# How much Juice does an Energy Star Washer draw?



## Gooserider

I'm wondering if anyone here has one of the newer "Energy Star" clothes washers, and a "Kill-a-watt" meter?  We recently had one of those freebie energy audits done, and one of the suggestions made was to replace our current ~15 yr old standard washing machine with one of the newer energy star front load machines.  Our current machine is a Maytag, nothing fancy, but it works well and has been quite reliable.  I threw it on my Kill-A-Watt meter, and it seems to be drawing about 0.2 KWh per load, which doesn't seem like all that much...  We use natural gas for our water heating and dryer, and mostly use the cold or warm cycles, so we aren't getting hit badly for water and drying costs...

The claim was made that there is a rapid payback in terms of lower water consumption, and less power draw...  I am curious about how much less power draw, has anyone actually measured what the power consumption is on a PER LOAD basis?  (IMHO this is a far more useful number than some vague KWh/year estimate based on an arbitrary number of loads that might or might not relate to actual use...)

If our present washer was dead, it would make sense to replace it with an Energy Star rated unit, but somehow it's a lot harder to convince me that it's worth putting a perfectly good working appliance on the street just to upgrade the energy rating.

Does it seem like a reasonable thing to do, or are we just getting hit with "green doo-doo" and would we be better off spending our money elsewhere?

Also any particular brands / models that folks have had good or bad luck with?

Gooserider


----------



## Telco

I've got a Killawatt, and put it on my old Maytag, and saw 20 watts per use on a single load.  It's not an energy anything.  Water usage is where you save the money on the washing machine as the energy star models are supposed to use something like 1/3 of the water of a regular model.  

If you want more bang for the electrical buck, replacing a fridge with an energy star should make a difference, the fridge I bought at the same time as my washer uses about 2KWH per day.  This is the first appliance I plan to replace.


----------



## d.n.f.

Look at this site:

http://www.oee.nrcan.gc.ca/residential/personal/appliances.cfm?attr=4

and

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=clotheswash.display_products_html

My Bosch gets 151 kWh/year.

Big savings in dishwashers if you use one.

Plus I needed all new appliances (except a fridge).  By replacing the fridge 915 vs 520 I expect to save some coin.  Plus my new fridge is super quiet compared to the GE which I just sold.


----------



## Gooserider

Well, we've now run four loads through our washer while it's on the Kill-a-watt, and I'm showing .78 KWh consumed - or about .195 KWh / load, which seems to be consistent with the number that Telco got on his old machine.

Looking at the sites that D.N.F pointed me at, there was a little blurb on one saying that they base the numbers in their list of Energy Star models on the basis of doing 392 loads / year.  Going to the list of washers, I find that the KWh/year listed per machine varies all over the place, but even the lowest numbers I spotted (about 125) worked out to about .32 KWh / load, with my quick estimate average of 180 KWh/yr giving me about .46 KWh/load - this doesn't sound that great!  Did more digging, and found at the Energy Star Definitions page, that they cook the numbers by including the "estimated electric water heater use" costs - so the number is not useful for my purposes, especially since we do very few loads with hot water, and what hot water we do use is heated by gas.

So I'm back to my original question - does anyone know what the typical Energy Star Washer draws per load, _*JUST FOR THE WASHER?*_

BTW, the numbers that I've seen suggest that unless your fridge or dishwasher are REALLY old, there isn't enough savings potential there to justify replacing a working machine...  Worth purchasing an Energy Star replacement if the old machine dies, but not doing so just for the energy savings.

Gooserider


----------



## Telco

I dunno on the fridge.  The 18.7 cu ft I'm looking at as a replacement uses 407kwh/year, or 1.115kwh/day.  The one the wife wants (larger) uses 448kwh/year, or 1.2kwh/day.  My existing one uses like 2.5kwh/day, or 912kwh/year.  We pay around 8 cents/KWH, meaning that this fridge would save me either 37 bucks a year for the wife's preference or 40.40 per year for my preference, but saving almost 1.5KWH in a day means saving the cost of two solar panels, maybe 4 solar panels, and the required batteries and other hardware.  

It would not pay off for on grid, but would definitely pay off for an off-grid application, when looking at it as strictly money.  Looking at the bigger picture though, if a million people made this switch, it would save 1.5 gigawatts per day.  This is more energy than is needed to send Michael J Fox to some other time, since the flux capacitor only requires 1.21 gigawatts.   :lol:  If you combined it with a whole range of Energy Star appliances, paying close attention to the labels and not just the Energy Star sticker, I could see you cutting your non-hardwired electrical usage in half or better.  And, also need to keep in mind that water usage counts in the savings, too.  Not just heated water, but water in general.  The front loader washers claim to use half to a third of the water of a top loader, but if you gotta have a top loader Staber makes a top load horizontal axis job that looks good (not used one directly) and if you really want to save you can even use wood fired hot water to dry the clothes.  These options are pricey though, and I have no idea on the reliability of these guys or anything else.  Just found them on internet searches.  I was looking at experimenting with an old dryer, and a home made solar water heater to see if I can make a hydronic clothes dryer.  If it worked, and this link says it should...


----------



## d.n.f.

Yeah I wouldn't replace em unless you had to.  However, if you do get a new one, a front loader is much easier on your clothes.  You can wash all kinds of delicates in them.  My wife does dry clean only stuff in the old Miele.  Haven't installed the Bosch yet.

Notice that clothes dryers all suck and can't get an energy star rating.


----------



## Gooserider

Telco said:
			
		

> I dunno on the fridge.  The 18.7 cu ft I'm looking at as a replacement uses 407kwh/year, or 1.115kwh/day.  The one the wife wants (larger) uses 448kwh/year, or 1.2kwh/day.  My existing one uses like 2.5kwh/day, or 912kwh/year.  We pay around 8 cents/KWH, meaning that this fridge would save me either 37 bucks a year for the wife's preference or 40.40 per year for my preference, but saving almost 1.5KWH in a day means saving the cost of two solar panels, maybe 4 solar panels, and the required batteries and other hardware.
> 
> It would not pay off for on grid, but would definitely pay off for an off-grid application, when looking at it as strictly money.  Looking at the bigger picture though, if a million people made this switch, it would save 1.5 gigawatts per day.  This is more energy than is needed to send Michael J Fox to some other time, since the flux capacitor only requires 1.21 gigawatts.   :lol:  If you combined it with a whole range of Energy Star appliances, paying close attention to the labels and not just the Energy Star sticker, I could see you cutting your non-hardwired electrical usage in half or better.  And, also need to keep in mind that water usage counts in the savings, too.  Not just heated water, but water in general.  The front loader washers claim to use half to a third of the water of a top loader, but if you gotta have a top loader Staber makes a top load horizontal axis job that looks good (not used one directly) and if you really want to save you can even use wood fired hot water to dry the clothes.  These options are pricey though, and I have no idea on the reliability of these guys or anything else.  Just found them on internet searches.  I was looking at experimenting with an old dryer, and a home made solar water heater to see if I can make a hydronic clothes dryer.  If it worked, and this link says it should...



I agree on the off grid situation where every watt counts big-time, but even at our rate of 15.4 cents a kWh (including all the extra charges) that is still an awfully long payback if replacing a working appliance when on-grid.  I've been thinking about grid-tied solar, but according to some preliminary numbers I've run using the SolarFinder website a grid tied solar system would run us about $63K for 700 sqft, and have an 11 year payback - IMHO that's excessive, though if Nano-solar or some of their competitors start to get the price down to a more reasonable level, we might reconsider.  A hot water system might be a lot better, as that is only about $4k, with a 7 year payback.  

As to what would happen if lots of people made the switch, there is the interesting question that few people raise about what the environmental impact would be of making all the extra appliances and disposing of the old ones, but I'm more interested in what it does for OUR finances...  (IMHO the best way to get people to go green is to make it PROFITABLE, and get out of the way of the stampede - but if you can't, I know I'm going to be a really hard sale to make.)

If I had sizable amounts of money to spare, I would love to do a significant addition on the house, (2-3 rooms, and at least 2-3 more garage bays / workshop spaces) with a heavy emphasis on adding energy savings - I fantasize about getting a wood boiler with a couple thousand gallons of storage, and a large drainback solar aray, use that for all the heating, DHW, hydronic clothes dryer, etc, with a small gas boiler as ultimate backup - and use the solar setup to heat the swimming pool during the non-house heating season.

But our funds are much more limited, so we need to really make sure that any energy reduction spending we do makes economic sense, or it will have an adverse effect on our personal environment...

Gooserider


----------



## Gooserider

d.n.f. said:
			
		

> Yeah I wouldn't replace em unless you had to.  However, if you do get a new one, a front loader is much easier on your clothes.  You can wash all kinds of delicates in them.  My wife does dry clean only stuff in the old Miele.  Haven't installed the Bosch yet.
> 
> Notice that clothes dryers all suck and can't get an energy star rating.



I agree, and it's worth noting that nobody I've seen suggests swapping out the clothes dryer - closest it gets is some of the "hydronic dryer" suggestions.  The energy audit guy that suggested the washer said flat out not to change the dryer.  The Energy Star website isn't quite as explicit, but sort of says the same thing.  I don't really see how it could be significantly different in any case - you have to heat the air and blow it through the clothes, you have to turn the drum, and that's about all a dryer does...  There really aren't any places that one can pick up any savings without a really radical technology breakthrough.

Gooserider


----------



## Redox

Most washers only have a 1/2 Hp motor ant the typical cycle is less than 1/2 hr.  It really can't use very much electricity.  The savings comes in the energy to heat water.  If you multiply out the 40 to 50 gallons of water per cycle, this adds up quickly.  However, if you use a good detergent, you don't need to use hot water.  Try cold water and some good detergent for a while and see if you notice a difference.  I really haven't.  If you have a real dirty load like greasy overalls, then warm water might be a good idea.  The new high efficiency front loaders are Energy Star rated because they use a lot less water and spin faster, wringing more water out of the load.  A clothes dryer still has to expend X BTU per load, and nobody has figures out how to do this any more efiiciently, YET!

Retiring old appliances for newer and more efficient appliances strictly for energy savings is probably not a good idea unless the machine is over 10 years old or so.  To buy a $1000 refrigerator that may save $50 a year will never pay back before the thing dies, at today's electric rates.  If you are off the grid, you have to realize that you really ARE paying a lot for electricity, as you have to amortize that solar array.  Most people living off the grid don't have 25 CF side by side self defrosting refrigerators.  A manual defrost chest freezer in the basement and a small refrigerator in the kitchen is probably the most energy efficient way to go, unless you want to store your beer in a cave...

Chris


----------



## reguy

Don't forget the power required to pump the water.


----------



## Gooserider

Redox said:
			
		

> Most washers only have a 1/2 Hp motor ant the typical cycle is less than 1/2 hr.  It really can't use very much electricity.  The savings comes in the energy to heat water.  If you multiply out the 40 to 50 gallons of water per cycle, this adds up quickly.  However, if you use a good detergent, you don't need to use hot water.  Try cold water and some good detergent for a while and see if you notice a difference.  I really haven't.  If you have a real dirty load like greasy overalls, then warm water might be a good idea.  The new high efficiency front loaders are Energy Star rated because they use a lot less water and spin faster, wringing more water out of the load.  A clothes dryer still has to expend X BTU per load, and nobody has figures out how to do this any more efiiciently, YET!
> 
> Retiring old appliances for newer and more efficient appliances strictly for energy savings is probably not a good idea unless the machine is over 10 years old or so.  To buy a $1000 refrigerator that may save $50 a year will never pay back before the thing dies, at today's electric rates.  If you are off the grid, you have to realize that you really ARE paying a lot for electricity, as you have to amortize that solar array.  Most people living off the grid don't have 25 CF side by side self defrosting refrigerators.  A manual defrost chest freezer in the basement and a small refrigerator in the kitchen is probably the most energy efficient way to go, unless you want to store your beer in a cave...
> 
> Chris



I see claims that *RUNNING THE WASHER* will cost less energy per load.  I want to know how much energy it takes to *RUN THE WASHER*.  I am *NOT* asking about running the water meter, that's a SEPERATE, albeit related question.  I'm *NOT* asking about running the dryer, again that's a SEPERATE, albeit related question.

We don't run many loads with hot water. I think the GF might run a small load of her unmentionables in hot wash / cold rinse once in a while, but mostly she does cold wash, cold rinse.  All my clothes I do in warm wash, cold rinse. (the machine only does cold rinse...)  Our DHW and dryer are natural gas, and we aren't getting hit with big bills for that as it is - avg is about 25 ccf's / month.  Not sure what the water bill is, but that isn't big either, so I want to see what the impact will be on the ELECTRIC bill...

Even if it's a small impact, that will tell us something, and give us a better handle on how to figure the payback based on OUR useage, not some hypothetical gov't number with the same sort of relation to reality as an EPA mileage sticker...

The rest of the discussion is interesting, but off the topic of what I'm asking.  No intention of flaming anyone, but I'm trying to find the answer to a question, and am wanting to keep dragging the discussion back onto the topic until I can find some sort of answer.

What I'm hoping is that someone has a Kill-A-Watt and an energy star washer, and would be willing to plug the washer into it and tell me what the power draw was for one normal load...  Assuming someone has both items, I would think this would be an easy thing to do...

Gooserider


----------



## Telco

Heh heh, well, considering a non-Energy Star model draws 20 watts per load, it can't save that much on actual electrical usage.  In fact, since it spins the drum faster, it might even use more actual electricity.  The savings is going to be in less water used, and less dryer time due to the clothes having more water spun out of them.  The dryer is going to be the major energy sucker, in my house we have to run the dryer about 160 minutes per load to gt the clothes dry.   If they came out drier from the washer, that time might be cut to 80 minutes, 60 minutes, and that will chop my electric bill way down since I have an electric dryer.  My times are longer than they should be because the idiots that built my house put the laundry room in the middle, then ran the exhaust vent up, then over, then up at an angle, then straight up, where it ultimately empties onto the roof.  I had to install a booster in the middle of it just to get the air out, before I added the booster it was taking as much as 300 minutes per load to get the clothes dry.  And, our HOA specifically bans drying clothes outside.

I'm also interested in knowing its actual use, but view it as academic based on what a regular washer uses.


----------



## Gooserider

Telco said:
			
		

> Heh heh, well, considering a non-Energy Star model draws 20 watts per load, it can't save that much on actual electrical usage.  In fact, since it spins the drum faster, it might even use more actual electricity.  The savings is going to be in less water used, and less dryer time due to the clothes having more water spun out of them.  The dryer is going to be the major energy sucker, in my house we have to run the dryer about 160 minutes per load to gt the clothes dry.   If they came out drier from the washer, that time might be cut to 80 minutes, 60 minutes, and that will chop my electric bill way down since I have an electric dryer.  My times are longer than they should be because the idiots that built my house put the laundry room in the middle, then ran the exhaust vent up, then over, then up at an angle, then straight up, where it ultimately empties onto the roof.  I had to install a booster in the middle of it just to get the air out, before I added the booster it was taking as much as 300 minutes per load to get the clothes dry.  And, our HOA specifically bans drying clothes outside.
> 
> I'm also interested in knowing its actual use, but view it as academic based on what a regular washer uses.



I'm thinking you may be off on your number for a non-ES washer - you certainly seem to have the unit wrong.  "Watt" is a unit for measuring the amount of power being drawn at any single instant, however it's not a unit of power CONSUMPTION...  It's sort of like looking at your car speedo and saying I'm driving 30 miles, instead of driving 30 miles PER HOUR.  

Power consumption is measured in Watt-HOURS or power consumed over time, normally expressed in KiloWattHours to get rid of some spare zeroes.  One KiloWattHour is the equivalent of consuming 1,000 Watts for ONE hour - whether you actuall did it that way or as 100 watts for 10 hours, or 1,000 watts for 1/10 hour (or 6 minutes).

When I measure our washer, I'm getting 0.2 KiloWattHOURS per cycle, which takes between 20-30 minutes, or the equivalent of running a 100 Watt light bulb for 2 hours, or an average of 4-500 watts at any given time during the cycle - since the machine is doing different things at different times the amount it's drawing at any given instant will vary from near zero (while soaking the clothes, and running only the timer) to probably close to 1,000 watts (when spinning or agitating).

I could actually see a potential for a fair bit of difference in that power draw - how does turning a drum and gently tumbling clothes compare to the energy draw of driving an agitator through the transmission?  Even the question of spinning the clothes might take less energy depending on how the motor was geared and the friction of the drum turning mechanisms...  I'd be surprised to see a HUGE difference, but could easily see the number going down to say 0.15 or maybe even 0.1 kWH per load...

I agree it's a somewhat academic, question but it's still important to me..

Gooserider


----------



## Telco

Could be, could be, there wasn't a whole lot of documentation with my meter.  I'll have to do another check on it.


----------



## Gooserider

If your meter is a model P4400 Kill A Watt, by "P3", there are 4 grey buttons, and one pink one.  From the left, the buttons and their functions are:

1. Volt - instant voltage reading, should be around 110-120, and pretty stable, if it changes much you have a wiring problem, but will vary from outlet to outlet, house to house by a couple volts depending on the length of your power lines.

2. Amp - instant current draw reading - will vary as the load turns on / off, or changes what it's doing

3. Watt / VA - dual function button, cycles between the instant wattage draw, and the "Volt-Amp" draw.  On a pure resistance load, the two numbers should be the same, however if you have a load with a high inductance (i.e. motors or transformers) or capacitance, then there will be a difference due to the way the phases of voltage and current are shifted - the difference can be calculated and is known as the "Power Factor" or PF.  Both numbers are useful as they indicate the power draw at a particular instant, which is what you need to know if sizing a generator or solar array, or even figuring out if you are overloading a circuit...  

4. Hz / PF - dual function button, cycles between the AC frequency in Hz, and the Power Factor.  The AC frequency should ALWAYS be at or near 60 on a grid tied system, and not change (in North America, other parts of the world use 50, and some marine, aviation and military gear uses other frequencies.)  If you have DIY power, it should still be at 60, if you see something different you need to fix your system.  The PF or Power Factor is the ratio between the Watts and VA draws, as shown by button #3

5. KWH / Hours - (Pink button) - Dual function button, cycles between Total KiloWattHours consumed by the load, and the total elapsed hours since the meter was plugged in last...  These are the critical numbers which says how the load impacts your power bill, the other info is academically interesting but not of immediate value other than possibly for diagnostics.

If you have a different meter, the buttons may be different, but the above is what I'd expect the different functions to do.

In the case of a washer or something like that where the consumption is cyclic, and presumably irregular, you don't care that much about elapsed time - plug the meter in between the load and the outlet, run a cycle and see what it reads, which will give the consumption per cycle, and your bill impact is the per cycle consumption times the number of cycles per billing period.  OTOH if you have something like a fridge, or another "always on" appliance, then the elapsed time is useful - connect as always, and leave the unit for a few days of normal use.  Then read the elapsed time and the KWH consumed, and divide to get an average KWH consumption per hour (or day), and your bill impact will be that average times the length of a cycle...

Does that help?

Gooserider


----------



## Gooserider

Pook said:
			
		

> i have heard that significant savings can come from using a front loader washer . they wring the clothes better & the savings effect from the reduced dryer power.



I've heard the same thing, but that is not relevant to the question at hand!  The question being asked is a very simple one, I don't know why it is so difficult to get an answer.  

Again, the question is, How much electric power does the washer by itself draw to wash one average cycle of clothes...  Assume that I have an infinite supply of free solar heated water (in a gravity feed water tank), and will be line drying the clothes - thus NO other electrical energy will be used to produce a load of clean clothes - HOW MUCH ELECTRICITY WILL I CONSUME?

Gooserider


----------



## Highbeam

I have a newly installed whirlpool energy star horizontal washer and a kill-a-watt on the job right now measuring computer power usage (130 watts running, 14 phantom). I have the tools to give you your answer as soon as I catch the wife about to run the wash. Maybe someone will beat me to it. Obviously it is trivial and can be classified as "splitting hairs" but you want an answer. 

Related note. That 160 KwH per year usage rating for my washer includes dryer time I believe. There has been a SINGLE and very important innovation made in electric dryers that we all need to be aware of. The moisture sensor. Old washers had a timed cycle that would heat the clothes past dryness. Newer dryers sense that the clothes are dry and shut off. My dryer time is well under an hour now, I recall 38 minutes, compared to the couple of hours when drying wet clothes from an oldschool washer. 

Refrigerators don't suck much juice at all. Before anyone can speak about the worthiness of upgrades they need to measure real world consumption with a kill-a-watt. Otherwise they are depending on manufacturer's claims.


----------



## Redox

Sorry to interject again, Goose, but while we wait for Highbeam's report, I punched up some numbers that are being thrown around here and came up with the following approximations.  You say that your current toploader uses about .2kwh/load and that you are paying about $.15/kwh.  This works out to about 3 cents a load for electricity to drive the washer.  I think the DOE figures an average of 10 loads a week for the "average" family, if memory serves.  Multiply out for the year and I wind up with about $15/year.  If the front loader is twice as efficient, which would be a stretch, you are only going to save about $7-8 a year.  Divide that into the $1000 (or whatever) price tag, and I think we will all be long gone before you save any money, even off the grid!  I might even suspect that you don't do any where near 10 loads a week, unless the GF has a LOT of unmentionables!     As Pook so eloquently put it, you ain't gonna save...

 I believe the new machines have motors that are inverter driven, which might save some on the mechanical portion of washing the clothes, but still, how much are you going to save and how much are you going to pay to do it?  The savings will come from the reduced drying time, which is considerable.  If Highbeam could do a load in a conventional washer and measure the consumption on the dryer, I believe we would see a big difference.

Not to continue throwing gasoline around, but the refrigerator is the third largest energy consumer in the average household, after HVAC and DHW and more than cooking uses.

Going back into the shadows, now...

Chris


----------



## Gooserider

Thanks Highbeam, I will be interested to see your results for certain, even if it is mostly of academic interest.  I agree that the dryer and hot water are probably bigger parts of the equation, but given that we are running natural gas for both, the DOE numbers don't really tell us much of use.

Moisture sensors aren't anything new BTW, our current dryer at ~15 years old has one, and it is not a "fancy high tech" model - it is a simple enough item, basically just a pair of electrodes on the back of the drum that measure the resistance of the clothes tumbling past them - water has fairly low resistance, as it dries the resistance goes up until some threshold is reached at which point it switches into the "cool down" mode.  

I haven't actually timed our dryer, but it has a "timed perma-press" cycle that we set to it's 60 minute maximum on the timer.  At some point, usually about 40-45 minutes or so, it beeps and goes into cool down mode, where it tumbles for 30 seconds or so and beeps every 5 minutes or thereabouts until the timer finally shuts everything down at about 90 minutes....  

The only loads I see that take longer are when I do the bedclothes - Full size mattress pad, fitted sheet, comforter cover and pillow case, a definite "maximum load" that I have to put in the washer with great care to make the washer finish the cycle w/o going into out of balance shutdown...  This takes two dryer cycles to get things dry enough that I'd want to put them on the bed, they are still "clammy" at the end of the first cycle.

However if I'm reading the DOE energy star info properly, the washer "energy consumption" is supposed to include water heating (but they don't tell you how much that is) but NOT dryer power, though they mention that dryer time will be reduced due to the clothes being spun more.

Chris - your math is probably pretty close to right on the cost per load - my electric is actually $0.15367 / kwh, but that is not a significant difference.  The fine print on the DOE page says they are figuring 392 loads / year, or about 7.5 loads a week - (don't you love the round numbers? :roll: ) talking with the GF, it sounds like a pretty reasonable number for our useage...

Another interesting item to consider - the DOE talks about their energy consumption numbers as being how much you will save "over the *ELEVEN YEAR lifetime* of the washer" - IMHO this is NOT GOOD - why should we want an appliance that is only considered useful for eleven years?  Our current washer is over 15 years old, and is still going strong, has NEVER needed a major repair - I think I've replaced a couple of belts, and had a time or two when a sock has gotten jammed between the tub and the basket, but that's about it...  Most people I know with older washers have had similar experiences, and I have to wonder how much energy is wasted in making these new crapola machines that are only good for eleven years? (I've got COMPUTERS that have gone longer than that!)

Our audit guy looked at our fridge (another ~15 year old unit, the GF purchased it the last year that one could get fridges with CFC refrigerants), and basically said that while an energy star unit would save us on running costs, the savings wouldn't be enough to justify the purchase of a new equivalent sized fridge - however I haven't done the Kill-a-Watt test on it yet to find out for sure.

Gooserider


----------



## Redox

I like round numbers as math was never my strong point.  I'd like to think I am a big picture kinda guy when it comes to these things.  My point from early on was don't rush out to buy a new refrigerator or whatever, unless the old one was dying.  Then get rid of it; don't put it in the garage to keep multiple cases of beer cold.  It's still sucking on your electric meter, even though you aren't in it every day.  I'm still waiting for the old Kenmore to die, so I can make the excuse to put a new one upstairs near the bedroom.

FWIW, I had a conversation with an insurance adjustor a while back who informed me that, in the event of a major loss in the house, any appliance (except maybe the furnace?) that is over 7 years old is considered to be worthless!  I like to consider them "proven".  Oh, well...

Goose; you still have a belt on your washer?  Whirlpool canned their belt drive washers back in the '80's.  Just eggin' ya, dude!  Go buy a new washer for Pete's sake; you got your money's worth!  The GAF  has to be worth something, doesn't it?

Eagerly waiting on HB's findings..

Chris


----------



## Gooserider

It's the GAF that I'm trying to satisfy in part...  This is something that she also wants to know...  She is the primary breadwinner in the household, so essentially all major purchases need her approval / support.  

If the old washer were dead / dying, it would be a no-brainer to go get the new machine, it isn't that big of an added cost to get the energy star rated unit.  However if I'm going to convince her that replacing a working machine, I have to be able to present a fairly detailed set of numbers showing how it impacts OUR bills, not some hypothetical set of bills that only exist in the gov'ts imagination.  The parts of it I can measure I absolutely need to quantify...  I need to convince myself as well - so far all I really have to go for is the audit guy's suggestion, and the gov't website.  Considering that the gov't hasn't exactly proved itself to be very accurate in a lot of it's other claims - ranging from environmental to military, I don't place a huge amount of faith in "energy star" ratings.

Gooserider


----------



## Highbeam

Okay folks, here we go. About a month ago I installed a new pair of whirlpool duet sport model washer and dryer bought from Lowes to replace a dead stacked combo washer/dryer. The combo ended up at 1800$ after all the BS. I will be receiving a couple of rebates from my energy provider and from Lowes but nothing much. These buggers are expensive but when your washer goes TU you really need to act fast as in right F'n now and lowes delivered the next day.

So the new dryer runs for 34 minutes on "medium" heat which I can't measure but if it was using all of the less than the 30 amps available to it, say 6000 watts, the dryer costs about 3 KwH to do a load. This is only aout two bits (a quarter) in my area. 

The wash machine was run with the kill-a-watt today. The phantom load is 2 watts whether the power button is on with the display lights lit or whether they are all dark. While running I see between 40 and almost 800 watts and since a HP is about 750 watts I may conclude that the motor is about 1 HP. I ran the laod on "Normal" whick takes about 54 minutes. 

0.15 KwH for the entire washer cycle.


----------



## smangold

When the time comes , check out Staber washers, made in USA and home serviceable.


----------



## Gooserider

Highbeam said:
			
		

> Okay folks, here we go. About a month ago I installed a new pair of whirlpool duet sport model washer and dryer bought from Lowes to replace a dead stacked combo washer/dryer. The combo ended up at 1800$ after all the BS. I will be receiving a couple of rebates from my energy provider and from Lowes but nothing much. These buggers are expensive but when your washer goes TU you really need to act fast as in right F'n now and lowes delivered the next day.
> 
> So the new dryer runs for 34 minutes on "medium" heat which I can't measure but if it was using all of the less than the 30 amps available to it, say 6000 watts, the dryer costs about 3 KwH to do a load. This is only aout two bits (a quarter) in my area.
> 
> The wash machine was run with the kill-a-watt today. The phantom load is 2 watts whether the power button is on with the display lights lit or whether they are all dark. While running I see between 40 and almost 800 watts and since a HP is about 750 watts I may conclude that the motor is about 1 HP. I ran the laod on "Normal" whick takes about 54 minutes.
> 
> *0.15 KwH for the entire washer cycle.*



MANY THANKS!  This was exactly what I was looking for, and as others had expected (and frankly I had come to expect as well) there wasn't a huge difference...  Using the gov't 392 loads / year number, that works out to $0.0308 /load or $12.07 / year on our machine (0.2kwh/load x 0.154/kwh x 392) or (if it were in our house)  $0.0231 / load on your machine, and $9.06 / year.  At $3.01 a year, that is almost a 25% savings in electric for the washer, but also one hell of a long payback period. (OTOH, as far as I can tell, there is NO phantom load on our machines, when they are off, they are quite thoroughly dead...) 

However, looking at the dryer, I'm running at least 60 - 90 minutes to dry a load on medium heat using the moisture sensor cycle, (our setting for 95% of the loads we do) although I only draw 0.41 kWh to do it.  This is a gas dryer, so that juice only represents the energy needed to tumble the clothes and run the blower - I'm not sure how one can determine the gas consumption.  You don't say, but judging from the numbers you mention, I'm betting that's an electric dryer.

So the remaining cost comparison times would be to figure out how much water (and what 
e is hot) we would use with each type of machine, and the amounts of gas used for water heating and operating the dryer...  I think I can come up with at least ballpark figures for those.

Gooserider


----------



## Redox

All right Highbeam!  Thanks for the research.  Now if we could just answer the dryer question.  Since an electric element has a fixed wattage, all we have to do is put a timer on it to check its energy consumption.  A gas dryer also has a fixed burn rate and the burner runs on 120V.  If anybody still has a standard washer and a HE washer in their home, we could really nail this thing down.

Interesting to note the dry time is (significantly) less than the wash time.  Used to be the other way around.  My experience with older machines has been 20-30 minutes for a regular wash and 45 minutes for a dry.  We used to set the timers on 45 minutes on the coin op machines in apartments and didn't get many complaints.  Over an hour to dry is excessive and if it takes you more than 90 minutes, something is definitely wrong.

Telco, I have seen your situation before.  My wife's aunt has a house with a dryer vent made out of 3" PVC running through a concrete slab.  Her parents also have a house with a 4" vent running underground and it stops working when it fills up with water.  Curiously, both houses in Myrtle Beach.  Aren't these things governed by code?  Most machines specify a 50 foot included length as a maximum for the vent.

Chris


----------



## brad068

smangold said:
			
		

> When the time comes , check out Staber washers, made in USA and home serviceable.



I own a Staber. It seems to be doing a great job. I really like the top load and the fact that the tub has two bearing supports instead of one. It seems like a small tub until you load it. They have videos on their web site. And, you can open it up during a wash cycle like a regular top loader.


----------



## Redox

Garnification said:
			
		

> smangold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the time comes , check out Staber washers, made in USA and home serviceable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I own a Staber. It seems to be doing a great job. I really like the top load and the fact that the tub has two bearing supports instead of one. It seems like a small tub until you load it. They have videos on their web site. And, you can open it up during a wash cycle like a regular top loader.
Click to expand...


I have run across these before on other forums, but never met anyone with experience.  It's basically a home sized version of a commercial "pocket" washer.  Anybody else have one?

Chris


----------



## raybonz

Gooserider said:
			
		

> Pook said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i have heard that significant savings can come from using a front loader washer . they wring the clothes better & the savings effect from the reduced dryer power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard the same thing, but that is not relevant to the question at hand!  The question being asked is a very simple one, I don't know why it is so difficult to get an answer.
> 
> Again, the question is, How much electric power does the washer by itself draw to wash one average cycle of clothes...  Assume that I have an infinite supply of free solar heated water (in a gravity feed water tank), and will be line drying the clothes - thus NO other electrical energy will be used to produce a load of clean clothes - HOW MUCH ELECTRICITY WILL I CONSUME?
> 
> Gooserider
Click to expand...


I own a Whirlpool Energy Star top loading washer and the primary savings are in water usage if I remember correctly.. How it achieves this is by not filling the tub for the rinse cycle but rather it sprays water instead .. I have owned this for about 10 years and never a problem.. The washer also has temp controls for the warm water if you use it and saves energy in that sense however we rarely use hot water for washing..

Ray


----------



## Highbeam

Yes, I have an electric dryer. No gas at my place and even if I did I have a mental issue with a fire in my dryer. Cripes, the electric ones even burn houses down. 

When I replaced my electrical panel my electrician buddy checked each circuit's loading by using his little clamp on amp meter. Seems that circuits are supposed to be 75% utilized so a 20 amp 220 volt circuit should be passing 15 amps or so. The important item is that little amp meter. It was slick as heck and can measure 220 volt current just by putting a clamp around that circuit's hot line. It didn't keep track of KwH but the timer would do that provided that the current remains constant throughout the cycle. 

The washer takes about twice as long as the dryer but the washer spends a lot of time doing the dryer's job by spinning the clothes dry. Lots of time seems to be spent doing things other than tumbling in soapy water. In no case do I see the water level through the glass when clothes are in there. In fact, before using the machine I was directed to run an empty load to clean the sweat shop dust out. The water level only came up about 3 inches into the drum. The washer has a water sensor that automatically fills to that level regardless of wash load size. 

There is one more level of washing schemes and that is the "heavy wash" or high soils wash. It probably just agitates for a longer period but I don't know. 54 minutes seems long enough. I use the "warm" temperature setting and just the HE soap. 

Oh and these things are not any quieter than the old style plus the vibration is heavier with the high speed spin.


----------



## raybonz

Highbeam said:
			
		

> Yes, I have an electric dryer. No gas at my place and even if I did I have a mental issue with a fire in my dryer. Cripes, the electric ones even burn houses down.
> 
> When I replaced my electrical panel my electrician buddy checked each circuit's loading by using his little clamp on amp meter. Seems that circuits are supposed to be 75% utilized so a 20 amp 220 volt circuit should be passing 15 amps or so. The important item is that little amp meter. It was slick as heck and can measure 220 volt current just by putting a clamp around that circuit's hot line. It didn't keep track of KwH but the timer would do that provided that the current remains constant throughout the cycle.
> 
> The washer takes about twice as long as the dryer but the washer spends a lot of time doing the dryer's job by spinning the clothes dry. Lots of time seems to be spent doing things other than tumbling in soapy water. In no case do I see the water level through the glass when clothes are in there. In fact, before using the machine I was directed to run an empty load to clean the sweat shop dust out. The water level only came up about 3 inches into the drum. The washer has a water sensor that automatically fills to that level regardless of wash load size.
> 
> There is one more level of washing schemes and that is the "heavy wash" or high soils wash. It probably just agitates for a longer period but I don't know. 54 minutes seems long enough. I use the "warm" temperature setting and just the HE soap.
> 
> Oh and these things are not any quieter than the old style plus the vibration is heavier with the high speed spin.



You can continuously load a breaker at 80% load indefinitely unless they are marked for 100% load which I have never seen. So a 20 amp breaker can go 24/7 at 16 amps. If you load above 80% for an extended period of time it will cause nuisance tripping but no harm will be done..The clamp on ammeter you refer to is known as an Amprobe in the trade and it works similar to a transformer by magnetic field surrounding a single conductor being induced into the Amprobe.. DC Amprobes use what is known as Hall Effect to sense DC amperage which I won't go into here.. 

Ray


----------



## Telco

Gooserider - Thanks, it helps.  I never did get a chance to recheck my machine though, spent my weekend getting my truck on the road.

Redox - There probably is, but if there is a 50 foot limit then they hit it.  The inline booster is working pretty well though.  Pretty neat gizmo, has a pressure sensor that turns it on when it detects a high pressure zone on the inlet and turns it off when it detects a vacuum, if dryer off and booster on.


----------



## Gooserider

I know my dryer time seems a bit long, but remember that I'm running on medium heat, rather than high, and I set the moisture control to "VERY dry".  Our venting is pretty good I replaced it a year or two ago with solid aluminum pipe, and it's a reasonably short run - out the back of the dryer, 90* elbow, up about 5', another 90, and out.  I'm also very vague on the time - I hang out in front of the PC in my office, which is on the diagonally opposite corner from the dryer, so I can't usually hear it when it beeps.  When I was doing this run, I know that it was still cranking when I checked it at about 50 minutes, but had quit when I checked it at 90...

(One feature I wish the Kill-A-Watt had, but doesn't seem to, is a "power draw time" - the current timer starts when you plug it in, and just records how much time total has elapsed, which is good for seeing how much power you draw per month or whatever, but isn't so good for determining "cycle time" and power per cycle.  What I would like is a timer where you could set a "threshold draw" (to allow for phantom loads) and then have the timer only count the time when the draw was above the threshold...  Don't know if there is anything that can do this easily or not, but the unit I have can't.)

Gooserider


----------



## Turbozcs2003

Redox said:
			
		

> Garnification said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smangold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the time comes , check out Staber washers, made in USA and home serviceable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I own a Staber. It seems to be doing a great job. I really like the top load and the fact that the tub has two bearing supports instead of one. It seems like a small tub until you load it. They have videos on their web site. And, you can open it up during a wash cycle like a regular top loader.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have run across these before on other forums, but never met anyone with experience.  It's basically a home sized version of a commercial "pocket" washer.  Anybody else have one?
> 
> Chris
Click to expand...


YES

My old GE washer circa 93 washers transmission started to leak gear oil out the lower seal. could of fixed for 89$ but when I disassembled the tub was rotting ala toyota syndrome under the boot. So couldnt get a new tub so went into research mode.

Visit this forum on appliances, mostly techs who service. In there opinion since they see them day in day out, most new appliances made in the last 5-10 years are junk! So if you have older ones, keep em and fix em. For example the new frontloaders have nice fancy control boards which take a dump. They also have a single bearing on the back of the drum which will fail on most of em within 4 or 5 years and probably cost 4-500$ to fix. Ask all the Neptune owners LOL 

The staber is horizontal axis top loader. Has two bearings to support the drum. no transmission, mechanical controls, one motor control board and can repair from the front. has heavy duty siemens motor and a belt.  Built like a tank. Doesnt use much water or detergent.  

I have had mine for year, runs great.  

Go read the appliance samari forum and his pages, very entertaining.  Good read, especially the appliance war stories forum

http://fixitnow.com/

http://applianceguru.com/

 A tidbit

http://fixitnow.com/wp/2006/09/14/asko-a-former-asko-customer-says-oh-no/

another tidbit
http://fixitnow.com/2005/03/washing-machine-shootout-staber-vs.htm


----------



## Redox

Wow!  Infomative website.  Spent about an hour looking through his FAQ's.  He really knows his stuff.  I also liked his theory on the half-life of an appliance.  Kinda like Click and Clack's theory on car maintenance costs.

It would seem the few complaints that there are about the Staber stem from the people that don't realise that they are NOT buying a mass market appliance. It really is meant to be serviced by the home handyman, which probably describes about 95% of the members of this forum.  It isn't as refined as a Duet, but built to last

I used to repair home appliances back in the '80s and could probably add some war stories to his site.  I also agree with his choices on appliance brands (Whirlpool-GOOD, GE-BAD).  Good info for the homeowner smart enough to understand the finer points on appliance repair.

Thanks for the links!

Chris


----------



## Gooserider

I agree his site is impressive, but there are other appliance sites that are as good, though without the fun attitude, that DON'T ask you to pay for the priviledge of asking questions or commenting...  I agree the Staber does look like a nice machine, but it appears to be at least 50% more $$$ than the average front-load machine that I have seen listed on the net...  Seems a bit hard to justify - is it THAT much better?

While Samurai's reasons for liking the Staber seem fairly legitimate, and agree with the Staber website, I must admit that I tend to take them with a grain of salt seeing as how he is a Staber dealer...  

I'm also getting somewhat doubtful about the economic wisdom of doing the switch at this point in time - Given that we do 95% of our loads in warm or cold water, and have a Natural Gas water heater, we will not see anything close to the energy savings that some are claiming for those people that do a lot of hot loads and have an electric heater.  Mr Electricity says here that we seem to be marginal at best, even with a $700 washer replacement. 

If our current washer was dead in an expensive way, it would be one thing, but at this point it doesn't even act "elderly" - and there is something to be said for the fact that older machines seem to be better / more reliably built, and keeping them in service does keep them out of the waste stream.

What might make more sense for us in terms of payback and energy savings is to get a spin dryer to get more water out of our clothes, without spending a bunch of money - payback on $140 is going to be a lot easier than payback on $12-1600, and that machine will take a bite out of our biggest laundry cost factor - namely the energy consumed in drying.

Gooserider


----------



## Turbozcs2003

Gooserider said:
			
		

> I agree his site is impressive, but there are other appliance sites that are as good, though without the fun attitude, that DON'T ask you to pay for the priviledge of asking questions or commenting...  I agree the Staber does look like a nice machine, but it appears to be at least 50% more $$$ than the average front-load machine that I have seen listed on the net...  Seems a bit hard to justify - is it THAT much better?
> 
> While Samurai's reasons for liking the Staber seem fairly legitimate, and agree with the Staber website, I must admit that I tend to take them with a grain of salt seeing as how he is a Staber dealer...
> 
> I'm also getting somewhat doubtful about the economic wisdom of doing the switch at this point in time - Given that we do 95% of our loads in warm or cold water, and have a Natural Gas water heater, we will not see anything close to the energy savings that some are claiming for those people that do a lot of hot loads and have an electric heater.  Mr Electricity says here that we seem to be marginal at best, even with a $700 washer replacement.
> 
> If our current washer was dead in an expensive way, it would be one thing, but at this point it doesn't even act "elderly" - and there is something to be said for the fact that older machines seem to be better / more reliably built, and keeping them in service does keep them out of the waste stream.
> 
> What might make more sense for us in terms of payback and energy savings is to get a spin dryer to get more water out of our clothes, without spending a bunch of money - payback on $140 is going to be a lot easier than payback on $12-1600, and that machine will take a bite out of our biggest laundry cost factor - namely the energy consumed in drying.
> 
> Gooserider



Actually Samari just gets a small commision if you order one and list him as reference

The washer is shipped motor freight tax free 

If you visit his website the info is free but if you want to participate you contribute to his beer fund. Good deal considering it is one of the best run and organized and he spends a lot of time providing info. Even if you dont join and do a search you will probably find the issue with your appliance since someone else will have already experienced it.

If anything I have learned from that forum is, if your appliances were made before 95 or so and you bought top of the line, you have good ones worth fixing. Also dont fall into the stupid trap of energy star non-sense. Dont get rid of a working appliance to save 5$ a month on your electric bill, especially if you trade em so to speak for new cheapies.  You will be repairing them in a few years or tossing them. Repairing them youself isnt a big deal but paying someone is very expensive.  My neighbor has 4 year old Subzero junk he paid top dollar for when he built his house and has had about 700$ worth of repairs on the range/cooktop and his icemaker   Sister in law has had nothing but problem with the Bosch front load washer which is maybe 3 years old. Has had 1 board out of warranty replaced for about 350$ or something like that. The techs like the middle of the road Whirlpool as best value and avoid all the expensive Viking, Substandard, Bosch junk, way overpriced PITA to fix, poor customer service and difficult to get parts..  They despise new GE since 1996 or so and neutral on most of the others.

Myself I have a 1999 Jenn air(Maytag) Range and have to replace the thermocouple/sensor for the oven 45$, and the display at 6 yrs old just out of warranty failed to the tune of 260$ fixing it myslef.  I have 1993 vintage GE Washer which I just replaced, transmission failed leaking oil, replaced with the staber and I just fixed my 1993  GE drier, needed a element and control. that was 200$ for both and a couple beers  Guess I got the last of the good GE appliances before Jack Welch turned everything to junk! Also have a Hotpoint fridge circa 93, never a problem with it either. Vacum the coils once a year and good to go. Probably could get an energy star unit to replace it but I bet the new one would last at most 5-10 yrs before it would have issues. Not worth the savings!

Per your drier, the Staber whips the clothes very dry from its spin cycle so the drier no longer has to run as long and I guess if you do the clothes line, it wouldnt take too long for them to hang to dry.


----------



## Gooserider

Well all our major appliances are ~15 years old except for our stove - all are working well, and I see no real reason to change any of them from a functional standpoint - they work well and have not needed major repairs.  

The washer is a Maytag, and the Dryer is a Whirlpool, both basic models - simple and seem reliable...

I just did another time/power check on our dryer - full load, lots of jeans, a big towel, and a denim jacket, medium heat, moisture sensor drying, maximum dryness... 1:08 to the first beep, about 0.3kWh, total run 2:00,  and 0.35kWh. At fifteen cents / kWh, that is about five cents a load worth of juice - not a big deal...

Running the dryer is low cost on electricity, not sure what it does for gas consumption, or how to figure that.  However I'm not thinking it's a huge amount, and so it would be hard to justify spending a lot of money to upgrade the washer to reduce drying time.  

The math just doesn't work on the Staber or one of the other frontload washers.  It might be better if we got a laundry spinner which wouldn't touch the water consumption, but would supposedly make a big difference in the drying time and energy.  Unfortunately, it looks like Laundry Alternatives has had a fairly bad customer service record judging from some of the other sites that I've seen.

Gooserider


----------



## Redox

Gooserider said:
			
		

> Well all our major appliances are ~15 years old except for our stove - all are working well, and I see no real reason to change any of them from a functional standpoint - they work well and have not needed major repairs.
> 
> The washer is a Maytag, and the Dryer is a Whirlpool, both basic models - simple and seem reliable...
> 
> I just did another time/power check on our dryer - full load, lots of jeans, a big towel, and a denim jacket, medium heat, moisture sensor drying, maximum dryness... 1:08 to the first beep, about 0.3kWh, total run 2:00,  and 0.35kWh. At fifteen cents / kWh, that is about five cents a load worth of juice - not a big deal...
> 
> Running the dryer is low cost on electricity, not sure what it does for gas consumption, or how to figure that.  However I'm not thinking it's a huge amount, and so it would be hard to justify spending a lot of money to upgrade the washer to reduce drying time.
> 
> The math just doesn't work on the Staber or one of the other frontload washers.  It might be better if we got a laundry spinner which wouldn't touch the water consumption, but would supposedly make a big difference in the drying time and energy.  Unfortunately, it looks like Laundry Alternatives has had a fairly bad customer service record judging from some of the other sites that I've seen.
> 
> Gooserider



Kinda sums up the points I have been making all along!  It hardly pays to go out and replace an appliance that is still working just to save a few dollars a year on utilities.  The issue is probably a little different on the west coast where utilities are more expensive and water is consideraply more precious.  Those of us on the east coast have (generally) been spoiled with cheap, plentiful water.  Why do we have to put up with 1.6 gal toilets when water is so cheap?  It's just better for the environment when you flush away that pint of used beer!

Natural gas reduces the payback because it is still a relative energy bargain.  If you had an all electric house, the situation would be a lot different.  The cost per load is probably double or more.  If you lived off the grid or had to desalinate all that water, it would be substantial.  All is relative.

I might venture that the Staber is kind of like a certain brand of Italian motorcycle.  It's not made for the average Joe, more for the person who can appreciate the difference.  I have considered it in the past, but our 20 year old Sears (Whirlpool) washer keeps doing it's impersonation of the Energizer bunny down there, so I leave it alone.  Kinda like a Honda, hmmm?  Maybe the Staber is more like a Beemer...

I liked his summary on appliance brands.  I know people who have Sub (less than) Zero refrigerators and Thermador or Viking ranges and they pay out the a$$ for repairs.  I'll stick with my Whirlpool, thank you very much.  Kinda like a Chevy; you can find parts everywhere and they are cheap!  There are even third party manufacturers that make aftermarket parts for WP!  When all you want is clean clothes, stick with what works.

Now a little rant about GE.  Part of the reason they are still in the appliance business is because of the builder's market.  Most new tract housing will be built with GE because they sell the stuff so cheap.  After you own the machine, you will pay much more for the parts, rather than replace it.  Their stuff isn't that bad, but their support after the sale sucks, kinda like Vermont Castings right now!  GE had a huge problem with compressors on their refrigerators a few years back.  They were the only manyfacturer that made their own compressor and nothing else would fit.  Their icemakers were a known problem, until they started using the Whirlpool icemaker.  I could go on, but the lawyers are beginning to circle...

The European brands in general are like owning a Mercedes.  They have that cachet that a lot of people will pay for, but aren't really going to last any longer or work any better.  Ditto for Sears; most of their stuff used to be made by Whirlpool, but not any more.  BTW, Whirlpool passed Maytag in reliability many years ago, but the myth lives on.  I'm not sure how they are going to fare in the future because Whirlpool just bought Maytag.  I know this is sounding like an advertisement for them, but if for no other reason than this:

http://www.whirlpool.com/custserv/habitat.jsp

73,000 appliances and a commitment to 2011.  If you care about corporate responsibility like I do, you can't find a better company, IMHO.  I know who will be building my next refrigerator.

OK; ranting over.  Hope I haven't been out of line.  No, I don't own any stock or have any interest in the company, other than product ownership.  Most of us don't care that much about appliances, anyway.

I just want clean clothes and cold beer!

Chris


----------



## raybonz

Redox said:
			
		

> Gooserider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well all our major appliances are ~15 years old except for our stove - all are working well, and I see no real reason to change any of them from a functional standpoint - they work well and have not needed major repairs.
> 
> The washer is a Maytag, and the Dryer is a Whirlpool, both basic models - simple and seem reliable...
> 
> I just did another time/power check on our dryer - full load, lots of jeans, a big towel, and a denim jacket, medium heat, moisture sensor drying, maximum dryness... 1:08 to the first beep, about 0.3kWh, total run 2:00,  and 0.35kWh. At fifteen cents / kWh, that is about five cents a load worth of juice - not a big deal...
> 
> Running the dryer is low cost on electricity, not sure what it does for gas consumption, or how to figure that.  However I'm not thinking it's a huge amount, and so it would be hard to justify spending a lot of money to upgrade the washer to reduce drying time.
> 
> The math just doesn't work on the Staber or one of the other frontload washers.  It might be better if we got a laundry spinner which wouldn't touch the water consumption, but would supposedly make a big difference in the drying time and energy.  Unfortunately, it looks like Laundry Alternatives has had a fairly bad customer service record judging from some of the other sites that I've seen.
> 
> Gooserider
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda sums up the points I have been making all along!  It hardly pays to go out and replace an appliance that is still working just to save a few dollars a year on utilities.  The issue is probably a little different on the west coast where utilities are more expensive and water is consideraply more precious.  Those of us on the east coast have (generally) been spoiled with cheap, plentiful water.  Why do we have to put up with 1.6 gal toilets when water is so cheap?  It's just better for the environment when you flush away that pint of used beer!
> 
> Natural gas reduces the payback because it is still a relative energy bargain.  If you had an all electric house, the situation would be a lot different.  The cost per load is probably double or more.  If you lived off the grid or had to desalinate all that water, it would be substantial.  All is relative.
> 
> I might venture that the Staber is kind of like a certain brand of Italian motorcycle.  It's not made for the average Joe, more for the person who can appreciate the difference.  I have considered it in the past, but our 20 year old Sears (Whirlpool) washer keeps doing it's impersonation of the Energizer bunny down there, so I leave it alone.  Kinda like a Honda, hmmm?  Maybe the Staber is more like a Beemer...
> 
> I liked his summary on appliance brands.  I know people who have Sub (less than) Zero refrigerators and Thermador or Viking ranges and they pay out the a$$ for repairs.  I'll stick with my Whirlpool, thank you very much.  Kinda like a Chevy; you can find parts everywhere and they are cheap!  There are even third party manufacturers that make aftermarket parts for WP!  When all you want is clean clothes, stick with what works.
> 
> Now a little rant about GE.  Part of the reason they are still in the appliance business is because of the builder's market.  Most new tract housing will be built with GE because they sell the stuff so cheap.  After you own the machine, you will pay much more for the parts, rather than replace it.  Their stuff isn't that bad, but their support after the sale sucks, kinda like Vermont Castings right now!  GE had a huge problem with compressors on their refrigerators a few years back.  They were the only manyfacturer that made their own compressor and nothing else would fit.  Their icemakers were a known problem, until they started using the Whirlpool icemaker.  I could go on, but the lawyers are beginning to circle...
> 
> The European brands in general are like owning a Mercedes.  They have that cachet that a lot of people will pay for, but aren't really going to last any longer or work any better.  Ditto for Sears; most of their stuff used to be made by Whirlpool, but not any more.  BTW, Whirlpool passed Maytag in reliability many years ago, but the myth lives on.  I'm not sure how they are going to fare in the future because Whirlpool just bought Maytag.  I know this is sounding like an advertisement for them, but if for no other reason than this:
> 
> http://www.whirlpool.com/custserv/habitat.jsp
> 
> 73,000 appliances and a commitment to 2011.  If you care about corporate responsibility like I do, you can't find a better company, IMHO.  I know who will be building my next refrigerator.
> 
> OK; ranting over.  Hope I haven't been out of line.  No, I don't own any stock or have any interest in the company, other than product ownership.  Most of us don't care that much about appliances, anyway.
> 
> I just want clean clothes and cold beer!
> 
> Chris
Click to expand...


Hi Chris,
I have had tremendous luck with Whirlpool appliances.. My 1st washer ran for 15 years and that is doing laundry for 5 kids! Only one repair for $100.00.. My dryer was a an electric Kenmore and I had to replace the motor 4 times in those years The washer broke down at 15 years and the tub was pretty rusted so I decided to replace them with the largest Whirlpool washer and electric dryer and at the time they had big rebates on the energy star Whirlpool washer so I bought it.. It's been at least 10 years now and no problems with either the washer or dryer and most importantly no motors ever for the dryer! I will not settle for anything less than a Whirlpool again.. I do have a Kenmore dishwasher (it was made by Whirlpool) which was rated #1 by Consumer Reports and it will fall apart before it needs a part.. My Maytag stove had several service calls under warranty but otherwise OK, I should have bought a Whirlpool lol... My Maytag fridge has been OK so no complaints there.. Appliances are boring f iyou ask me until they break !! I'm with you let's have a beer and discuss this 

Ray


----------



## Telco

Since natural gas is a limited use item (very few items in the home use it), turn the heater off and turn the hot water tank down to 100, then take a meter read and run the dryer.  Note the reading when clothes are dry and put the water heater temp back up.  Provided nobody uses any hot water while the dryer is going, it should not come on for the hour or so you need.  

I do think that the fridge is an appliance worth replacing for power savings, I know my circa 1994 Maytag fridge uses 2.5KWH/day, which works out to 912KWH/year.  The same size in an Energy Star is supposed to use less than half of this.


----------



## Gooserider

Telco said:
			
		

> Since natural gas is a limited use item (very few items in the home use it), turn the heater off and turn the hot water tank down to 100, then take a meter read and run the dryer.  Note the reading when clothes are dry and put the water heater temp back up.  Provided nobody uses any hot water while the dryer is going, it should not come on for the hour or so you need.
> 
> I do think that the fridge is an appliance worth replacing for power savings, I know my circa 1994 Maytag fridge uses 2.5KWH/day, which works out to 912KWH/year.  The same size in an Energy Star is supposed to use less than half of this.



Good idea on figuring out the dryer consumption!  The only question I would have is whether or not the meter would be sensitive enough to show a difference after just one or two loads - we are only doing 15-40 therms/month for everything, so the dryer can't be a huge part of that, and I think the meter only reads down to entire therms - will have to give it a try and see though. (It may be a while - I'm going to be out of town for several weeks starting next week...)

Gooserider


----------



## Redox

Gooserider said:
			
		

> Telco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since natural gas is a limited use item (very few items in the home use it), turn the heater off and turn the hot water tank down to 100, then take a meter read and run the dryer.  Note the reading when clothes are dry and put the water heater temp back up.  Provided nobody uses any hot water while the dryer is going, it should not come on for the hour or so you need.
> 
> I do think that the fridge is an appliance worth replacing for power savings, I know my circa 1994 Maytag fridge uses 2.5KWH/day, which works out to 912KWH/year.  The same size in an Energy Star is supposed to use less than half of this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good idea on figuring out the dryer consumption!  The only question I would have is whether or not the meter would be sensitive enough to show a difference after just one or two loads - we are only doing 15-40 therms/month for everything, so the dryer can't be a huge part of that, and I think the meter only reads down to entire therms - will have to give it a try and see though. (It may be a while - I'm going to be out of town for several weeks starting next week...)
> 
> Gooserider
Click to expand...


I doubt you are going to be able to see enough resolution on a gas meter unless you run multiple loads.  The average gas dryer burns 20-30000 btu/hr and isn't going to tick over a digital meter.  If you really wanted to know, you could wire an analog clock (remember those?) across the gas burner and time the run.  The burner on most dryers runs on 120 vac.  On the Whirlpools, the wires come down to a connector right next to the gas valve.  If I were going to do this, I would cut the plug off an old extension cord and splice into the burner with a couple of wire nuts.  Plug the clock in to the extension cord, reset to 12:00 and fire away!  Check the rating plate for the burn rate (usually on the door jamb), divide by 60 and multiply by the run time you measure with the clock to get BTUs.  This isn't gnat's ass accurate as the ignitor takes a few seconds each cycle to fire the burner and the burner may not be adjusted perfectly, but will be accurate enough for comparison.  This is what I would do.  I don't recommend trying this as you will be voiding the UL listing and the code police may show up at your door as soon as you read this post, but it will work.  YMMV, caveat emptor, and all the associated legal disclaimers apply.  If something happens, you don't know me...


----------



## Gooserider

Actually I was looking at my meter yesterday while thinking of this conversation - it might actually show something, in addition to the digital readout in CCF's (using mechanical odometer style rolling number wheels) it also had two analog dials on it, one appeared to be calibrated at 0.2 cubic feet / div, and the other at 2 cubic feet / div.  I would think those ought to show something useful, if not I'd be surprised, and prepared to call the gas consumption negligible - even at $1.728/therm, less than 0.002 therms would be under three tenths of a cent per load...

Will try this the next time we do a load...

Gooserider


----------



## Telco

Did a quick search, looks like the Japanese are also interested in it.  Has some average expected use values inside the article.  

One other thing to consider about the Energy Star washers that hasn't been mentioned, is the amount of clothing per load.  The ones I've looked at are supposed to be able to was 10-12 pairs of jeans or 17-18 full size bath towels in one load.  My current pre-Energy Star models can only handle 6-8 full size towels or 3-4 pairs of jeans at once.  With the jeans I have to put in 3-4 pairs, then other lighter stuff for a full load as the weight of filling it with just jeans would rip it apart.  So, you would also do fewer loads for a given amount of laundry.


----------



## Gooserider

Telco said:
			
		

> Did a quick search, looks like the Japanese are also interested in it.  Has some average expected use values inside the article.



Nice article, sounds like a useful technique for a study, though not as directly useful for a homeowner trying to figure a particular appliance out.  Good idea though for sure.



> One other thing to consider about the Energy Star washers that hasn't been mentioned, is the amount of clothing per load.  The ones I've looked at are supposed to be able to was 10-12 pairs of jeans or 17-18 full size bath towels in one load.  My current pre-Energy Star models can only handle 6-8 full size towels or 3-4 pairs of jeans at once.  With the jeans I have to put in 3-4 pairs, then other lighter stuff for a full load as the weight of filling it with just jeans would rip it apart.  So, you would also do fewer loads for a given amount of laundry.



Depends on the way you do laundry...  

I do the typical "bachelor bundle" where I don't sort, everything I take off goes in the same dirty laundry pile, which I periodically shovel into the washer, etc.  (I deliberately avoid purchasing whilte clothing, and require that all my clothing purchases be "Machine wash warm / tumble dry" capable)  My standard laundry cycle is 2-3 full loads, so a larger capacity washer would cut down on my number of washer loads, However the dryer would then become a bottleneck, as I don't think our dryer could reasonably handle much more than one full load in our current washer w/o overloading.  That each dryer load ran faster would still not make it less of a pain to have to run two dryer loads for each washer full.

OTOH, (and I've asked the GF about this so it's a "definitive answer" for our house) the GF sorts into different color loads, and while she generally washes full loads with the current machine she is very emphatic that a larger capacity machine would NOT reduce the number of loads that she runs...

I've also talked to her about the laundry spinner idea, and she wasn't exactly thrilled...  The idea of adding an extra handling step to her wash did not appeal.

Gooserider


----------



## Redox

Gas fired rice cookers?  Sign me up!  Never thought we would get to 4 pages talking about laundry, though.

Our gas consumption averages about 1/2 therm a day for everything (range, dryer, DHW, BBQ) unless the furnace kicks on.  Then, it burns 1/2 therm an hour, or more.  We are paying about $1.25/ therm delivered right now.  After tax and tags, fees and fines, the gas portion of our bill works out to about $50/month.  This isn't bad for a family of four.  I'd hate to think what this would cost with electric resistance.  Gas is too valuable to burn in a furnace, thus the reason for the Quad. 

I have been considering a compressor for the CNG cars, though...

Chris


----------



## Telco

Heh heh... I understand Goose.  All I can say is, the matching dryer would accept and dry the load the washer can handle, and when living with a girlfriend eventually kids come along unless surgical intervention takes place.  I'm a family man now because of multiple antipregnancy methods failed at the same time, the only thing that put a positive stop to it was snip snip sizzle sizzle.  Course, one kid plans to move out this year and the other probably won't be far behind.  But I digress.  With kids, suddenly laundry becomes a daily ordeal just to keep up.  A super large washer and dryer would at least help with that.  Any given day I can come up with three loads of laundry to do, with strict separation into whites, reds, light colors, dark colors, and towels (which get a double wash in hot).  If we had one of those Kenmore Duet jobs that can take ginormous loads, then I'd be looking at far fewer loads.  Guess since I've been a family man for so long now, I only consider things in those terms and forget that other people don't have the same loads to get through that we do.  We do two loads a day, every day, except weekends when we play catchup.


----------



## Highbeam

The horizontal jobs are pretty deceiving when you load them. Without that agitator in the middle you can pretty much load them full but not "tight" as the directions point out. So a 3 CF horizontal washer might be a different beast than a 3CF vertical. With all of these loads per day and the greatly reduced water consumption per load it should be pointed out that your septic system will be seeing significantly less influent. I have an old home with an old septic system that is working as far as I can tell. Sending less liquid out to that system can only help it. 

My mother told me a long time ago that nobody gets pregnant on accident.


----------



## Gooserider

Telco said:
			
		

> Heh heh... I understand Goose.  All I can say is, the matching dryer would accept and dry the load the washer can handle, and when living with a girlfriend eventually kids come along unless surgical intervention takes place.  I'm a family man now because of multiple antipregnancy methods failed at the same time, the only thing that put a positive stop to it was snip snip sizzle sizzle.  Course, one kid plans to move out this year and the other probably won't be far behind.  But I digress.  With kids, suddenly laundry becomes a daily ordeal just to keep up.  A super large washer and dryer would at least help with that.  Any given day I can come up with three loads of laundry to do, with strict separation into whites, reds, light colors, dark colors, and towels (which get a double wash in hot).  If we had one of those Kenmore Duet jobs that can take ginormous loads, then I'd be looking at far fewer loads.  Guess since I've been a family man for so long now, I only consider things in those terms and forget that other people don't have the same loads to get through that we do.  We do two loads a day, every day, except weekends when we play catchup.



Actually it's looking more like we need the medical intervention to make the kids SHOW UP...  We've been actively trying for several years now, and no luck yet - of course both of us are well past the "ideal ages"  Granted the practice is fun, but I'd like to see more results...  If and when, I agree that different laundry equipment might be in order, but until then what we have works pretty well.

(BTW, short of radical methods, not much is guaranteed, I remember hearing a while back about a couple on second marriage for each, each had gotten knots in the plumbing after having had "enough" w/ previous spouses, guess what happened?)

Gooserider


----------



## Redox

Aw, jeez, Goose; more than we wanted to know!  Practice makes perfect, so get practicing.  For us, it was like "accidentally" falling off a log! :cheese: 

My understanding on the front loaders is that you really can't overload them; if you can still get the door closed, it's not overloaded.  The clothes will tend to pack down when they hit the water, but this is not a bad thing.  Toploaders need room to circulate the clothes down to the agitator as that is where the washing is actually happening.  Front loaders tumble the entire load at once and wash better than an agitator and are easier on the clothes (they will last longer).  

Commercial washers are rated in pounds as it is hard to fake a scale.  I think the standard homeowner machines were 14-15 pounds and the super capacity machines were 18 -22 pounds.  This cubic feet thing is misleading kinda like horsepower on a vacuum.

I am making room for a washer and dryer upstairs when I redo the master bathroom.  Wife likes the idea of not having to go down 2 flights of steps with the laundry.  Might have to "instrument" a pair to measure energy consumption...

Telco, what are you doing with the towels that you need to wash them twice in hot water?  This sounds a little excessive to me.

Chris


----------



## Gooserider

Well, I had a bit of minor excitement today...  I was doing laundry getting ready for a trip that will take me off line for a few weeks, and figured I'd try doing the meter read to see if I could figure out what kind of gas consumption I was getting from the dryer.  What I've found is that there are two dials on the meter, one that measures 0.2cf per revolution, and one that measures 2.0cf per revolution, (each of these has 10 divisions per revolution, so you can measure either .2 or .02 cf per div) then an old fashioned odometer style readout for 100cf units, nothing in between...  With the dryer running, the two dials both move along at a pretty good clip, and the 2cf dial went around at least once, probably more...  So unless you want to sit there and count the dial turns while the dryer is running, the meter read trick won't work.

The excitement came because I noticed a pretty fair bit of gas stink around the meter while I was looking at it.  This didn't seem good to me, so I called the gas co, and they sent a tech out, who found that we have a very small leak on the gas co side of the connection.  It was barely enough to register on his "sniff-o-meter", and he said it was definitely not anything that would be a safety hazard, but after he was unable to tighten up the connection, said he would send a pipefitting crew out to take care of it.

I told him what I was trying to do, and he said that the best way to measure it was to time the rotation speed of the analog dials, and that they used to have (but he didn't have a copy with him) a chart that would say what the consumption was based on how many divisions per minute got registered...  Don't have time to deal with it now, but I guess I'm going to want to try and track that down when I get back.

Gooserider


----------



## Redox

Here's your chart:

http://www.bacharach-training.com/referpage/clocking_gas_meter.htm

This method measures steady state consumption and is used to verify the burner's adjustment.  It won't give you actual consumption as the burner cycles many times during operation, particularly near the end of the cycle.  If you wanted a "noninvasive" way to measure burn time, you could set up a camcorder with the clock display on to watch the burner during a cycle and replay it to add up the run time.  You can get to the burner by pulling off the kick panel in the front of the machine (well, not totally noninvasive).

Wanna see somebody move fast?  Just call your gas company and tell them you smell gas.  Free call, too!

Chris


----------



## Telco

I'm VERY sensitive to the smell of spoiled clothing, and towels being used as they are usually find their way into the hamper while damp.  Damp cloth that dries slowly goes bad.  If I smell that spoiled clothing smell on a towel I can't use it, and I'll smell it on something that nobody else will.  Washing once with detergent and bleach in hot water, then again with hot water, detergent and fabric softener, and the towels come out clean smelling.  Drove my wife up a wall when she'd do the laundry, then find her clean towels in the dirty clothes again, so we started double washing and it solved the problem.  What's bad is every now and again one of my shirts will be against a damp towel, and will absorb the smell too, but they can't get washed in hot.  I've had to toss (well, take to the Goodwill) brand new shirts because of the shirt will absorb the smell and it'll get baked in by the dryer, and multiple washings won't quite eliminate it.


----------



## Highbeam

Wow, that is pretty sensitive. I too have a nose for spoiled or sour laundry. To the point where I won't wash clothes if I can't put them in the dryer before going to bed. I don't want them to sit in their juices overnight. For me it is my denim jeans that have gotten the sour smell and when my body heat warms them up I can get a whiff of sour clothes and it jus tbugs the heck out of me. 

You never want to be the stinky kid.


----------



## Gooserider

Redox said:
			
		

> Here's your chart:
> 
> http://www.bacharach-training.com/referpage/clocking_gas_meter.htm
> 
> This method measures steady state consumption and is used to verify the burner's adjustment.  It won't give you actual consumption as the burner cycles many times during operation, particularly near the end of the cycle.  If you wanted a "noninvasive" way to measure burn time, you could set up a camcorder with the clock display on to watch the burner during a cycle and replay it to add up the run time.  You can get to the burner by pulling off the kick panel in the front of the machine (well, not totally noninvasive).
> 
> Wanna see somebody move fast?  Just call your gas company and tell them you smell gas.  Free call, too!
> 
> Chris


Thanks for the chart pointer - I guess it won't give me all the info I want if the burner is cycling, but it will at least give me an idea (I hope...)

Gooserider


----------



## Redox

Yay, Goose is back!


----------



## RedRanger

Washing machine,huh?  Well, how much wood can a wood chuck-chuck?  Before he simply starts to use only the cold wash cycle? :coolhmm:


----------



## jebatty

In the last six months wife and I have gotten more serious about not wasting electricity. Checked last year to this year usage: 2007 ranged between 550-900 kwh/month, highest during summer when the basement dehumidifier was operating. Last couple of months have been between 390-480 kwh/month. I'm guestimating that we will achieve, even with dehumidifier use, about 20-25% reduction.

We did: 1) much more serious about turning off unneeded lights; 2) turn off computers and shut down power strips to computers and other electronics when not being used; 3) shut off ceiling fan that didn't really seem to help distribute stove heat very much (fan was running 24-7); 4) plus a number of smaller things.


----------



## MacKay

We just replaced our old Kenmore units with the LG Front Loaders.  The old units were on their last leg and needed replaced.  It is too early to comment on energy consumption (haven't see a bill yet).  But they use a fraction of the water the old unit used and the dryer takes much less time.  On the largest, heaviest soiled settings we only use 1/2 the water.  On a normal setting we use 1/4 of the water.  The dryer is much more efficient also but I think it is due in large part to the speed that the washer spins (twice as fast as the old unit).


----------



## Jerry_NJ

You've got it DMM, the savings is ALL about using less HOT water.  If you wash in cold water you save the most, in fact water is still cheap enough in most US locations that cold water means saving water isn't saving $$$.   I try to wash everything in cold water on out top loading.  Still, if the new washer/front-load spins dryer/faster,l then that saves if you use a dryer.  I try to dry on a good old fashioned cloths line, outside if possible.  Thus the spin matters little and the air is free, the electric dryer isn't.


----------



## sapratt

One thing you have to think about and it was mentioned earlier. Is spending twice the money for a new appliance because "it will save you money" really going to save money.  It's just like people running out a replacing there windows because someone told them it will save you money. The part that they don't tell you is it will take 20 years for the windows to pay for themselfs. By then they will probably be worn out or you'll be moved out. So really spending more to save money isn't worth it unless your a penny pincher and think that spending $1000 to save a dollar a month is worth it.


----------



## jebatty

There's more to having energy efficiency that just saving money. For example, 18 years ago we spent LOTS of money on windows, which indeed save energy, but will never recover the cost. However, the comfort in freedom from drafts, elimination of condensation, quiet when they are closed, and absolute 0 maintenance was worth everything we spent. Intangible factors are valuable, and each of us makes our own decision as to this value in terms of $'s spent.


----------



## begreen

There's a bit more to the equation than that. If energy cost's were flat and there was no inflation, then maybe the savings would take like 20 years. But energy costs are rising rapidly and so is inflation. 

As for savings. We bought a Frigidaire front load washer the year after we moved into our house. It's actually made by Electrolux of Sweden. The drop in hot water usage was immediate. And as far as repairs, we haven't put a cent in it going on 13 years now and that is for a family of four. We use less detergent, the clothes definitely are spun drier which means less time in the dryer or on the clothesline. And there is a lot less wear and tear due to washing on the clothes. It was a $300 premium over a standard washer back in 1995, but worth every penny of it. 

Another example, we put a heat pump system in 2 seasons ago, strictly for heating (AC isn't really needed here). This was a premium system and costly. And we insulated wherever possible. Worth it? Well, I haven't done the numbers by current value of propane but our total heating bill went from about $3000 in 2004, down to $500, much better than I had hoped for. If I add a value for the free wood I was burning it would still be only $900 to heat this old farmhouse. And as Jim pointed out, our comfort is much higher. Sometimes you have to spend money to save money. Do it wisely and it will pay back for years.


----------



## Jerry_NJ

Jim, in Northern MN I'd bet on you're saving enough money to pay for the window improvement, gets rather cold there, right?  And as for savings $300 due to a reduction in hot water needs for cloths washing, that would be easy here in NJ, electric rates are at least twice what it cost in the Puget Sound area, I'd guess.  I don't have the rates now, but when I graduated from the U of W in Seattle in 1966, we were paying something like 7/10 of a cent per KWH.  When I arrived in NJ it was about 3 cents per KWH, over three times as much.  Then it was due to the low cost of hydroelectric power in the NW, that may have changed.  Today I pay about 15 cents per KWH in NJ, what's it cost in Seattle, 5 cents?


----------



## Highbeam

"The dryer is much more efficient also but I think it is due in large part to the speed that the washer spins (twice as fast as the old unit)."

Dryers are not much, if any, more efficient now than ever. The difference is that you are loading in mostly dry clothes so the dryer's elements are not running as long. Also not sucking as much of your heated house air out the vent. 

"Today I pay about 15 cents per KWH in NJ, what’s it cost in Seattle, 5 cents?"

8-10 cents per KWH after all the BS. 

Yahoo had one of their news articles a week or so back that showed how you might as well keep your 15 mpg SUV vs. buying a 30 mpg vehicle as far as actual costs. There are a lot of people spending a lot of money to save a little money without doing the math. Some do the math and then add value to other aspects like conservation to make them feel better about a purchase.


----------



## jebatty

> Yahoo had one of their news articles a week or so back that showed how you might as well keep your 15 mpg SUV vs. buying a 30 mpg vehicle as far as actual costs. There are a lot of people spending a lot of money to save a little money without doing the math. Some do the math and then add value to other aspects like conservation to make them feel better about a purchase.



Although current conditions may have altered the math some, this is an area where I think you can have your cake and it eat it too. 1986 is the year we bought our last new car. All since have been used. We are very partial towards Toyota Camrys, not that there are not other good cars, but we have had long term, consistent performance of the highest quality with Camrys; bought these used with up to 85000 miles on them, have run them well into the 200,000's, and have never had a serious problem, almost only normal maintenance, and have gotten a consistent 32-35 mpg.

My 1989 Camry bought for $6000 at 80,000 miles, sold it for $2000 years later with 230,000 miles - $.027/mile purchase cost. The 1992 Camry bought used for $6500 at 30,000, sold it for $1900 years later with 238,000 miles - $.031/mile purchase cost. I am still driving my 1999 Camry at 195,000 miles, and expect to run this well into the 200's. Two weeks ago we just took it for 1200 miles to and from Chicago; just put new tires on it; no rust; only oil changes plus normal maintenance (scheduled at every 60,000 which we put off to about every 75,000 miles).

Buy a quality used car, do the math, and run them for a long time. Public Radio had a show years ago that claimed if you always bought a used car (2-3 years old) and ran it for its practical life, the money you saved would allow you to retire 5 years later. I believe that firmly.

Our neighbor bought a new American brand SUV, and when it reached 60,000 miles said it was time to trade as expected maintenance cost did not make it worth keeping. I'm not saying he was correct, but as far as I am concerned a good car is barely broken in at 60,000 miles.

Take a new SUV at say $25,000 (don't know the price because would never buy one) and run it for 230,00 miles (if you can), purchase cost is $.11/mile - about 4 times the price of buying used. Why? 

My wife and I live a mile down a gravel road in northern MN, lots of snow, and in 18 years have only "needed" 4 wheel drive twice, that is, on two occasions were snowed in for 12-24 hours before the road was plowed. I suppose one of us could have died in that time, but we all die anyway, so why the concern?

I can't ever imagine buying a new car. Let someone else pay the steep early depreciation, and I will take it to the bank as I enjoy my early retirement.


----------



## Jerry_NJ

I have a similar car buy/operate place except:
1) I always buy new
2) keep for 10-15 years
2) never put more than 200,000

I can't help but wonder about reports of over 200.000 miles with only routine maintenance.  The only car I ran to 190,000+ was a 1986 Toyota Tercel 4WD Wagon.  It was a very good car and had exceptional resuts in terms of the engine/drive-train, still had it original clutch (manual transmission).  But it was clear this car was at the end-of-life when I "donated" it.  It had lots of break problems, and the exhaust wasn't real great either.  Major strut and some other repairs also came along the way.  My 1990 Galant Mitsubushi was near death at 150,000, had gone through 3 clutches, well was on the thrid which was beginning to slip, but the stainless steel exhaust was still original... can't say enough about the benefit/value of SS exhaust (noted it was on the 2008 Chevy Impala on the show room floor when I was in getting my 2005 Chevy Colorado serviced - warranty repair).  The Japanese cars clearly out performed my previous GM/Ford/Plymouth experience, but I returned to US made in 2005.

With these examples I figure I got my vehicle cost down to a bit over 10 cents per mile, were I took both what I paid (fully depreciated) plus repairs.   So hearing/reading someone gets to under 5 cents per mile leaves me in wonderment.


----------



## KeithO

Gooserider:

This may or may not factor into your equation relating to a new washer, but I would think the first thing one would ask is "How well does it wash".  The second should be "How dry does it spin ?  The third should be 'Does it damage my expensive clothes ?"

I can assure you that if you are acustomed to top loaders, getting a real good side loader will be an eye opener in these 3 departments.   I bought a new Bosch washer and dryer just after I met my wife and we argued tooth and nail over the washer, since she and her mother had worked with top loaders all their lives.   The side loading was percieved to be less comfortable and the top loader percieved to be more reliable.

I stuck to my guns and my wife was really surprised how good the washer actually was.   It has the soap/softener/bleach dosing drawer, is super quiet (other than on max spin) is very gentle on clothes (really uses gravity for agitation) and it dries the clothes so well with the 1200rpm spin cycle that drying time is about half the washing time (in winter, when we don't use the clothes line).

So take it from me:  If my Chicargoan wife can become a convert, so can you....   I did have various maytag top loaders shred my towels and stain white clothes from rust residue from unprotected steel parts during my apartment days....

Keith


----------

