is it frugal to replace old top loading washer with new front loading energy star?
Joe
to pay for a new washer? Anyone notice lower utitily bills after
replacing old top loader with front loader or is the difference not
noticeable?
Rod Speed
> will the savings I make on water and electricity
> be substantial enough to pay for a new washer?
Nope.
> Anyone notice lower utitily bills after
> replacing old top loader with front loader
> or is the difference not noticeable?
Unlikely to be noticeable unless you do a hell of a lot of
washing and very little of anything else that uses water.
Joe
my wife has been washing clothes pretty much every day so it's a
pretty sizeable amount of our daily water usage and my washer is about
20-30 years old.
Rod Speed
>>> will the savings I make on water and electricity
>>> be substantial enough to pay for a new washer?
>> Nope.
>>> Anyone notice lower utitily bills after
>>> replacing old top loader with front loader
>>> or is the difference not noticeable?
>> Unlikely to be noticeable unless you do a hell of a lot of
>> washing and very little of anything else that uses water.
> my wife has been washing clothes pretty much every day
It makes more sense to change than than to change the washer.
> so it's a pretty sizeable amount of our daily water usage
Still wouldnt be economic to change the washer for a new front loader.
> and my washer is about 20-30 years old.
If its lasted that long, it could well last another decade or more too.
Sounds like you are looking for an excuse to buy a new one.
h
"Jimington" <wvzu...@gfa.pp> wrote in message
news:ro1kv35fkvcarp79j...@4ax.com...
> We saw an ad a while back mentioning a $200 state government rebate
> for efficient machines, i.e front loaders. So with the 20 year old one
> having become very noisy decided to waste less than the previous
> fortune on one. Just be warned that they may be far more suited to
> some people than others because whilst they wash very acceptably with
> little water they also take a very long time to go through a normal
> cycle. To me this isn't a problem but others like my wife like to put
> clothes straight from the machine to the line and hates the waiting.
> Pity too is that fixing the old machine was very simple since its
> problem was only a broken foot, simply fixed by welding it back in
> place.
> I can't really say whether the new machine has lowered our water usage
> since last bill we only used 140 litres per day for the two of us.
> Bills from previously were similar although we do tend to have more
> staying visitors these days. We also have no need to reduce water
> consumption further since our council applies a minimum $5 a quarter
> charge and we're always very close to the minimum.
>
> The worst thing about the rebate was after doing all the paperwork
> organising the rebate to be direct credited to our account, some lazy
> shinybum in the state government office sent us a cheque. prick or
> prickette!. That caused a visit to the bank, something i can well do
> without.
>
> This of course answers nothing but at least i had some fun letting off
> steam.
>
> Jim.
> www.inghamcam.info
If you do a lot of fabric dyeing (or any at all, really), you do NOT want a
front loader. You have to have the fabric already in the front loader and
then add the dye to the fabric. That's not the preferred method, which is to
agitate the dye in the washer and then add the fabric. Also, front loaders
don't use enough water to allow the fabric to move freely in the water and
get an even color. All that said, if you don't dye fabric in the washer, the
only negative to a front loader is the extreme vibration many of them
produce. My neighbor's entire house shakes during the spin cycle.
Jeff
Google yields this:
http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/laundry.html
Most of the energy cost of a washer load is in heating the water and
washers use copious amounts of it.. So, plug in your own numbers and see
where it takes you. If you do a lot of washing with hot water it will
pay for itself in several years. If you don't it may never. Water and
utility costs vary widely, as does usage.
You may wish instead to just switch to a cold water detergent.
I'm keeping my old washer but am considering a toilet swap to lower
water useage. A much cheaper investment.
Jeff
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Nope.
> Sometimes any excuse will do.
> We saw an ad a while back mentioning a $200 state government rebate
> for efficient machines, i.e front loaders. So with the 20 year old one having
> become very noisy decided to waste less than the previous fortune on one.
In my case the only real downside with the current top loader is that
the T shirts do end up a tad wrinkled compared with the previous one
which I still have which didnt wrinkle them, but did leave a noticeable
soap mark, the T shirts are mostly very dark blue. Its gearbox is dying
tho, the current one was free from when dad died. In fact its a bit quiet,
I have the PC alarm when its time to put the clothes on the line.
None of the reviews are much use on wrinkling, so I havent bothered
to replace it, since the wrinkles look bad when the T shirts are wet
but they're fine when dry. I never ever iron anything, ever, not even
proper shirts which I might wear once a decade or so.
> Just be warned that they may be far more suited to some people
> than others because whilst they wash very acceptably with little
> water they also take a very long time to go through a normal
> cycle. To me this isn't a problem but others like my wife like to put
> clothes straight from the machine to the line and hates the waiting.
Yeah, I prefer a quick cycle and still use a top loader myself.
> Pity too is that fixing the old machine was very simple since its problem
> was only a broken foot, simply fixed by welding it back in place.
Mine has plastic feet and I just put a block under that corner.
> I can't really say whether the new machine has lowered our water
> usage since last bill we only used 140 litres per day for the two of us.
I dont even use that, and almost never water the jungle except in the most
extreme drought and even then, I did in this one, didnt in the previous one.
> Bills from previously were similar although we do tend to have more
> staying visitors these days. We also have no need to reduce water
> consumption further since our council applies a minimum $5 a
> quarter charge and we're always very close to the minimum.
Yeah, me too.
> The worst thing about the rebate was after doing all the paperwork
> organising the rebate to be direct credited to our account, some lazy
> shinybum in the state government office sent us a cheque. prick or
> prickette!. That caused a visit to the bank, something i can well do without.
I just post those, mostly to ING.
> This of course answers nothing but at least i had some fun letting off steam.
True, pity we cant actually roast the prick or prickette literally |-)
Rod Speed
> Joe wrote
>> will the savings I make on water and electricity be substantial enough to pay for a new washer? Anyone notice lower
>> utitily bills after replacing old top loader with front loader or is the difference not noticeable?
> Google yields this:
> http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/laundry.html
> Most of the energy cost of a washer load is in heating the water and washers use copious amounts of it..
Anyone with a clue washes in cold water.
Dennis
>Joe wrote:
>> will the savings I make on water and electricity be substantial enough
>> to pay for a new washer? Anyone notice lower utitily bills after
>> replacing old top loader with front loader or is the difference not
>> noticeable?
>
> Google yields this:
>
>http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/laundry.html
>
> Most of the energy cost of a washer load is in heating the water and
>washers use copious amounts of it.. So, plug in your own numbers and see
>where it takes you. If you do a lot of washing with hot water it will
>pay for itself in several years. If you don't it may never. Water and
>utility costs vary widely, as does usage.
>
> You may wish instead to just switch to a cold water detergent.
Front loaders also spin more of the water out of the clothes, so
drying times are shorter. If you use a gas or electric dryer, that
could mean some savings as well.
Check out your local gas/electric utility for any rebates you may be
eligible for when buying an energy star washer. They should also have
information on any state incentives that are available.
When we bought our front loader a few years ago, between the discount
from the retailer, the cash rebate from our electric utility and the
state tax credit, the net cost was US$258.
Dennis (evil)
--
The honest man is the one who realizes that he cannot
consume more, in his lifetime, than he produces.
Dave
"Joe" <joe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c82fb05d-d1ad-41fd...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
It's not noticeable if you just replace the washer. We did that (not to
save money), and it didn't seem to have an effect on our utility bills.
However, when we replaced our electric water heater with a natural gas one,
our utility bills dropped $50 / month. We saw a negligible increase in
natural gas usage and a HUGE decrease in electricity usage that more than
offset it, money wise. Heating water (or anything else) with electricity is
wicked expen$$$$ive. From what I've seen, replacing an electric water
heater, the new water heater will pay for itself in less than two
ears. -Dave
Lou
I don't have one. But when I bought my last machine I considered it, and
decided not to when I calculated that it would take something like 20-25
years for the extra cost to be made up by water savings. Depending on the
price, any energy assistance aid you can get, and how much wash you do, it
may or may not be worthwhile.
Dave
> I don't have one. But when I bought my last machine I considered it, and
> decided not to when I calculated that it would take something like 20-25
> years for the extra cost to be made up by water savings.
Yes, but did you calculate the cost of heating water? A front loader uses a
lot less water, so you need to HEAT less water to run it. -Dave
Joe
> Sounds like you are looking for an excuse to buy a new one.
I am, this old washer doesn't really clean the clothes very well and
the clothes come out sopping wet so if I don't run the dryer 2 cycles
my clothes end up with a slight mildewy smell. But it still works... I
was hoping someone would chime in and tell me that their electric
usage went down just from the fact that the spin cycle on these front
loaders is so thorough that the clothes need less time in the dryer.
The thing that really kills me is reading about how in other states
people can get rebates from their state and utilities up to $200 for
buying an energy star rated machine. Not so in CT...
Vic Smith
wrote:
Some top-loaders have high rate spin cycles. Have one of those
myself.
http://www.sears.com/shc/s/p_10153_12605_02637782000P?vName=Appliances&cName=Washers+%26+Dryers&sName=Top-Load+Washers
I won't recommend it, because I haven't had it long enough.
It'll have to work at least 5 more years before I'll feel it's done
right by me. I saw some failures in the comments, so bought the 5
year full-bore warrantee for a couple hundred.
It's certainly not my most frugal purchase, but dirty clothes were
piling up. Better if you have more time.
Given the wife's demand for pre-soak and capacity, it was the best I
could come up with. We rejected front loaders due to
cost/platforms/reliability.
Wife says this one leaves more dog hair on the clothes than the old
one that broke. That Kenmore was probably 25 years old.
She also doesn't like its water mixing. Says it adds cold water to
wash even if set to hot wash/warm rinse. So you get warm/warm.
No other complaints.
On the plus side it's quiet, and has an extra high speed spin cycle
that she says has shortened dry time considerably.
Might be similar high speed spinners out.
--Vic
Bob F
"Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote in message
news:ftfma3$bhh$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
Plus, the newer machines supposedly spin faster, to reduce the dryer time. And
I've heard that clothes last significantly longer when washed in front loaders.
Dave
>> Yes, but did you calculate the cost of heating water? A front loader
>> uses a lot less water, so you need to HEAT less water to run it. -Dave
>
> Plus, the newer machines supposedly spin faster, to reduce the dryer time.
> And I've heard that clothes last significantly longer when washed in front
> loaders.
Yup, the clothes are practically dry before they hit the dryer.
Don't know about clothes lasting significantly longer, but I do know that
they get SIGNIFICANTLY cleaner in a front loader. I hate using top loaders
(when I'm on the road) for the reason that in a top loader the clothes never
really get clean. -Dave
m...@privacy.net
>But it still works... I
>was hoping someone would chime in and tell me that their electric
>usage went down just from the fact that the spin cycle on these front
>loaders
Beware: The "life" of these front loaders doesn't come
anywhere near what the old top loaders are.
Id say if you get 10 yrs form a front loader before it
breaks down... you are doing very well indeed. So make
sure to include the shorter "life" in you cost and
payback calcs.
m...@privacy.net
>We rejected front loaders due to
>cost/platforms/reliability.
My Kenmore front loader only lasted 7 years..... with
light duty use
Seerialmom
I have to admit I'm a bit underwhelmed on the "savings" department
with my He2 "front loader" and matching huge dryer. I rarely use
"hot" wash water...and so far the dryer doesn't dry "faster" than my
previous model. However, I will be water-metered soon so when that
happens I might see some savings, at least from the general water
usage.
m...@privacy.net
>I have to admit I'm a bit underwhelmed on the "savings" department
>with my He2 "front loader"
To me (limited knowledge)..... the problem with front
loaders..... and my beef with the one that I had that
failed on me after 7 years is this:
The "longevity" of front loaders MAY not be long
enough for the payback given the premium cost.
You really need to think that out ...
I just don't think these new fangled front loaders (ANY
of them)...will last 20-25 years like the old top
loader that my mom had did. And if they don't....
there is a good chance there will be no payback but
ironically could COST MORE total ownership cost! That
was my experience!
Cheapo Groovo
@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, joe...@gmail.com says...
sarge137
If you're moving from a top loader to a front loader to save operating
costs, don't bother. You'll wear out the front loader long before you
recover your additional purchase cost over an equivalent top loader -
which will still be running long after the front loader goes to the
washing machine grave yard.
If you want to make the change because it's a "greener" product (which
it really isn't), only you can decide what that's worth to you.
Regards,
Sarge
Lou
"Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote in message
news:ftfma3$bhh$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
I calculated based on my usage patterns - almost all of the wash is done in
cold water. We have a white linen lace tablecloth we use at Christmas - it
has to be washed in hot water. Other than that, an occasional (like once
every few months) grimy article means a load done with hot water.
So basically, any savings would be due solely to reduced water usage. At my
water rates, that's not much.
Supposedly, front loaders spin more water out of the wash, so the dryer
would run less, but I couldn't find any figures to quantify the difference.
Supposedly, front loaders are gentler on clothes, which should longer as a
result. Considering that the slacks I wore to work today are over ten years
old and still look like new, that potential cost saving seems minute at
best.
Lou
"Bob F" <bobn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ecSdncI-W7t9BGba...@comcast.com...
>
> "Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote in message
> news:ftfma3$bhh$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
> >
> >> I don't have one. But when I bought my last machine I considered it,
and
> >> decided not to when I calculated that it would take something like
20-25
> >> years for the extra cost to be made up by water savings.
> >
> > Yes, but did you calculate the cost of heating water? A front loader
uses a
> > lot less water, so you need to HEAT less water to run it. -Dave
>
> Plus, the newer machines supposedly spin faster, to reduce the dryer time.
I've heard that many times over the years, but I've never seen any figures
to back it up. Something on the order of, we start with like ten pounds of
dry cotton bath sheets and run them through the washer. When they come out
of the front loader the wet towels weigh 10 + x pounds. When they come out
of the top loader, they weigh 10 + x + y pounds. I don't know if it's true
or not, but granting that it's true, how big a number is "y"? And I guess
to be fair, the two machines should be of roughly comparable quality and
price - pitting a bottom of the line top loader against a premium front
loader kind of stacks the dice.
> And
> I've heard that clothes last significantly longer when washed in front
loaders.
Again, some numbers would be helpful here. How much longer? Do you wear
out your clothes/sheets/towels, or do you replace them as fashion or your
taste changes? I ask because I have terry towels that are over 30 years old
and still in excellent shape, sheets on the bed that are pushing 20 years
old. My clothes tend to be somewhat newer than that - it seems I filled out
somewhat over the years. Again, a quantitative test would be nice - ten
pounds of men's dress shirts washed 20 times in a top loader weigh how much,
compared to identical shirts washed 20 times in a front loader.
I
Dave
OK, but that's not a fair comparison. If you bought a top loader 30 years
ago and it's still going strong, that does not necessarily mean that a top
loader you buy brand new TODAY will last longer than a front loader of a
similar brand. I doubt if you could buy any laundry appliance today (2008)
that would have a good chance of still going strong in 2018. Appliances of
all kinds just aren't made to last anymore. If front loaders are more
popular NOW, then they are getting an undeserved bad rep. for having
"shorter" longevity than the top loaders that many of us (even me) remember
as having lasted decades. If you'd bought a top loader the same time you'd
bought your front loader, it might have died after only 7 years also. -Dave
Dave
If you're moving from a top loader to a front loader to save operating
costs, don't bother. You'll wear out the front loader long before you
recover your additional purchase cost over an equivalent top loader -
which will still be running long after the front loader goes to the
washing machine grave yard.
(snip)
How can you possibly draw that conclusion? Front loaders are more popular
now COINCIDENTALLY shortly after build quality of all appliances took a
nosedive. There may be a lot of old top loaders still going strong but if
front loaders were built to the same standards back 20-40 years ago, there
would be a lot of THEM still going strong, also. -Dave
George
Exactly, it is a total "apples & oranges" comparison.
m...@privacy.net
m...@privacy.net
> If you'd bought a top loader the same time you'd
>bought your front loader, it might have died after only 7 years also.
True...and I agree
ALL appliances don't seem to last long now days.... my
opinion
m...@privacy.net
ger...@gmail.com
> will the savings I make on water and electricity be substantial enough
> to pay for a new washer? Anyone notice lower utitily bills after
> replacing old top loader with front loader or is the difference not
> noticeable?
Frugal maybe, but I find the front loaders don't do a good enough job
washing the actual clothes. The top loader may be slightly more
expensive, but at least it gets the job done.
Adam
Do something good today. Protect our national fresh water supply with
just a click! - The National Water Conservatory
http://waterforever.blogspot.com/
Dave
<ger...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b7c718fd-2c9f-4c2b...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 6, 6:34 pm, Joe <joe5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> will the savings I make on water and electricity be substantial enough
> to pay for a new washer? Anyone notice lower utitily bills after
> replacing old top loader with front loader or is the difference not
> noticeable?
>Frugal maybe, but I find the front loaders don't do a good enough job
>washing the actual clothes. The top loader may be slightly more
>expensive, but at least it gets the job done.
Are you SERIOUS??? Either every front loader you've tried was defective
(somewhat unlikely) or your experience is the exact opposite of most people.
Front loaders get clothes SIGNIFICANTLY cleaner. When I'm on the road and
have to use top loaders, I can't wait to get home to RE-wash all my clothes
in the front loader so that they actually get CLEAN. -Dave
Vic Smith
You'll find different opinions on this all over the place. Mostly
among bitchy housewives. It's not the given you think it is.
Having had my filthy factory clothes and my pure white office work
shirts all laundered in top-loaders for many years, by women with
demanding standards, I suspect your estimation is wrong.
Might be some psychology involved.
There are probably "scientific wash quality" tests that have been
performed that could shed light on it, but I'm not interested enough
to look for them.
--Vic
Lou
"Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote in message
>
> OK, but that's not a fair comparison. If you bought a top loader 30 years
> ago and it's still going strong, that does not necessarily mean that a top
> loader you buy brand new TODAY will last longer than a front loader of a
> similar brand. I doubt if you could buy any laundry appliance today
(2008)
> that would have a good chance of still going strong in 2018.
I doubt you could have bought one 30 years ago that had a "good" chance of
lasting three decades either. No two machines are precisely alike, or
subject to the same circumstances. Every once in a while, one lasts
exceptionally long.
> Appliances of
> all kinds just aren't made to last anymore.
I remember buying a washer 30 years ago - people were saying the same thing
then.
> If front loaders are more
> popular NOW, then they are getting an undeserved bad rep. for having
> "shorter" longevity than the top loaders that many of us (even me)
remember
> as having lasted decades. If you'd bought a top loader the same time
you'd
> bought your front loader, it might have died after only 7 years also.
And maybe not - my current top loader is about 10 years old.
Lou
"Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote in message
The thing was, they did make front loaders back then - at least, I had one
some 30-odd years ago. How many 30 year old front loaders do you hear about
that are still operating?
sarge137
Oh, many many years worth of track record where top loaders out last
front loaders several times over. Ever wonder why the vast majority
of commercial coin op laundromats are equipped with heavy duty top
loaders? Because they run and run and run. When they do need repairs
it's much cheaper and easier than front loaders.
I don't agree that the build quality of appliances has taken a
nosedive at all. Quite the contrary. With rare exception they're at
least as good, if not better than 20-40 years ago. You can certainly
buy junk. It's out there, and always has been. Buy a mid to high end
appliance from a manufacturer that's been in the business for more
than a few years and you'll get as much quality as you're willing to
pay for. Adjusted for inflation, home appliances are actually a bit
cheaper these days, and are much more energy efficient. If front
loader manufacturers have addressed some of the issues that have made
tham less reliable in the past, they're certainly not making that
information available to consumers. When we decided to replace our
25+ year old top loader last year we spent a few weeks looking at just
everything out there, including front loaders. When we asked why we
should pay more for a front loader we were told they use less water
(yes-but that raises other issues) and were more energy efficent (not
enough to matter). The top loader won.
The only coinidence associated with the surge in popularity of front
loaders is the almost compulsive need for some consumers to go
"green". It uses less water so it must be better, right? Wrong! If
that's your preference, fine. But if you want to be frugal, which is
what this group is all about, and get the best bang for your buck, top
loaders win hands down.
Regards,
Sarge
sarge137
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 12:30:30 -0400, "Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are correct, Vic. My wife finds that the end result of my
daughter-in-law's top of the line LG front loader to be inferior to
her trusty old fashioned top loader. Now, that's not a scientific
study by any means. But, she's been doing laundry for our family for
over 40 years so her opinion, as far as I'm concerned, is carved in
stone.
By the way, she's neither a housewife nor bitchy. :-)
Regards,
Sarge
Vic Smith
<rboot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>I don't agree that the build quality of appliances has taken a
>nosedive at all. Quite the contrary. With rare exception they're at
>least as good, if not better than 20-40 years ago. You can certainly
>buy junk. It's out there, and always has been. Buy a mid to high end
>appliance from a manufacturer that's been in the business for more
>than a few years and you'll get as much quality as you're willing to
>pay for. Adjusted for inflation, home appliances are actually a bit
>cheaper these days, and are much more energy efficient.
Pretty much agree with this. The biggest problem with newer washers
seems to be in the electronics.
I'd rather have the old simple discrete mechanical controls that can
be cheaply replaced instead of the circuit boards the new ones come
with.
Seems the most complaints are there, and not in the mechanical end.
But consumers seem to want fancy functions.
Might be wrong though.
--Vic
sarge137
wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:26:59 -0700 (PDT), sarge137
>
Right on all points. The more bells and whistles, the more to break.
Sarge
Dave
>> (snip)
>>
>> How can you possibly draw that conclusion? Front loaders are more
>> popular
>> now COINCIDENTALLY shortly after build quality of all appliances took a
>> nosedive. There may be a lot of old top loaders still going strong but
>> if
>> front loaders were built to the same standards back 20-40 years ago,
>> there
>> would be a lot of THEM still going strong, also.
>
> The thing was, they did make front loaders back then - at least, I had one
> some 30-odd years ago. How many 30 year old front loaders do you hear
> about
> that are still operating?
>
>
Again, you are twisting the numbers in ways that they aren't supposed to be
twisted. 30-odd years ago, there was probably 1 front load washer sold for
every THOUSAND or so top loaders. Is it any wonder then that we don't
"hear" of too many of them still going strong today? -Dave
Lou
"Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote in message
Am I now. And how do you know that? I'm speaking of my own direct
experience, while you're simply making up numbers.
For what it's worth, wikipedia says that in the US consumer market, front
loaders account for 35%, top loaders 65%. No dates or sources for these
figures are given.
Dave
> be
>> twisted. 30-odd years ago, there was probably 1 front load washer sold
> for
>> every THOUSAND or so top loaders. Is it any wonder then that we don't
>> "hear" of too many of them still going strong today? -Dave
>
> Am I now. And how do you know that? I'm speaking of my own direct
> experience, while you're simply making up numbers.
>
> For what it's worth, wikipedia says that in the US consumer market, front
> loaders account for 35%, top loaders 65%. No dates or sources for these
> figures are given.
Those numbers are probably accurate today. But 30 years ago? -Dave
Lou
"Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote in message
I asked for some evidence to back up what otherwise seem like numbers you
simply made up based on nothing whatsoever. In other words, how about some
facts to back up your assertion? Still waiting.
Dave
>>> experience, while you're simply making up numbers.
>>>
>>> For what it's worth, wikipedia says that in the US consumer market,
>>> front
>>> loaders account for 35%, top loaders 65%. No dates or sources for these
>>> figures are given.
>>
>> Those numbers are probably accurate today. But 30 years ago? -Dave
>
> I asked for some evidence to back up what otherwise seem like numbers you
> simply made up based on nothing whatsoever. In other words, how about
> some facts to back up your assertion? Still waiting.
Are you really going to front that silly, illogical argument? If you want
numbers, post them. I'm not going to do your research for you. But I know
I won't see any numbers either as, if they do exist, they would likely back
up what I'm saying.
It is silly and illogical to suggest that top loaders are more reliable
simply because there's more OLD ones still working OK. How many old front
loaders were there? Not many I'm guessing and I admit that's a guess. But
I'm willing to revise my estimate if someone has some real numbers. So post
them if you want. I'm not waiting. -Dave
Lou
"Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote in message
>
> Are you really going to front that silly, illogical argument? If you want
> numbers, post them. I'm not going to do your research for you. But I
know
> I won't see any numbers either as, if they do exist, they would likely
back
> up what I'm saying.
>
> It is silly and illogical to suggest that top loaders are more reliable
> simply because there's more OLD ones still working OK. How many old front
> loaders were there? Not many I'm guessing and I admit that's a guess.
But
> I'm willing to revise my estimate if someone has some real numbers. So
post
> them if you want. I'm not waiting. -Dave
You are the one who made up a factless assertion, and it's up to someone
else to prove you wrong?
Normally, I wouldn't bother, but it was easy enough to find a number -
according to http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/pf/20050810c1.asp the average
useful life of a top loader is 14 years, while that of a front loader is 11
years.
Stormin Mormon
30, but that's not likely what you meant.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Lou" <lpogoda...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:OIKdnZuZj_AfymDa...@comcast.com...
Cheapo Groovo
http://tiny.cc/E7d6B
In article <9449e44c-68db-46c1-b7f8-
efadd9...@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, rboot...@yahoo.com says...