On Nov 2, 5:08*pm, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
Jules wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:14:30 -0800, mike wrote:
-snip-
"It's a problem for all front-loaders," Wiseman said.

No, it's most definitely not.

Yeah, Wiseman isn't so wise on that count. * I *hate* our front
loader-- but I can't say it literally stinks.

I also don't think it gets clothes any cleaner than our 25 yr old
Whirlpool top loader did. [and more importantly, that's one of the few
things my wife and I agree on]

It *might* save water. * But it also won't take nearly a large a load
as our old machine- so we do more loads.

Jim

"It *might* save water. But it also won't take nearly a large a
load as our old machine- so we do more loads."


I like to hear what you are comparing. It's a common understanding
that most front loaders take comparable sized - or larger - loads as
top loaders.

I found this at:

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/cons...ts/alt070.shtm

"Typically, front-loaders use less water — from one-third to one-half
the amount that top-loaders require"

Therefore you'd have to be doing 2 - 3 times as many loads to not be
saving water. I be very suprised to hear that your front loader only
fits half the amount of clothes as your old top loader - unless of
course if you went from some kind of super-ginormous top loader to a
mini apartment sized front loader.

You do know that you can fill a front loader all the way to the top of
the drum right?