What I would like to know is why the America average wash cycle requires around 40 gallons (151L) of water [1], when my machine in Europe uses around 13 gallons (50L) and a 10 year old one uses 22 gallons (84L).
> Top loaders [...] generally fill all the way up.
I have a top loader (a Whirlpool from 2011) and it most definitely doesn't fill "all the way up". It uses as little water as a modern front loader and also adjusts the water level based on fill level.
I think there is difference in the way top loaders are build in US and EU. US top loader is basically front loader put on it's back, that's why it have to fill all the way up. EU top loader have the drum sideways so it works in the same axis as front loader and you put your clothes trough the doors in wall of the drum.
Wow. I’ve never seen a top loader with a horizontal spin axis. Until now I never even contemplated it could be different. I wonder what other stuff is like that.
The top loaders I have seen here in Sweden have just been front loaders except the instead of having a window you load the drum through a hatch in the rim. That design should use exactly as much water as front loaders.
I just went to the website of a local tech shop that sells washing machines, and grapped two midrange Whirlpool models, a top loader and a front loader. Since I'm in Europe, regulations require that shops display a trove of efficiency data that is calculated for standardized model washing cycles. The front loader has 7kg loading capacity and uses 8850 liters per year. The top loader has 6kg loading capacity and uses 8500 liters per year. Because of the difference in loading capacity, the top loader is 10% more efficient in its water usage. So okay, slightly more efficient, but top loaders are certainly not hopelessly inefficient as the discussion seemed to imply.
I looked up two entry level machines on a Canadian website:
* Top loader - 4.4 cubic feet, IWF 6-1/100
* Front loader - 5.0 cubic feet, IWF 3-1/5
Not knowing what those meant, I looked it up. The "water factor" represents how much water a machine uses, in gallons per cubic foot of capacity. In other words, the front loader uses about half the water that the top loader uses.
As another commenter said, top loaders are different in the EU - in North America, the whole drum is turned on its side and water must fill as far up as the clothes go - there's no tumbling action to shift clothes in and out of the water at the bottom of the sideways drum in a front loader (and a European style top loader)
I'd like to see how that's measured, and how it compares to real life usage. Our house came with a high efficiency top loader, but it constantly goes unbalanced if not really carefully loaded (and sometimes even then). Its solution is to try and rebalance itself by filling the drum up with water and agitating, up to three times before quitting with a warning.
He probably just looked at a European-style top loader. My family here in Sweden had one of those over 30 years ago, and it is just a window-less front loader which you load through a hatch in the rim of the drum. It is a bit more of a hassle to unload them but they use virtually the same amount of water as front loaders.
Top loaders are common in Japan and they use a tiny amount of water. They also have a feature to drain the bathwater to use instead of the tap. Of course a "bath" there isn't for cleaning but more like a jacuzzi.
I should have used past tense. I have heard the newer high efficiency ones don’t fill up all the way, but the older and cheaper models I had absolutely did.
To supplement your anecdata: having used many an old top loader, they do have different fill levels - varying from "small" filling halfway up the drum to "large" as high as it can go. As an individual, even using the "small" setting uses a huge amount of water - no way to wash a few pairs of socks or whatever other small loads you might have.
I've never had an issue with modern front loaders not getting my clothes wet. They are much better at spinning them dry at the end, though.
Right, and all of those low-efficiency units had to cover the clothes in water because they only agitated horizontally. Whereas my front loader agitates vertically and lifts the clothes in and out of a smaller amount of water.
For some reason, about 15 years ago in the US it was almost impossible to get a top loader washer (out of 30 models on the floor, only a couple "value" models would be top loaders), because of efficiency requirements. Then they started to come out with higher efficiency top loaders, and now you see more top loaders again than front loaders.
I think the big thing that is different in the current top loaders, vs the old ones, are some don't have an agitator -- instead they use a low profile impeller at the bottom to force water vertically. And the ones with an agitator have the impeller shape at the bottom, so there is still vertical water movement.
The front loaders started to go out of style, partly because people complain about an oder build up in them. Not sure what that is about. And worries about the seal in the door leaking (if the float gets stuck and it puts too much water in it -- my brother has that issue periodically).
I would think that a good top-loader design would be something that has a pump at the bottom (under the basket), and circulates water to the top and sprays it down on the clothes. But I haven't seen any like that though.
> What I would like to know is why the America average wash cycle requires around 40 gallons (151L) of water [1]
Your source does not call this the average, but the upper limit. Washing machines have a range of sizes you can set them at ranging from small to "super-max". Also a range of durations depending on how many cycles and how much washing is needed.
You'd need to relate it to how much laundry gets washed per gallon.
Also, some parts of the US are semi-tropical and even swamp. Not every state is as worried about conserving water.
I was confused by this and the sibling comment, but apparently "top-loader" in the US sense means a type where the drum's spin axis is vertical – which I didn't even know existed before this thread. "Top-loader" around here (Northern Europe at least) means a design where the spin axis is horizontal but you load and unload the machine from the top, via a hatch on the side of the drum. Because the drum is oriented the same way as in a front-loader, water usage should be equal.
I've never actually had this happen in 35 years (I live in a front loader country, and have never used a top loader). I'm not sure if there's something different about American front-loaders, or if it's just some difference in usage practices.
Or it could be use of liquid detergents, which seem to be more common in the US. My washing machine's manual specifically warns not to use liquid or pod detergents, and they lead to internal buildup.
Ours has a cleaning cycle we run about once a month that sanitizes the machine. I've been adding a recommended cleaner with it, but I think even that is unneeded.
Top loaders are still common in Australia and New Zealand. They’re terrible, but they are cheaper than front loaders and are what many people are used to.
I can pause my front loader and add laundry, I'm not sure how the machine does it, perhaps I cannot add just whenever I want -- depending on the wash cycle, but I've never had the problem of not being able to pause the washing and add new laundry that I forgot.
Front loaders are extremely water efficient, there’s not much water in there and when you use the pause feature it can drain away enough water should that be necessary to make it safe to open, but mainly it just gives the clothes and liquid a chance to tumble to the bottom as they’d all spill right out otherwise and (then release the lock to make actually opening the door possible). By contrast, top loaders don’t even have a lock and don’t need a pause feature. There is usually a trigger switch to detect when the lid is open to stop the agitation for safety reasons, but there is no mechanical lockout and no delay: you can just open the lid.
Unfortunately a cheap front-loader only lasts about 3-5 years under normal usage, whereas the equivalent top-loader tends to last twice as long. I have no idea why that should be the case, but I've seen that too many times to discount it.
Washing machines are in a weird place where they are expensive to replace, but parts and labor to fix them when they break is almost, if not more expensive.
[1] https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/06/08/new-california-wa...