It surprises me how the US loves their top-loading washers. Here in the UK, there isn't the complex (though interesting) "transmission": the drum has fins to act as both agitator and spin-dryer. This means it's just a boring belt drive between motor and drum (or direct drive, for newer machines.)
Mainly it's just everybody grew up using top-loaders, though it's also easier to get clothes in and out of a top-loader than a front (unless you have a huge machine). [edit]Oh, and also the up-front cost of a top-loader was about $100 less when I last bought a machine.
I've used a front-loader now for years and the only thing I really miss from my top-loader is that I could just leave the lid open for it to dry out. The door of the front-loader is perennially in the way if you leave it wide open, so we have to prop it open to prevent mildew.
I dunno why anyone would want a front loader. If the seal fails, you have water on your floor. If the machine fails during the wash cycle, again, no way to easily get your clothes out without getting water on the floor. If a top loader fails, neither of these things can happen.
Got a new LG washer, but some clothing item with a metal button got stuck between the seal and tore a bit of it off, causing leaks. A new seal from LG isn't too expensive, about ~$70, however, it requires the entire front and top of the machine to be removed, so it's not a cheap operation (When hiring someone to fix it).
I don't think I'd ever pick a top loader still, but front loading machines do seem to fail in more annoying ways.
Given the choice between a front loader or top loader without an agitator, the front loader wins easily. They use less water and do a much better job cleaning.
I will note that the locking mechanism on my LG is quite strong. I tried to get past the safety lock (for high-temp washes) but couldn't get in. And in the case of catastrophic failure, you'll have much less water (and weight) to deal with vs the top load.
I think the idea is that most people have more space vertically than horizontally and like to stack appliances, e.g. washer on the bottom, dryer on top
Seals rarely fail, this is not a realistic problem. The water level during wash is mostly lower than the seal, only during rinse cycles does it reach above the seal. If the machine fails for some reason during a cycle it can be drained through a drain hose which uses nothing more than gravity.
Front loaders use less water and with that less energy (which mostly goes into heating water), are less likely to tear clothes, have higher spin cycle speeds (1400 to 1600 rpm vs. 600-800 for top loaders) and can be (and often are) stacked.
Why would anyone want a top loader? What is the advantage other than the supposedly greater ease of loading which is negated by putting the front loader on a pedestal? I see no advantages, only disadvantages. It is not as if we never had the choice between these types as I remember them from the laundromat some 55 years ago. They were phased out, most likely for the reasons stated above.
In other words, they're so gentle they barely clean lightly-soiled clothes, and that's why they also use much less water; forget about heavy soiling or thicker textiles. For true cleaning, you need a top-loader that submerges them in detergent water and actually forces it through the materials with an agitator.
Liftyee · · focus · HN ↗
aidenn0 · · focus · HN ↗
I've used a front-loader now for years and the only thing I really miss from my top-loader is that I could just leave the lid open for it to dry out. The door of the front-loader is perennially in the way if you leave it wide open, so we have to prop it open to prevent mildew.
wing-_-nuts · · focus · HN ↗
ProfessorLayton · · focus · HN ↗
I don't think I'd ever pick a top loader still, but front loading machines do seem to fail in more annoying ways.
surfaceofthesun · · focus · HN ↗
I will note that the locking mechanism on my LG is quite strong. I tried to get past the safety lock (for high-temp washes) but couldn't get in. And in the case of catastrophic failure, you'll have much less water (and weight) to deal with vs the top load.
bpfrh · · focus · HN ↗
hagbard_c · · focus · HN ↗
Front loaders use less water and with that less energy (which mostly goes into heating water), are less likely to tear clothes, have higher spin cycle speeds (1400 to 1600 rpm vs. 600-800 for top loaders) and can be (and often are) stacked.
Why would anyone want a top loader? What is the advantage other than the supposedly greater ease of loading which is negated by putting the front loader on a pedestal? I see no advantages, only disadvantages. It is not as if we never had the choice between these types as I remember them from the laundromat some 55 years ago. They were phased out, most likely for the reasons stated above.
invalidator · · focus · HN ↗
userbinator · · focus · HN ↗
No
with less wear and tear on your clothes
Yes, but then they're still dirtier.
using less water
Yes
In other words, they're so gentle they barely clean lightly-soiled clothes, and that's why they also use much less water; forget about heavy soiling or thicker textiles. For true cleaning, you need a top-loader that submerges them in detergent water and actually forces it through the materials with an agitator.
RASBR89 · · focus · HN ↗
Front loaders can go into kitchens which is usually where washing machine is located. They can be ‘built into’ cupboards etc.
Mines in my garage and I have a separate drier which sits on top of the washing machine..
So it’s probably largely space and location concerns.