Top vs Front load water extraction and dry times

Page 2 of 2  
On 6/4/2012 5:06 PM, Jim Elbrecht wrote: ...

...
Oh, _that_ labor...wasn't thinking of that (as was obvious from response I suppose :) )
I repairs 'em meself or they be trash... :)
--
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We have owned front loaders for about 1-1/2 years after 40 years with top loaders. My guess is the front loaders use more time to wash and dry but I cannot quantify. The new machines have timer displays that estimate wash/dry time when you start a load and then they count down. But we have noticed, especially with the dryer, that, sometimes, the last part of a load counts down much quicker than the estimate. In other words, the last 15 minutes might only take 8-10 minutes.
We have also noticed that when the dryer stops, it is done. No throwing a towel or sweatshirt back in to finish. Wash and dry quality is better than the older machines - but they were older.
One thing for certain. The top load washer uses less water and combined they use less energy. After two month it was pretty clear that our water and electric bills were lower. There isn't much variance in use because it is wife and I and we are retired.
RonB
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

In the last paragraph, I think you mean front loader washer???
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Jun 6, 12:26 pm, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

Ron's comments in the paragraph that you responded to last was that front loaders use less water. He didn't appear to compare spin speeds or water extraction capabilities, at least not in that last paragraph.
How do the new top loaders compare to front loaders as far as water usage? Do they use as much as the older top loaders or considerably less?
I know that there is at least one top loader with a horizontal drum, which would compare to a front loaders from a water usage perspective, but my question is about the "normal" new top loaders.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

front loaders use far less water:) at the expense of reability and repair costs.....
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The Whirpool Cabrio is a counterexample. It's a top-loader (agitatorless) with high-speed spin cycles, with the repair costs of a front-loader. :-(
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Not so. The comment wasn't just a reply to the last paragraph, but in any case, *from* the last paragraph, "combined they use less energy"...
The lower energy consumption comes primarily because of the better water extraction with the high-speed spin cycles. The better top-loaders also have high-speed spin cycles.

The agitator-less use less water, but more than a typical front-loader. Unless your water costs are very high, I don't see this as a big advantage.

Understood. Define "normal". ;-)
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 13:05:49 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03

My 3.5 yr old Whirlpool top loader has a sensor that detects how much water to use based on your load. I think it uses a lot less water than the top loaders of say 10 plus years ago but I have no stats to back that up right now.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/7/2012 7:31 AM, Doug wrote:

In my case, using less water is not a good thing. My GE front loader uses very little water, but leave so much soap in the clothes, that I itch when wearing them. As I've said earlier in this long thread, I now wash a load with the extra rinse and then do a complete 2nd wash (no soap, except what comes out of the clothes) with extra rinse and even with that, sometimes there is soap residue. I think it happens when one piece of clothes gets tangled in another, which happens a lot with this machine.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Are you using regular or HE detergent?
Don. www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
One vote NO for front loaders. Now, who's got the minutes of last month's meeting?
You any relation to Ron Todesco, from Rochester, NY? Used to be appliance repair and sales guy. I may have spelled his name wrong.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
In my case, using less water is not a good thing. My GE front loader uses very little water, but leave so much soap in the clothes, that I itch when wearing them. As I've said earlier in this long thread, I now wash a load with the extra rinse and then do a complete 2nd wash (no soap, except what comes out of the clothes) with extra rinse and even with that, sometimes there is soap residue. I think it happens when one piece of clothes gets tangled in another, which happens a lot with this machine.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/7/2012 9:47 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:

Don't know Ron. Most Todescos spell it Tedesco or the plural, Tedeschi. Actually, in Italian it means German, FWIW .... not much.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I'd have to ask him the spelling. But, it sounds like no tracable relation. Real shame, the guy in Rochester is a very nice guy. You'd do well to be related to him. Or, he's missing out on a chance to be related to you?
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .

Don't know Ron. Most Todescos spell it Tedesco or the plural, Tedeschi. Actually, in Italian it means German, FWIW .... not much.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Are you perhaps using too much soap to start with?
We have a GE front loader (9 years old) and found that the extra rinse setting took care of any leftover soap if we cut back on the initial dose. A good test is to look at the glass window during the final rinse. There should be minimal suds at that point and none showing on the window after the final spin. Water hardness will make a difference too, of course. Ours is somewhat hard (from Lake Erie); but there's no question that the clothes get clean.
Tomsic
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thanks for all the replies.
I think I will keep my 20 year old Inglis top loader. It's easy and inexpensive to repair and the extra water extraction does not offer enough savings. Water is not metered here so that is not an issue although I conserve in other areas. Surprisingly, at 3 loads per week my estimated electric cost for drying is only $25/year (.06/kwh) so there's not much to save there.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

20 year old washer... hope you can still get parts in the years to come but at 3 loads a week, I don't blame you for keeping it. It should be a no brainer with no water metered and .06 for electric. What state do you pay just .06 for electricity? I thought Texas was the lowest or one of them but here, I have to pay around 9 or more for electricity.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
O 20 year old washer... hope you can still get parts in the years to come

www.bchydro.com near Vancouver, Canada hydro electric
actually 6.8 cents lol
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Our rates (GA) are $.078/kWh ($.1065 >750kWh) Summer and $.074/kWh ($.056

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% 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.