Top-loaders the new incandescent bulb

Page 1 of 2  
From the Wall Street Journal:
"In 1996, top-loaders were pretty much the only type of washer around, and they were uniformly high quality. When Consumer Reports tested 18 models, 13 were "excellent" and five were "very good." By 2007, though, not one was excellent and seven out of 21 were "fair" or "poor." This month came the death knell: Consumer Reports simply dismissed all conventional top-loaders as 'often mediocre or worse.' "
Demise of top-loaders blamed on government regulations.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704662604576202212717670514.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
It's for the children.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Wall Street Journal "Opinion." Blame the gov because they can't get their clothes clean. They need a nanny who washes clothes too. I bought a new GE top loader about 3 years ago when the 30 year old Kenmore stopped working. Just asked my wife if it got the clothes clean as well as the Kenmore. The answer was "Yes." She added, "You do have to know how to wash clothes. You know, how much detergent to use, when to use bleach. You know."
--Vic
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It would be the "opinion" of the WSJ if that was all there is to it. However, it's backed up by testing done by Consumer Reports, which clearly found new top loaders to be inferior. They are the testing agency that says the machines don't clean, not the WSJ.
I suppose you think the govt can just throw out a new regulation saying you now have to clean clothes using just a fraction of the water and energy that was used previously and it has no effect on the washers you can design, how they actually clean clothes and how much they cost. Here's a clue, those regulations have real impact and this is one more good example.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Was the "inferior" compared to front loaders, or were they comparing them to similar top loaders of an earlier era?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:32:28 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

The WSJ grabbed a CR "evaluation" to suit its politics. I canceled CR years ago and they keep begging me back to their web site and keep sending me their monthly magazine free. Don't need nanny CR anymore. I do scan the free issues when I'm on the toilet. You can get plenty of buyers' reviews on sellers' websites. Multiple users and evaluations, not the test of one machine that CR does. According to that WSJ article CR "tested" 21 top-loaders. The Sears website alone offers 63 different model top-loaders. This entire thread is a great example of how believing a rag that suits your politics leads to "dumbing down."

Bullshit a fraction of the water. My wife can set the water level where ever she wants it by turning a damn dial. Same with wash cycle. Same with hot/cold water. You don't have to buy a GM Volt. You don't have to buy a Nissan Leaf. You don't have to buy a washer with "automatic" water levels. Plenty of top-loaders without that for sale. You let CR and the WSJ tell you how to wash clothes. I'll trust user experience and my wife. Then we'll see who gets clean clothes (-:
--Vic
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

proof you are a tard
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 09:03:01 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@privacy.net wrote:

Not my fault you ain't smart enough to get a wife to do your laundry. yuck-yuck
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

ahh a sexist tard!!
does she wipe your ass when you poop your pants too?
<snicker>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Vic Smith wrote:

She probably uses TSP.
Or, knowing your disposition, takes them to the washateria while your back is turned.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

== Better than "laundrymat" that one of my friends uses...I moan every time I hear it. ==
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

WTF? When I used laundrymats we said "Let's go the laundrymat." When I was in the laundrymat I would have people ask me "You know of a better laundrymat around here?" Nobody moaned. --Vic
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

== "Laundromat" is the usual term in these here parts stranger. ==
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

--Vic
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/19/2011 12:05 PM, Vic Smith wrote:

Must be a regional thing. In Indiana, we always called them laundromats. Don't thing I have ever heard or seen it as laundrymat until this thread.
But all in all, 'shrug'. As long as y'all knew what each other meant, that is all that really matters. I found it confusing when I moved to SW MI, and noticed that a lot of people still called hamburgers 'hamburgs'. Silly me, I thought that was just an abbreviation busy waitresses used on the old green-and-white order tickets.
--
aem sends...

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Just normal Gain powdered detergent.

now.
--Vic
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://www.energy.ca.gov/releases/2009_releases/2009-10-29_clotheswashers.html
"Under state legislation passed in 2002, the Energy Commission established standards to ensure washing machines sold in California after 2007 use no more than 8.5 gallons of water per cubic foot of washing machine capacity, later decreased to six gallons by 2010.
Water efficient washing machines will use on average only 21.1 gallons per wash, or 8,271 gallons a year - compared to typical models that used an average of 39.2 gallons per wash or 15,366 gallons a year for a normal household three years ago. "
Those are for CA, but the federal govt has similar standards. So, it doesn't seem at all unreasonable to me that the new regulation would result in clothes that are not as clean. Who has actually tested them side by side? Your wife or Consumer Reports? Also, while your wife may still have some control over how much water the machine uses, she doesn't have control over the amount of energy used by the agitator does she? That has been reduced as well, and I've seen reports attributing lack of cleaning to that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 05:42:01 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

Hey, all I can say is my wife says the new machine cleans just like the old one. Good. That's "side by side" to me. There were also plenty of reviews on the Sears website saying the machine got clothes clean. You can worry about your own clothes, protest the government, or whatever you want to do. If you don't want an automatic water level sensor in your washer, buy one without one. That's what I did. And I don't live in California either.
--Vic
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Wall Street Journal "Opinion." Blame the gov because they can't get their clothes clean. They need a nanny who washes clothes too. I bought a new GE top loader about 3 years ago when the 30 year old Kenmore stopped working. Just asked my wife if it got the clothes clean as well as the Kenmore. The answer was "Yes." She added, "You do have to know how to wash clothes. You know, how much detergent to use, when to use bleach. You know."
--Vic
------------------
The old owners of our house did not have much taste and little knowledge about tools and appliances. They had a 9 year old 3.2 cubic foot GE top loader that used 45 to 55 gallons of water per load and never spin all the water out. The 5 cubic foot electric dryer they had took about 50 minutes to dry a load of 4 demin jeans and 5 cotton tee-shirts. And with winter in these parts about 4-5 months, you have to use that dryer or dry clothes inside (which we sometimes do)
This top loader was replaced with a GE 4 cubic foot front load washer that uses between 14 to 17 gallons of water. We know the usage because we have a water softening system that gives us flow rate and volume stats. So lets see. 1/3 the water (and energy to heat the water) for 20% more laundry. Made by the same brand. The GE gas dryer which is 7 cubic foot is natural gas. It takes about 39 to 45 minutes to dry a load and coasts us about 47 cents a load to dry, based on gas and kwhr charges in southwestern Ontario. Cost of gas hookup was $215.
We've not a problem with clean clothes in this house since switching to the front load and gas dryers. Front loaders use 1/3 the soap so clothes last longer (soap is harsh to clothing) and we use cold water except for the whites. Cold is gentler on clothes.
Our washer is prepare to wash years of cloth diapers which estimates will save us about $1500 in disposable diaper costs. Our washer and dryer pair were $1400 last October (Canadian dollars). Who knows the savings from making our clothes last longer with gentler and more efficient machines.
I sold the old pair for $75 to some landlord.
I can provide model numbers of our NEW Ge washer and dryer is anyone wants to research them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ive got front loader and LOVE IT
never go back
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message wrote:

Ive got front loader and LOVE IT
never go back
-------------
+ 1
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.