Video: Are today's washers made to break?

[DADoES]

 
The 1976 Supreme 80 was MSRP $369 which is what the dealer charged (although sales tax included which was his policy on new purchases).  That's equivalent to $1,895 to $1,899 today.  Speed Queen's MSRP for a TC5 is $1,449 and $2,229 for a frontloader, although discounts are widely available.  Either way, many consumers can't justify the cost or don't have the up-front funds vs. other choices, and they don't expect or *want* to keep the same appliance for 20+ years.

As an example, my Panasonic plasma TV (although it's really only a display since it has no tuner or speakers) will be 20 years in September.  It's 1024x768, 720p/1080i, has no "smart" capabilities or HDMI input.  How many typical consumers would have updated long ago?

 

[bradfordwhite]

1. Can an <span style="text-decoration: underline;">over engineered</span> washer (or any appliance) be made? Yes. It's been done before.
Should they be made? The number crunchers and those who are looking out for the long-term survival of our society are saying NO we won't be doing that.

 

2. Traditional top load washers and even wash plate washers are:

A. harsher on clothing 

B. use much more water

C. use more detergent

D. use more electricity

E. do not clean as well

 

3. It is one thing to like the appliances and furnishing we grew up with in ...what ever decade it was.  To have pictures or furnishings as memorabilia; not a problem. 

However to want to actually incorporate things that were a bad idea or were hurting society in our lives on a daily basis is <span style="text-decoration: underline;">very stupid.</span>

For example: we may like some of the products that were made of asbestos but to ACTUALLY pine for products anew made from asbestos is really, really dumb considering how much of a health risk it is.

 

 

4. About a 1/3 of the U.S. is affected by drought.  REAL TIME people.  And that number seems to be growing each year.  And that is just here in the U.S.

Other countries, especially those that are developing and adopting things like washing machines would be absolutely foolish to try and do a top load machine given the water situations affecting such countries.

 

It is totally irresponsible for any of us, if we care about society and our own lives, to try and encourage wasting water and resources on a bad product like a <span style="text-decoration: underline;">traditional top load washer.</span>

 

Anything that can be done to get as many water wasting appliances and habits REMOVED from society makes us a better society.  That should be obvious.

 

Anything we can do to save water resources from not watering lawns unnecessarily, not wasting water on excess showering or shower heads that waste water, not having toilets that waste water, and of course not doing laundry in a topload machine is crucial.

 

Time to grow up. 

Put your washer fetish into perspective. 

Like the machines you like but certainly don't use the water wasting ones or encourage others to do it.

 

I don't know who made that first video but it's got a limited audience as most people will not care or understand the points.

 

Literally, yesterday I stopped at an older laundromat as I sometimes do, to check out the retro vibe.  They had traditional toploaders but the majority of machines were front loaders.  On the lids of the topload machines were signs stating to the affect of "because of the drought the topload machines have been turned off.  Please use the front loader washers"

(I wish I had my camera with me to get photos of the laundromat and the sign.  Maybe this week I will stop back for that.)

That's serious and that's taking responsibility.

 

Personally- I grew up with top loaders.  My parents first washer was a mid 60s frigidaire, then we got a 1976 Whirlpool belt drive sudsaver washer, then a 1985 GE FF TOL Spotscrubber washer, then I got Whirlpool made Direct drive models and a 1991 GE Filter flo washer.

And of course the 100+ other such top loaders I collected at various points in my life.

Do I have fond memories?  Yeah.

 

Would I ever do laundry in a top loader again?  NO. 

Would I collect the machines to look at as furniture, as people do with many other items?  Yes.

 

I first tried a friends front load Whirlpool Duet in 2007 and was sold.  So much better.

 

 

https://www.drought.gov/current-conditions

 

[jben]

I appreciate and agree with much of what was said above; but I'm not as sure that a FL washer uses less electricity than a TL.

From my experience, my 25 year old KM DD TL washer uses less electricity per load than my FL ASKO or SQ. The old KM DD only uses ~1/3 of a kilowatt hour for a load (in my area that is less than 4 U.S. cents) which is less than the FL's.

The difference appears to be because the FL machines tend to take much longer to complete the cycle than the older WP DD washers.

Regardless, when other cost are also considered like water, the FL cost per wash cycle is indeed less.

I will mention that for most of this year I have been temporarily using my washer rinse water to water the outdoor lawn and garden. (Most people would not go to the trouble yet, and I don't have a longer term plan or solution either) However in the past, all of that water was being sent down the drain. Maybe we will see more building designs incorporating alternative water disposal methods of some household water instead of it all directed into the city sewer systems.

 

[ryner1988]

@bradfordwhite, your points are valid and well-taken. However, there are some of us who still, even in a market that is trying heavily to push front loaders, can't afford them. If my Maytag A112 top loader breaks down, I'm going to need a replacement quickly because I am disabled and can't schlep clothes to the laundromat easily and neither can my wheelchair-bound wife. I'm going to find a cheap and easy solution because I'm on a fixed income. That would be either finding another old, used top loader for a couple hundred bucks or grabbing one of the VMW top load machines that are on the market today for around $500, both of which are going to use a lot of water and resources. The cheapest front loader that I've seen new is the Samsung entry level, which is still $700 on sale. Out of my range. I'm honestly not sure my laundry closet has the depth for a new front loader anyway. So, because of cost issues and the designs of many of our homes, lots of us don't really have much of a choice. I get your point but it was stated in a bit of a bossy, lectury way and like we can all do more about it than we can. My question is, what would you have someone like me do?

 

[bradfordwhite]

#33

Many people these days have budget constraints.  

 

Front loaders are not a new thing any longer and can be readily found listed in the same places you'd find other appliances and at reasonable prices.

 

A front loader will probably be easier to reach for people who are wheel chair bound.

 

Regardless of what type model you choose, it might be a good idea to shop and buy a back-up ahead of time so you're not under stress when shopping.

https://indianapolis.craigslist.org/app/d/westfield-whirlpool-duet-front-loader/7503985732.html

 

[bradfordwhite]

 

[gelaundry4ever]

gallons

How many gallons do the new washers fill with? It seems when the clothes are saturated, the tub is empty of any water.

 

[good-shepherd]

Wages and consumers are a lot of times forced to buy crap

True.

Back in the day even those on a tight budget could afford a manufacturer's BOL of the line machine that was just as reliable as their TOL machines, perhaps even more so.

Nowadays thats not really any option anymore, people have to buy what they can afford and take their
chances.

 

[bradfordwhite]

#37

As the decades have moved on the old BOL has tended to disappear
while the old MOL becomes the new BOL
and the old TOL becomes the new MOL
while the new TOL are new designs.

Manufacturers of many appliances, including automobiles, in the U.S. and other DEVELOPED countries are also dealing with market saturation. They can't just make a batch of couches, or entry level cars, washing machines, or whatever and count on the market demand to buy them up anymore.

These days if you're really in need of furnishing or appliances it's not difficult in many markets to get (used and nice) things for free through charitable organizations, off classified listings like craigslist or facebook.

 

[maytaga806]

I watched this video just recently funny you bring it up, and it was extremely hard for me to even look at the new design of the belt driven Whirlpools. It’s just so cringe worthy to see how machines are made today VS how nice they used to be, real material and durability, vs all plastic and wires nowadays. We had a Whirlpool cabrio in which the frame rusted out within the FIRST FEW years. It was unbelievable. Performance was bad, the motor gave out on its 11th year which hey could of been at the second or third year, but I’m sure the reason those motors go out is because they are under a much heavier load compared to the direct drive motors, because the washer has much much less water for a big load of heavy wet clothes and it’s trying to agitate them from the very bottom to pull everything down. There is no question that is was certainly being overworked unless you were doing a tiny light load. You could hear the motor working hard to agitate in bigger loads, wasn’t a concerning sound but it was noted. Since then and living on my own I love my water wasting Whirlpool Direct Drive. Nothing compares to it, reliability, simplicity, the beautiful way in which it was designed and built. Same goes for the older Maytags Speed Queens all of them were very well built machines that simply cleaned the most thoroughly. I love his videos though, he knows what he is talking about and shows these components in comparison perfectly.

 

[lowefficiency]

>> The vast, vast majority of people rather junk a cheap machine every so often
>> that to make an investment in high quality.

Part of it too is that machines of today are visibly "electronic", and consumers have become accustomed to basically all other electronic or tech products having a short lifecycle, whereupon they are replaced with something that is basically the same but inherently better because it is newer. Nobody buys a smartphone or computer expecting to keep using it for 20+ years... and many don't even think that way for major purchases like vehicles. That 3-5 year cycle is so ingrained and normalized, it's just part of the assumption at the time of purchase.

 

[lowefficiency]

>> The mechanical tolerances were better in the mid to late 60’s and through the 70’s vs the 50’s and early 60’s. Oils in the 50’s and early 60’s weren’t all that
>> great either which is why engines were a bit tired before reaching 100,000 miles and the engines themselves weren’t bad but the oils were. If they still made cars
>> and engines like they did back then but since the oils have improved greatly since then, they’d easily would last to 150,000 or even 200,000 miles since oils
>> and transmission fluids have improved greatly since then.

Some lubricants of the 50s-60s were actually significantly better (in terms of chemical/mechanical properties) than those of the 70s. For example, sperm whale oil was a prime ingredient in automatic transmission fluid (and others in similar service) up through 1973 when banned by the endangered species act. After that, transmission failures rose by 700% in the following years!

Engine lifespans between eras can't realistically be linked or projected to changes of single variables. Fuel is/was substantially different, the speeds and way we drive is different, materials, tolerances, balancing, vibration allowances, consumer attitudes on preventative maintenance, road types, air and oil filter technologies, emissions and fuel economy requirements, etc, etc. Pouring modern oil into a 1950s engine isn't going to magically make it last to 200,000 miles... Classic car owners would love it if that was true!

 

[kenwashesmonday]

LowEfficiency wrote:
"Pouring modern oil into a 1950s engine isn't going to magically make it last to 200,000 miles"

Over the years, I had 3 Rambler Americans with the little flathead six that Nash designed and debuted in 1941. They ran 200,000 miles without breaking a sweat, with modern oil, and unleaded fuel. I got similar service from 2 examples the OHV version of that engine that debuted in 1956.

The 1962 & up Chevrolet straight six generally ran 500,000 miles in taxi duty. I know of no gasoline engine built today that could do that with any regularity.

The reason most cars didn't last so many miles back then was simply lack of maintenance. Did you know that a '57 Chevy is supposed to have the chassis lubricated every 1000 miles?

Today's cars require very little maintenance, and that's the main reason they last so much longer. Of course they're also safer. If you count inflation and standard equipment, they're also a lot less expensive to buy than the cars of 60/70 years ago.

 

[robbinsandmyers]

Yesterdays oils and greases left much to be desired compared to todays. My 1960 Mercedes owners manual clearly states " Todays oils are just good enough to protect your engine, proper service ensures long life ". Basically what they were saying was oil isnt the old waxy sludge you used in 1938 but it still has a ways to go. Oil changes were much more frequent as was greasing. Car engines dont sludge up anywhere near like they used to unless they're really neglected. Todays bearings and rings are made much better as well. Proof of that is the 50:1 ratio 2 strokes use. Try running 50:1 synthetic in an old 2 stroke engine and it will still fail in short order.

 

[gelaundry4ever]

fancy appliances

Even if I had fancy appliances, I'd still use them for everyday use.