Who thinks moderns of washers of today should bring back true wash and rinse tempatures?

[washman]

Well Frig I stand corrected

See, I haven't subscribed in many years nor do I even look at them in the supermarket.

Thus, my SQ will safely reside in it's current location until sometime next year when I raise the scratch to buy a home.

 

[frigilux]

Not a problem, Ben; just wanted to clarify.

Full disclosure to members: I own an AWN542, although it is not my daily driver. Despite the difference in scores between the LG and the SQ, I am purchasing an SQ pair for my sister on her birthday next month. I'm not a fan of impeller-based top-loaders. She and her husband just moved to a condo and the Whirlpool pair left behind by the former owners are on their last legs. She is used to using top-loaders, and I think the very traditional SQ will be the best fit for her. They don't produce much laundry, so the energy costs won't be an issue.

Personally, I am a strong proponent of modern front-loaders, which provide great cleaning, large capacity, ultra-fast spin speeds, and superior water and energy efficiency.[this post was last edited: 6/25/2014-21:29]

 

[washman]

addendum

I KNEW this LG model looked familiar.........it's the "auto explode" model!

Here's a link to some, ahem, satisfied users.

Loading…

ths.gardenweb.com

 

[frigilux]

It is my understanding that LG solved the "exploding" problem with their new models (like the one referenced above) which have metal support brackets for the suspension rods, heavier-duty shock absorbers, and air bags.

Of course, that doesn't excuse them for having produced the exploding top-loaders in the first place--and then "fixing" the recalled models via software changes that radically reduced spin speeds. File under: Shoddy Corporate Behavior[this post was last edited: 6/25/2014-21:35]

 

[jeffg]

"It's impossible to discuss this subject without it, at least here in the U.S."

>> But not in "Deluxe" but in "Dirty Laundry" according to the rules.

So the thread may or may not be misplaced, according to the rules and how the admins feel about it. It's a separate issue from the above requirement.

 

[warmsecondrinse]

I think we're conflating issues here...

The issue of wash temps must be separate from the issue of efficient use of energy and water. Why? because oil, grease, and other stains do not change the temps at which they dissolve/change state/etc. simply because of the tools or resources we humans have available. More simply put: Human skin oil will not start melting at a lower temp in response to a government mandate. It is not physically possible that 'the government' (as if it were a person) could know what wash or rinse temps are best for a given load of laundry. The operator of the washer does. Period. 'The government' cannot be right, except by accident.

If the government were actually concerned with conservation of resources, it'd subsidize the cost of the most efficient FLs to make them a better investment in both short and long terms. The less water a given washer uses, the less it should cost the consumer UP FRONT. Even then, it should let the operator decide the temps and cycles.

Jim

 

[henene4]

Melting human skin...

Why am I thinking about "The day after"? XD
Anyway, I am happy with what EU producers did: Expelling dumbed down temps to a specified Eco cycle.

 

[murando531]

In regards to the reason the majority of people with HE impeller style washers are unhappy with them, just watch this video. Skip towards the middle if you want to get to the "action". This is with a decent sized load of clothes, and yet there is barely any water to be seen, and the clothes are hardly moving, much less wet. I have heard of these washers working well, but 9/10 of those people that have said that also stated that it worked well with only small loads, where the clothes can move and flex. I take most reviews with a grain of salt; Consumer Reports is a regulated joke, and I quickly dismiss anything that uses simple phrases like "Great washer" or "I love it", but you can tell when a review is sincere because they actually go into a bit of detail about what they like, along with what they dislike, and when you read the detailed reviews from people that are unhappy with their product, they all align with the same sentence "The clothes barely move, and some are even still dry". What's more, you can find many videos of these washers, all with the same results.

The point is, you simply can't get good results with the amount of water these machines use, regardless of how it operates. There's just not enough for it to flow through the clothes and suspend the dirt and soap. The lack of hot, or even decently warm water furthers the problem, because no matter what the "engineers" or DOE think, oils and most dirt can't liquefy and break loose without heat.

I think it will get to a point where health concerns will emerge, and most likely it will be from long term effects of what's being put in our detergents. We're taking away all the natural resources that are needed to perform well, and replacing them with strong chemicals to do the job that common sense physics does perfectly already. I don't know why money is not being invested more into finding ways to recycle our water more efficiently, only to be told that we just need to use less (I wouldn't be surprised if one day we're told to adjust our bodies to need less water as well), and why it's okay for chemicals to replace what heat does naturally, but like some of the other points stated earlier, that's for a different forum.

 

[murando531]

My ideal washer, if I had no choice but to own an HE TL or FL, would be first and foremost something that gave me the option to use what I needed. If a washer complied with regulations on default settings but also allowed the user to choose true hot tap water when needed, or increase the water level for extra heavy loads *without* using the "Bulky/Bedding" cycle, I think both sides would be happy.

Washers used to have that choice, like the Maytag Atlantis with the Auto Temp control option. You COULD use it if you wanted and it would regulate the temperature to save energy, but you weren't forced to. The same goes for ATC units now. It's not that we don't welcome the idea of the machine saving hot water for the sake of lowering energy use, but hot water is a requirement now and then, and the consumer should be allowed to disable the ATC in those scenarios. Give me a washer that allows me to do that without jumping through hoops to hack into the machine, and I'll gladly use the normal eco settings under everyday conditions.

 

[NYCWriter]

Agreed, Andrew ...

"The point is, you simply can't get good results with the amount of water these machines use, regardless of how it operates. There's just not enough for it to flow through the clothes and suspend the dirt and soap. The lack of hot, or even decently warm water furthers the problem, because no matter what the "engineers" or DOE think, oils and most dirt can't liquefy and break loose without heat."

I feel the same way about Swiffers and floors.

I'm sorry, but you simply cannot get the same clean as you get with a bucket of hot water, cleanser, and tons of elbow grease.

 

[frigilux]

"Consumer Reports is a regulated joke."

Regulated how and by whom? Provide evidence that this is a statement based in fact.[this post was last edited: 6/28/2014-00:20]

 

[tolivac]

Consumer Reports IS a joke-that is why I no longer subscribe to them-their product reviews are becoming a laughing stock!Esp their vacuum reports!

 

[jeffg]

Eugene, I would have used a different word than regulated, but imo CR lost their credibility years ago. Instead of objective testing, they start with their own subjective and presupposed lists of industry and/or government-driven "features" most important to THEM (e.g. for washer reviews, ridiculously limited water consumption), and then proceed to rate items against these subjective expectations. It's pretty much useless for anything other than marketing purposes, and misleading consumers into asking the wrong questions about consumer goods.