On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:04:58 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:58:05 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:51:04 -0500, Phisherman
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:55:30 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

I've had plain old top loaders for years. I know the front loaders
are supposed to save water and soap but it seems like all I read about
them are horror stories of endless repairs, almost mandatory yearly
servicing's, etc. What's the real story on these? My top loaders
seem to last for years and years without ever needing service.


Yes, the front loaders can be more expensive to buy and repair. Top
loaders use less water and more gentle on clothes. Your choice. My
super-capacity top-load washer is still going strong after 17 years,
repaired once with a $4 part.


Mistaken.FRONT loaders use less water and are easier on clothes.

My Fisher & Paykel top loader uses the same or less water than a front
loader, and is gentle on clothes. It also spins the clothes almost
completely dry. It's not a function of whether its a top loader or a
front loader. The F&P costs about half what a front loader of similar
capacity would cost, and doesn't have seal and mold problems. It also
uses regular soap, at about half the dose used in a "conventional" top
loader.

how do they get it to use so little water?