Why are Top Loaders Cheaper than Front Loaders?

[qualin]

Hi Pierre. I would have mailed you privately, but it looks like you are a basic member.

I don't really appreciate how you've been thread jacking. This is the third thread where I've asked a valid question and you've jacked it with the same rhetoric.

This thread was about why Front Loaders are more expensive than Top loaders, not how they are better. (Or not.) If I wanted to listen to a sales person, I'd go to an appliance store.

It is considered to be very very bad netiquette to jack other peoples threads with a topic very different than what was being discussed.

If you really want to discuss it in depth, create your own thread and spout your rhetoric there... and if people ignore it, live with it instead of continuing to jack other threads with the same damn pictures over and over again.

So, to put it bluntly, Aladude has mentioned it and now I'm mentioning it and now Powerfin is calling for your ban. Smarten up and think twice before you post, ask yourself if you have anything worthwhile to contribute to a thread before you post.
[this post was last edited: 11/16/2011-05:02]

 

[qualin]

Reponses

To Sudsmaster:
> It's because the front loaders are made in the USA and the top loaders are made
> in Canada.

With the dollar almost at parity, that does make me scratch my head. Personally, I do wish there was a company based out of Canada which made appliances. The closest we have I believe is Bombardier, but they make everything you wouldn't want to buy. (No, I don't own a Snowmobile. )

> Seriously, the top loaders are old, proven technology.

Well, if you count the old 1910-era Wringer Washers being "Top Loaders", then yeah, I would definitely say that is old technology.

> esp the BOL ones, with plastic wash baskets and paper thin sheet metal
> cabinetry.

I have to admit, those make me cringe. The first time I saw a top loader with a plastic basket, I nearly cringed in horror. It's bad enough the agitator is made from plastic, (As opposed to?) but that's really environmentally unfriendly, not to mention IMHO not very hygienic.. I mean, I wouldn't buy a plastic toilet...

The thin metal cabinetry makes me wonder about the frame inside of the washer, wether or not they've cut corners on that as well, so that over time, things become misaligned due to the vibration of the tub from spins and such.

>To get a good wash a front loader needs to work smarter than a top loader, and
>this costs money for R&D and electronic controls.

Good point. One thing I have noticed a lot is that front loaders do come with a lot more "Bells and Whistles" as far as being able to select things electronically. I guess it doesn't help either they throw in frills like VRT and Powerfoam, etc, etc.
---

Agree with all of you on the R&D part. I can see why American manufacturers are trying to recoup their R&D costs, because nobody made large capacity front loading consumer targeted machines before and they do have to stand up to a lot of vibration, water, chemicals, etc.

---
To Launderess:

I do agree, it was one of the reasons why I would go into a laundromat.. Stuffing some huge item into a 50 lb'er because there's no way it would fit into the top loader. I can see how that is an expensive proposition for a laundromat too. These machines just do not come cheap. I seem to recall hearing from a laundromat owner about how a Wascomat Triple Loader set him back $12k..

---

And finally to Pierre:

My Top Loader has 28 cycles and an incredible amount of options to choose from. My Front loader has 6 cycles and only really five options to choose from. I kind of figured since I paid $830 for this washer when I bought it new, I was paying around $500 to have all of those extra options available to me. If I had decided to go with a MOL or BOL washer, I would have been looking at around the $300-$500 mark for a machine.

So no, they're not always easier to operate than a front loader. That's beside the point though.. the point I was making is that electronics certainly do bring up the price of a machine, that's for sure.

 

[mrb627]

R&D

It certainly seems that more than enough R&D is being put towards the TL market these days. But it seems that for the most part, the research is towards how to make the machines cheaper and the life span shorter.

Malcolm

 

[whitetub]

I am skeptic about the R&D making the price higher. Front-loading washers have been around for a very long time. Since the fifties, if not longer. I think the manufacturers see that people want them, that they are trendy. And they use less water. And they are trying to convince people that the money they will save by using them will pay for the price difference in the long run. It's a marketing scheme. I am not biased against the FL, I own one myself.

And the reason why the traditionnal top loaders are so cheap. Nobody wants them anymore. The only way to sell them is to lower the price.

Just like the flat screen tv's and the bubble tv's.

That's my theory.

 

[qualin]

Replies

To Malcolm:

It seems to me that applies to any industry. Cost cut until you can't sell product, come out with something new that doesn't suck and then cost cut again until it does. Such is the way of the beancounter vs Engineer. (GM and Mopar come to mind here right away.)

What boondoggles me is just how much more expensive washplate style washers are over conventional top loaders, even though it's nearly the same technology but without a lot of the bits a traditional top loader would have.. like a ratcheting auger on the agitator, transmission, etc, etc. Maybe it's the electronics?

To Whitetub:

I think you are fairly correct. Back in 2004, new large capacity front loaders were fairly new and hence more expensive. Again, maybe supply vs demand...

 

[arbilab]

++++++++++++++++++++++++
Maybe it's the electronics?
++++++++++++++++++++++++

I've been in that business. That $150 board it costs to replace can't cost more than $20 to make. Not much design work either, the design is mostly dictated by the chipset, just copy it off the spec sheet. The only work that goes into it is hiring a programmer to write the code and it doesn't take a very advanced programmer to write washer code. These days, marketing determines what they want the machine to do, they email that to a programmer in India making 1/3 what a US engineer costs.

 

[qualin]

That still kind of blows me away that washing machines need software. I mean, it is understandable, but it makes me wonder how complex the software is in modern machines.

 

[arbilab]

Sequential-machine firmware is the easiest to write. I'm not even a professional coder and I can do it.

If you want your whole panel to be buttons, displays, and no clockwork, firmware is unavoidable. It's by no means necessary for laundry. Clockwork timers got clothes perfectly clean. My washer is clockwork and I have no complaints about it. Clockwork tends to be more reliable than electronics. Or at least, washers tended to be more reliable in the clockwork days than in the firmware days. Eh?

But to an extent, buyers want digital displays and program buttons they don't even understand. I sure the hockeysticks can't explain that. I'm an engineer not a marketer.

 

[launderess]

Every Type of Washing Machine

Has it's virtues and will produce clean and sanitised laundry if the thing is done correctly.

Whilst one adores the Miele and indeed all front loaders (built in heater preferred), there are times when one wants more control over what one is washing and or the load isn't well suited.

For instance when one has large or small numbers of all the same items such as napkins, then a front loader may *not* be the best choice. A proper load for both cleaning and spin distribution in such a machine consists of a varied load. Often when doing napkins by the third or fourth rinse things end up horribly unbalanced during the following spin.

Happily one has the Hoover TT and Whirlpool TL (amoung others) to get things done. For large amounts of napkins with today's modern detergents can soak them overnight and they are practically clean. Then it's off into the Hoover or Whirlpool mainly for rinsing and spinning dry. Items requiring more heavy duty cleaning can be boiled in my range top lessiveuse,followed by rinsing as above.

There are also times one does not wish nor require the endless cycles and buckets of time the Miele takes to do a wash.

 

[haxisfan]

If I may... I don't quite agree there :-O

@ Launderess: I found that a front loader is suitable for anything in my book.

I've washed anything possible and imaginable in my front loader of any size and shape and no once I've experienced an imbalance drama or any issues of any sort. Wash times are adjusted accordingly not just by the software but also by the intervention of the user. E.g. I'm likely to use a short cycle or options such as the 'time saver' facility if I've got a small load.

I don't understand the bit about the out of balance issue... surely that becomes a real problem in a TL as the items are sitting at the bottom of a kinda turntable and the don't have a chance to reshuffle (unless you do it manually)... a FL instead has the ability to rearrange the articles as many times as necessary. Things become are little more complicated when proportions are not worked out properly, some trouble related to balance is more likely to happen within such structures which bear huge drums in confined spaces... which is increasingly the case nowadays over here too: manufacturers offering bigger capacity FLs while maintaining the same size cabinet.

I guess we can generalize to an extent but it all depends on the specific machine we're dealing with no matter whether it's an FL or a TL: some machines are not as flexible as others. For example I would utterly abhor a FL which doesn't allow for some kind of leeway in wash times and temperatures... having said that, most of them do but extremely basic ones.

Sorry for going off-topic again

Ciao

 

[launderess]

My Miele Is An Older W1070

And while "electronic" it only tries a few times to balance a load then it's off.

Washing large amounts of napkins or other items of all the same size is generally not recommended for front loaders. Things tend to ball up and or otherwise do not make for proper washing.

All of our table linen is just that pure linen, some of it of the older heavy variety. Once that lot gets wet it does become quite heavy and often as stated above the washer ends up unbalanced. It will spin but shakes and vibrates. One supposes new motherboard controlled washers have ways to avoid this, but I wouldn't know about that.

The Whirlpool TL is actually less sensitive to unbalanced issues especially with loads of all the same size items. Then again there is less tangling going on and the basket merely has to push items to the side as it spins.

For various reasons one prefers to launder linen outside of a front loader, so don't mind using the FL or TT. Have even been known to wash my huge vintage French linen/hemp sheets in a wash tub.

 

[passatdoc]

Where I live, rebates from the water district and the gas company can amount to $150 or more, thus blurring the price point difference between FL and TL. However, to get these rebates, a washer must now be considered "Tier III" in water efficiency. An EnergyStar designation in and of itself does not qualify for a rebate.

My FL, Frig 2140, is still in production and now can be had for $400 or less...but it no longer qualifies for a rebate [though it did when purchased in early 2006]. A very basic machine, with a few features missing that I wish I had (ATC and variable delay wash between the chief two), but it's rugged, has gone nearly six years with zero issues* or repairs, and washes everything nice and clean except for king-sized comforters, which require a trip to the laundromat. Has all the cyles I need: heavy, normal, perm press, delicate, handwash, and sport (for synthetic athletic clothes). A new larger machine (4.4+ cu ft) probably could handle a king comforter.

The newer FLs, the ones that qualify for the $150 in rebates, all seem to be priced higher, so I wonder if---at least in our area---the retailers build the expected rebates into the sales price and thus sell the rebate models for more. Paying the base price, you'd probably never recoup the price difference between newer and older models in terms of utility savings, but with the rebate thrown in, maybe you would save (at least a little...).

I think the other issue, at least in USA, is that the water use standards have tightened under government mandate. Several years ago, the wash quality of mass-produced TLs in USA (I don't mean HE TL but traditional agitator TLs) declined to the point were Consumer Reports could not recommend ANY of them because none of them washed satisfactorily: they simply used too little water to wash and rinse the clothes. They rated TLs that year (c. 2008) but gave none of them a Recommended or Best Buy designation. I think poor CR ratings (used by many consumers, even if their system has limitations for more knowledgeable consumers such as AW.org readers) plus the known issues of higher water and energy (to heat the water) are enough to depress the prices.

Having been a house guest in Europe numerous times, to me it seemed that clothes just felt cleaner when washed in a FL in Europe vs. a TL at home. When my FL was first installed, I ran a load of already clean clothes (hanging in the closet) without any detergent. I stopped the machine mid-cycle and saw SUDS in the water---leftover residue from having been washed in my TL, which did not have an Extra Rinse option---no way it could compete with three rinses after the wash in my FL. I am not sure if all consumers know about this issue, but some do, plus there are articles describing how FLs are gentler on clothes and that they therefore last longer (another hidden savings).

Even though we here know about some of the low built quality issues (aluminum spiders, plastic doors, etc.) on modern FLs, the general public looks at cost of operation, quality of washing, gentleness on clothes.....most have no idea about durability, and some now see washers as something you periodically replace every five years (nonsense to me, but....).

*a few months ago the magnet fell out of the dispenser, causing the machine to stall, but I found it on the floor, reinserted it, and it works fine now. Most likely it dislodged because I dropped the dispenser on the floor while airing it to dry, i.e. my fault and not the machine's. [this post was last edited: 11/21/2011-10:37]

 

[Jsneaker]

Post# 558270, Reply# 41 11/21/2011 at 10:21 by PassatDoc

Hi Doc! While I am quite happy with the total cleaning & extraction performance of my 2010 Samsung WA448AAW, I wish the machine had full-width "normal-size" tumble vanes, to create far better drop. While my drum has the "diamond pattern", and "full"-height-across vanes, they are too short in height and width, clothes slide past the front of the vanes because of the tilted drum. Some of the cheaper Samsung's don't have the diamond drum and have dual-height(if any!)vanes. By the way, my brother's 1999 Passat V6, now gone, was a true "money pit"! While he took excellent care of it and didn't beat on it, I sure hope our Samsung will not end-up costing a mint to repair! We, too, remove & empty the dispenser drawer and leave the door open after every wash, therefore the machine still smells new! The machine is in the basement out of the way.

 

[passatdoc]

My 1998 Passat 1.8T costs about $600 a year to maintain. Gets 35 mpg on the highway which is hard to beat, except with a diesel or hybrid. When it starts to become a money pit, I'll get a new one.

I've never seen a FL in a European home with the door closed when not in use, just about everyone I know keeps the door ajar. I think that closing the door is a major cause of mold and odor here. One of the major manufacturers (may be Frigidaire) now makes a clip that allows you to keep the door ajar but it's supposedly childproof so kids can't open the door and climb inside.

 

[launderess]

All Washing Machines

Top and front loading should have their lids left open after laundry day is done for proper airing. If you walk past any well run laundromat after it closes you will see doors on washers left up/open overnight.

 

[eronie]

top load

i can put 12 pair of farm dirty jeans in my bol ge ff and they come out clean !!! in a euro fl that would be 4 loads!!

 

[ronhic]

in a euro fl that would be 4 loads!!

...only if you've a particularly big butt.

 

But seriously, a pair of jeans weighs somewhere between 450gm and 900gm, depending on which sex they are for and the denier of the fabric....let's say about 650gms or about 1.5lb for an average mens size 36....

 

In that case, my Euro front load machine with its 6.5kg capacity would only hold 10 'average' pairs - hardly small capacity.

 

....but a new machine of the same make would take 12....

[this post was last edited: 11/22/2011-00:18]