Wait, reviewed.com knows us?

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

Help Support :

WASHING PERFORMANCE FL vs. TRADITIONAL TL: Here's how the deck is stacked in favor of HE front-loaders.

1. The same amount of detergent (usually a dose for a medium-sized load) washes in a far stronger concentration in an HE front-loader compared to a traditional 'vintage' top-loader.

2. The wash portion of the cycle is generally much longer on an HE front-loader. When I choose the Normal cycle, maximum soil level on the Maytag 8100, I get around 45 minutes of wash time. The Kenmore I grew up with had a maximum wash time of 12 minutes. My SQ AWN542 had a maximum wash time in that same neighborhood.

Consumer Reports tests all machines using the Normal cycle with its longest wash time in 75-degree (F) water. Of course the HE front-loader with a 45 minute wash tumble is going to trump a Speed Queen washing for 14 minutes.  And the detergent solution in the front-loader is around 4-5 times stronger, to boot. 

 

I'm always amazed that people get upset when they see a Samsung, LG, or Maytag front-loader outscore a SQ top-loader.  There's nothing wrong with the SQ.  It's simply fighting an uphill battle against machines that wash longer, wash with a far greater concentration of detergent, have more capacity, spin clothes drier, and use considerably less water (especially hot water) and energy.

 

If I used one-fifth of the detergent and limited wash time to 12 minutes, my Maytag wouldn't score as well as it does in testing.

 

 I use the Normal cycle, medium soil (20-minute wash time; total cycle time of 45 minutes) for most loads and the results are great. With a 1400 rpm final spin speed (which I now use for everything but delicate items) the reduced time in the dryer makes up for the longer cycle time.

 

Again, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a Speed Queen top-loader.  The deck is simply stacked against it when it comes to performance in cleaning, spinning, capacity, and water/energy use compared to an HE front-loader.

 

Ben, on the other hand, points to SQ's country of manufacture, warranty, build-quality, shorter cycle time, and potential longevity. He's also not fond of 'clean machine' cycles and electronic controls (although I'm sure SQ uses commercial-quality electronics on their new line). In those areas, SQ trumps (Jesus, why do I keep using that word?!) most other brands.

[this post was last edited: 8/10/2016-13:01]
 
I think the operator of that machine has selected a second rinse option or some other addition to the cycle. Using the normal wash cycle with a single full tub rinse my SQ takes approximately 37 minutes from start to finish, including fill times.
 
To be fair, most HE frontloaders use two rinses, as less water is used for each compared to the single deep rinse of a traditional top-loader. Adding an extra rinse on the Maytag 8100 provides three.

Magic Minute: From the videos I've seen, the tub is nearly three-fourths full of water when the Magic starts. Not as concentrated as a front-loader; water continues to be added, so any concentration is short-lived. Fun to watch, but I question how much it actually improves cleaning.

New SQ Line: That really is a sleek, elegant-looking console.[this post was last edited: 8/10/2016-17:50]
 
Will say this

Almost since they arrived on the scene commercial laundries in both Europe and North America used H-Axis washing machines. Only laundromats and other places where consumers did their washing used top loaders in the USA historically. Now even that has largely come to an end.

Going back to the early 1900's Hurley Machine Company advertised that their Thor Cylinder washing machine (a domestic version of larger washers found in commercial use) not only cleaned better but was more gentle on laundry versus other models of washing machines. Maytag made a small top opening H-Axis washing machine also in the early part of last century. They bragged that the "millrace" principle of washing got all laundry cleaner from the heaviest to most dainty textiles without damage.

Detergents for top loading washing machines are called "high dilution" for a reason. They are meant to work in the relatively large volume of water used in such machines. This explains why you cannot use such products (normally) in H-Axis washing machines. There is too little water to reach the proper dilution ratios amounts of detergent needed for good results. You *can* try using less but that often and usually does lead to problems down the line.

Vintage detergents one has a problem with in the Miele or AEG (Biz, older versions of Tide, etc..) clean and rinse quite well when used say when doing laundry in the bathtub or other similar large vessel. Biz in particular can take ages to rinse out in a front loader, not so otherwise.

The fact commercial laundries almost exclusively use H-axis washing machines should tell you something. It just simply is a superior way of doing laundry (especially large amounts) with less damge to clothing.

Americans who have gone from top loaders to front are often amazed they don't need all that pre-treating, soaking and so forth as often the case with top loaders, and their wash comes out quite clean. Because H-Axis washing on principle flexes textiles it makes for better breaking up of stains and soils. With top loading washers this will vary by agitator design, but IMHO none will do the job same as an H-Axis washer.
 
The results are in...

.
4.9 SCORE TESTED BY EXPERTS
The Speed Queen AWNE92SP113TW is better than 2% of the washing machines we tested.
It is better than 1% of the washing machines we have tested under $1,000.
It is better than 1% of the top-loading washing machines we have tested.

They conclude:

It doesn't clean as well as a more modern machine, and it's not as efficient as the best front-loaders, but that flashy new washer also won't have Speed Queen's five-year warranty or commercial design.
We can't recommend that tradeoff, which explains why this machine gets such a low score. That's because our priorities are stain removal, fabric handling, and efficiency. If your priorities are a long warranty and commercial-grade durability, however, the Speed Queen AWNE92SP113TW may be worth a look.

http://laundry.reviewed.com/content/speed-queen-awne92sp113tw-washing-machine-review
stricklybojack-2016081019291701753_1.jpg

stricklybojack-2016081019291701753_2.jpg

stricklybojack-2016081019291701753_3.jpg
 
Think what many are forgetting

Is how laundry was traditionally done when using even wringer washers, that is before fully automatic top loaders came along.

When washing was done by hand, and or using say a conventional washer there was a whole lot of prep work before the actual washing began.

First stains were treated for removal. Then came a pre-wash or soak (white, badly soiled or stained, etc...), finally would come the main wash followed by one, two or even three rinses.

As top loading automatics took over with their supposed promise of faster/load and go laundry days many of the old ways were discarded.

Here is a video from a past Wash-In showing members putting a Maytag wringer washer through its paces. You can hear someone say "these towels are still dirty....". Proving even with that washer's famous "Gyrafoam" action that could not be sufficient to remove all soiling. Now I know what you are going to say; well just leave things in the wash longer. Well yes, suppose you *could* do that, but if you were a housewife in the 1940's or 1950's with several more loads to get done along with God knows how many other household chores, leaving one load to wash for hours on end likely wasn't on.



From one looking a possibly nabbing a wringer washer to speed though large loads of linens, it would be for just that; doing wash that isn't badly stained/soiled and only needs average washing. Anything badly stained or dirty will continue going into the Miele or AEG.
 
I have always used a TL'er. Last August I bought a SQ AWN432 used it for roughly9 months. Did I have clean clothes, you bet I did..but I worket at it. I shut the washer off midway thru the wash cycle for a soak as I felt this was more gentle than turning the dial back around for another 15/18 minutes of agitation. I also used more products, detergents, boosters, phosphates..than there's the water temp...my water heater is set at 120 something (I have young grandkids) sooo I heated soup pots of water on the stove to help boost the temp, I'm old enough to know temperature does matter IMO....my TL automatics were never truely automatic. Two months ago I got my first FL a Whirlpool Duet WFW95HEDW0...I went out and bought a few boxes of powder detergent HE...I was most curious to wash a load of my vintage percale sheets (white) in HOT water so I proceded to wash a load at around 154F and a tiny at least compared to what I used to use detergent 2Tablespoons. ..cycle was just over 2 hours, that's fine with me...I had my doubts but once they came out of the machine they were brilliantly white and smelled so darn fresh and all I had to do was load the sheets and detergent and push a few buttons. Every load I've done so far, and with a family of 5 I do a lot...have been white, bright, stain free.. I used to read here and other places about how well FL'ers cleaned, frankly I couldn't understand how with so little water and detergent. I thought my white sheets could not possibly ever be whiter, they are. All this with very little energy on my part. I will never go back, I'm very hard to please when it comes to clean laundry, but this Duet has greatly pleased. me. I'm now a die hard FL fan LOL
 
I agree with you mamapinky, I have ALWAYS had top load washers until this last time over 2 years ago now. I bought an LG made Kenmore Elite washer & dryer that stack on top of each other since that saved a little space and makes it easier to pull stuff out of the dryer and hang it up. I picked out the set which had the largest capacity available at the time. I could not be anymore pleased with the results. Now I do admit, it takes much longer to wash and rinse a load of clothes because I use the longest cycle with the temp boost and 3 extra rinses. Everything comes out perfectly clean, lint free and has virtually NO wear and tear on my clothing from tumbling around. If you have multiple loads of clothes you have to do everyday, it might not be the kind of washer you need. But for me it works fine. It also cuts the drying time easily into at least half because it extracts so much water from the clothes. Reminds me of my old Rapidry 1000 Frigidaire I used to have, but none of the linting problems. I do think if one must have a top load machine that speed queen is the one to have, but they do seem to still have issues. Maybe your machine was an isolated incident, I don't know. But there have been many problems with them in the past. I personally like all the options I have with my machine, particularly that you can heat the water to temps that far surpass what your hot water tank can deliver by the time it gets to your machine. Speed Queen does not offer that option on either the top loader or the front loader. You take whatever temp the water is when it reaches the machine, which is too bad. I do think that part of the reason my front loader washes so well is because of the long washing time. How can something not get clean if it tumbles in soapy water for at least an hour? So I am sold on front load machines. Especially after seeing how some of the new top loaders work. They seem to twist and pull and use a great deal of friction and rubbing on the clothes when "washing" them. It would have to create a lot of linting too. I can only observe what I see in youtube videos though, since I have never had one or care to have one. I know that my old jet action Frigidaire with the cone agitator really did have a linting problem. When I bought new towels I had to wash them in a big front loader to get rid of the new lint on them because the Frigidaire was incapable of doing it. Much as I have always loved top load washers, I would never buy one again.
 
It will surprise absolutely no one that I've been carrying the banner for front-loaders since purchasing a Frigidaire in 1987. In a nod toward HE things to come, I realized very quickly that lowering the water level actually improved washing and rinsing action.  I used the lowest water level setting at first, but eventually popped the top and adjusted the thingy.  

 

Looking ahead a few years, I will probably sell the house and move into an apartment.  Have already picked the place.  There's a garage for each tenant and laundry hook-ups rather than a communal coin-op laundry room.  Here's the cool part: Each tenant's laundry is actually in the hallway right next to their front door.  These little alcoves look like a double closet with no doors on it.  Why the 8-plex is arranged this way, I have no idea.  Looks like the place was built in the mid-1960s.  At any rate, you can see what kind of washer/dryer everyone has.  No bothersome/embarrassing/illegal snooping around in their apartments, LOL.

 

Hi, Ben!

[this post was last edited: 8/11/2016-08:40]
 
my take...

Hola compadres.
I'm back from hiatus.
Figured I'd throw my few cents in the coin tray.

1. Reviewed.com is pretty awesome with their testing, except in areas where they are not. They are NOT technical people in any regard to machinery, except when it comes to running experiments. And when they do run experiments, I think they're good at execution, but they have very shallow knowledge of the "why and how" of the results. Therefore they just spew data to readers with little explanation.

2. The politics here are amusing. There's a deep thread of "don't tread on me or my water guzzling appliances." LOL. But what many forget, except for those esteemed members in our arid Southwest, is that water is a limited, shared resource. It even impacts us here in the Midwest with our vast Great Lakes. In a sense where other areas/states are always trying to get their grubby hands on our lake water! Because they've already squandered their wells and such.
On top of that, the more efficient appliances save myself and others a great deal of money.

3. However, some argue that the newer appliance do not last long anymore. And that's a valid complaint. The complaint that they use less water/energy, yet break down sooner and cannot be repaired, therefore wiping out their net savings, can be valid as well. But on a whole, I don' t think so. Not to mention, appliances are far far FAR cheaper today than they used to be 20-40 years ago. Yet the statistics I've seen say that they last just about as long as appliances of yesteryear. Averaging 7-10 years.
Now, individual experiences may laugh in the face of that data. But...on the whole, I've started to believe, from repairmen testimony, and my own visual observations, that these "old and bulletproof appliances just don't seem to be around that much anymore. Except for KitchenAid dishwashers. LOL.
THOSE legitimately just do not die.
And yes, my parents still have their 1982 LA511 Maytag washer, but it's on borrowed time. The dryer bit the dust YEARS ago to be replaced by a 2004 Neptune dryer that's still going strong (with its evil electronics and everything).
BUT, NOBODY else I know, from friends or family, have any appliances older than the mid 90s. They don't. They're gone. They all broke down, to be replaced by modern machines that are more efficient, and work very well and aging averagely as well; 7-10 or more years active. My Maytag Maxima set also cost me HALF the price as my parents paid for their Maytags back in the 80s, as a percentage of paychecks. And I expect to get 7-10 years out of them. Maybe with a repair or two, which I can do myself as an advantage. And if need be, I can buy another set.
To which my machines would be mostly recycled, melted down and used to make other machines.

4. With that said, I get the huge draw to Speed Queen in this community. They're very traditional. They're tough. They're US made. But with all that nostalgia comes the realities of yesteryear. Such as HUGE amounts of water use. Detergent use, clothing wear and tear, as well as lackluster washability.
I'm glad SQ still makes machines like these. But they're not for me. I think there's better machines out there for my needs. But that doesn't mean SQ is bad. Yet they by no means deserve the jingoistic pedestal they're put on by others either. IMO of course ;)

5. And finally the climate change debate, real quick, since office snack time is almost over.
What I LOVE about climate change is that the science behind it. Any science really, will be right, whether you believe it or not.
Those who fight, bully, deny and bark against the fact that the climate is changing at a more rapid rate, will eventually be surprised. Or their kids will be. It'll happen no matter what they say. And if I'm lucky, I'll get to see their coastal properties sink under water.
The Trumpster is already starting to build a sea wall around one of his Irish golf courses because over the decades, the water level keeps creeping upon the land. LOL! The Exxon CEO's mansion on the Outer Banks will be under water in 20 years, OR LESS! It does not matter what they say.
All of our flights will have more turbulence because of the ever increasing warmth of the planetary air. You can scream as much as you want how much it's a hoax, but the airlines will still log that ever-increasing level of turbulent flights. Your wells and lakes will continue to recede, starving your 30 gallon top loader from the water is so preys upon.

Cheers!
 
Climate change and science

Yes, real unbiased well understood science does not lie. But again, the scientific community can not agree as to whats behind climate change for a variety of reasons. Just Google the terms and you will find a plethora of contradicting reports, papers and data. I find it interesting how those preaching climate change as being man made support half the evidence while denying the other half as though it does not exist. Discarding information which is otherwise inconvenient. BTW, you want to know the biggest green house gas of all? Try water.

Its kind of like R-12 refrigerant. The government put the blame on HVAC techs and people using propellants when the US military emitted countless times more through aviation cleaners. At least in that case it was determined without contradiction CFCs were a danger to the atmosphere.

But when it comes to climate change the science is not only far more complex, but there are special interests at work too...
 
"Speed Queen's cult following can't justify its

Thanks for the heads up :)

http://laundry.reviewed.com/content...=usat&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=collab

To that I say Oh please. Until they can say exactly how they did those tests I ain't buying it. Again, the detergent in the softener does it for me. Americans have been using top load washers for 50 years with great results, yet all of a sudden it seems a tried technology can't do what it once did.
 
"and they're easy to fix if they do break"

Sorry for the triple post, I can not edit, but to that I call BS!!!!!!! Speed Queen may last a long time, but they are among the hardest washers to fix hands down ever created. A pump, timer and belt are easy; but try a transmission, tub seal, bearing, or anything else for that matter and its far easier (and cheaper) to junk the whole machine. You need special tools and knowledge which will deter DIYs while repair men will call out sick awaiting hours of labor. 20 years from now when these machines start to fail every last one of them will end up in a land fill.

Once again we have an article (propaganda) taken to heart by many which can not keep its facts straight.
 
Climate change

Ok, first I have to state that I am convinced man made climate change does exist.

But even if it's not man made, it sure is there. I mean, it was 5C this morning here in the middle of Germany. In August. I mean - that is the hottest month in the year for the most part.

And even if i is not entirely man made, why can't we do something about it? If your dog chews on your carpets, you don't cause it, but it affects you, and as you can do something about it, you do something about it.
 
chetlaham-- reviewed.com explained the 'detergent in the softener dispenser' controversy in a reply to someone's comment. The (undoubtedly non-washerhead) video team, not the testers, decided they needed to do that shot to add some color to the edit. I'm sure they thought "who the hell will notice?" We at AW caught it immediately, of course. 

 

I follow the tests done by Consumer Reports.  While they've nearly eliminated the in-depth play-by-play surrounding tests (and a big thumbs-down for that), their testing protocol is actually better than it used to be.

 

reviewed.com is interesting to read, but I don't take their tests as seriously as I do CR's. CR is even more methodical and they don't accept advertising or corporate money. They buy units off the shelf just like we do and then test them.

 

Having said that, I'll read what little they still put in their articles and occasionally go "oh, really?" at a comment like "...tangling that's caused by high spin speeds".  No, the tangling occurs during the 45-minute wash portion of the cycle, not during the spin.  Despite gaffs like that, I rely on what they say when making a new purchase--along with some user reviews and the input of AW members.  Haven't been let down.  Others will argue differently, but that's been my experience with CR.
 

Similar threads

Unimatic1140
Samsung 240 volt Vented Combo!
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
1K
phillymatt53
P
pierreandreply4
What was the us counterpart of this canadien made kenmore whirlpool washer
Replies
1
Views
165
drummerboy928
drummerboy928
D
You know something
Replies
0
Views
60
d-todd
D
cadman
"The Last Word" – Whirlpool's 1961 Ultimatic - 16mm Film
2
Replies
20
Views
770
agiflow
A
T
VOA
2
Replies
21
Views
185
tomturbomatic
T

Latest posts

Back
Top