U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > House
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-22-2011, 07:40 AM
 
311 posts, read 472,470 times
Reputation: 611

Advertisements

My home's laundry room is on the third floor and the washer and dryer need to be replaced. As far as the washing machine, I'm not at all opposed to replacing the unit with the same type old-fashioned traditional agitator washer. But, if it's viable, I'd prefer to go with a high-efficiency model.

It's clear that a front-load HE washer won't work because of potential vibration. But I wonder if top-load HE washers are less prone to spin cycle vibration than front load models.

Does anyone have any real world experience with top-load HE washers on an upper level of their home who can provide useful feedback?

Thanks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-22-2011, 08:02 AM
 
Location: The Triad (nc)
17,597 posts, read 23,805,174 times
Reputation: 14787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggier View Post
potential vibration...
If it's really an issue then do something about it:
www.airloc.com/pdf/Washing_Machine_Pads.pdf
Anti Vibration Mounts Machinery Press Releases and Articles for Products
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2011, 08:08 AM
 
21,720 posts, read 37,184,337 times
Reputation: 10714
I think that my experience is that front load washers are inherently LESS PRONE to vibration that top load.

Think about it -- the natural distribution of the items being washed is accomplished with tumbling AND gravity in a front loader. It is far more difficult for the clothes / towels to get unevenly distributed.

I would never go back to top loaders.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2011, 08:22 AM
 
8,682 posts, read 12,474,980 times
Reputation: 6151
I have posted several times that I hate my front load washer because they don't work as well as a top loader, but vibration is not a problem. I'd have to say that the top loader had more vibration than the front loader and I always use high speed spin. Some of the more expensive front loader you can't even tell they are running. Of course they might as well not be because they aren't getting the clothes clean. You simply cannot clean really dirty clothes in a gallon of water. And, you have to have a reasonably diverse load. If you have a heavy towel with a bunch of washcloths, it won't spin because the washer cannot evenly distribute the load. So you have to balance the items if you only have a few big items. I always have so much laundry it is not a problem for me. I do all the washcloths in one load, all the bath and pool towels in another load etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2011, 08:27 AM
 
21,720 posts, read 37,184,337 times
Reputation: 10714
Default What sorts of cleaning problems do you have?

I am very pleased with the cleaning power of our front load. We have a mid-range Fridigidaire and liked it so much we got our M-I-L a Kenmore labeled unit like it that has few more features (like countdown / time remaining indicators). Both units seem to do an excellent job.

There are some tricks that you need to get used to, like being sure that all the socks get to the dryer and enough air circulates to allow the seals to stay fresh, but that is about the only think we had to adjust to...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilson513 View Post
I have posted several times that I hate my front load washer because they don't work as well as a top loader, but vibration is not a problem. I'd have to say that the top loader had more vibration than the front loader and I always use high speed spin. Some of the more expensive front loader you can't even tell they are running. Of course they might as well not be because they aren't getting the clothes clean.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2011, 08:33 AM
 
8,682 posts, read 12,474,980 times
Reputation: 6151
Quote:
Originally Posted by chet everett View Post
I am very pleased with the cleaning power of our front load. We have a mid-range Fridigidaire and liked it so much we got our M-I-L a Kenmore labeled unit like it that has few more features (like countdown / time remaining indicators). Both units seem to do an excellent job.

There are some tricks that you need to get used to, like being sure that all the socks get to the dryer and enough air circulates to allow the seals to stay fresh, but that is about the only think we had to adjust to...

When the clothes start out clean, the front loader does a great job. Trouble is, a gallon of water is not enough to wash dirty clothes. In a HE front loader, the clothes are never even covered with water. More like they are dragged through it. Great idea if there is a water shortage. I'd be willing to sacrifice, but 100 gallons of water for every man woman and child in the US flows past my residence every day on its way to the sea. I have a 40,000 gallon swimming pool that evaporates more water than I use in the house and I water a lawn all summer sometimes having two hoses running full blast for 24 hours. So saving 14 gallons of water per wash load is not even in the tinyest bit relevant to me compared to getting my laundry really clean.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2011, 09:04 AM
 
311 posts, read 472,470 times
Reputation: 611
Methinks that based on some of these replies, an old-fashioned top loader might be the way to go after all .

A front loader is out of the question. Don't have room for the pedestals and I don't want to bend to get at my wash.

I don't do a ton of laundry and I tend to mix heavy and light items in one wash. Doesn't sound like the HE washers like this too much anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2011, 05:46 AM
 
572 posts, read 1,924,279 times
Reputation: 314
Speaking for myself, I really don't like the HE washers. I replaced my old washer with a top loading HE a few months ago and I wish I'd stayed with the regular version. No matter what I do my laundry smells odd.

I have to say there is absolutely no vibration from it, though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2011, 07:50 AM
 
Location: southwestern PA... where the nest is now empty!
12,126 posts, read 14,246,211 times
Reputation: 18577
We love our front loader... the water savings is worth it alone.
I have NO trouble getting anything clean.
It seems to have less vibrating than our old top-loader.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2011, 08:49 AM
 
8,682 posts, read 12,474,980 times
Reputation: 6151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitt Chick View Post
We love our front loader... the water savings is worth it alone.
I have NO trouble getting anything clean.
It seems to have less vibrating than our old top-loader.
When you say "water savings" that sort of interests me. Because you are probably from Pittsburgh, right? And, for some odd reason Pittsburgh is the most expensive place in the country for water. But, you have more water than anywhere else in the world because a million gallons of water per minute or so flows past you and ends up lost to the sea if we don't use it here in Cincinnnati. There is no shortage in Pittsburgh and there never will be, right?

Anyway, at $.001 per liter, you pay about 10 times what we pay just down the River a couple hundred miles. Even so, if you save 15 gallons per load, that could come out to $.025 cents per load. I don't think you could measure the soap well enough to not miss the soap cost by two and one half cents. You might save $0.25 per week. So what it it about the "water savings" that you notice?

Now, if you have a well, and it doesn't produce, I could see the concern. But wells in the Pitt area are rare. Even so, if you dig down 30 feet the water just runs into the well and costs next to nothing to pump out.

So I''m perplexed when a person from the Pitt is excited about "water savings" from a washer.

Last edited by Wilson513; 11-24-2011 at 09:14 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > House

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top