Hacker News Reader

Comment by ethbro | Hacker News Reader

At the cheaper end of $3000, I've heard great things about Speed Queens. The linked review below is meh, but people who love them love them because they're apparently built like tanks.

http://laundry.reviewed.com/content/speed-queen-awne92sp113t...

View on HN

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.

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

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.)

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.

I bought a top-loading Speedqueen washer and dryer pair. My laundry closet isn't deep or tall enough for front-loading washers or stackable dryers.

They have worked well for over 4 years.

I have never caught on to front-loading washers.

The SpeedQueens are not EnergyStar, and you won't find reviews of them at Consumer Reports, but they are build well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com