Jump to content

Menu

Quick…lol…I need a new washing machine


Scarlett
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

Sorry Jean, but Speed Queens work only by wasting massive amounts of water to compensate for their obsolete technology. That is the reality.

And the company cheated to get the TCs back on the market. 

Bill

No, they work by having reliability designed in in a way that is uncommon now.  Just like old furnaces.  My parents’ furnace was already in their home when they bought it in 1960 and is still going strong.  They would have had to replace a current model one 2-4 times in that period had they had one in the house when they bought it.

We are trading away durability and reliability for energy savings, consistently, in appliance design.  At some point will someone assess the energy and materials and disposal costs of these quickly obsoleted appliances and factor that into the equation?  If we have to buy a new HVAC system every 12-18 years, and a new fridge or dishwasher every 5-8 years, but we use less energy ongoing, have we really saved anything?  I’d like to see the numbers on that, but AFAIK they don’t exist.

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Bill. I have good reading skills. I know what you think and have written a bazillion times on this thread . I disagree from actual empirical evidence with my own machine. Repeating yourself more and more stridently isn’t going to get me (I don’t know about others) to agree with you. 
 

Enjoy your Miele. 

On an empirical basis it is undeniable that Speed Queens consume massive amounts of water or that they evaded DOE energy requirements with the TC line by developing a "normal" mode to barely pass standards, but that is unusable mode in the real world and that they and their dealers advise customers not to use it. That is a cheat.

Bill

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Bill. I have good reading skills. I know what you think and have written a bazillion times on this thread . I disagree from actual empirical evidence with my own machine. Repeating yourself more and more stridently isn’t going to get me (I don’t know about others) to agree with you. 
 

Enjoy your Miele. 

QFT.

Particularly the part about SQ being rough on clothes.  Based on my direct experience with a home SQ, they are both more effective at clothes cleaning AND gentler than either my POJunk Maytag or my venerable 25 year old heavy duty Kenmore from the glory days.  It’s very possible that laundrymat SQs are rough on clothes but my home one certainly is not—quite the contrary.  Furthermore, I fully expect that this SQ will work, day in and day out, without needing repairs, unlike almost anything else on the market today.  That is immensely valuable to me.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Spy Car said:

On an empirical basis it is undeniable that Speed Queens consume massive amounts of water or that they evaded DOE energy requirements with the TC line by developing a "normal" mode to barely pass standards, but that is unusable mode in the real world and that they and their dealers advise customers not to use it. That is a cheat.

Bill

 

Dude, we get it. Your points are that they use too much water, cheated by creating a normal mode that doesn't really work well, and are rougher on clothes. We get it. There really is no point in continuing to repeat those same 3 points over and over and over and over. We get it. 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Carol in Cal. said:

No, they work by having reliability designed in in a way that is uncommon now.  Just like old furnaces.  My parents’ furnace was already in their home when they bought it in 1960 and is still going strong.  They would have had to replace a current model one 2-4 times in that period had they had one in the house when they bought it.

We are trading away durability and reliability for energy savings, consistently, in appliance design.  At some point will someone assess the energy and materials and disposal costs of these quickly obsoleted appliances and factor that into the equation?  If we have to buy a new HVAC system every 12-18 years, and a new fridge or dishwasher every 5-8 years, but we use less energy ongoing, have we really saved anything?  I’d like to see the numbers on that, but AFAIK they don’t exist.

 

Energy wasting appliances tend to be uncommon now as it is bad for the planet and bad for people's wallets.

Most appliance manufacturers aim for efficiency these days. SQ has taken the opposite route and resorted to cheating to avoid improving their designs. 

The aim should be to marry high technology that saves resources, while doing a superior job, and offering longevity at a good price. Miele checks all the boxes. SQ does not. Their designs are obsolete and only on the market because they gamed the rules on efficiency standards.

I dislike appliances that breakdown after 5-8 years as much as anyone.

But between two evils, choose neither.

Bill

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

Energy wasting appliances tend to be uncommon now as it is bad for the planet and bad for people's wallets.

Most appliance manufacturers aim for efficiency these days. SQ has taken the opposite route and resorted to cheating to avoid improving their designs. 

The aim should be to marry high technology that saves resources, while doing a superior job, and offering longevity at a good price. Miele checks all the boxes. SQ does not. Their designs are obsolete and only on the market because they gamed the rules on efficiency standards.

I dislike appliances that breakdown after 5-8 years as much as anyone.

But between two evils, choose neither.

Bill

 

 

You’ve ignored my point.  I’m not really all that surprised.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

Energy wasting appliances tend to be uncommon now as it is bad for the planet and bad for people's wallets.

Most appliance manufacturers aim for efficiency these days. SQ has taken the opposite route and resorted to cheating to avoid improving their designs. 

The aim should be to marry high technology that saves resources, while doing a superior job, and offering longevity at a good price. Miele checks all the boxes. SQ does not. Their designs are obsolete and only on the market because they gamed the rules on efficiency standards.

I dislike appliances that breakdown after 5-8 years as much as anyone.

But between two evils, choose neither.

Bill

 

 

I do appreciate your viewpoint and detailed analysis.  But  the horse is dead Bill. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

QFT.

Particularly the part about SQ being rough on clothes.  Based on my direct experience with a home SQ, they are both more effective at clothes cleaning AND gentler than either my POJunk Maytag or my venerable 25 year old heavy duty Kenmore from the glory days.  It’s very possible that laundrymat SQs are rough on clothes but my home one certainly is not—quite the contrary.  Furthermore, I fully expect that this SQ will work, day in and day out, without needing repairs, unlike almost anything else on the market today.  That is immensely valuable to me.

The laundromat SQs are exactly the same machines as the home models (just with a coin slot). SQ markets this as a positive. I dunno.

I have a base of comparison and know that old school agitator washes are much harder on clothes and consume more water (a lot more).

I value not being profligate with scarce resources in a perpetually drought stricken region with no relief in sight, especially when there is a far better option at the same price point.

Bill

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

You’ve ignored my point.  I’m not really all that surprised.

I did not ignore your point at all. Many old school appliances (etc) compensated for low technology by using massive amounts of resources to compensate for their dead-simple designs.

The upside of simple designs is they tend to be rugged and to last. That is a positive attribute, but can we afford the waste that comes with such an approach? 

Many modern appliance have swung to the other extreme. Lots of tech to reduce energy and water consumption, but enough plastic and electronic parts that there is a high rate of failure.

Both these are bad options IMO.

An appliance should be made to last decades, while minimizing the waste of natural resources.

I prefer not to breathe the air that vintage muscle cars and other gas-guzzlers produced (and remember those days all too well). Likewise I don't want to waste the amount of water that SQ require by design. Especially when there is a better alternative at the same price point with similar longevity that give better results.

Bill

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Dude, we get it. Your points are that they use too much water, cheated by creating a normal mode that doesn't really work well, and are rougher on clothes. We get it. There really is no point in continuing to repeat those same 3 points over and over and over and over. We get it. 

Add to the equation that there is an alternative at the same price point that dramatically saves water, did not cheat in order to get machines to market, with a similar expected longevity that is gentler on clothes and that cleans better.

These seem like relevant considerations on a thread about washing machines.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I do appreciate your viewpoint and detailed analysis.  But  the horse is dead Bill. 

At least I tried to provide you with an alternative solution and the reasons you might wish to consider your options.

Your call. 

Bill

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

The laundromat SQs are exactly the same machines as the home models (just with a coin slot). SQ markets this as a positive. I dunno.

I have a base of comparison and know that old school agitator washes are much harder on clothes and consume more water (a lot more).

I value not being profligate with scarce resources in a perpetually drought stricken region with no relief in sight, especially when there is a far better option at the same price point.

Bill

 

No, they don’t.  SQ markets their knowledge of how to build in durability from their years of making laundromat machines as a positive.  There is a subtle but distinct difference between the two.

The home machines are not the same as the laundromat machines.  To get a laundromat machine you have to buy one of their commercial models.

Still ignoring my point as well, I see.  No surprise there.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Carol in Cal. said:

No, they don’t.  SQ markets their knowledge of how to build in durability from their years of making laundromat machines as a positive.  There is a subtle but distinct difference between the two.

The home machines are not the same as the laundromat machines.  To get a laundromat machine you have to buy one of their commercial models.

Still ignoring my point as well, I see.  No surprise there.

What point have I avoided?

SQ builds washers that trade durability (through the use of simplistic designs) for high resource use and wear and tear on fabric. Many downsides to that approach IMO.

Bill

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

Add to the equation that there is an alternative at the same price point that dramatically saves water, did not cheat in order to get machines to market, with a similar expected longevity that is gentler on clothes and that cleans better.

These seem like relevant considerations on a thread about washing machines.

Bill

And several people have given reasons why Miele may not be an option for them - either wanting used (me), not having service techs in their area, not having access to even buy them, etc. 

1 minute ago, Spy Car said:

What point have I avoided?

 

 

 

The point that you already stated your argument about a dozen times, so there is no need, nor any benefit, to continuing to repeat it ad nauseam. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ktgrok said:

And several people have given reasons why Miele may not be an option for them - either wanting used (me), not having service techs in their area, not having access to even buy them, etc. 

The point that you already stated your argument about a dozen times, so there is no need, nor any benefit, to continuing to repeat it ad nauseam. 

Correct on point one, and I've said myself that I would not purchase any washer that I could not easily get serviced locally. The lack of a support network would be a deal breaker on any major appliance. So no disagreement there.

The comment on the second point is a red herring as to the points I supposedly avoided.

Bill

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

@Spy CarYou are a crack up

I just called Speed Queen to see what the water usage is on their machines.

The TC5 uses 60 gallons per load at their most water intensive setting, with "deep fill" and a double rinse. If one uses a single rinse it comes down to 40 gallons per load.

The Permanent Press mode (which is their actual "normal" mode) uses about 30 gallons per load in a single rinse and 45 gals for a double rinse. Bulky/Delicate modes use 32/48 gallons per load (single/double rinse).

The so-called Normal/Eco mode uses 14.5 gallons of cold water per load in the wash cycle, plus some amount of water that is used in their "spray rinse" (the figure was not available).The rep referred to this mode as the "government mandated mode" and freely admitted that basically no one uses this Normal/Eco mode and that it exists only to comply with Federal energy regulations.

In contrast, a Miele uses under 3 gallons of water per load.

Just FYI.

Bill

 

Edited by Spy Car
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

I just called Speed Queen to see what the water usage is on their machines.

The TC5 uses 60 gallons per load at their most water intensive setting, with "deep fill" and a double rinse. If one uses a single rinse it comes down to 40 gallons per load.

The Permanent Press mode (which is their actual "normal" mode) uses about 30 gallons per load in a single rinse and 45 gals for a double rinse. Bulky/Delicate modes use 32/48 gallons per load (single/double rinse).

The so-called Normal/Eco mode uses 14.5 gallons of cold water per load. The rep referred to this mode as the "government mandated mode" and freely admitted that basically no one uses this Normal/Eco mode and that it exists only to comply with Federal energy regulations.

In contrast, a Miele uses under 3 gallons of water per load.

Just FYI.

Bill

 

Horse is still dead. 
 

If I lived in a water scarce area I would be interested. Thankfully I do not because  the thought of washing a load of clothes in so little water makes me ill. I did read it was 5 gallons for a Miele not 3 but either way gross.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Horse is still dead. 
 

If I lived in a water scarce area I would be interested. Thankfully I do not because  the thought of washing a load of clothes in so little water makes me ill. I did read it was 5 gallons for a Miele not 3 but either way gross.  

Not gross at all. Clothes come out way cleaner and fresher in a Miele than in a water-wasting agitator style washing machine. Read reviews. I bet you find none that criticise the quality of the wash. Mieles are infamously excellent in wash quality, longevity, and conservation of resources.

A Miele uses 1.6 liters per kilo of laundry. A typical load is 7 kg (8 kg max). That converts to 2.94 gallons per load at a typical load of 7kg and 3.6 gallons for an extra large load.

Bill

 

 

Edited by Spy Car
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does one fully rinse a full load of dirty, soapy laundry with so little water? What sorcery is this? If my husband has nearly a gallon of dried sweat in his load of workout clothes, i don't see how see how 3 gallons is enough to dilute that, wash it, and rinse it out?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also - Bill - let the record state that we all stipulate that a Speed Queen uses more water than a Miele, a LOT more. 

We all acknowledge that. There is ZERO need to continue stating it over and over and over and over and over again. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ktgrok said:

How does one fully rinse a full load of dirty, soapy laundry with so little water? What sorcery is this? If my husband has nearly a gallon of dried sweat in his load of workout clothes, i don't see how see how 3 gallons is enough to dilute that, wash it, and rinse it out?

Beats me. The low water consumption is a wonder of German engineering. 

All I can tell you is that Mieles clean clothes wonderfully well (the best in the industry), are gentle on fabric, easy on water and electricity, and are durable. They check all the boxes.

That's why I like them so much.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Spy Car said:

Beats me. The low water consumption is a wonder of German engineering. 

All I can tell you is that Mieles clean clothes wonderfully well (the best in the industry), are gentle on fabric, easy on water and electricity, and are durable. They check all the boxes.

That's why I like them so much.

Bill

We know 🙂

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Also - Bill - let the record state that we all stipulate that a Speed Queen uses more water than a Miele, a LOT more. 

We all acknowledge that. There is ZERO need to continue stating it over and over and over and over and over again. 

Not "all" acknowledge the water wastefulness, as an earlier post of mine that said SQs could use up to 50 gallons per load was contested.

I was off on that figure, as it is up to 60 gallons per load in the most water intensive mode.

A "typical" SQ load would require at least 10 times the amount of water. That's no small deal IMO.

Bill

Edited by Spy Car
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MissLemon said:

Consumer Reports gave my POS Samsung washer very high marks. It did a poor job cleaning the clothes and died 5 years later. 🤷‍♀️

Might be a good reason to avoid a Samsung. That doesn't change the negatives associated with SQs.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Which reminds me. . . I need to throw a load of laundry into my Speed Queen! 

Do you care to get some pre (dry) and post wash (wet) clothing weights so we can compare the efficiency of the spin cycle?

For science.

Bill

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

Might be a good reason to avoid a Samsung. That doesn't change the negatives associated with SQs.

Bill

Consumer Reports isn't infallible. They made a mistake on the junky Samsung. They're wrong about SQ, too. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t think it’s actually fair to say that SQ cheated.  They figured out a way to work within the stated rules that still provides simple engineering, clean, untorn clothes, fast work, fine tunable water usage, and essentially no maintenance requirements.  I’d call that consumer friendly BECAUSE IT STILL RESULTS IN CLEAN CLOTHES AND DOES NOT REQUIRE MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS, OR REPLACEMENT.

By contrast my 2013 Maytag—

Tore my stuff

Did not necessarily even wet the entire loads

Did not clean worth a darn, even with multiple spray treatments and multiple washes

Did not allow me to pause a cycle without immediately draining the machine

Had no deep soak provision

Had no way to open the lid to check the water level or throw in the sock that fell out of the basket on the way downstairs

Actually felted some cotton placemats, which is supposed to be impossible, irreversibly so.

Required a fairly frequent ‘washing machine cleaning process’ involving an extra chemical, which no machine I have ever used before needed

Depended on electronic sensing to decide for itself, without any option for input from me, how much water to use—something it did notoriously poorly and inconsistently, even though I finally started adding a heavy because it was wetted sopping bath towel to every load to make it put in enough water to at least get most of the load wet, though not necessarily clean.

The person upthread whose house was sold with the washer and dryer included probably lost the best washer and dryer they will ever have.  The people who bought that house were smart to insist so that they would have them from now on.

I am so relieved to have learned about and bought my SQs while I still could.  I only wish that I could find a similarly reliable and effective value in the fridge or dishwasher section.  

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MissLemon said:

Consumer Reports isn't infallible. They made a mistake on the junky Samsung. They're wrong about SQ, too. 

But you won't deny that SQs use 10 times as much water per load (or more) or that agitator style washers are rough on clothes, do you?

Bill

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

Do you care to get some pre (dry) and post wash (wet) clothing weights so we can compare the efficiency of the spin cycle?

For science.

Bill

I will be way too busy folding and putting away my very clean, bright and undamaged clothes that I just pulled out of the dryer.  (Previous load)

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Spy Car said:

But you won't deny that SQs use 10 times as much water per load (or more) or that agitator style washers are rough on clothes, do you?

Bill

My Speed Queen is not rough on clothes at all.  Agitation is not necessarily rough on clothes.  SQ says that their drum is smoother than most and that that reduces stress on clothing.  I find that credible, though unproven, but it is undeniable that my SQ is very gentle despite its speed, and I wash very delicate stuff frequently.  By contrast my 2013 Maytag tore things all the time—often fairly sturdy things like heavy cotton tablecloths, not just delicates.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I don’t think it’s actually fair to say that SQ cheated.  They figured out a way to work within the stated rules that still provides simple engineering, clean, untorn clothes, fast work, fine tunable water usage, and essentially no maintenance requirements.  I’d call that consumer friendly BECAUSE IT STILL RESULTS IN CLEAN CLOTHES AND DOES NOT REQUIRE MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS, OR REPLACEMENT.

By contrast my 2013 Maytag—

Tore my stuff

Did not necessarily even wet the entire loads

Did not clean worth a darn, even with multiple spray treatments and multiple washes

Did not allow me to pause a cycle without immediately draining the machine

Had no deep soak provision

Had no way to open the lid to check the water level or throw in the sock that fell out of the basket on the way downstairs

Actually felted some cotton placemats, which is supposed to be impossible, irreversibly so.

Required a fairly frequent ‘washing machine cleaning process’ involving an extra chemical, which no machine I have ever used before needed

Depended on electronic sensing to decide for itself, without any option for input from me, how much water to use—something it did notoriously poorly and inconsistently, even though I finally started adding a heavy because it was wetted sopping bath towel to every load to make it put in enough water to at least get most of the load wet, though not necessarily clean.

The person upthread whose house was sold with the washer and dryer included probably lost the best washer and dryer they will ever have.  The people who bought that house were smart to insist so that they would have them from now on.

I am so relieved to have learned about and bought my SQs while I still could.  I only wish that I could find a similarly reliable and effective value in the fridge or dishwasher section.  

 

 

 

Entirely disagree about the "cheat." SQ figured a way to game the system by producing a mode that they call "normal" that even they advise people not to use it (and this virtually unusable cycle still uses 5 times as much water per load as a Miele).

The rep on the phone openly called Normal/Eco the "government mandated" mode and said "I don't see why anyone would use it."

Not ethical behavior from a corporation in my book.

"Fine turning" a load to use 60 gallons per load is not environmentally friendly IMO.

Bill

Edited by Spy Car
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

I will be way too busy folding and putting away my very clean, bright and undamaged clothes that I just pulled out of the dryer.  (Previous load)

Had a feeling I would not get cooperation.

Bill

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

My Speed Queen is not rough on clothes at all.  Agitation is not necessarily rough on clothes.  SQ says that their drum is smoother than most and that that reduces stress on clothing.  I find that credible, though unproven, but it is undeniable that my SQ is very gentle despite its speed, and I wash very delicate stuff frequently.  By contrast my 2013 Maytag tore things all the time—often fairly sturdy things like heavy cotton tablecloths, not just delicates.  

I'd invite you to compare the drums on SQ vs the drums on Mieles. Worlds apart.

Bill

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

Entirely disagree about the "cheat." SQ figured a way to game the system by producing a mode that they call "normal" that even they advise people not to use it (and this virtually unusable cycle still uses 5 times as much water per load as a Miele).

The rep on the phone openly called Normal/Eco the "government mediated" mode and said "I don't see why anyone would use it."

Not ethical behavior from a corporation in my book.

"Fine turning" a load to use 60 gallons per load is not environmentally friendly IMO.

Bill

The fact is, they met the requirements.  That is not cheating.  But by all means, don’t buy one.  Really.  Don’t.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

How does one fully rinse a full load of dirty, soapy laundry with so little water? What sorcery is this? If my husband has nearly a gallon of dried sweat in his load of workout clothes, i don't see how see how 3 gallons is enough to dilute that, wash it, and rinse it out?

Me either and it grosses me out.  I might endure it if I was living in a drought prone area....I am not though.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Carol in Cal. said:

The fact is, they met the requirements.  That is not cheating.  But by all means, don’t buy one.  Really.  Don’t.

No, they did not. Their Normal/Eco mode is unusable, which they admit. They cheated by finding a loophole in the testing protocols and designing a fake mode they call "Normal" that they know doesn't work. 

It is a pure cheat, with the cost being very high water waste. That isn't ethical. Not even close.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

Entirely disagree about the "cheat." SQ figured a way to game the system by producing a mode that they call "normal" that even they advise people not to use it (and this virtually unusable cycle still uses 5 times as much water per load as a Miele).

The rep on the phone openly called Normal/Eco the "government mediated" mode and said "I don't see why anyone would use it."

Not ethical behavior from a corporation in my book.

"Fine turning" a load to use 60 gallons per load is not environmentally friendly IMO.

Bill

Meh. Not sure I agree, but that doesn't really influence my buying choices.  I just want my clothes clean.  Not trying to change the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Scarlett said:

Me either and it grosses me out.  I might endure it if I was living in a drought prone area....I am not though.  

Nothing to "endure." Miele cleans better while using a small fraction of the water.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Spy Car said:

Nothing to "endure." Miele cleans better while using a small fraction of the water.

Bill

There is something to endure.  The thought of so little water being used to clean my clothes.  You really can't fact check my thoughts Bill.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Meh. Not sure I agree, but that doesn't really influence my buying choices.  I just want my clothes clean.  Not trying to change the world.

I guess I am trying to change the world--at least as far as my own consumer choices and budget allow. We are supposed to be good stewards of the earth, and wasting water doesn't comport with that aim IMO.

Plus Mieles clean better and are far more gentle on fabric. And if there is a truly gross mess to clean, the Miele has an internal water heater that will do "sanitize" modes. SQ does not. Talk about gross.

And did I mention how much quieter Mieles are? I think not.

Bill

Edited by Spy Car
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

No, they did not. Their Normal/Eco mode is unusable, which they admit. They cheated by finding a loophole in the testing protocols and designing a fake mode they call "Normal" that they know doesn't work. 

It is a pure cheat, with the cost being very high water waste. That isn't ethical. Not even close.

Bill

Nope, it is not unusable.  It is fully functional.  I’ve actually used it.  It’s not what people buy Speed Queens for but it’s not unusable.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

There is something to endure.  The thought of so little water being used to clean my clothes.  You really can't fact check my thoughts Bill.

No I can't check your thoughts, but Mieles are famous for washing clothes well. Top of the line. Much better than SQs.

Bill

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Carol in Cal. said:

Nope, it is not unusable.  It is fully functional.  I’ve actually used it.  It’s not what people buy Speed Queens for but it’s not unusable.

Virtually no one uses Normal/Eco (which I was told was cold water only).

SQ admits that. This mode is a pure cheat to evade Department of Energy regulations. Sorry.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

I guess I am trying to change the world--at least as far as my own consumer choices and budget allow. We are supposed to be good steward of the earth, and wasting water doesn't comport with that aim IMO.

 

You just changed direction....you were calling the company unethical.  I don't avoid companies in general because of how they do business.  As far as wasting water, it is not a concern here.  At all.

As I said, if I lived where you live I would make different choices.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...