[throwaway09223]

I've used both a top loader (currently a speed queen) and a front loader washer each for more than a decade. I have many t-shirts that are 20+ years old. Any wear from the washer seems negligible in comparison to the wear from actually wearing the clothes. There's no discernible difference.

But there's a HUGE difference in terms of ability to clean. If I'm out doing yardwork and I have a pair of jeans with deep mud stains on the knees the old style top loader agitators can clean them just fine. The front loaders cannot no matter how many times I run them through. I end up having to scrub the jeans between my knuckles in the laundry sink - moderate agitation breaks up the mud and it rinses out easily.

I suspect a lot of this "agitators are rough" nonsense comes from modern washers that don't use a sufficient amount of water. But the SQ has a setting to use the normal amount of water so it's a non-issue. Most analysis I've seen (eg: from Consumer Reports) refuses to consider top loaders with normal water usage settings -- the data is basically invalid. A lot of Consumer Reports analysis has this type of problem where the entire study is built on a false premise.

Front loaders might be fine if your clothes never get dirty and only need occasional light rinsing. They're really terrible for actually cleaning dirt.

[amluto]

The LG front loaders are very good at cleaning clothing. Wirecutter has done actual tests, and they seem to perform nearly as well as top loaders with agitators, but they don’t damage clothing anywhere near as much. My experience matches — mine cleans even better than the top-loader-with-agitator than I remember as a kid, and it’s much much better than the crappy commercial coin-operated top-loader I used to use.

(They do try to minimize water usage, which means that if you have the water soluble sort of mess on the laundry, you may need to select a “heavy soil” mode or add something wet and heavy to the load. The former takes two straightforward button presses, although LG sadly seems to have switched to capacitive “buttons” on newer models.)

Also, the speed wash cycle is genuinely fast and seems to work fine.

edit: What do you mean top loaders with normal water usage? Most top loaders want as much water is needed to cover the clothing. They gain nothing except longer cycle time if you use more water, and they don’t get clothing clean if you use too little.

[throwaway09223]

I've used the LG frontloaders. They are not effective at removing muddy stains. They simply can't do the job.

Wirecutter doesn't publish their methodology, but every "tester" who has focuses on questionable metrics -- such as testing stain types that don't require agitation to remove.

In my experience most people who are happy with them don't have very dirty clothing to begin with.

Regarding normal water usage: It is not true that washers "gain nothing" by using more water. More water protects clothing under agitation and aids in removing dirt. From the SQ manual:

"Wash delicate items usually washed by hand on this cycle. A full tub of water is recommended (even for small loads) to allow the delicate items to move freely through the water. More water helps reduce fabric wear, wrinkling, and provides for a clean wash."

https://speedqueen.com/au/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2019/0...

This is the precise issue:

1) Regulators required low-water modes

2) Low water modes clean less effectively and are rougher on clothes

3) Front loaders are designed to work with low water loads, but still don't clean well

3) All modern washers are now terrible, except models that intentionally skirt regulations - such as SQ

High-water agitation is the best by far. The only drawback is increased water use - which is insignificant. The entire issue is a result of bad washer regulations.

[StillBored]

There isn't anything that fundamentally makes a top loader clean better than a front loader per se.

And while I don't doubt your SQ top loader with a full agitator does an absolutely fantastic job when compared to a modern front loader you have a big apples/oranges comparison problem.

And if you live in Austin, I would be willing to have a cloths cleaning video made against my 25 year old kenmore/frigidare front loader. :) And that is simply because (as of a couple years ago when I checked) my front loader uses closer to as much water as a modern top loader. It puts a good 6" of water in the tub and has a much smaller capacity that most of the modern front loaders because it has a very small opening and a fairly deep tub but is also narrower front to back. Given the agitators are about the same as the water depth, the cloths can be fully submerged/agitated out.

I to do a lot of outdoor work/repair (including that stupid washer's bearing), and things get dirty/greasy/etc and that washer has consistently amazed me just how good a job it does, and as a bonus when I got it I was also amazed at how much longer it seemed many of my cloths were lasting. I have 25 year old shirts that still look fairly new. So IMHO that washer has been a bit of a miracle worker, which is why despite being used at much greater duty cycle than your average home washer for the past 15 years (think ~15-20 loads a week, don't ask), every time it starts to need another bearing set, I upset my wife by fixing it. The parts cost like $30, and now that I've done it a few times its a ~2 hour job. Although, last time I sorta re-engineered the bearing set after discovering some new bearing technology better suited to being in a wet/soapy environment like a washer, so its possible I may have significantly extended how long it goes between bearing replacements (aka hopefully I never have to do it again). It also seems to spin significantly faster than many of the modern front loaders, which is seemingly at least part of the problem with the bearing loads.