new washer rant

The new ones use substantially less water per load and also less electric energy than the old ones. I doubt most people would ever recover the increased cost, both upfront and for possible repairs. And as you've noted, there are other disadvantages, like the substantially longer wash cycle times. But if you're a tree hugging hippie and it makes you feel good, then there's that.

I think you're wrong on that. The old front loaders, you coud see water sloshing around, with the tub maybe 1/4 to 1/3 full. The new ones, there is very little water in there. If you want to say that the cost of that water isn't that great, I'd agree that for most people, it's not. The biggest cost is likely the energy to heat the water. But for municipalities, if you had everyone using these new low water usage models it does help reduce the overall sewage needing to be treated.

Reply to
trader_4
Loading thread data ...

Usenet, and Consumer Reports. Both helping people to make wise decisions. Based on the experiences of others.

One more NO vote for dry cleaning washing machine front loaders.

Reply to
Stormin Mormon

But, comrade? Isn't it worth any ammount of money to save the planet we live on? Al Gore must be horrified with your choice.

BTW, my washing machine is a Whirlpool top loader. Belt drive, not direct drive. The last owners left it because it needed a $65 part. I've repaired it a couple times in the 22 years I've lived here. Still works.

Reply to
Stormin Mormon

Our top load still has that. I think it was used once in two years so not a big deal for us.

New top loaders are improved too. Agitator is gone. There are larger capacity models available, but it is a long reach to the botgtom of the tub for short people.

Cycle time is not a concern for s. With just the two of us, only about

3 loads a week are done. Most times I put it on at night and empty it in the morning so as long as the cycles is less than about 8 hours, I'm good to go.

Normal wash stuff is about 48 minutes. Whites, sheets,bulky stuff is about 1H 20M.

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

Yes, it was a top loader...

I guess it makes a difference to some people but I can't imagine why a front loader would be better. The only thing I've seen is that front loaders are more prone to mold

Reply to
philo

But they add considerably to the cost.

The electronic models are twice the price and to me a waste of money.

My Whirlpool washer is 32 years old and has had /zero/ problems. When I bought it, it was recommend because it was beltless and theoretically less prone to problems. I doubt that kind of quality exists anymore.

Reply to
philo

Yep. though hardly 'state of the art' nothing simpler than those electro-mechanical timers. Even though they may severely "jack up" the price, they are still way cheaper than an electronic control board.

Reply to
philo

When we bought our first front-loader - the one I've just replaced - I was a bit dubious also - but the spin speed was great because it helped us save on dryer costs - big time. The un-balance issue was not eliminated completely - but greatly reduced - the old Inglis could be found dancing around the room during the worst situations ! .. never nearly that bad with the front loader. Water savings were a factor over the old Inglis top-loader. ... much less so when comparing the old front-loader to the new front-loader. Modern top loaders can spin ~ 1000 now which is equal to our old front loader - newer front loader spins up to 1300 - again less of a factor. When I replaced the spider on the old washer - I was impressed with the design simplicity - if it wasn't for the bearing issue every 7 years - I could see that washer lasting 20 + years with only some minor maintenance items. John T.

Reply to
hubops

But if the timer is assembled in the States and the PCB is made in Chine...the latter would be cheaper.

Reply to
bob_villain

Cheaper to manufacture, but the markup for electronic control is sky high!

Reply to
philo

On 04/15/2016 09:23 AM, snipped-for-privacy@ccanoemail.ca wrote: Xsituations ! .. never nearly that bad with the front

well for me, 32 years without even one small issue was not too bad.

and it's still going

Reply to
philo

Every top load washer I've had you could do that. Just start it going, when it fills and first starts to agitate, pull the control knob out. Wait as long as you like, then resume. Some models do have a setting on the knob just for that, where it will do it, stop without you having to pull the knob. Not something used here very often, so not a factor.

Reply to
trader_4

Shrotly after our purchase, I wanted to "soak" something. Stared at the washer for quite some time before I realized that "soak" just is incompatible with a front loader (you can't "fill" it!)

When we were looking, there were many comments about poor agitation/mixing of clothes with the agitator-less top loaders. You look inside and it seems like it should be exactly the same as for a front loader!

Then, you watch how the front loader "tosses" the clothes and realize you can't do the same thing spinning on a vertical axis.

Reaching to the *back* of the drum/tub is just as difficult as bottom of tub. And, as things tend to be much drier, it is not uncommon for something to be plastered to the "top" of the drum -- requiring you to roll it just to check for that possibility.

I'd guess we're in the 2-3 cycles/week usage pattern. Some weeks I won't do any wash and just let "dirty" jeans accumulate. But, when I do them, it's always on "heavy soil" cycle as I tend to be WORKING in them. One of the cycles I use is close to 2 hrs washing. But, machine just sits there quietly, patiently tossing things around in slow motion so we don't even hear it in the adjoining kitchen (door to laundry is never shut)

I just checked: "Sanitize" cycle for heavy soil is 2:02 but the normal cycle is ~55 minutes (for heavy soil). I think the shortest cycle ("quick wash") is only about 25 minutes.

Reply to
Don Y

They add to the *perceived* value of the product. There's a difference. E.g., DTMF signalling used to "cost more" than dial-pulse signalling. But, was actually cheaper to deploy than "counting pulses".

As customers saw DTMF phones as sexier, they were willing to pay this premium.

You can do things with electronic controls that are just not possible with electromechanical controls. E.g., when door latch broke on washer, I was able to query the machine to document EXACTLY how many loads we had run through it (to strengthen my complaint with manufacturer)

Also, you can't repair EM controls (you can only REPLACE them). (you can replace the clockwork motor on SOME of them but can't do anything regarding the cams and switch blades/contacts)

Our old toploader had no problems when SWMBO decided she wanted to replace it. She got tired of having to lug her comforter across the street to wash in neighbor's equipment because our "high capacity" washer wasn't big enough to handle it (agitator). She's been tickled with how much cleaner the clothes are (I, of course, only care that my jeans remain "blue")

OTOH, I'd replaced the "clockworks" on both the washer and dryer at least once.

The only failure on the new washer has been the electromechanical door latch (unnecessary on a toploader). For most folks, getting a service man out is where the bulk of the cost arises (door latch mechanism would have set me back ~$30 had manufacturer not comped it)

Reply to
Don Y

Average household does 7 loads of laundry each week.

*If* you do them all on one day AND want to shotgun one right after another (i.e., nervously tapping your foot waiting for the load to finish so you can start the next), then you might have an issue.

We often forget laundry in the machine. I.e., my last load is still in the dryer from a few days ago. When SWMBO goes to do bedding this weekend, I will be "reminded" of this. :>

Still, 1:28 seems long for a "normal" wash. I think our "normal" cycle is 50 minutes and increases to 55 if you indicate "heavy soil". You should also *time* (with a clock) the actual cycle length as the machine is only estimating how long it will take. Your old machine had no choice: tell it X minutes and it WILL take X minutes. New machines look at the water to see how much soil is (still) present.

Also beware that there is usually no real "default" as many machines remember how you ran a cycle and offer those settings to you the next time you run it.

IME, it's been educational to poke at the various buttons to see how each choice affects wash time (ditto for the dryer). Our first load (on a hot wash) always takes a bit longer as the machine "tests" the water temperature before beginning: lets a little water in, checks temperature, drains it if too cool (i.e., water "standing" in the pipes -- even the amount of water in the flexline to the washer is significant when the washer doesn't USE much!) and tries again.

Most owner's guides will also give you a breakdown of each cycle type so you can experiment "on paper" without having to run actual loads.

Reply to
Don Y

I asked the repair guy about this - he said that he only knows of dishwashers doing this ... dunno. He checked the hoses for good flow ; then went straight for the pressure switch - and magically had the replacement in his jacket pocket ! :-) A test run with a few pairs of blue jeans seemed better - not sure - next full load will tell .. I'll be watching and timing things if it looks unresolved - it was a good suggestion to not rely on the washer's countdown timer indicator for any accurate measurement. John T.

Reply to
hubops

Again, unlike electromechanical controls that work "open loop" (i.e., do not reflect conditions in the load being washed), newer machines sense how well they are performing their jobs.

If things go "exceedingly well", the timer will appear to count "fast" and the load done BEFORE expected. The opposite is also true.

The dryers have similar smarts; silly to dry something for a fixed amount of time *if* you know that it's already dry, halfway through the allotted time!

[I have trouble trying to get the dryer to dry LESS thoroughly as I often want to remove my clothes when they are ALMOST dry and let them finish drying while hanging, etc. Usually cuts down on ironing -- without having to resort to the steam cycle in the dryer!]

Lastly, check to see if you have a "debris filter" in the washer. This catches crud that might be mixed in with your clothing (sort of like a lint filter would in a dryer). In ours, the filter is located literally at the bottom of the appliance. So close to the floor that you can't put a catch pan under it to capture the excess water that WILL come out when you open the filter!

[Anything that would fit under it would have to have an insignificant "lip" -- to squeeze under the washer itself. But, having that shallow of a lip means it's not a very effective *bowl* -- to capture liquids! If this becomes clogged, you will see water/fill/drain related error messages signaled.]
Reply to
Don Y

Today, the only common make of washer that has a reversable door is Electrolux . The $ 2800 Huebsch had the door opening "the wrong way " from every other machine .. John T.

Reply to
hubops

I've heard that Speed Queen makes a good front loader.

Reply to
Vic Smith

There are significantly reduced costs to society in general when you conserve both water and electricity. The ROI calculations for even simple things like washing machines get muddy very quickly. I wonder how low income people will fare now that the entry level HE washer is headed into price stratosphere. I *really* love my old top loader now because we do a LOT of pre-soaking and some pretty big loads.

I was have an argument with a tree hugger who believed in recycling every last atom of *potentially* recyclable material.

I pointed out that the assumptions many recyclists are old, outdated and were perhaps never valid to begin with. No sale. Recycling is good.

I noted that China no longer buys anywhere near the scrap material (especially paper) they used to, drastically changing the cost equations. No sale. Recycling is good.

I pointed out that recycling involves putting lots more carbon dioxide in the air than using landfills and requires water to rinse out plastic containers. No sale. Recycling is good.

At least this time they countered by saying we're running out of landfill space. I replied: Ever fly coast to coast at night? We're not running out of nowhere any time soon. We might have to build some tracks or a highway to reach it, but wherever those two go, business development surely follows. Still no sale. Recycling is good.

My conclusion is that recycling has been tattooed on their brain and it's part of being a good, conscientious liberal EVEN IF it means junking up the atmosphere in a way previous models never considered. Recycling seems like the ideal *voluntary* program but I know that each year my property taxes pay an ever-growing fee for it.

I am not a anti-recycle monster. I recycle cans, batteries, CFLs and keep other toxic stuff out of the trash stream. However, when it comes to wasting *any* of my time deciding whether a pizza box is or is not recyclable leads me to: "Trash it all, let Nature sort it out." So far, I have eluded the recycling police (but not my liberal friend who felt empowered enough to sort my kitchen trash for me while my wife is away. Really! )

The fear of landfills really gets me. Any civil engineers out there know if it's anywhere near as nasty a process as "tree huggers" make it out to be? I recall reading that now they mix semi-processed trash with some sort of recovered cement dust to make it more suitable for coastal landfills and ones in earthquake zones. IIRC, San Franciso's landfilled seafront didn't fare too well in a recent earthquake.

Reply to
Robert Green

HomeOwnersHub website 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.