US gallons. Rinse performance was deemed OK at 67%.
Additionally, the Fisher and Paykel Aquasmart 8kg machine removed 81%, nearly equalled the rinse effectiveness of the Speed Queen at 74% and used less water again with 76 litres (just under 19.5 gallons).
I suppose my point is that water hungry appliances have seen their day for the average consumer. Our market sells both and quite simply, most people don't want them. This is evident when you look at the number that are now available compared to even a couple of years ago - manufacturers are simply not going to keep making something that isn't selling. Now if this is purely because many councils offer an incentive to purchase an efficient machine, I don't know, and water isn't that expensive that it would dissuade someone who wanted a more traditional machine from buying one, but when you can get results from an efficient machine as I mention above, why would you wish, as seems to be the case of the vast majority of Australians, to buy one that is going to cost you more to run in the longer term?
Oh, and before anyone mentions reliability and Speed Queen in the same sentence, Kleenmaid, who used to rebadge Speed Queen for our market are rated 3rd from the bottom out of 13 brands....only time will tell if this has changed.
So-called "water-guzzling" deep-fill toploaders are still available under several brands. Kenmore/Whirlpool/Maytag/Roper/Estate, Frigidaire, GE, Fisher & Paykel, Speed Queen.
Frigidaire FTW3014KW
Frigidaire FTW3011KW
Fisher & Paykel EcoSmart WA42T26GW1
GE GTWP1000MWW
GE GTWP2000MWW
GE GTWP2005MCC
GE GTWN3000MWS
GE GTWN4000MWS
Maytag MVWC200XW
Maytag MVWC300VW
Roper RTW4100WQ
Roper RTW4440VQ
Estate ETW4100SQ
Estate ETW4400WQ
Speed Queen AWN542
Speed Queen AWN432
Speed Queen AWN412
Speed Queen AWN311
Whirlpool WTW4800XQ
Whirlpool WTW5590VQ
Whirlpool WTW57ESVW
Kenmore 800
Kenmore 400
Kenmore 2120
Kenmore 2110
Hotpoint HTWP1000MWW
Inglis IV4800
Inglis IV4600
Inglis IV4500
Inglis ITW4300SQ
launderess
Well-known member
Quite Honestly
Whislt one loves my little portable *vintage* Whirlpool, the Miele is streets ahead in terms of cleaning performace.
While some top loading washers may be going the way of the Dodo, think government should have left front loaders alone, or perhaps developed a different standard.
Contrary to common thought, it does not require large amounts of water to launder well in a H-Axis washer. However you do need lots of water to rinse, and that seems to be where the current crop of US offerings seem to fall short.
Whislt one loves my little portable *vintage* Whirlpool, the Miele is streets ahead in terms of cleaning performace.
While some top loading washers may be going the way of the Dodo, think government should have left front loaders alone, or perhaps developed a different standard.
Contrary to common thought, it does not require large amounts of water to launder well in a H-Axis washer. However you do need lots of water to rinse, and that seems to be where the current crop of US offerings seem to fall short.
ronhic
Well-known member
However you do need lots of water to rinse....
Well, not really....
There are very effective machines currently available here and in Europe that use around 10 litres (2.5 gallons) of water or less per KG of clothes and yet rinse with the best of them....
...but it would be good to hear how the US standard works....
Well, not really....
There are very effective machines currently available here and in Europe that use around 10 litres (2.5 gallons) of water or less per KG of clothes and yet rinse with the best of them....
...but it would be good to hear how the US standard works....
hoover1100
Well-known member
Energy-Guzzling machines
I guess the general concensus is why buy a machine that uses more energy and water, yet is less effective, or at best on par with, a more efficient machine?
I for one would have to agree with that.
If you want a machine that uses a swimming pool full of water, buy a used, older machine.
As much as I love vintage machines, often they don't provide such good results, can often be rougher on fabrics and use a lot more energy and water in the process. I could not justify using one as an every day machine myself, but they are fun for the occasional use! The nostalgia is the main reason they appeal to me personally.
As for reliability of modern machines, there are plenty still out there that are well made, in the same respect that there were plenty of machines years ago which needed many repairs and didn't last long.
I think a lot if it is those old rose-tinted glasses.
Matt
I guess the general concensus is why buy a machine that uses more energy and water, yet is less effective, or at best on par with, a more efficient machine?
I for one would have to agree with that.
If you want a machine that uses a swimming pool full of water, buy a used, older machine.
As much as I love vintage machines, often they don't provide such good results, can often be rougher on fabrics and use a lot more energy and water in the process. I could not justify using one as an every day machine myself, but they are fun for the occasional use! The nostalgia is the main reason they appeal to me personally.
As for reliability of modern machines, there are plenty still out there that are well made, in the same respect that there were plenty of machines years ago which needed many repairs and didn't last long.
I think a lot if it is those old rose-tinted glasses.
Matt
The energy-saving/low water-use appliances I have perform excellently.
Frigidaire FL Washer: uses 13-14 gallons to wash a large load of clothes. No problem with cleaning. I've adjusted to seeing no water in the tub. As long as clothes are cleaned and rinsed and spun dry I just let it do its job. I've given it several tough cleaning tests (you'll recall the mud/oil muck test I posted here a few months ago) and I'll bet it performs as well as or better than any top-loader, vintage or new.
LG 9810 Dishwasher: uses 3.5-5 gallons for a normal load. The machine cleans better than any I've had, including KitchenAid, Whirlpool, Frigidaire and Maytag (the Maytag was the cleaning champ before the LG).
2007 Frigidaire Top-Freezer Refrigerator: uses substantially less energy than even my 2002 Frigidaire refrigerator, with no loss in performance.
Gerber Power-Assist Flushing Toilet: uses 1.6 gallons per flush. Never fails to do its job on one flush.
CFL Bulbs: I switched my entire house over to these about five years ago. Quite by accident, I purchased them all at Home Depot, whose 'house brand' bulbs produce a better quality of light, and achieve full brightness faster than many others (according to subsequent test results in Consumer Reports). Having said that, I believe LED "bulbs" will usurp the CFL, as they use even less energy and will have no mercury/disposal issues. I will concede there are some really awful CFL's out there. My local utility gave each household one to try. It produced a weird greenish light and was quite dim for the first 20 seconds. I returned it, and told them they weren't going to convert anyone with those lousy examples of CFLs.
1994 Geo Prizm LE Sedan: 240,000 miles on it and it still gets 39-41 mpg. on the highway. It's by far the most reliable vehicle I've ever owned. I've saved thousands in repair bills as compared to GM and Ford autos I've owned in the past in addition to fuel savings. (The Geo Prizm is a rebadged Toyota Corolla, for those not familiar with the model.)
I'm sure there are crappy energy saving appliances out there, just as there has always been crappy energy hogging appliances. But to contend that all energy/water saving appliances are inferior in performance is simply not true.
Buy appliances that perform well and save energy/water. I don't understand this knee-jerk reaction against energy savings. Does it feed our egos or make us feel more powerful/dominant to use more energy/fuel/water than is necessary to maintain a comfortable existence? Part of this mentality comes from having had subsidized, cheap energy available to us all our lives. That will change in our lifetimes. There's going to be a very tough, expensive period in the gap between the "tipping point" of fossil fuel reserves and the growth of alternative sources of energy---again, because there's little rush to acquire new technologies when fossil fuels are still relatively inexpensive.
Back to vehicles: Don't forget the automobile lobby has the oil lobby as its ally. Together, they are far more powerful than any appliance lobby could possibly be. As China and India raise their standard of living and thus consume more oil, prices for fossil fuels in this country will rise to heights we've never experienced. There is already talk of $4.50-5.00 gasoline within a couple of years. I can assure you that many people driving a 14-mpg Chevrolet Tahoe will quickly reassess their vehicular needs. On the other hand, when fuel prices climb that high, and wages for workers in Mexico/China/India/Korea increase, some manufacturers may be forced to move their production centers back to the US.
[this post was last edited: 1/3/2011-09:00]
Frigidaire FL Washer: uses 13-14 gallons to wash a large load of clothes. No problem with cleaning. I've adjusted to seeing no water in the tub. As long as clothes are cleaned and rinsed and spun dry I just let it do its job. I've given it several tough cleaning tests (you'll recall the mud/oil muck test I posted here a few months ago) and I'll bet it performs as well as or better than any top-loader, vintage or new.
LG 9810 Dishwasher: uses 3.5-5 gallons for a normal load. The machine cleans better than any I've had, including KitchenAid, Whirlpool, Frigidaire and Maytag (the Maytag was the cleaning champ before the LG).
2007 Frigidaire Top-Freezer Refrigerator: uses substantially less energy than even my 2002 Frigidaire refrigerator, with no loss in performance.
Gerber Power-Assist Flushing Toilet: uses 1.6 gallons per flush. Never fails to do its job on one flush.
CFL Bulbs: I switched my entire house over to these about five years ago. Quite by accident, I purchased them all at Home Depot, whose 'house brand' bulbs produce a better quality of light, and achieve full brightness faster than many others (according to subsequent test results in Consumer Reports). Having said that, I believe LED "bulbs" will usurp the CFL, as they use even less energy and will have no mercury/disposal issues. I will concede there are some really awful CFL's out there. My local utility gave each household one to try. It produced a weird greenish light and was quite dim for the first 20 seconds. I returned it, and told them they weren't going to convert anyone with those lousy examples of CFLs.
1994 Geo Prizm LE Sedan: 240,000 miles on it and it still gets 39-41 mpg. on the highway. It's by far the most reliable vehicle I've ever owned. I've saved thousands in repair bills as compared to GM and Ford autos I've owned in the past in addition to fuel savings. (The Geo Prizm is a rebadged Toyota Corolla, for those not familiar with the model.)
I'm sure there are crappy energy saving appliances out there, just as there has always been crappy energy hogging appliances. But to contend that all energy/water saving appliances are inferior in performance is simply not true.
Buy appliances that perform well and save energy/water. I don't understand this knee-jerk reaction against energy savings. Does it feed our egos or make us feel more powerful/dominant to use more energy/fuel/water than is necessary to maintain a comfortable existence? Part of this mentality comes from having had subsidized, cheap energy available to us all our lives. That will change in our lifetimes. There's going to be a very tough, expensive period in the gap between the "tipping point" of fossil fuel reserves and the growth of alternative sources of energy---again, because there's little rush to acquire new technologies when fossil fuels are still relatively inexpensive.
Back to vehicles: Don't forget the automobile lobby has the oil lobby as its ally. Together, they are far more powerful than any appliance lobby could possibly be. As China and India raise their standard of living and thus consume more oil, prices for fossil fuels in this country will rise to heights we've never experienced. There is already talk of $4.50-5.00 gasoline within a couple of years. I can assure you that many people driving a 14-mpg Chevrolet Tahoe will quickly reassess their vehicular needs. On the other hand, when fuel prices climb that high, and wages for workers in Mexico/China/India/Korea increase, some manufacturers may be forced to move their production centers back to the US.
[this post was last edited: 1/3/2011-09:00]
ronhic
Well-known member
is already talk of $4.50-5.00 gasoline within a couple of ye
Let me assure you that, apart from North America and the US in particular, Australia has some of the cheapest petrol prices in the western world....
....and we're now paying USD$5.00 or MORE per US Gallon....depending on which grade of fuel you purchase....
Let me assure you that, apart from North America and the US in particular, Australia has some of the cheapest petrol prices in the western world....
....and we're now paying USD$5.00 or MORE per US Gallon....depending on which grade of fuel you purchase....
mrb627
Well-known member
Execution
I suspect that there are efficient machines that are poorly executed. That is you may have two machines that are equally efficient but one might utilize resources better than the other. Like both machines use 8 gallons of water, but one uses more in the wash phase and less in the rinse while the other uses more water for rinsing and less in the wash...
Malcolm
I suspect that there are efficient machines that are poorly executed. That is you may have two machines that are equally efficient but one might utilize resources better than the other. Like both machines use 8 gallons of water, but one uses more in the wash phase and less in the rinse while the other uses more water for rinsing and less in the wash...
Malcolm
hoovermatic
Well-known member
Oil companies and the car industry
while the auto makers had the clout to tell the govenment that they were not going to be cowed into doing anything that they did not want to do. You can still buy huge vehicles that get less than a dozen miles per gallon. You are not forced to buy some shtick dreck that won't reach 60 mph with the gas pedal pressed to the floor when you purchase a car. I think it has a lot to do with males being associated with motor vehicles and women with appliances.............
This has more to do with the oil companies running the countries of the world, not the governments. It has nothing to do with the male/female argument, sadly! No I am not a conspiracy theorist - just a realist!
while the auto makers had the clout to tell the govenment that they were not going to be cowed into doing anything that they did not want to do. You can still buy huge vehicles that get less than a dozen miles per gallon. You are not forced to buy some shtick dreck that won't reach 60 mph with the gas pedal pressed to the floor when you purchase a car. I think it has a lot to do with males being associated with motor vehicles and women with appliances.............
This has more to do with the oil companies running the countries of the world, not the governments. It has nothing to do with the male/female argument, sadly! No I am not a conspiracy theorist - just a realist!
3beltwesty
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2010
- Messages
- 1,057
costs
The old 1976 Westinghouse FL LT570 washer here at that time had the lowest water usage of any washer in a Consumer Report around 1977/78. The total water usage with the longest cycle is 30 gallons total. If one used hot water 0 to 10 of that 30 could be the hot water.
The electricity used was measured as between 0.22 to 0.25 Kilowatt hours. If power costs 16 cents per Kwhr then a wash load costs 4 cents.
A recent water bill here was for 5000 gallons, about double my norm. Most "extra" was for cleaning some outside equipment, mixing concrete, watering plants. The fees for 5000 gallons are 6.50 for water, 13.75 for sewer, 8.80 bond surcharge due to Government poor planing with their water system. This added charge just got tacked on. 5000 gallons thus costs 2905 cents; ie 0.58 cents per gallon.
Thus a cold water wash with my 1976 FL costs 30*.58= 17.4 cents is water; 4 in electricity. With a tad of soap a load costs 25 to 30 cents.
The new LG machine uses about 1/2 the water; but takes longer. In electricity it uses about 1/2 to 2/3'rds.
If I consider that my 599 buck 641 with tax LG FL machine will probably get a broken spider in 5 years, one has to look at that cost too. If I wash 1 load a day for 5 years, that is 1826 loads before failure. Thus the machines cost is 64100 cents/1826 loads = 35 cents per load. This cost is 10 times more than the electricity used. It is double the cost of the water too.
Thus for the average Joe who washes not much like me; just buying the on sale 249 buck Maytag TL washer before Thanksgiving can make sense.
Most folks will NOT get a FL washer fixed once its Aluminum spider craps out, it is too costly.
Here I will never have my high flow faucets or show heads replaced in my old house. I prefer the have my own control. A High flow sink faucet blasts out whiskers in a razor, the low flow ones I have used due not. I really do not like to fart around spending more time cleaning razors; or waste money throwing them out early too. I had low flow stuff when in California, and wasted GOBS of water since the flow was so damn whussy and weak. The damn low flow shower head the apartment manager installed was a joke, one spent gobs more time rinsing one's hair since the flow was feeble.
If refrigerators and freezers modern ones use a lot less energy than my older ones.
***For the average JOE or JANE; your refrigerator uses a massive amount of electricity compared to your washer.
In the USA folks have giant refrigerators compared to other countries
The old 1976 Westinghouse FL LT570 washer here at that time had the lowest water usage of any washer in a Consumer Report around 1977/78. The total water usage with the longest cycle is 30 gallons total. If one used hot water 0 to 10 of that 30 could be the hot water.
The electricity used was measured as between 0.22 to 0.25 Kilowatt hours. If power costs 16 cents per Kwhr then a wash load costs 4 cents.
A recent water bill here was for 5000 gallons, about double my norm. Most "extra" was for cleaning some outside equipment, mixing concrete, watering plants. The fees for 5000 gallons are 6.50 for water, 13.75 for sewer, 8.80 bond surcharge due to Government poor planing with their water system. This added charge just got tacked on. 5000 gallons thus costs 2905 cents; ie 0.58 cents per gallon.
Thus a cold water wash with my 1976 FL costs 30*.58= 17.4 cents is water; 4 in electricity. With a tad of soap a load costs 25 to 30 cents.
The new LG machine uses about 1/2 the water; but takes longer. In electricity it uses about 1/2 to 2/3'rds.
If I consider that my 599 buck 641 with tax LG FL machine will probably get a broken spider in 5 years, one has to look at that cost too. If I wash 1 load a day for 5 years, that is 1826 loads before failure. Thus the machines cost is 64100 cents/1826 loads = 35 cents per load. This cost is 10 times more than the electricity used. It is double the cost of the water too.
Thus for the average Joe who washes not much like me; just buying the on sale 249 buck Maytag TL washer before Thanksgiving can make sense.
Most folks will NOT get a FL washer fixed once its Aluminum spider craps out, it is too costly.
Here I will never have my high flow faucets or show heads replaced in my old house. I prefer the have my own control. A High flow sink faucet blasts out whiskers in a razor, the low flow ones I have used due not. I really do not like to fart around spending more time cleaning razors; or waste money throwing them out early too. I had low flow stuff when in California, and wasted GOBS of water since the flow was so damn whussy and weak. The damn low flow shower head the apartment manager installed was a joke, one spent gobs more time rinsing one's hair since the flow was feeble.
If refrigerators and freezers modern ones use a lot less energy than my older ones.
***For the average JOE or JANE; your refrigerator uses a massive amount of electricity compared to your washer.
In the USA folks have giant refrigerators compared to other countries
3beltwesty
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2010
- Messages
- 1,057
One wonders if it ie better to own a 249 buck TL washer that uses a lot of water; or own a thrifty FL washer that uses 1/2 the water, costs 2 to 5 times more, and dies way sooner with a broken Aluminum spider. Most all in this area will just send the broken FL washer to a land fill, repairs are just too darn costly.
In many places in the USA, there are few local folks who really know anything about repairing consumer items. Here after Katrina it was even worse, even houses that had 6 inches of water had their washers hauled to the curb. Local repair places got saturated, even replacing a 50 buck pump on a washer , or oiling a lower coil blower fan a refrigerator was not done, thus landfills got gobs of appliances with minor issues.
Here the cost of water used with a washer is less than the disposable washer/appliance issue. Once one has a major issue, the average Joe/Jane finds it is easier to junk than repair. Fixes often doe not work; it costs 80 to 100 to arrive at ones door. It often makes no sense to flush repair cash down the toilet.
Here when my new Nov 2010 LG FL washer dies in 3 to 7 years, I will fix it myself or junk it. I will get my old 1976 washer running before then too!
It repairs of all types; it has been often bad money spent when paying another. In a riding mower, they replaced the belt with an autos belt and it would only last a year before slipping. I called up Toro in Minnesota and found out the locals were using the wrong type belt; and the locals are a Toro dealer.
In many places in the USA, there are few local folks who really know anything about repairing consumer items. Here after Katrina it was even worse, even houses that had 6 inches of water had their washers hauled to the curb. Local repair places got saturated, even replacing a 50 buck pump on a washer , or oiling a lower coil blower fan a refrigerator was not done, thus landfills got gobs of appliances with minor issues.
Here the cost of water used with a washer is less than the disposable washer/appliance issue. Once one has a major issue, the average Joe/Jane finds it is easier to junk than repair. Fixes often doe not work; it costs 80 to 100 to arrive at ones door. It often makes no sense to flush repair cash down the toilet.
Here when my new Nov 2010 LG FL washer dies in 3 to 7 years, I will fix it myself or junk it. I will get my old 1976 washer running before then too!
It repairs of all types; it has been often bad money spent when paying another. In a riding mower, they replaced the belt with an autos belt and it would only last a year before slipping. I called up Toro in Minnesota and found out the locals were using the wrong type belt; and the locals are a Toro dealer.hoover1100
Well-known member
Frigilux
Could NOT have put it better myself!
Could NOT have put it better myself!
Why current US-market clothes washers largely suck
Careful reading of the page linked below will give you the reason: Unlimited $225/unit direct-to-manufacturer tax credits for clothes washers that meet/exceed 2.8 MEF, and do not exceed a 3.5 water consumption factor (as of 1/1/11; there was a credit in earlier years also). I think the intention is good: Rather than mandating a standard that might not be attainable, give manufacturers an incentive to make machines that save water and energy, and are acceptable to consumers. But practically no one, not even the washing machine enthusiasts here, knows about the credits. Instead, the general impression is that excessively frugal machines are inevitable. So the manufacturers are getting their tax credit ($225/unit is huge), and we're stuck with lousy machines.
Maybe things would be different if the public knew about the credits. I tried to get Consumer Reports to publish the facts in their magazine. Wrote a letter (on paper!) to the Home Editor, got no answer, left phone messages that weren't returned, and finally caught him in his office. He told me that he ignored my letter because he found my claims implausible. At his suggestion, I emailed the letter to the technical lead. Had to follow up on that too, and got a weasel-ish answer, basically saying that I'm not wrong, but CR doesn't want to go there.
http://energytaxincentives.org/builders/appliances.php
Careful reading of the page linked below will give you the reason: Unlimited $225/unit direct-to-manufacturer tax credits for clothes washers that meet/exceed 2.8 MEF, and do not exceed a 3.5 water consumption factor (as of 1/1/11; there was a credit in earlier years also). I think the intention is good: Rather than mandating a standard that might not be attainable, give manufacturers an incentive to make machines that save water and energy, and are acceptable to consumers. But practically no one, not even the washing machine enthusiasts here, knows about the credits. Instead, the general impression is that excessively frugal machines are inevitable. So the manufacturers are getting their tax credit ($225/unit is huge), and we're stuck with lousy machines.
Maybe things would be different if the public knew about the credits. I tried to get Consumer Reports to publish the facts in their magazine. Wrote a letter (on paper!) to the Home Editor, got no answer, left phone messages that weren't returned, and finally caught him in his office. He told me that he ignored my letter because he found my claims implausible. At his suggestion, I emailed the letter to the technical lead. Had to follow up on that too, and got a weasel-ish answer, basically saying that I'm not wrong, but CR doesn't want to go there.
http://energytaxincentives.org/builders/appliances.php
3beltwesty
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2010
- Messages
- 1,057
tax credit explains alot.
Thanks for posting the link about how a washer maker gets a nice tax credit for selling/making a thrifty machine. That explains a lot of why modern machines recycle the water, have palty water levels. The new LG machine here has another button to add more water, but still its "seems" a bit whimpy.
If makers added a button to give *a lot of water* for a very dirty load, it might blow the tax credit kickback thus is forbidden!
Thanks for posting the link about how a washer maker gets a nice tax credit for selling/making a thrifty machine. That explains a lot of why modern machines recycle the water, have palty water levels. The new LG machine here has another button to add more water, but still its "seems" a bit whimpy.
If makers added a button to give *a lot of water* for a very dirty load, it might blow the tax credit kickback thus is forbidden!
hoover1100
Well-known member
If makers added a button to give *a lot of water* for a very
It would be completely unecessary. The water levels of modern machines are perfectly adequte to clean even the dirtiest load perfectly.
Still the myth persists, particularly on this forum, that the more water the cleaner the clothes will be, despite this being disproved time and time again...
Ah well, I'll just go and shove these filthy muddy sports clothes in my modern, energy efficient front loading machine with "invisible" water levels, without pre-treating, soaking or pre-washing, or adding more water or additives to the detergent, safe in the knowledge they will come out perfectly clean first time...
Matt
It would be completely unecessary. The water levels of modern machines are perfectly adequte to clean even the dirtiest load perfectly.
Still the myth persists, particularly on this forum, that the more water the cleaner the clothes will be, despite this being disproved time and time again...
Ah well, I'll just go and shove these filthy muddy sports clothes in my modern, energy efficient front loading machine with "invisible" water levels, without pre-treating, soaking or pre-washing, or adding more water or additives to the detergent, safe in the knowledge they will come out perfectly clean first time...
Matt
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.
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.
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.
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
Well-known member
"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
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
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2010
- Messages
- 1,057
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.
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.
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.
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
Well-known member
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?
...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
Well-known member
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....
http://www.waterrating.gov.au/testing.html#clothes
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....
http://www.waterrating.gov.au/testing.html#clothes
ronhic
Well-known member
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>
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>
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.
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
Well-known member
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.
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.
Similar threads
