3 ms·

Hate to say that Speed Queens might have gotten worse in the last several years: https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/speed-queen-washer/ https://www.nytimes

Hate to say that Speed Queens might have gotten worse in the last several years: https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/speed-queen-washer/ https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/speed-queen-washer/ I do not have one, so do not know how true the article is.

jtbayly 5y ago
Wow. Thanks for posting this. We love our 20 year old Speed Queen. Glad to know I should keep it going rather than replace it if it needs a repair in the next 20 years.
User23 5y ago
They backtracked on that. The TC5 uses their traditional action[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_Queen#cite_note-5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_Queen#cite_note-5
derbOac 5y ago
We sort of inherited a relatively new-ish SQ with our house, and it's been an interesting experience. I was aware of SQ before, but only minimally so, and so looked into them, finding out there is a split between a sort of SQ fan base and review outlets like Consumer Reports, Wirecutter, etc. At the time, I was skeptical of the fan base, trusted these review outlets more, and had a modern front-loader before that, but figured it didn't cost us anything so would give it a try. I really love the SQ washer actually. I don't know that I like it more than the front loader before it but it's been very reliable and cleans well. I've noticed that SQ seems to treat its washer design as if washing machines are tools to be used, rather than as a device that washes your clothes for you. So, for example, I do think a modern front loader would clean clothes better on a default setting, but I can customize the cycles a lot more with our SQ, so in the end they come out the same. If you have reviews that are standardized so the testers push a "normal wash button" and evaluate the output, it's misleading, because that's not really how SQ machines shine. They're also not very water efficient, leading to some controversies when they started to be reviewed by popular review outlets. Anyway, it seems like some of the newer electronic control models aren't quite as popular, and there's some issues along these lines with how review outlets evaluate products. The even newer ones that are more like they're older ones are more popular, and I'm not sure the way consumer sites review machines is quite right for something like SQ anyway. If you look at front-loading machines, for example, SQ is a higher-rated brand; I think this is partly due to smaller differences between brands in how controls are implemented. I think if we had to replace the machine, I'd probably get a front-loader, but I'd probably want a SQ again. In any event, it (along with some other similar issues with other product categories) has really convinced me that these standardized product review sites aren't quite picking up on certain things in the way I might have thought 10 years ago. Something seems off to me about them in a way I can't quite put my finger on, even though in general I think those kinds of review processes (third-party standardized product testing) are essential and usually the bar to meet.
coolso 5y ago
FWIW I would not bank any major decision - one way or the other - based on anything Wirecutter says. I’ve been screwed over listening to them far too many times to count. Other review sites aren’t much better. Sometimes it’s better to just go with your gut and word of mouth reputation. There are far too many variables for testers to test accurately, in addition to any biases that may exist. I’m growing tired of these organizations that claim to be - or are treated as - the end all be all for anything - reviews, knowledge, shopping, etc. It sounds good, but it’s often much different from reality if you dig a little deeper.

jtbayly 5y ago

Wow. Thanks for posting this. We love our 20 year old Speed Queen. Glad to know I should keep it going rather than replace it if it needs a repair in the next 20 years.

User23 5y ago

They backtracked on that. The TC5 uses their traditional action[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_Queen#cite_note-5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_Queen#cite_note-5

derbOac 5y ago

We sort of inherited a relatively new-ish SQ with our house, and it's been an interesting experience. I was aware of SQ before, but only minimally so, and so looked into them, finding out there is a split between a sort of SQ fan base and review outlets like Consumer Reports, Wirecutter, etc. At the time, I was skeptical of the fan base, trusted these review outlets more, and had a modern front-loader before that, but figured it didn't cost us anything so would give it a try. I really love the SQ washer actually. I don't know that I like it more than the front loader before it but it's been very reliable and cleans well. I've noticed that SQ seems to treat its washer design as if washing machines are tools to be used, rather than as a device that washes your clothes for you. So, for example, I do think a modern front loader would clean clothes better on a default setting, but I can customize the cycles a lot more with our SQ, so in the end they come out the same. If you have reviews that are standardized so the testers push a "normal wash button" and evaluate the output, it's misleading, because that's not really how SQ machines shine. They're also not very water efficient, leading to some controversies when they started to be reviewed by popular review outlets. Anyway, it seems like some of the newer electronic control models aren't quite as popular, and there's some issues along these lines with how review outlets evaluate products. The even newer ones that are more like they're older ones are more popular, and I'm not sure the way consumer sites review machines is quite right for something like SQ anyway. If you look at front-loading machines, for example, SQ is a higher-rated brand; I think this is partly due to smaller differences between brands in how controls are implemented. I think if we had to replace the machine, I'd probably get a front-loader, but I'd probably want a SQ again. In any event, it (along with some other similar issues with other product categories) has really convinced me that these standardized product review sites aren't quite picking up on certain things in the way I might have thought 10 years ago. Something seems off to me about them in a way I can't quite put my finger on, even though in general I think those kinds of review processes (third-party standardized product testing) are essential and usually the bar to meet.

coolso 5y ago

FWIW I would not bank any major decision - one way or the other - based on anything Wirecutter says. I’ve been screwed over listening to them far too many times to count. Other review sites aren’t much better. Sometimes it’s better to just go with your gut and word of mouth reputation. There are far too many variables for testers to test accurately, in addition to any biases that may exist. I’m growing tired of these organizations that claim to be - or are treated as - the end all be all for anything - reviews, knowledge, shopping, etc. It sounds good, but it’s often much different from reality if you dig a little deeper.