In spite of SpeedQueen’s 2018 misstep, I wish they made kitchen appliances. My top load washer has been my one trouble free appliance.

Who on earth would care about performance outside of the context of reliability? At any rate, the reliability numbers were interesting and fairly intuitive to those who pay attention to reports from members here.

Zalco, exactly! I'm a little surprised about Subzero's reliability ranking, tho. You'd think they'd be at the top of the list based on all the love it get's here.

Joke. More than half the models are discontinued by the time it goes to press. All it can show are general trends, and their continued prioritization of cheap over quality.

> More than half the models are discontinued by the time it goes to press.

it is not true. It shows exactly how much testing of appliances goes in. It shows quality of components. Just because Model A switched with Model B does not mean that they are principally different - check out the issues with Samsung ice makers, self-defrost, or double ovens that reset and can not hold time during baking... Years and years of the same patterns.

Zsmith, maybe you have to have more service calls on a SZ than on a cheaper brand, or maybe the Wolf enamel issue is hurting them? It's been mentioned that if you buy a 10k refrigerator you expect everything to be just so.

Such a shame that KA has fallen so badly. I've had exceptional luck with my KA Dishwasher (now 16 years old) and my 8=9 year old KA refrigerator.

I find it interesting that SQ is at the top for appliance reliability when they are very/extremely narrow on their offerings. Washer and Dryer. That's it...

But they are compared to companys that make the entire breath of home appliances. Not exactly an Apples to Apples Comparison.

SPEED QUEEN - is your grandmother's washer, they are not energy efficient, they work IMHO as as they did 30 years ago using classic agitator, and parts etc. They are reliable. Heavily used in a commercial laundry. You can select how much water to add: small, med... [Unlike Samsungs, LG, GE, pretty much everyone that use predetermined amount utilizing atmospheric sensor].

None of those bells and whistles. If you like cycles, silver care, steam, etc - it is not for you.

If you are long for "ol reliable" gramma - don't care about gadgets.

Well, what fails on most modern appliances? The electronics in the control panel.

So, if I get to ditch the silly control panel that will die and take out the appliance?

Yay! Gimmee the SQ. Especially if I can get my hot little hands on one of their analog models.

It should also be noted that CR has been caught more than once with their thumbs on the scale. Use their ratings with a certain degree of caution.

I do read the consumer reports ratings, but in this day and age there are so many other sources of info, and I worry that CR could be influenced.
User reviews, technical magazines and websites have become my go to’s when looking at appliances.

I feel like this isn't that great of a study. 400K data points aren't much when you account for every appliance type and manufacturer. Let's break this down, just using generalizations for simplicity - it'll be pretty inaccurate with the ratios, but it'll give you an idea of how I'm looking at this and why you need to be skeptical in these sorts of graphs.

CR lists 8 appliance types, so for arguments sake, evenly spread you're looking at 50,000 of each appliance type per manufacturer. A quick Google search provided me with a graph stating that Whirlpool sold 27,700,000 household appliances in 2018:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/373112/whirlpool-unit-sales-by-region/

So continuing off of the generalizations listed so far, CR is using 50,000 appliance data points to generalize 27,700,000. That's 0.0018 percent of the total, being used to forecast the reliability of future units not yet sold (and assuming it's evenly skewed across appliance types). And these data points are over an 11 year period, when some of these manufacturers had wildly different models, and they're using those models to predict future ones? This doesn't even take into account the individual issues - did any service call count as broken or stopped working? For example, a broken icemaker doesn't mean your refrigerator stopped working entirely (common on fridges regardless of manufacturer), but that's how this is framed. Did it happen inside or outside warranty? How quickly was it fixed? This doesn't paint a full picture of service after the sale, which I feel is just as important. Things break, sometimes you're just unlucky.

Another thing is that IKEA is a Whirlpool in all but name - my guess is there's far fewer IKEA "data points" than the nationwide number one appliance manufacturer. Same with Speed Queen, like Jakvis mentioned - how can you use them for comparison when they only build a fraction of what everyone else does? To me, this doesn't paint overall manufacturer reliability since it's only going to take a few bad models to bring it down overall, and it leaves so much out. I get the desire to see things mapped out so you can make a decision, but information like this is misleading. Sometimes you can't just get the info you need at a glance - if you want to make a good decision, you've gotta do real research.

>Well, what fails on most modern appliances? The electronics in the control panel.

Doubtful. Mechanical parts are more likely to fail than anything else. People assume the newer SpeedQueens will have less reliability but there is no data to back that assumption up. In the last 30 years, I have never had control panel failures in any of my appliances. It's always something else. Usually something mechanical.

“what fails on most modern appliances? The electronics in the control panel.”

I looked for that but i have had the structure fail on 5 ovens on three different brands. All blue porcelain liners. Who would have thought.

So continuing off of the generalizations listed so far, CR is using 50,000 appliance data points to generalize 27,700,000. That's 0.0018 percent of the total, being used to forecast the reliability of future units recast the reliability of future units “

That’s a lot more than many medical studies.

I will reference this when we sell our luxe build and the buyers question the absence of such de rigeur labels as Jenn-Air and Viking.

Speed Queen redesigned their toploaders for 2018. Completely different mechanical design and wash action, not like "your grandmother's washer."

Probably due to complaints and market backlash, now for 2019 they've brought back the old design, one model, called the "Classic," which is "like your grandmother's washer" except that it does not have a water level control, and is fully electronic. It has rotary dials for the settings but those are selectors to set the computer board in the panel that runs everything. And it has only two fill levels. Default (which is approx half-fill), and a Deep Fill option. The three 2018-redesigned models are also still available.

Just to say, I have a Fisher & Paykel washer that's 19 yrs 11 months old and has had one repair for the duration, replacement of the pump.

http://junksciencearchive.com/consumer/consumer_about.html

http://junksciencearchive.com/consumer/consumer_suv.html

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/consumers-union/

The first two articles are 20-22 years old and irrelevant.

Regarding the last, CU advocates for things with which I disagree (such as the GMO stuff) but this has nothing to do with appliance testing and reliability analyses.

@Jakvis

I did not read the chart the same way you did, but this wouldn't be the first time Consumer Reports has managed to create confusion.

I gather that you are commenting about the order in which the companies/brands were listed. CR could have listed them in alphabetical order. Instead, it seems to have decided to list them in order of overall average score for all products. I'm sure that there is a lesson in that somewhere, but I had completely skipped over that thought until I read your post. My initial thought was only that the list made it easy for me to compare within particular product categories, say, washing machines, to see who has been making the most reliable ones over the last ten to eleven years. It is "apples to apples," to that extent.

I also found it interesting that clicking on the category rating for a particular brand will bring up a pop-up window with reliability ratings for each sub-category of appliances sold under that brand. For example, clicking on Speed Queen's "above average" washer rating icon, produces a pop-up box that gives ratings for sub categories of front load and top load washers where we see that the SQ's front load models have had average reliability in contrast to the excellent reliability rating for the top load models. With other brands, you may find sub-ratings for other categories of washers, the HE-top loaders and compact models.

Apart from the oddity of the way companies were listed, I'm actually finding this new chart more informative than past CR rankings. For one thing, the ratings go back ten years. For another, they seem to have stopped excluding survey responses for problems that were covered by warranties and service contracts. Might be nice to know more about warranty service, but the chances of any breakdown would, I think, be an important consideration for most of us.

@diggity14:

I agree that this "isn't that great a study" but I do not think it is "misleading." Just not as helpful as CR could make it with such a potentially rich data source as its membership. One question, though, did you buy the Statista report that you linked to? If so, could you clarify if Whirlpool's sales of 27,700,000 units in 2018 was just for the North American market or is it worldwide sales?

But they are compared to companys that make the entire breath of home appliances. Not exactly an Apples to Apples Comparison.

I think actually it is, because they aren't comparing the companies, they are rating each product on mostly objective parameters - like say, 50% of CR members who own brand model x needed a repair. Whether company A makes 15 different types of appliances and company B makes 2 is not relevant. What is relevant is whether the products in a single category, of both companies, work as advertised.

Likewise, whether the repair was performed under warranty isn't relevant. It needed repair - that is the issue.

@wdccruise –

Beginning a post with"You have no idea what you're talking about" is probably not the most effective way to get people to take you seriously. This is Houzz, not Breitbart. lol

Speed Queen washers do not have onboard heaters, so they are a non-starter for me, regardless of anything else about them. I live in a cold climate, and in the winter my hot water water passes through ice cold pipes before reaching the washer. So without an onboard heater, my hot water can never get hot enough to clean the clothes well. If you also live in a cold climate, and your hot water heater is not right next to your washer, it would be best for you to look for a washer with an onboard heater, even if you pine for a washer like your grandmother's.

I was turned off to CR a few years ago when they did a kitchens issue, and criticized Blanco Silgranit sinks because they dropped a 5-pound weight from a height, and it chipped the Silgranit. They only did this test for Silgranit sinks. They did not do this test on a SS sink (in their preferred 18-gauge thickness), which would have dented, nor an enameled cast iron sink which would have chipped, nor on fireclay also would have chipped or cracked. So it was a ridiculous, biased test, and made me look at everything CR tests with a skeptical eye.

"I was turned off to CR a few years ago when they did a kitchens issue, and criticized Blanco Silgranit sinks

"...it was a ridiculous, biased test, and made me look at everything CR tests with a skeptical eye."

"the Blanco 441258 (shown), $290, cracked so severely during our blunt-impact test that it became unusable. (In that test, we dropped a 5-pound weight to simulate what happens when you drop a heavy pot.)" - CR June 5, 2012.

Biased?

I was turned off to CR a few years ago when they did a kitchens issue, and criticized Blanco Silgranit sinks because they dropped a 5-pound weight from a height, and it chipped the Silgranit. They only did this test for Silgranit sinks.

It's not at all difficult to find examples where CR does this. While they love showing a lot of data points in order to impress, their testing procedures and the relevance of the data is frequently dubious. What is more important to them, is that the data is easy to measure, not that it is meaningful in any way. It's about as ridiculous as the majority of sports statistics.

That's OK. CR are in the business of selling their articles. Articles sell better, if they are entertaining. But producing relevant data is an expense. In fact, it can take reputable organizations many years to do a single study. CR simply doesn't have the time to do that.

Unfortunately, not many other institutions have those resources either. So, it is very difficult to find studies that go beyond just being entertaining. Presumably, companies have this data internally. But it gives them a competitive advantage to know more precise numbers, so they won't publicly say anything about it.

As a consumer, we are stuck with having to form a bigger picture from learning about appliances, collecting all the data available, and trying to weigh its relevance to our use case. Unfortunately, in many cases CR provides a disservice, as it causes people to discuss "sports statistics", things that are easy to measure and that won't tell you anything about the reliability, the functionality, or the overall user experience.

I haven't looked at CR in years, other than cursory glances at bits-and-pieces that may be linked or referenced here-and-there online such as on this board.

Back when I subscribed to the print version, I also tried, once, the online version, which was additional charge. I didn't want to auto-renew but there was no way to remove my ccard info. I contacted "customer service" and they canceled the online access immediately with no regard for the paid time I had remaining, and no refund.

I found at least two instances of errors in reviews, regards to features on a washer and dishwasher. Brought it to their attention, received a "thank you" response but the errors were never corrected, not even in the online reviews which can be easily edited unlike print issues out in the wild.

So yeah .... nope.

If you want to sell reports to readers, then what is the better strategy

1. tell them that they should have bought this fancy appliance that saves money in the long run, has trouble-free operation for years, and is much more functional than anything else out there, or
2. tell them that whatever appliance is already sitting in their home was a really good decision and make the reader feel good about it by throwing numbers at them that nobody is going to verify anyway.

Now, look at what appliances frequently make it to the top of the list. It's usually a cross section of the best-selling appliances. Every so often, there is a little bit of drama, when the ranking gets shaken up. But that's good for readership numbers as well. It's just like any other entertainment industry.

Nothing wrong with entertainment. But take it for what it is, and don't believe that it really helps you make the best decision for what you should buy for your household. We all know how mass market products frequently cut corners, and how they are built for planned obsolescence (that's a feature, then you can buy the next new shiny thing, when you get bored of the last one).

They have always been suspect. They frequently rate models that are the exact same item, but with different badges, quite differently. That goes for appliances, cars, and cabinets. And they will always rate the less expensive option higher than the more expensive option. They intentionally bias their methodology to reward the cheapest. If they rate a Whirlpool and a Maytag, that are the exact same refrigerators with different badges, the two will have quite different ratings.

One of the issues is that the respondents cannot separate out service issues due to installation issues and the source of the buy. Thomasville Cabinets from HD are the same exact cabinet line as Diamond cabinets from a dealer, but get a much worse rating because of the issues associated with ordering from unknowledgeable box store employees. That isn't rating the product.

Getting rather far afield from the original posting about CR's latest way of presenting the results of survey data, aren't we?

(ETA on 6/23: For clarity, only the sentence above was intended as a direct response to The Cook's Kitchen. The rest of this post below was in response to intervening comments from posters who have since deleted those intervening posts.)

Veering off into opinions about the limitations of CR's lab testing protocols and reports is fine. Discussions will wander but I liked Bill D's caution above: this is Houzz not Breitbart.

To that I would add that there are plenty of reasons to like or dislike CR's approach to product testing and/or its editorial stances. Those likes and dislikes can and should be presented here without resorting to gratuitous personal invective.

How do people here feel about Wirecutter ratings? They test over a period of years and ranked Bosch as well as Miele as reliable dishwasher brands but differed from CR when it came to KitchenAid. CR rated KitchenAid as subpar while Wirecutter liked KitchenAid.

I used to use CR like the absolute definitive decision maker. I agree that over the past several years things have really changed and most older appliances lasted longer than the current crop. I still do refer to CR, but I also look at Wirecutter and the store reviews (when provided- HD, Lowes,and any others) and then make what I think is an educated guess and leap of faith.

Generally we have been pretty pleased with our purchases, which tend to be on the best value line - not high end but middle and well reviewed. I see big variances with the more high end brands (Viking, Thermador) and the actual people I know with the high end brands also have frequent repairs.

Consumer Reports, online version, allows comments on individual appliance ratings. Many of them differ from the CR ratings and i’ve found them useful when combinned with posts about products from Houzz users as well as those at Lowes, Home Depot, Costco, reviews at manufacturer websites, other major chains, and even Amazon.

There has been a long ongoing thread here about problems with some Ikea/Whirlpool ovens. On the other hand, I’ve seen plenty of praise for GE Cafe and some GE Profile ovens, both here and elsewhere. GE Cafe double ovens are relatively new but. we purchased a GE Cafe oven to replace our horrid Electrolux ( which had excellent

Consumer Report ratings and that didn't match our experience )

GE Cafe products are made in the United StatesL..if that’s a factor for anyone.

i have serious trust trust issues with today’s appliances. .