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.

In article ,
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.

Now there's a topic that hasn't come up before. At least, not in the
last 10 minutes. You been sleepin', Ashton?

On Feb 25, 11:55�pm, 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.

the high upfront cost and long term repair expenses will elminate any
operating savings.........

top load cheaper to buy and easier and cheaper to repair

On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:18:21 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
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.

Now there's a topic that hasn't come up before. At least, not in the
last 10 minutes. You been sleepin', Ashton?


I've been reading this group for a long time and have never seen this
specific issue (direct comparison) come up.

We've used our Kenmore front-loading washer constantly for twelve
years, and other than my having to clean out the pump ONCE (my wife
had washed a few new heavy quilts with frayed seams) it has been 100%
fault-free! Even after a 3,000 mile move across the continent.

As advertised, it uses less soap, MUCH less water, and is almost
silent. One of our best purchases. I figure most of the critics who
put down front-loading washers have never used one ... the same goes
for those who put down tankless water heaters and Macintosh computers
(we've enjoyed tankless water heaters problem-free for twenty-one
years and Macintosh computers problem-free for twenty-two years).

- - - - -

On Feb 25, 11:55*pm, 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.

On Feb 26, 1:18*am, borealbushman wrote:
We've used our Kenmore front-loading washer constantly for twelve
years, and other than my having to clean out the pump ONCE (my wife
had washed a few new heavy quilts with frayed seams) it has been 100%
fault-free! Even after a 3,000 mile move across the continent.

As advertised, it uses less soap, MUCH less water, and is almost
silent. One of our best purchases. I figure most of the critics who
put down front-loading washers have never used one ... the same goes
for those who put down tankless water heaters and Macintosh computers
(we've enjoyed tankless water heaters problem-free for twenty-one
years and Macintosh computers problem-free for twenty-two years).

- - - - -

On Feb 25, 11:55*pm, 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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

12 yrs old its Made In USA, today, its china crap so who knows.

On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:30:17 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:18:21 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
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.

Now there's a topic that hasn't come up before. At least, not in the
last 10 minutes. You been sleepin', Ashton?


I've been reading this group for a long time and have never seen this
specific issue (direct comparison) come up.

It has probably been one of the top 20 recurring discussions here.
It's been discussed to death and back many times.

On Feb 25, 11:55*pm, 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.

Daughter has used a front load Miele for years without a problem.
It's quiet and efficient.
T

We have front loaders. I would never spend the extra $ again. They last no
longer than a top loader and cost 3 times as much. Water and soap savings
are minimal.

cm


"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
...
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.

Ashton Crusher wrote:

On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:18:21 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
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.

Now there's a topic that hasn't come up before. At least, not in the
last 10 minutes. You been sleepin', Ashton?

I've been reading this group for a long time and have never seen this
specific issue (direct comparison) come up.

If there were inherent flaws in front load washers, then why are all
commercial washers front load?

My front load washer does indeed save water and detergent, has been
running fine for 6+ years so far. It also saves electricity when drying
due to it's high speed spin that leaves the clothes less damp for the
dryer.

On Feb 26, 8:16�am, "Pete C." wrote:
Ashton Crusher wrote:

On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:18:21 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
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.

Now there's a topic that hasn't come up before. At least, not in the
last 10 minutes. You been sleepin', Ashton?

I've been reading this group for a long time and have never seen this
specific issue (direct comparison) come up.

If there were inherent flaws in front load washers, then why are all
commercial washers front load?

My front load washer does indeed save water and detergent, has been
running fine for 6+ years so far. It also saves electricity when drying
due to it's high speed spin that leaves the clothes less damp for the
dryer.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

the commercial machines are built tough to do laundry 24/7 and save
lots of water, sewer and energy since they are in constant use.

the home versions are cheap knock offs, do save some operating
expense, but arent built tough so expect breakdowns and pricey
repairs.

top loaders are cheap, reliable and are easier to build cheap

buy a front loader if it makes you warm and fuzzy, after all its your
money

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Ashton Crusher wrote:

On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:18:21 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
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.

Now there's a topic that hasn't come up before. At least, not in the
last 10 minutes. You been sleepin', Ashton?

I've been reading this group for a long time and have never seen this
specific issue (direct comparison) come up.

If there were inherent flaws in front load washers, then why are all
commercial washers front load?

My front load washer does indeed save water and detergent, has been
running fine for 6+ years so far. It also saves electricity when drying
due to it's high speed spin that leaves the clothes less damp for the
dryer.

Nicely said and that tracks my experience for the last 5+ years too. Only
one repair has been needed on our GE front loader and that was due to my
accidently cutting the door seal rubber with something sharp as I loaded the
machine.

And, yes, the soap and water savings are real -- the water/sewer rates are
going up at least 10% again this year in northern Ohio.

TKM

borealbushman wrote:
We've used our Kenmore front-loading washer constantly for twelve
years, and other than my having to clean out the pump ONCE (my wife
had washed a few new heavy quilts with frayed seams) it has been 100%
fault-free! Even after a 3,000 mile move across the continent.

As advertised, it uses less soap, MUCH less water, and is almost
silent.

Soap's cheap and water is free (nobody MAKES water, you just pay to have it
harvested and delivered). Silent is usually good.

One of our best purchases. I figure most of the critics who
put down front-loading washers have never used one ... the same goes
for those who put down tankless water heaters and Macintosh computers
(we've enjoyed tankless water heaters problem-free for twenty-one
years and Macintosh computers problem-free for twenty-two years).

Macintosh compuers are much like the Celtic warriors long ago employed by
the English Kings. Dependable as hell, the few things they do (e.g., kill
people) they do extremely well.

You just wouldn't want them to actually RUN things...

Still, front-load washers, tankless water heaters, and Macintoshes are all
much more expensive than their more pedestrian counterparts.

On Feb 25, 10:55*pm, 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.

im dealing with a horror story as we speak!! stay away!!!! stay
away!!! stick with the ugly old ones!!!

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:46:19 -0500, Van Chocstraw wrote:
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.

I remember back in the 1950's somebody made a front loading washer/dryer
combo machine. It washed and dried in the SAME machine. What happened to
that idea?


You need to get out more. They exist and are unpopular due to the
fact they cost up to twice as much as two separate machines. Few
people feel like shelling out an additional thousand dollars so that
they can avoid dragging clothing from one machine to another and most
people prefer keeping the ability to pipeline -- to do a wash while the
previous load dries.

"Van Chocstraw" wrote in message
...
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.

I remember back in the 1950's somebody made a front loading washer/dryer
combo machine. It washed and dried in the SAME machine. What happened to
that idea?


I remember those. My parents had one. I'm not sure if that is what caused
them to drink excessively but I do recall sudsy water all over the place. I
was about three or four at the time.



--
//--------------------\\
Van Chocstraw
\\--------------------//

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
...
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.


We used our 1961 Whirlpool top loader until 1998 then gave it to our son and
he is still using it. WW

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
...
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.

Hi AC. It was discussed to some extent here on 2/20 "What brand of
top-loading washer..." but so far I haven't found out how much water they
actually save. When looking for info to repair my top-loader I kept coming
across stories of front-loaders with bad drums and door seals. No doubt
some are better than others. I did some math one time and the electricity
savings came out to about $12/year. I finally decided to repair my old
Kenmore top-loader (made by Whirlpool) and keep it for the rest of my life.
Kinda like my '91 Explorer ;-)

On Feb 25, 10:55*pm, 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.

My experience with a front loader has been positive. We have had it
about 5 years and so far it has been trouble free. The biggest single
factor is the spin cycle drying the clothes before the dryer ever gets
them. Between that and a dryer with a moisture sensor, we have cut our
laundry costs to the bone. My propane man walks away in disgust every
time he come by to fill the tank. I don't know that I particularly
like front loaders for any other reason, they require special soap,
they make funny noises, they require some sort of odor fighter like
baking soda in the mix. However, I wouldn't willingly go back to a top
loader.

Eric in North TX wrote:

My experience with a front loader has been positive

Mine was terrible!!

Had one for seven years and it finally quit.....very
little use

Went back to a top loader GE Hydrowave and love it

On Feb 26, 9:46�am, Van Chocstraw
wrote:
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.

I remember back in the 1950's somebody made a front loading washer/dryer
combo machine. It washed and dried in the SAME machine. What happened to
that idea?

--
//--------------------\\
� � � � Van Chocstraw
�\\--------------------//

LG was and likely still is making them, they were a couple years ago.

my sister in law worked for a realty company that installed over 600
in apartments. unfortunately she got a better job so i never found out
long term results

Eric in North TX wrote:
On Feb 25, 10:55 pm, 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.

My experience with a front loader has been positive. We have had it
about 5 years and so far it has been trouble free. The biggest single
factor is the spin cycle drying the clothes before the dryer ever gets
them. Between that and a dryer with a moisture sensor, we have cut our
laundry costs to the bone. My propane man walks away in disgust every
time he come by to fill the tank. I don't know that I particularly
like front loaders for any other reason, they require special soap,
they make funny noises, they require some sort of odor fighter like
baking soda in the mix. However, I wouldn't willingly go back to a top
loader.


I agree with you except the soap thing. They Do NOT actually require
the HE soap. We've used the plain old wash detergents in ours since
we've had it. You just use less. And anyone who says they don't use
less water is just jealous they can't afford one. Ours paid for
themselves in less than two years in water savings alone. 14 gallons is
a hell of a lot less than 55. And that's the difference in the old
machine we had and the new one. That high speed spin does leave the
clothes nearly dry so the dryer only works about 20 minutes. So, that's
a third of the electricity in the dryer also.

steve

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:06:57 -0600, Steve Barker
wrote:

Eric in North TX wrote:
On Feb 25, 10:55 pm, 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.

My experience with a front loader has been positive. We have had it
about 5 years and so far it has been trouble free. The biggest single
factor is the spin cycle drying the clothes before the dryer ever gets
them. Between that and a dryer with a moisture sensor, we have cut our
laundry costs to the bone. My propane man walks away in disgust every
time he come by to fill the tank. I don't know that I particularly
like front loaders for any other reason, they require special soap,
they make funny noises, they require some sort of odor fighter like
baking soda in the mix. However, I wouldn't willingly go back to a top
loader.


I agree with you except the soap thing. They Do NOT actually require
the HE soap. We've used the plain old wash detergents in ours since
we've had it. You just use less. And anyone who says they don't use
less water is just jealous they can't afford one. Ours paid for
themselves in less than two years in water savings alone. 14 gallons is
a hell of a lot less than 55. And that's the difference in the old
machine we had and the new one. That high speed spin does leave the
clothes nearly dry so the dryer only works about 20 minutes. So, that's
a third of the electricity in the dryer also.

steve

The HE soap works better and is easier on the seals etc, and is NOT
that much more expensive overall.
And they sure do use a LOT less water. They run a lot longer to do a
load - but the load can be bigger and still come out clean - and it
uses less power when running - and yes, it does take a lot less drying
time - not to mention the clothes come out dry enough you can hang-dry
them in the laundry room or basement without dripping on the floor.


We bough a Samsung pair and my wife loves it.

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
...
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.

I use my machine to dye fabric at least once a week. You can't do that in a
front loader because the fabric has to be added to the machine while it's
agitating. For me, a front loader is simply not an option.

On Feb 25, 11:55*pm, 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.


Had aMaytag for 20 years, used 40 gallons. per load,good service, but
hard on the septic
tank, in an area that is all clay. Bought a Bosch, 1140 spin, uses 13
gallon a load. Does a great job,
quiet,and the dryer works less. I should have bought one years ago!

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.

Van Chocstraw wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:50:49 -0500, Van Chocstraw
wrote:

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.
Do front loaders go "BANG, BANG, BANG" when they spin dry?
sometimes.

I would think that a front loader with a horizontal tub would always be
out of balance for spinning since gravity pulls all the cloths to the
bottom.


they start out very slow. (they are a dc variable speed motor) then
they slowly go faster and faster. If they are out of balance, they stop
an start the process over. Self balancing. They will only spin as fast
as the balance dictates. i've seen our start over two or three times,
then it gets it distributed evenly and spins like a mother!

(whirlpool duet) no problems in 3 years so far. We love them.

steve

On Feb 25, 11:55*pm, 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.

Haven't had a chance to read all the posts to this thread, but here's
what I know from personal experience.

Yes, on average new front-load washers have a reputation for needing
repairs greater than top-loaders, but that is due to some
manufacturers skewing the trend heavily with their lousy reputations.
Research your purchase carefully, and buy a model made by a reputable
manufacturer with a history of reliability. That will vary within a
brand line, even. In our last house we had a near-top-of-the-line
Kenmore front-loader we spent $900 on, and it was an absolute top-
notch washer...best I've ever owned. My brother-in-law's roommate/
landlord bought the entry-level Kenmore front-loader, and that thing
was broken more often than it worked.

When my wife and I go to replace our current washer (came with the
house we just bought, a crap-nasty cheap Kenmore) we will probably
look at the same model we used to have, or at one of the European
companies who have been making front-loaders there for years.

Which is point 2: look to either one of the European companies that
has been doing this for a while, or (surprisingly) Samsung, which
(IIRC) has a pretty good reputation from Consumer Reports and other
consumer eval groups.

Point 3: a front-loader is not as much a money-saving choice as it is
an environmental choice. Yes, front-loaders use much less water than a
top-loader - approx. 1/4 of the water (8 gals. for front-load vs. 32
gals. for top-load), and the drum has a higher spin speed, thus
wringing out the clothes better, which means it takes about half the
drying time (rough guesstimate from my own experience). You use less
water; you use less gas or electricity (or the coal/oil/gas that was
used to generate the electricity). You also put less water into your
municipality's treatment system, reducing our society's use of potable
water and the costs involved there.

Point 4: your clothes will last longer - front-loaders are much less
damaging to your clothes than top-loaders. I've noticed a definite
change in some of my less-stress-able shirts since we moved and ended
up with a top-load washer.

HTH!

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?

Ashton Crusher wrote:
how do they get it to use so little water?

A conventional top loader fills the basket with enough water to
completely submerge the load. A front loader needs only enough water to
saturate the load. During the slow speed wash cycle, only a portion of
the load is submerged at a given time.

Bob wrote:
Ashton Crusher wrote:
how do they get it to use so little water?

A conventional top loader fills the basket with enough water to
completely submerge the load. A front loader needs only enough water to
saturate the load. During the slow speed wash cycle, only a portion of
the load is submerged at a given time.


My daughter has an LG front-loader - about 3 yrs. old? It is so quiet,
you can hardly hear it even in the same room. It holds an amazing
amount of clothing per load. She loves it. When you turn it on, the
panel looks like a space ship - you can play Star Wars whilst you do
laundry )

wrote:
Bob wrote:
Ashton Crusher wrote:
how do they get it to use so little water?

A conventional top loader fills the basket with enough water to
completely submerge the load. A front loader needs only enough water
to saturate the load. During the slow speed wash cycle, only a
portion of the load is submerged at a given time.


My daughter has an LG front-loader - about 3 yrs. old? It is so quiet,
you can hardly hear it even in the same room. It holds an amazing
amount of clothing per load. She loves it. When you turn it on, the
panel looks like a space ship - you can play Star Wars whilst you do
laundry )

IMHO, unless you have several kids and do a dozen loads a week, they
fail the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) test. They cost a lot more, most
of them require special soap, and judging from the threads on here they
are a lot fussier and more expensive to repair. The only saving is in
water usage, which in this part of the country is not a major concern.
And how long do they last? Around here, top loaders often last 20 years
or more, even under heavy use. And speaking personally, I hate bending
over that far to pull heavy wet laundry out of the tub.

But if the Warm Fuzzy Green feeling is important to you, and your budget
can stand the extra up front cost, go for it. My sister down in NC has
one, and likes it. Not sure what brand, but it looks expensive. (my
entry level top loader cost ~$350, as a point of comparison)

--
aem sends...

aemeijers wrote:
wrote:
Bob wrote:
Ashton Crusher wrote:
how do they get it to use so little water?

A conventional top loader fills the basket with enough water to
completely submerge the load. A front loader needs only enough water
to saturate the load. During the slow speed wash cycle, only a
portion of the load is submerged at a given time.


My daughter has an LG front-loader - about 3 yrs. old? It is so
quiet, you can hardly hear it even in the same room. It holds an
amazing amount of clothing per load. She loves it. When you turn it
on, the panel looks like a space ship - you can play Star Wars whilst
you do laundry )

IMHO, unless you have several kids and do a dozen loads a week, they
fail the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) test. They cost a lot more, most
of them require special soap, and judging from the threads on here they
are a lot fussier and more expensive to repair. The only saving is in
water usage, which in this part of the country is not a major concern.

Big concern in Florida, California, Las Vegas and much of SW, at least.
Less water would seem to equate to less detergent, as well. Haven't
studied it. Hubby is dead set against f.l., so hopeless here )

And how long do they last? Around here, top loaders often last 20 years

From recent experience with appliances, I would not expect more than 5
years for anything. YMMV.

or more, even under heavy use. And speaking personally, I hate bending

Higher than my old clunker of a dryer with door on wrong side )

over that far to pull heavy wet laundry out of the tub.

But if the Warm Fuzzy Green feeling is important to you, and your budget
can stand the extra up front cost, go for it. My sister down in NC has
one, and likes it. Not sure what brand, but it looks expensive. (my
entry level top loader cost ~$350, as a point of comparison)

--
aem sends...

On Feb 27, 1:46*am, "h" wrote:
"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message

...

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, etc. *What's the real story on these? *My top loaders
seem to last for years and years without ever needing service.

I use my machine to dye fabric at least once a week. You can't do that in a
front loader because the fabric has to be added to the machine while it's
agitating. For me, a front loader is simply not an option.

We used a front loader in the Middle East. Found it used very little
water, had limited capacity, and also took a longer time to wash each
load. Result was that a couple would probably have to wash clothes
every night or at very least each couple of days, probably five loads
a week?

Whereas here (North America) we wash one or two large loads per week,
including towels etc. for two people. And some loads can be washed in
cold or lukewarm water.

We had one front gasket door leak in some 3 years. The washer IIRC was
Italian made. Controls were a little too complicated; IMO.

We also found that the European style dryers were inadequate and were
not supplied with our accommodation anyway. Outside (well everywhere!)
it was very dusty. So over there we bought a North American style 230
volt (full size) dryer and vented it outside. That and the low air
humidity meant that clothes dried pretty quickly.

Presumably North American 'front loaders' have more capacity?

Back he Have to agree the old style North American (Sears, Kenmore
etc.) washers (and dryers) are pretty robust and reliable. For example
We are still using the first and only one 'automatic' washer that we
have bought, since 1960. Purchasing it around the mid/early 1970s when
our original agitator washer with a wringer failed. Even when we used
a well water supply (now on municipal water supply) we had no
problems.

The current washer has had timer switch work twice (Pitted contacts!
Repaired by self. A replacement timer would have cost about $70) and
was also fitted with the tub out of a another discarded washer, some
six years ago, when it started to leak! It will probably last another
four of five years by look of it? For a total life with say, four
repairs in approx. 40 years. BTW do recall replacing one washer belt
some 10 years ago! And one dryer belt some 15-20 years ago.

We have a couple of dryers; the one have been currently using for last
5 to 6 years cost a dozen beer, provided we took it away promptly that
day! I hope the gentleman and his wife who gave it to me have had as
good a service from the 'new washer/dryer set' they were having
delivered, as we have!

With so many used appliances available at present and based on what we
found with the front loader it is unlikely we will be changing
anything for quite a while. We estimate our washer plus dryer annual
costs (not including electricity etc.) to be of the order of;
Capital/amortization costs, less than $1000/40 = $25 year.
Self maintenance (Keep used parts on hand btw) Maybe $250/40 = $5 per
year
Total somewhere around less than $40 per year. Over 40 years.