Has anyone seen a factual test of front load washer efficiency? Not just advertising claims- water useage is easy to compare –
but I can not find a comparison of drying time reduction- and I even read that some top load washers spin as fast as the front load ones (the spin ranges overlap depending on brand and model)
Anyone seen a true comparison?
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
There are a number of ways to achieve a level foundation and mudsill.
Featured Video
SawStop's Portable Tablesaw is Bigger and Better Than BeforeHighlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Replies
I am sure that you did a Google search.
Have you tried
http://www.energystar.gov
I did google.
The federal list I cant translate into dollars per year comparison
I'm not much help but I talked to someone the other day about the new washers and he talked like the difference was night and day in how much cleaner the kids clothes were.I didn't ask about energy usage though.^^^^^^
a Smith & Wesson beats four Aces
I am not aware of any tests. But we recently purchased a front load washer and did not replace the dryer.
There is no question that, in our case, the dryer is done a lot quicker than with the old washer. Now the dryer is sitting empty waiting for the next load from the washer where it used to be that completed loads were sitting in the washer waiting for the dryer to finish.
Of course, the old washer was a twenty plus year old top loader.
And, DW thinks that this washer takes longer than the old one (depending on the cycle and options chosen), but she still believes it is the faster drying times most responsible.
Rich Beckman
This signature line intentionally left blank.
We just bought a front loader too. I've got to go with Debby though I think the washer takes longer on a normal cycle. But it does dry faster. We also have a sensor dry dryer. Love that baby.
One question. How do you balance that baby? The guy that did ours did it wrong and man does it shake on spin.
Who dares, wins.
http://thewoodwhisperer.com/
Our front loader takes longer than any top loader I've used, but it's slow to change from one function (ie, wash to rinse). Seems like it just sits there for a couple of minutes then starts the next function. I'm assuming it's using gravity to drain as much as possible. The top loader definitely gets the laundry cleaner on much less detergent.http://grantlogan.net/
Grant,You wrote, "The top loader definitely gets the laundry cleaner on much less detergent." Did you mean to type front loader, or is the older style truly better in your experience?Bill
What I am trying to find out has anyone tested the effect on dryer run time, if you have a front loader, and published the results
They are published already.The Modified Energy Factor (MEF) is determined in part by the remaining moisture content (RMC) in clothing. For the calculation, etc. simply look up Appendix J1 of 10 CFR 430, part B, which details how efficiency testing is to be done for clothes washers. The older test procedure published the RMC, the new one doesn't because the MEF accounts for it. Energystar.gov maintains a list of energy star clothes washers and the MEF's they achieve.One way to compare RMC by washer is to look at the final spin speeds. If you're really careful, you also account for the basket diameter since that determines the centripetal force the clothes experience. Loadings in the 300G+ range are not unheard of in the laundry business.While you're at it, also consider looking up the water factor. This details how many gallons of water a clothes washer consumes for every cubic foot of capacity. While this information may not yet be published at energystar.gov, you can already look up a (somewhat outdated) list at the California Energy Commission.While the yellow tags on washers do not give a complete answer, they do serve as a great comparison tool. If you want to account for local conditions (i.e. electricity or gas prices), simply multiply the yearly operating costs by the right factors. If memory serves correctly, the feds still use $0.08/kWh as a reference, our costs are 2.5x higher than that. Similarly, your gas prices might also be much higher.Remember, for most clothes washer users, the principal use of energy goes towards heating the water in the clothes washer. However, if you use cold-water detergents and wash cold instead of hot/warm, then it becomes more of a water use issue. HTH.
one problem is the MEF is a combined washer dryer number I think.what I wanted was something simple like we tested a front loader, then a top loader and the drying times in the same dryer were so much(x minutes) for the top load clother and so much(Y minutes) for the front load clothes.water is cheap and we use cold water where I live so the cost savings is in the dryer operating less.
Trying to find what that would be just for the drywer
Edited 4/29/2007 10:16 pm ET by edwardh1
If the clothes contain less water coming out of the washer, (based on personal experience they do), then it will take less energy to evaporate that water to dry the clothes.
How much less? I don't have a quantitative answer, I can give you. But, from a personal qualitative perspective; I ran a load of shirts through my washer twice when I first bought it, because they were so dry that I didn't think they had been washed.
Well, the old RMC number would have given you a direct answer. In the meantime, your best bet might be the final spin speed. Top Loaders max out somewhere around 700 RPM, some front-loaders achieve 1600 RPM. I presume that the returns on higher spin speeds decline, i.e. that a 50% higher spin speed does not yield clothes that are 50% drier. Basket diameter also has to be accounted for. Both spin speed and basket diameter can be usually found in the product literature. Convert the spin speed into angular velocity (V = RPM x pi x R/ 30), then halve the basket diameter to get the radius, then A = V^2 / RTo convert it to G's simply divide by 9.8 if you're using metric figures.
I have seen top loader rpm up to 1000 and front loaders 800- 1300 so they overlap
>>>>>>>You wrote, "The top loader definitely gets the laundry cleaner on much less detergent."OOPS- I meant the front loader. Thanks.http://grantlogan.net/
I believe one of their efficiencies is reduced water use
As to a real test? What does you local laundermat use?
With my mouth I will give great thanks to the Lord; I will praise Him in the midst of the throng. For He stands at the right hand of the needy, to save them from those who would condemn them to death.
- Psalms 109:30-31
First... Repairs on a front loader will cost you the sale price of a top loader.
Second if you are really looking to save money/energy why are you putting your clothes into a rotating oven? Ever hear of a clothes line?
Never seen a direct comparison, but by feel I find that our 9 year old Neptune (front loader) gets more water out of the clothing than the new top loader that we have at work. The clothes out of the Neptune feel less wet and are stuck together tighter than from the top loader. To me, clothing from the top loader always feels like it could use another spin cycle after it is done. To be fair, the work machine was probably about $300, and the Neptune was probably about $1200 when it was new.
Hands down the Neptune cleans the clothes better. I often get grease and or food on my clothes. The machine at work doesn't get this out very well at all.
Yes the top loaders will do the job, and the price is right. But, if you can afford any of the front loaders you probably would never go back.
arent they supposed to use less water?
Don't know about a true comparison of every model, but personal experience is this. We went from a water bill of about $30 a month down to $20 a month when we switched from an old (15 year) whirlpool top load, to a new bosch front load. We also replaced the dryer, so drying time couldn't really be compared. But I know the less water going into the clothes, the less you have to dry. The basket of wet clothes also seems lighter carrying to the clothesline than it did before.