I was watching a review of a washing machine, but fell asleep. When I woke up, this video autoplayed... but I kept it on, because the white noise was so soothing. I slept so well!
I can see the pilling and snags on the clothes after the first wash and nothing but thread by the 10th. I would never own a thrash-o-matic like this. If manufacturers had properly educated consumers on how to use and care for a front-load washer, they wouldn't have the bad rap they have gotten. I've had front loaders for over 35 years and have NEVER had mold or smells in my wasshers. Thanks, Ben, for all the hard work.
Good grief. I'll keep loving my 1980's Whirlpool direct-drive washer with dual-action agitator. Full load, heavily soiled, done in 45 minutes tops. "Normal" load takes about 28-32 minutes. Will do whatever I have to to keep this glorious old machine running.
Yeah same, I got a late 90s model or early 2000s and I'm never getting rid of it! I'll be buying a new dual action for it being I just have the straight vane.
@@AmericanFarmerHVAC2024 : I need to replace the dual-action “dogs” so that the screw portion of the agitator will again work as it should. Easy DIY fix, and the repair kit is $10 or less. Watched part of the video again: 20 minutes in and it was barely agitating and the tub had finally filled. What a joke these new machines are. 20 minutes in and my old Whirlpool direct-drive would be about to churn into the final rinse and spin cycle. Two years ago I was told the washer could be totally rebuilt for about $300. Even if it ends up being $500, I still can’t get a good quality washer for that amount. I figure what’s the point of spending $1000 or more on a new machine that won’t even clean clothes properly after a cycle that takes well over an hour? I’ll happily spend half that and rebuild my current machine and it will easily outlast me! 😁
I really can't believe my eyes, we had these types of washing machines in Europe more than 60 years ago. I remember that the clothes wore out very quickly with these washing machines. As far as I can tell, only front loaders are sold in Europe. I myself have a German-made Miele washing machine. Rock-solid, reliable, very economical with electricity and especially water, and the laundry comes out very clean.
Europeans thinks front loaders are God because tap water cost a fortune over there. This top load machine isn't a good example, but some top loaders work very well. Top loaders are very popular in the Americas, Asia and Oceania
I thought so too! When I was filming I went in to look maybe 2 dozen times while working on other things and it seemed like it was very poor but the footage said it did good
We just bought ours and your video helped us by hearing the different sounds. We have just used the agitator in and were freaked out over how noisy it was but the noise on your video matches our sounds so um relived. Great job.
normal w/o agitator shocked me. The super low water wash after the first drain and re-balance was bad, but other than that I will say I was impressed generally with each wash for what it was. But honestly its not like I've thrown a GoPro in many units. That will be an ongoing thing to do more and more comparisons in the future.
Growing up in Ohio you usually knew someone that worked at Whirlpool in Clyde, Ohio and at one time they produced great home appliances but now, not so much and people who work/worked there will tell you the same.
Yup. They seem so impossibly stubborn with regards to actually innovating. And a plastic removable prong that looks like an agitator is not innovating. It's clear they abandoned their front load design because they can't compete with the Asian and European brands. They seem to prefer the top-load segment where they can keep cranking out the same union-made 60 year old design and selling it to people who don't care whether it actually works... or lasts... just that it doesn't have a door gasket to get moldy when they slam it shut and leave it for a month. 😂
@@erossinema8797 Oh absolutely not, I was making fun of the vast majority of American consumers who feel that if a product offers superior performance in every single way but also requires they put the absolute most trivial amount of added effort into using it, that it's an affront to their "freedom" and will choose to continue using the much worse performing, older, more poorly constructed, and more resource and energy hogging version of it. A truly disturbing percentage of consumers looking at washers are absolutely like this."Why would I get a washer that makes me do more work?" when my answer is "Because closing the door *less far* is actually less work, and the amount of ACTUAL work you'd have to do, at work, making money, to pay for the thousands of dollars in electricity that top loader is gonna cost you because it could only spin 650 RPM and your dryer silently guzzled down 40% more electricity over the life of the machine is what you should be thinking about, not how much of an inconvenience leaving the door open is" lmao.
@@dregenius I agree...I keep with with what's out there. in 2005 I got my duet FL and so it's now over 18 yrs old and still works. I'm the only one that touches appliances in my house so it still looks new...I can't believe it's lasted this long...anyway..I have zero interest in the current WP front loads at all especially since they added cheap plastic instead of glass...if something ever happens and I need a new washer it's going to be an LG FL with turbo wash... I can't go back to a top loader
No, it actually did agitate okay there. I just prefer the impeller as it is gentler, and has more blooming. If I have bulky items I’d use the agitator, and small loads for the impeller. IMO, I’d just get an impeller machine.
I'm considering buying this wash machine so that I can have the best of both worlds - wash comforters without the agitator and wash everything else with the agitator. My washer is on its last legs after 25 years of service and I can't find anything like it on the market anymore. I liked being able to have complete control over my water level. I don't understand why this machine takes 19 minutes to reach its top water level! Why does it have to fill and agitate in stages? Why can't it just fill all the way to the top and spend the ENTIRE wash cycle at that level? I don't understand how it can be cleaning the wash that's below the water line for the first 19 minutes of the video!
Seen a couple of these already having leaking transmissions.. one client didn't want to go thru the warranty bs and it was 2 months old and the splutch failed already
Hey SC...have 1 of these junk machines too..Makes a ear shattering sound during the sense cycle when it reverses.need ear protection to stay...14 months old...total loss by WP..changed actuator no change...
Minimal rollover. The clothes closer to the impeller fins at the bottom are getting washed the ones on top are just floating. I would say if a dual agitator was used it would have a much better rollover. Think it has a better bloom rollover without the pole.
This Looks really old fashioned 😂, here in germany you will Not find such a washing machine, is this really efficient in using water and Energy? Is Miele known in the u.s.? Here you say , once Miele , always miele. These washers Are quite explensive , but super in all Kind of ways.
Thank god 90% of washing machines here in the uk and across the rest of Europe are front loaders, I would not be impressed with this machine Also I’d never put something dark or red in with light colours or light colours and darks in a whites wash
In the event that I need to move back to the US I pray I can find a top loading, large capacity washing machine without all the bells and whistles and a dryer of the same ilk. This is over engineering at it's finest.
What exactly does the fabric softener option do, if there isn't a dispenser for fabric softener? I hear from someone selecting it dispenses slightly more water? Or does it change the operations of the cycle some other way?
Ben could you tell us about how much electric this uses in total? More or less? Like how many watts did it burn up from beginning to end? Maybe a stupid question or worded the wrong way, sorry.
@@DylBuilder1 Sorry, I don't understand much about that. So it would be like a 200 WATT Bulb running for the duration of all the cycles? Did I get that right?
I just got a whirlpool from a customer Lowe's has it for $998 they decided to go with a different brand because the lid latch mechanism broke so I was just going to fix it and get rid of it you wouldn't happen to live around Lake Tahoe would you and still need a washer? 0:57
@@MichaelLeo-wp7wkI appreciate it but I'm in NJ. We got it a couple weeks ago and it wasn't super noisy at all. Once we put some rubber insulators under the feet it's whisper quiet. We're actually having a bigger issue telling when the load is done because it's not noisy.
Thanks, Ben. Great Video. We just bought this washer. One issue we are facing is after the first wash/drain, the washer just sprays water on the clothes and spins/drains and continues doing that. It does not fill the tub with water completely or even a little bit. It just sprays. We tried the quick wash and even the normal wash cycle with deep fill. Same result. Any idea what could be wrong? Or does the washer seem to be faulty? Thanks.
@@cyxutry this cycle - Select quick wash --> select water temp --> press extra rinse --> press deep water ---> press 30 min pre soak --> start the cycle. I find this offers the best full tub soak and rinse in the shortest possible time. The spray rinse still keeps going on but the entire tub is soaked so it's fine. hope this helps
I think I will just go with a front loader. My 1992 GE washer does a better job. The timer is getting impossible to turn and the transmission leaks although it doesn't make sounds like this,
Also maytag bravos (same brands anyways), god I hated that washing machine, it never did its job properly, i mean they did look clean but it never cleaned stains or did anything to remove pet hair or dirt, bought recently one of the last actually-made-by-Maytag Maytag machines, amazing capacity, amazing force with the agitator and amazing water capacity, god i love that machine
Working in the appliance "industry" (I use the term loosely since I work for a mega-corp known for selling sh*t but not actually working on or fixing it lol), it's quite hilarious to see how modern top loaders have added the "agitator" back, often as an option or variant of an impeller machine, and always just a fixed prong that sticks up and *looks* like an agitator, for the old wh*te grandmas who are *adamant* that their clothes be shredded clean - "just like the good old days when the machine used 70 gallons of steaming hot water and we only paid 1 cent per gigawatt-hour for electric, just like g*d says I'm entitled to use!" In fact, modern top loaders are kinda crap. Sure, they don't have door gaskets - but consider that 70% of americans will buy *any* top loader simply because it's not a front-loader, and what you get is a depressing assortment of machines all based on the same VMW platform, just with various levels of cost-cutting. There's literally no innovation and no competition in the top-loader segment because of how stubbornly ignorant their target market is on average. Whirlpool could literally glue a garbage disposal to the bottom of a trashcan, in such a way that it only shredded clothes and had no ability to spin dry *at all*, and as long as there was some kind of jagged prong sticking up in the middle, people would buy it. Compare that to front loaders... which have been on SUCH thin ice with americans for literally two decades now, and it seems almost like the only ones *left* on the market are the ones that have innovated and proven to be truly stellar performers. It's crazy how literally every brand of front loader has some kind of truly innovative, well-reviewed feature.... except whirlpool of course, who are stuck in 2005 with their plastic junk cost-cut slow-spinning low-capacity, non-self-balancing machines. Pretty clear that Whirlpool prefers to operate in a segment where they can keep pumping t the same 60 year old designs and selling them to people who only buy them because they're *not* something else.
And you are part of the problem. Those good ol' days were so much better - because - you guessed it. Those machines ACTUALLY CLEANED THE CLOTHES! I've never seen anything get clean with little water. I need plenty to clean my body, my car, my dishes - but no, we've let environmentalists tell us that we're wrong and selfish for using real machines nowadays. I hate mine - it removes literally no stains and in fact - spreads them around the other clothes! Some of my clothes go in relatively clean and come out dirty. Ridiculous. And I'm not an old person, fwiw.
@@bob61976 Here's the problem with your narcissitic misplaced nostalgia - modern front loaders *clean better* than any other washer, including "old timey" clothes-shredders ever did, specifically *because* they use less water and still flex and turn over clothing while saturated with the concentrated detergent and water, in the most effective way. Think of it this way - if you wanted to wash your hands, would you start with a little water and soap and rub them together (front loader) or would you fill a bathtub with water, put a couple squirts of soap in, and then flap your hands back and forth under the water (top loader)? Old top loaders *sorta* cleaned, but only when the load size was just right - too little clothes and they wouldn't wash as well, too many and the machine would literally jam and start smoking (check the youtube short)... then, when it comes time to spin the clothes, a top loader puts in a meager effort at best, but then what do you expect when the entire design of a top loader doesn't allow the machine to move or redistribute the clothes once the water is drained and the first spin starts... how is that a good design of washer?? Why bother to spin the water out of the clothes, this is america! We just run 6500 watts of electric heat to boil the water out of the clothes, then to make us feel EVEN MORE WASTEFUL, we literally pump all that wasted heat energy outside and do nothing useful with it. A washer needs to spin out as much water as possible because boiling it out in the dryer takes orders of magnitude more energy to do. When's the last time you saw a hotel, hospital or other institutional laundry room using top loaders? They don't, they use front loaders because that's what the modern civilized world uses because THEY WORK DEMONSTRABLY BETTER. The only people who still even want top loaders are americans like you who are hell bent on their fake sense of freedom - freedom to be needlessly wasteful and gluttonous by buying an appliance that *performs worse* in every possible way, merely so they can boast about how wasteful and short-sighted they are??
@@dregenius LOL. Only a narcissist could turn a comment about clothes being demonstrably less clean with a low-flow plate high-efficiency washer into an anti-American rant and a defense of front-load washers (which weren't even in the argument proposed) and then still not rebut the arguments made. Oh well - you have yourself a wonderful evening. I'll sleep well tonight, knowing my decades old Kenmore on the back porch does the best job of cleaning next to a washboard down at the creek.
@@bob61976 Perhaps I failed to see that your thought process was that more water cleans better - because it doesn't. Not a single review outlet has found that a deep filling top loader performs better in cleaning than a front loader. A deep filling top loader cleans better than an HE top loader, but that's because top loaders can't move clothes around unless they're full of water - the very design of a top loader, the theory of operation, is reliant on a massive amount of water to float clothing in. The problem is that more water means less concentrated detergent, which is why when CR and other reviewing outlets test the cleaning performance of washers, front loaders perform best. They use enough water to get clothing saturated, but not so much that it dilutes the detergent, and the mechanical action of tumbling is always better at flexing fabric and evenly agitating it. Then there's the issue of spin. A machine that cannot even redistribute the load when spinning is honestly a pretty terrible design, but worse so when they're contructed to be "minimum viable products" that even the most gullible american consumer will buy. You meantion narcissism, and now I see it - in the American consumers who think it's their *right* to have freedom to use an old water and electricity guzzling top loader that is proven to clean worse and spin so slow that it causes untold billions more kilowatt hours to be consumed drying all this lazily-spun clothing than a front loader.
We have a 30 year old Maytag that is actually a great washing machine still. I will tell you one thing this machine in the video would never get the red clay dirt out of white baseball pants my boys had 30 years ago. They should not be allowed to sell a washing machine like this. Why is there no water? This machine looks like it would be very damaging to clothing.
Personally for me wash cycles are too long at doesn't agitate well. I wouldn't buy one of these. If you want an old-school wash I would get a speed Queen.
It's 6 minutes in and there's no water around the clothes? I can't tell if this is full, is it the deep water setting ? I am not getting that much water even though I have deep water selected.
@@bensappliancesandjunk Yes I watched it after I commented. I just got this machine Friday and have tried to wash 2 loads and it never filled up past half way. I am having doubts I made a good purchase.😔
@@rhyta5042 The universal consensus from the commenters is that the wash action seems to be quite good on this. I was more impressed than I thought I'd be...
The thing is, you didn’t show us how many items you put in there, nor whether they had any stains on them or dirt, so we couldn’t tell whether they machine actually got anything CLEAN! You didn’t pull them out of the washer to show us the condition of the clothes afterwards either: seems to me that that agitator, without enough water around the clothes to MOVE them IN water, just sliced into the fabric of the items next to it and would actually tear at the fabrics!! 😱 Plus, for the next cycle video, the clothes were already wet from the first cycle! They weren’t dry at the beginning, do it isn’t an accurate test. Finally, yeah any spin cycle that lasts 12 - 25 minutes is ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGEOUS and a waste of time and energy!!! It spins more than it washes!! NOT impressed! I REALLY miss a normal old style washer that really swooshes and submerged clothes in soapy and then CLEAN water a couple times!!
Dude, you got ripped off. Those clothes are supposed to rotate downward next to the agitator, then back up along the outside of the drum. Otherwise, you're just washing your clothes in an expensive sink.
What a JOKE this “bulky” “deep fill” “max water level” cycle is!!! I mean, my GOD, you only have like 10 little items in there!! And they’re not even covered! Imagine ACTUAL bulky items like a queen size comforter in there!! Or a set of pillows! Or a bathroom rug! Or 10 bath towels! Or 6 pairs of yoga pants and 10 tee shirts and 10 pairs of socks and 10 pairs of underwear… which is a NORMAL load of ONE Colour/type of laundry!!! Then I still have to wash the white load… and the bedsheets and work shirts load … and the coloured load… and my delicate load… How are soiled things like washable diapers supposed to get clean? Or peed clothes and bedding of children or the elderly?! Eeew. How’s a person supposed to wash a weekly 6 loads of laundry with this slow machine!!!?? I swear, ppl are walking around in dingy clothes all the time, drenched in those “fabric freshener beads” to make themselves THINK they’re wearing clean clothes!! 😡
I commented before the end of the video. But, like I said, its junk. Its and outdated machine. Just stick with direct drive Whirlpool you can fix almost anything on them.
