5 ms·
> It uses as little water as a modern front loader I am afraid that is physically impossible, unless you are washing a single pair of socks.
by jwr 7y ago
> It uses as little water as a modern front loader
I am afraid that is physically impossible, unless you are washing a single pair of socks.
- majewsky 7y agoI just went to the website of a local tech shop that sells washing machines, and grapped two midrange Whirlpool models, a top loader and a front loader. Since I'm in Europe, regulations require that shops display a trove of efficiency data that is calculated for standardized model washing cycles. The front loader has 7kg loading capacity and uses 8850 liters per year. The top loader has 6kg loading capacity and uses 8500 liters per year. Because of the difference in loading capacity, the top loader is 10% more efficient in its water usage. So okay, slightly more efficient, but top loaders are certainly not hopelessly inefficient as the discussion seemed to imply.
- gbrown 7y agoI'd like to see how that's measured, and how it compares to real life usage. Our house came with a high efficiency top loader, but it constantly goes unbalanced if not really carefully loaded (and sometimes even then). Its solution is to try and rebalance itself by filling the drum up with water and agitating, up to three times before quitting with a warning.
- jeltz 7y agoHe probably just looked at a European-style top loader. My family here in Sweden had one of those over 30 years ago, and it is just a window-less front loader which you load through a hatch in the rim of the drum. It is a bit more of a hassle to unload them but they use virtually the same amount of water as front loaders.
- gbrown 7y agoInteresting, I’ve never seen one like that in the states. Yeah, that should be functionally equivalent.
- SECProto 7y agoI looked up two entry level machines on a Canadian website: * Top loader - 4.4 cubic feet, IWF 6-1/100 * Front loader - 5.0 cubic feet, IWF 3-1/5 Not knowing what those meant, I looked it up. The "water factor" represents how much water a machine uses, in gallons per cubic foot of capacity. In other words, the front loader uses about half the water that the top loader uses. As another commenter said, top loaders are different in the EU - in North America, the whole drum is turned on its side and water must fill as far up as the clothes go - there's no tumbling action to shift clothes in and out of the water at the bottom of the sideways drum in a front loader (and a European style top loader)
- 8draco8 7y agoI think there is difference in the way top loaders are build in US and EU. US top loader is basically front loader put on it's back, that's why it have to fill all the way up. EU top loader have the drum sideways so it works in the same axis as front loader and you put your clothes trough the doors in wall of the drum.
- Sharlin 7y agoHuh. I was really confused by GP's statement but that explains it. Never ever have I seen a top loader with a vertical spin axis.
- rayiner 7y agoWow. I’ve never seen a top loader with a horizontal spin axis. Until now I never even contemplated it could be different. I wonder what other stuff is like that.
- jeltz 7y agoThe top loaders I have seen here in Sweden have just been front loaders except the instead of having a window you load the drum through a hatch in the rim. That design should use exactly as much water as front loaders.
- dahfizz 7y agoYup, that's the difference. American top loaders flip the drum on its side so the opening of the drum is at the top. This also typically allows for a larger drum.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- unishark 7y agoTop loaders are common in Japan and they use a tiny amount of water. They also have a feature to drain the bathwater to use instead of the tap. Of course a "bath" there isn't for cleaning but more like a jacuzzi.