They Used To Last 50 Years

Re:They Used To Last 50 Years by hvidgaard on Monday March 20, 2017 @03:34AM (#13912406)

That is all well and good, but if a review write things like this

   For example, the similarly priced Electrolux EFLS617SIW removed 27 percent more stains than this
   Speed Queen on its Heavy Duty cycle and 13 percent more stains on its Whites cycle. We got
   similar results from Kenmore, LG, Maytag, and Whirlpool front-loaders

   Those stains remain in spite of the fact that this Speed Queen uses over 40 gallons of water for
   the Whites cycle and over 24 gallons for the Normal Eco. We estimate that this washer will cost
   around $85 a year to run. That's average for a top-load machine, but almost triple what a
   more-efficient front loader costs. A lot of our readers tell us they don't care about the
   environmental impact of their appliances. But, maybe they'll care about the extra $275 on their
   water bills over five years of ownership.

I'm skipping it sadly (unless their front loaders are any better.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:They Used To Last 50 Years by pythonistic on Monday March 20, 2017 @11:57AM (#13915216)

I don't have numbers in my user or installation manuals, but the previous model year supposedly used 11.7 US gal per load, or under 4 per fill. Living in the desert, I feel good about my choice of washing machine ($22-29 monthly water bill).

Regardless, it's less than the top-load I replaced. Front-load washers are supposed to be more efficient and use less water.

[ Parent | on HN ]