x-no-archive: yes

We are planning on buying a new washer and dryer but can't decide
whether to get a stainless steel or porcelain tub. Stainless steel costs
more but sales people can't come up with any real reasons why it's
better. They say that porcelain can chip. We've had good luck with our
old Maytags which have a porcelain tub. Which would you buy and why?
Please, no e-mail.

wrote:
You don't need special detergent in a front loader. But you only need to use a
tiny amount of normal detergent per load. We us 1 tablespoon per load.


On 4 Mar 2006 21:23:49 -0800, in misc.consumers.house "Sev"
wrote:

I've heard the stainless are better- as they say won't chip, but if
you're willing to spend more, have you looked at front loading washers?
They are truly superior in energy/ water efficiency- though they do
recommend using special, more expensive detergents. The lack of an
agitator also means they are gentler on the clothes. Check Consumer
Reports magazine or online for recommendations.


I don't think there is a significant advantage to stainless for a
washer. For dishwashers, the interior can sometimes be stained by
foods like tomato sauce, so it can make more sense there. I've only
had enamel type washers and never had a problem with rust.

I agree that if you are willing to spend more money upfront, you should
consider a front loader. Next one I get will likely be that kind. I
think just about everybody agrees they do a better job of washing.
Just watch one and you will see why. The clothes get tossed around in
a way a top loader could never do. Plus, they use less water, so over
time the initial higher outlay can be offset by using less hot water.

Do the front loaders hold more clothes in general? Is a 3.7 cubic foot
front loader "bigger" because there is no agitator or is that taken into
account?

We'd like a washer that can hold more than our "super capacity" top loader.
We run many, many loads of clothes each week.

"smclene" wrote in message
ups.com...
I would reccommend you look at the Kenmore front load units with
stainless steel tubs. They are extremely quiet and more importantly,
any extra cost will soon be compensated by the incredible saving on
your water bill and your detergent bill. When I first got my set, I
thought there was something wrong because it hardly used any water. I
soon learned that this was normal and my clothes even came out cleaner.
You hardly use any detergent ( I use Tide liquid). The clothes also
take less time to dry and so you also save on the electricity bill for
your dryer- all in all a win-win. good luck with your purchase!

David Zeit wrote:
x-no-archive: yes

We are planning on buying a new washer and dryer but can't decide
whether to get a stainless steel or porcelain tub. Stainless steel costs
more but sales people can't come up with any real reasons why it's
better. They say that porcelain can chip. We've had good luck with our
old Maytags which have a porcelain tub. Which would you buy and why?
Please, no e-mail.

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 19:24:31 -0800, "daslf" wrote:

Do the front loaders hold more clothes in general? Is a 3.7 cubic foot
front loader "bigger" because there is no agitator or is that taken into
account?

We'd like a washer that can hold more than our "super capacity" top loader.
We run many, many loads of clothes each week.

I think you'd probably be very happy with a front loader. My
impression is that my Frigidaire Gallery (a cheap, but good! version,
half the price of the Kenmores and Whirlpools and Maytags) holds about
1.5x the volume of clothes that any of my extra large capacity top
loaders ever did, and they can easily handle comforters and pillows,
which I really like.

"KLS" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 19:24:31 -0800, "daslf" wrote:

Do the front loaders hold more clothes in general? Is a 3.7 cubic foot
front loader "bigger" because there is no agitator or is that taken into
account?

We'd like a washer that can hold more than our "super capacity" top
loader.
We run many, many loads of clothes each week.

I think you'd probably be very happy with a front loader. My
impression is that my Frigidaire Gallery (a cheap, but good! version,
half the price of the Kenmores and Whirlpools and Maytags) holds about
1.5x the volume of clothes that any of my extra large capacity top
loaders ever did, and they can easily handle comforters and pillows,
which I really like.

We have a front loader and it holds more than the super capacity that we had
before it. Fewer, bigger loads. We just shove it as full as we can get it
and it cleans well. I don't recall any load capacity numbers or such, so
perhaps you can try to look that up for comparison.
Tomes