Ron said:
....
I suggest that you look again. The difference in size was 0.11 CU feet.
That is very close in size. See
http://www.lowes.com/lowes/lkn?action=productDetail&productId=123414-45535-IWL12&lpage=none
for the one that I had used in the comparison. You are right that this one
isn't a whirlpool, but the idea that because there isn't a whirlpool top
loader that size that I would just use something drastically differnt is
not only stupid on your part but it is insulting.
The only person doing any insulting here is you. I didn't check all of
Lowes, because they didn't have a very good search function. So I told you
what I found, and that there wasn't a Whirlpool close in size. You implied
you were comparing Whirlpools. Fine, so you found something else. But look
at it - it may be efficient, but it's listed at over $100 more than my
Frigidaire. So, yes, I'll be saving money over buying one of those!
You are missing the point. It is not that energy star is figured at 8
loads a week but that many of us do less than that and so there is less
actual savings than what the label says.
No, I'm not. I also pointed out that I had seriously considered getting
something the size of yours - but that it doesn't save any money, because
there's a much higher up-front cost.
Look back at the top paragraph
and you can see that I said that actual savings are based on the
individual user's circumstances. I suggest you read my post again before
you
Of course they are - but Energy Star really does compute reasonable
averages, in my experience, and the numbers work.
If that is the best you found, you need to work on your search skills.
I'd be happy to - how exactly did you find your example? Lowes doesn't let
you search by energy consumption. Neither did Sears. Energy Star lists
everything that's qualified, but it doesn't say which ones are top loaders
and which are front loaders. So I did a random sample, at the 230kWh
range, and they were all front loaders. I don't have time to do the
complete research for somebody else, when I've already done a pretty good
job of researching the ones that were actually available to me locally.
I am glad that you can make up numbers, but I used the actual numbers and
it shows that you are completely wrong. Go back and look at the actual
numbers again.
Again, you're the one doing the insulting. I didn't make up any numbers -
they came straight from Energy Star, the same source as the numbers you
were quoting. My _actual_ numbers are more like half what Energy Star
quotes, but since I can't get actual numbers for anything but what I've
tested myself, I use Energy Star's. What "actual" numbers do you want me to
look at? What you did was compare two large, expensive, washers. I
compared 3 small (though Sears classes them as "Super Size") washers. My
purchase makes sense economically.
I could compare mine to yours. My Frigidaire will probably be used over 300
times this year, based on the Energy Star numbers, that would be about
110kWh. Your Whirlpool will use half the Energy Star amount - so 90kWh.
Your washer retails for at least $100 more than mine (probably more - I'm
comparing Canadian to American, and your prices seem on average to be
lower). 20kWh savings, even at $0.10/kWh is going to take me over 50 years
to make up. If I got the Fisher you pointed to, it would never pay.