4 ms·

I 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

I 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 ago
I'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 ago
  He 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 ago
    Interesting, I’ve never seen one like that in the states. Yeah, that should be functionally equivalent.
SECProto 7y ago
I 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)

gbrown 7y ago

I'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 ago
He 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 ago
  Interesting, I’ve never seen one like that in the states. Yeah, that should be functionally equivalent.

SECProto 7y ago

I 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)