I would look at a Speed Queen TL. There are threads about these on this forum. It is old fashioned and the only machine left that uses very much water. It is built to last 25 years.

Our Duet about the same age as yours just crapped out (bearings) and we replaced it with a Speed Queen as mentioned above. So far so good...my wife commented she feels like our clothes are finally getting cleaned again. I've noticed that our towels are a lot softer.

I've had an Electrolux (70 series) for about 2 years and I've been pleased with the performance. My laundry is much cleaner than it ever was with my old top loader, and we use a lot less water and detergent, too. I like the capacity, too.

Cj

Welcome to the (non-FL/Miele) darkside. : )

Oh! Shaggnasty, where is the "Like" button when you need it? LOL @ georgysmom let us know how you like your new machine. Which model did you get?

Our new Speed Queen AWN 432 is being delivered today after our Whirlpool Crapio died after only 4 1/2 years. Sales men at the store even called it junk.

I was so disgusted when I learned how much it would cost to fix the Whirlpool. Almost as much as when the machine was new.

Very impressed with all the reviews I read about Speed Queen.

beagle, there were only two models. The deluxe one, so to speak, had an extra rinse button on it. I have never used extra rinse. Salesman said it was for people who have sensitive skin and need the extra rinse cycle. Not me so I saved $100.00 and just got the plain old washer. I'm happy to be back to the top-loader. So far, it's just fine and am hoping it lasts longer than 6 years!

Glad you DIDN'T buy another Whirlpool. They SUCK!

We purchased a Whirlpool Cabrio in 2012 and had to replace it with a less expensive model that didn't have a water saver feature.

I've never understand why manufacturers make washers with water saving features. Isn't the purpose to clean your clothes?

When I ran my Whirlpool washer for the first time, I watched through the clear lid as it SPRAYED water onto the clothes.

The tub never filled past the halfway line and it never fully saturated the clothes. The spin cycle threw them so tightly against the side of the washer that I had to peel them off the side. The mudstains on my slacks were still there.

They were more wrinkled than before I washed them.

I have since read reviews that mirror my experience.

We bought the cheapest brand Home Depot had to offer. It was an Admiral. On sale for $299.00.

It works GREAT. Glad to hear your new machine is working out for you.

Have to tell you, DreamGarden, your Admiral is a Whirlpool.

Whirlpool owns the Admiral brand since they bought the Maytag company in 2006.

Glad you DIDN'T buy another Whirlpool. They SUCK!

We purchased a Whirlpool Cabrio in 2012 and had to replace it with a less expensive model that didn't have a water saver feature.

I've never understand why manufacturers make washers with water saving features. Isn't the purpose to clean your clothes?

When I ran my Whirlpool washer for the first time, I watched through the clear lid as it SPRAYED water onto the clothes.

The tub never filled past the halfway line and it never fully saturated the clothes. The spin cycle threw them so tightly against the side of the washer that I had to peel them off the side. The mudstains on my slacks were still there.

They were more wrinkled than before I washed them.

I have since read reviews that mirror my experience.

We bought the cheapest brand Home Depot had to offer. It was an Admiral. On sale for $299.00.

It works GREAT. Glad to hear your new machine is working out for you.

@dreamgarden...

The reason manufactures are making washers that are disgustingly stingy with water is because our government gives "kick backs" to manufactures that produce energy efficient washers.

The government is setting more and more crazy standards and instead of manufactures saying "it is impossible to create a washer that uses enough water to get clothes clean" they go ahead and meet or exceed government guidelines and get their kick backs.

Front loaders by sheer design are already energy efficient but now they put way less water in them. Virtually making them less effective.

It's maddening.

@georgect

No, the manufacturers don't get kickbacks. The only thing they get to do is put a little energy star logo on the box and marketing labels and literature hoping it prods consumers to buy their machine (at a higher price) for perceived payback in energy savings. There are occasional rebates, sometimes offered by the government or local utilities paid directly to the consumer for energy efficient appliance purchases, but those rebates don't go to the manufacturers.

That said, how many of you have to flush the toilet TWICE to swallow up what normally went down the drain with one flush? My non-government issued plunger gets way more work with the modern HE toilet than those 80s and 90s style toilets. But I will concede some foresight is needed to deal with dwindling water supplies out West to speed consumer choices. Free market metrics would say that consumers would pay more willingly to save money from water, sewer, and energy costs. Regulate/price the resource (water/sewer/energy) right and you probably would not have to regulate the downstream user (appliance) of said resource, free market economy would drive the correct choices on its own, but possibly not at the speed/rate of the government interests. Cars/trucks somewhat work that way. CAFE standards slowed big SUV sales possibly, but it was the price of the resource (gas) that made big consumer movements out of Large SUVs rapidly.

Your government, saving the world one drop of water at a time!

Laundryvet

Oh yes they did get kickbacks in the form of tax credits. See the link or google "Energy-Efficient Appliance Manufacturing Tax Credit."

Here is a link that might be useful: Kickbacks

Curious hopper and georgect,

I stand corrected. Link clearly shows manufacturer rebates.

What was really maddening is that Whirlpool started making some of their cheap top loaders meet the energy standard by only filling 1/3 of the way for the rinse cycle. That was the ONLY change to the machines.

So people bought them and had their clothes beat to death in the rinse cycle (full agitation with no water) and didn't even know it was happening. Whirlpool would obviously sell any piece of **** to get a tax credit. For shame.