The units that have an "Energy Star" rating purchased for them shows the
manufacturers can't sell them.

"Energy Star" trademarks do not indicate the most efficient appliances only
the ones they are trying to squeeze more money, on the sale, out of. The
real MPG is in the user's corner and most won't touch a front load next
time. They use the same amount of water and take four hours to do their 15
cycles to save the water. Poor reasoning

If consumers or manufacturers really wanted to save water they would only
purchase machines with suds savers on them. Try to find one. The phony
eco-concern is only marketing hype to make you unhappy with your old
obsolete machine in white.

eco = economics for the manufacturer.

--------

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...
Tain't just slick sales people, it is Energy Star ratings. Seems
that the top loaders "just use too much water and electricity", so to
get their usage down. the manufacturers have gone to front loaders.
All things combined, they do not get clothes clean.
Consumer Reports has a recent article about this, that they have
been unable to recommend an top loader model, due to this failure to
get clothes clean. Which is a result of the EPA/et al mandate to
lower "energy usage".
It doesn't help if I have to wash clothes twice to get them half
clean.

Fortunately, I 'm a career bachelor. If they don't stand up by
themselves, or aren't a hazard to have in contact with the skin, "good
enough".
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!