4 ms·

I bought a Speed Queen front-loader a few months ago. Although I can't say anything about the longevity, I was very impressed with the quality of the machine,

I bought a Speed Queen front-loader a few months ago. Although I can't say anything about the longevity, I was very impressed with the quality of the machine, going so far as to take pictures of the underside of the drum, drain plug, electronics package, and braces when setting it up. It's heavier -- about 250 pounds -- and quieter than the top-loader I replaced. I worry a little about the electronic control panel, the same one pictured in the review you linked, but I have hope it'll last more than a decade. The warranty is exemplary, even though I haven't had to use it yet so I can't attest to how well it's fulfilled. And it's made in Wisconsin: it's not just another rebranded Electrolux or Whirlpool.

throwaway049 10y ago
I've seen that brand in laundromats. I had no idea they made domestic machines too.
hvidgaard 10y ago
That is all well and good, but if a review write things like this For example, the similarly priced Electrolux EFLS617SIW removed 27 percent more stains than this Speed Queen on its Heavy Duty cycle and 13 percent more stains on its Whites cycle. We got similar results from Kenmore, LG, Maytag, and Whirlpool front-loaders Those stains remain in spite of the fact that this Speed Queen uses over 40 gallons of water for the Whites cycle and over 24 gallons for the Normal Eco. We estimate that this washer will cost around $85 a year to run. That's average for a top-load machine, but almost triple what a more-efficient front loader costs. A lot of our readers tell us they don't care about the environmental impact of their appliances. But, maybe they'll care about the extra $275 on their water bills over five years of ownership. I'm skipping it sadly (unless their front loaders are any better.)
- pythonistic 10y ago
  I don't have numbers in my user or installation manuals, but the previous model year supposedly used 11.7 US gal per load, or under 4 per fill. Living in the desert, I feel good about my choice of washing machine ($22-29 monthly water bill). Regardless, it's less than the top-load I replaced. Front-load washers are supposed to be more efficient and use less water.

throwaway049 10y ago

I've seen that brand in laundromats. I had no idea they made domestic machines too.

hvidgaard 10y ago

That is all well and good, but if a review write things like this For example, the similarly priced Electrolux EFLS617SIW removed 27 percent more stains than this Speed Queen on its Heavy Duty cycle and 13 percent more stains on its Whites cycle. We got similar results from Kenmore, LG, Maytag, and Whirlpool front-loaders Those stains remain in spite of the fact that this Speed Queen uses over 40 gallons of water for the Whites cycle and over 24 gallons for the Normal Eco. We estimate that this washer will cost around $85 a year to run. That's average for a top-load machine, but almost triple what a more-efficient front loader costs. A lot of our readers tell us they don't care about the environmental impact of their appliances. But, maybe they'll care about the extra $275 on their water bills over five years of ownership. I'm skipping it sadly (unless their front loaders are any better.)

pythonistic 10y ago
I don't have numbers in my user or installation manuals, but the previous model year supposedly used 11.7 US gal per load, or under 4 per fill. Living in the desert, I feel good about my choice of washing machine ($22-29 monthly water bill). Regardless, it's less than the top-load I replaced. Front-load washers are supposed to be more efficient and use less water.