Washing machines - Australia

[Viviane]

Does anyone have any comments (good or bad) on front loaders? We're after
one that's a reasonable size and doesn't take half the day to do a load.
There's 2 adults and 1 child.

TIA.

Viviane

[Phisherman]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 21:43:26 +1100, "Viviane"
<bharkingv@nospam.optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>Does anyone have any comments (good or bad) on front loaders? We're after
>one that's a reasonable size and doesn't take half the day to do a load.
>There's 2 adults and 1 child.
>
>TIA.
>
>Viviane
>

Front loaders are more gentle on the clothes, use less water, use low
suds soap, can handle uneven loads and (generally) have larger
capacities than top loaders. Front loaders are more expensive.
Either type should wash a load in about an hour, although some front
loaders might beat top loaders by 10 minutes. Get the largest
capacity tub you can find, and wash large loads to save time and
energy. However, never ever overload a washer.

[0tterbot]

"Viviane" <bharkingv@nospam.optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:402ed51e$1$14898$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> Does anyone have any comments (good or bad) on front loaders? We're after
> one that's a reasonable size and doesn't take half the day to do a load.
> There's 2 adults and 1 child.

i'm not the world's biggest fan of front-loaders, but i've not found them to
be _slower_ than top loaders (?). each kind takes about 1/2 hour to do a
load, in my experience. front loaders use less water, but then again you can
now get top-loaders with all that bizarre sensing paraphenalia that use less
water too - so look at them both & at the energy & water stickers for
comparison.

we inherited a fisher & paykel intuitive-eco top loader recently, which is
aaa-rated for water use & rates very highly for energy use too, so there you
are; standard wash (which includes 2 rinses) isn't any longer than any other
machine i've come across (i.e., about 1/2 hour). afaik, these are wildly
expensive new (& therefore not something i'd have actually _purchased_
myself :-) but i must say, i find it rather marvellous.

it's also very gentle with clothes, which is the other argument for front
loaders. it's my impression that top-loaders are slowly gaining the
advantages front-loaders have traditionally had, though at some expense &
via the use of computerised technology rather than physical technology
(which imo means it could all go bung at any time ;-).
kylie
--
www.rdj.com.au

[Sweep]

"0tterbot" <spl@t.com> wrote in message
news:AxVXb.60371$Wa.49438@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "Viviane" <bharkingv@nospam.optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:402ed51e$1$14898$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> > Does anyone have any comments (good or bad) on front loaders? We're
after
> > one that's a reasonable size and doesn't take half the day to do a load.
> > There's 2 adults and 1 child.
>
> i'm not the world's biggest fan of front-loaders, but i've not found them
to
> be _slower_ than top loaders (?). each kind takes about 1/2 hour to do a
> load, in my experience. front loaders use less water, but then again you
can
> now get top-loaders with all that bizarre sensing paraphenalia that use
less
> water too - so look at them both & at the energy & water stickers for
> comparison.
>
> we inherited a fisher & paykel intuitive-eco top loader recently, which is
> aaa-rated for water use & rates very highly for energy use too, so there
you
> are; standard wash (which includes 2 rinses) isn't any longer than any
other
> machine i've come across (i.e., about 1/2 hour). afaik, these are wildly
> expensive new (& therefore not something i'd have actually _purchased_
> myself :-) but i must say, i find it rather marvellous.
>
> it's also very gentle with clothes, which is the other argument for front
> loaders. it's my impression that top-loaders are slowly gaining the
> advantages front-loaders have traditionally had, though at some expense &
> via the use of computerised technology rather than physical technology
> (which imo means it could all go bung at any time ;-).
is two rinses enough? I like at least four.
these top loaders. how are they integrated into a kitchen? how would they go
under the worktops or are they stand alone?

[0tterbot]

"Sweep" <sweep@spam.free> wrote in message
news:c0ce5b2ffcbd46964888304ae5b13ed3@grapevine.is landnet.com...

> is two rinses enough? I like at least four.

lmao. i'd rather six, but what can you do ;-)

this marvellous machine doesn't do 2 ordinary rinses. it IS aaa-rated for
water usage, you know!

> these top loaders. how are they integrated into a kitchen?

don't ask me, mine's in the bathroom. nobody has their washing machine in
the kitchen round here that i know of. (until i lived here, i always had a
_laundry!_ luxury!!!)

how would they go
> under the worktops or are they stand alone?

you want a front-loader to go under a bench top. a top-loader needs to be
close to a sink (preferably with a dedicated hose hole) for the water that
comes out to go into, & needs to be fairly close to taps with screw
attachments (but i'm sure this all applies to front-loaders too). as you
load from the top, you can't have anything too close above it. (are you
serious?!)
kylie
--
www.rdj.com.au

[Sweep]

"0tterbot" <spl@t.com> wrote in message
news:%X2Yb.62722$Wa.24167@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "Sweep" <sweep@spam.free> wrote in message
> news:c0ce5b2ffcbd46964888304ae5b13ed3@grapevine.is landnet.com...
>
> > is two rinses enough? I like at least four.
>
> lmao. i'd rather six, but what can you do ;-)

mine does 3 minimum and there's an extra rinse button. sometimes I turn the
dial back and rinse more.

> this marvellous machine doesn't do 2 ordinary rinses. it IS aaa-rated for
> water usage, you know!

i'm not sure what that means


>
> > these top loaders. how are they integrated into a kitchen?
>
> don't ask me, mine's in the bathroom. nobody has their washing machine in
> the kitchen round here that i know of. (until i lived here, i always had a
> _laundry!_ luxury!!!)



>
> how would they go
> > under the worktops or are they stand alone?
>
> you want a front-loader to go under a bench top. a top-loader needs to be
> close to a sink (preferably with a dedicated hose hole) for the water that
> comes out to go into, & needs to be fairly close to taps with screw
> attachments (but i'm sure this all applies to front-loaders too). as you
> load from the top, you can't have anything too close above it. (are you
> serious?!)
sounds as though the plumbing is the same. I'd like my machine out of the
kitchen. when houses are built here that's the intended place, next to the
sink in the kitchen. it's rare to see it anywhere else unless it's a fancy
house. If it was a top loader I guess dirt and dust would get down the back
and make extra work unless there was a top cover of some sort.

[0tterbot]

"Sweep" <sweep@spam.free> wrote in message
news:3713be0c2a9d173b4d7f0df92905e08a@grapevine.is landnet.com...

> > lmao. i'd rather six, but what can you do ;-)
>
> mine does 3 minimum and there's an extra rinse button. sometimes I turn
the
> dial back and rinse more.

oh! i thought you were joking cos 2 seemed excessive, or something :-)

> > this marvellous machine doesn't do 2 ordinary rinses. it IS aaa-rated
for
> > water usage, you know!
>
> i'm not sure what that means

it means it doesn't use too much water (hence it gets a triple-a rating). i
realise in blighty this is probably the least of your concerns, but it's
important here. :-)

> sounds as though the plumbing is the same. I'd like my machine out of the
> kitchen.

i don't blame you. (!) anyway, you could do this easily - put it anywhere
there's 2 taps you can alter to the screw kind, an electrical outlet & a
sink.

when houses are built here that's the intended place, next to the
> sink in the kitchen. it's rare to see it anywhere else unless it's a fancy
> house. If it was a top loader I guess dirt and dust would get down the
back
> and make extra work unless there was a top cover of some sort.

not really. most of them aren't very heavy these days, & many have rear
wheels to move them with. at the end of the day, if you can't see all the
fluff underneath, you don't worry too much (like a fridge). if you are
worried, you move it & clean underneath.
kylie

[Sweep]

"0tterbot" <spl@t.com> wrote in message
news:tQFYb.64709$Wa.46545@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "Sweep" <sweep@spam.free> wrote in message
> news:3713be0c2a9d173b4d7f0df92905e08a@grapevine.is landnet.com...
> > sounds as though the plumbing is the same. I'd like my machine out of
the
> > kitchen.
>
> i don't blame you. (!) anyway, you could do this easily - put it anywhere
> there's 2 taps you can alter to the screw kind, an electrical outlet & a
> sink.
For me that is the kitchen. it's against regs to have electrical outlets in
the bathroom except shaver so that's out. cloakroom is too small. I need a
new place to live

> when houses are built here that's the intended place, next to the
> > sink in the kitchen. it's rare to see it anywhere else unless it's a
fancy
> > house. If it was a top loader I guess dirt and dust would get down the
> back
> > and make extra work unless there was a top cover of some sort.
>
> not really. most of them aren't very heavy these days, & many have rear
> wheels to move them with. at the end of the day, if you can't see all the
> fluff underneath, you don't worry too much (like a fridge). if you are
> worried, you move it & clean underneath.
I found when i had free standing appliances that the backs and sides ,not
the floor, got dusty and greasy and full of bits and i was always pulling
out and cleaning. now I never clean there because no dust/dirt can get down
and it looks better from the side, no wires and elements showing.