discussions

guidelines

meet the moderators

Refine Display
Discussion Categories
washers & dryers topics
Start a

LockedWhich saves more water

posted on August 18, 2009 at 11:35PM Inappropriate?

I am debating to purchase a front load or top load washer.  I see that the front load uses less kilowatt hrs per year.  But I cant seem to find how much water will I save?  besides the fancy looks, will it be to my benefit to but a front loader or stick with the original top loader?  Any information will be greatly appreciated. 

replies: 9 latest post: August 28, 2009 at 12:00AM by yardNgard
Displaying all 9 posts
posted on August 19, 2009 at 05:10AM
 

I understand the water savings is around 1/3 of a top loading washer (accounting for the less KWH used).

A special low suds - HE - soap needs to be used also.

Sears sells big load boxes of it.

posted on August 19, 2009 at 04:26PM
 

Your local Sears appliance department may still have the Kenmore HE5t/Oasis savings wheel, which gives a good depiction of water/money savings using an HE machine versus a conventional washing machine. If you want to see a list of machines and how efficient they are, check out http://www.cee1.org/resid/seha/rwsh/rwsh-prod.pdf . In general, a front-load washer or HE top-load washer (like the Kenmore OasisHE/HT) will use 14-16 gallons of water for a normal cycle, beginning to end. A conventional washing machine will use about 42 gallons on a normal cycle, beginning to end. You will also save energy with the dryer, because the clothes will come out of the washer with less moisture.

posted on August 19, 2009 at 11:41PM
 
In response to AdamO's post from August 19 2009 05:10AM

thank you for your reply

posted on August 19, 2009 at 11:42PM
 
In response to AdamO's post from August 19 2009 05:10AM

thank you for your reply.  I was not aware of the HE soap.

posted on August 20, 2009 at 12:33PM
 

You should check with a reputable repair person. According to two unassociated repair men I spoke with, the energy savings may not mean so much when you have to replace the electronic "board" which would cost $300 - $400. And the chances of having to do that seem pretty good.

posted on August 20, 2009 at 03:13PM
 
In response to sunidaz's post from August 20 2009 12:33PM

For machines 2 years old or older that would be an accurate statement. For current machines, it is not accurate. Please ask this reputable repairman if he's referring to machines 2 years old or older. If so, ignore his admonitions.

posted on August 27, 2009 at 12:40AM
 

Mechanical TOP loads are generally workhorses requiring little precautions and any soap you want, not too finnicky about empty pocket and small items (except for the oasis types) and yes they use more water, but are basic, reliable clothes washers.

FRONT loaders require more precautions and maintainence, much more, but use much less water, need he soap, mesh bags for smaller items, totally EMPTY pockets, keep them dry, bleach them out at least once a month. Electronics can become a compicated problem but not always. Steam is a complication in it's infancy, too early to tell. You MUST NOT treat a frontload like your mother's TOPload, do your homework on them.

My philosophy = KISS

posted on August 27, 2009 at 09:34PM
 

I agree with you smithnwesson.  I have a kenmore 110.xxx (I don't remember the numbers...) mechanical top loader (not even with the how water option!) but it is the best appliance I've ever had.  I just love that machine.

posted on August 28, 2009 at 12:00AM
 
In response to laundrymama's post from August 18 2009 11:35PM

You will proabably find this link helpful in your quest for the better machine:

http://www.waterenergysavings.com/washers.html

Also, check with you local water company for any rebates or discounts.  My water service actually gave me a rebate when I bought my front loader for this house.  Good luck.

LockedThis topic has been locked.