Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

More opinions from CR for better or worse...

An Electrolux that reminds them of Barney the Dinasaur.... 

CR takes Lux to task for not offering more performance for the price.  

http://blogs.consumerreports.org/home/2010/07/best-vacuums-review-sebo-automatic-x5-lindhaus-diamante-380-miele-s-2120-olympus-aerus-lux-legacy-lu.html

(sorry forgot link earlier)

Severus,

   Thanks for the heads up on CR. I know from expierience that CR testing is sometimes flawed and gives people the wrong info about a vacuum cleaner and their performance. In the past they used a concoction called wood flour for dirt and now they use sand and Talcum powder for the dirt. Both give the better cleaners a poor rating in dirt pickup because the bags become sealed and no air movement thru the pores. If the tests were done with the dirt that the manufacturers use the tests would come out different.  If you go into a house and find the talcum powder and sand in the carpets the manufacturers would definetely make their cleaners for it.

            Both Luxes are automatic. When the the motor gets taxed 15-20% they will shut off, saying to change the bag. Pick up baking soda, talcum powder in you bag and they seal. That is why  anytime I use these floor powder deodorant on the floor , I do it with a half full bag and so do my customers.

                                                                                                                                  Procare

 

procare wrote:

Hello Procare:

Would you say this particular phenomenon with regard to the Consumer Reports testing is unique to Aerus and its bags especially when the bags are new?

Carmine D.

Carmine D.,

  I would not say it is just Lux on  on new bags but every cleaner in general that is a clean air system . Lux more so due to the multi layer bag.

                                                                     Procare

procare wrote:

So do you think Aerus will ever go to a filtrete bag?  That seems to really help performance. 

Severus wrote:

Hello Procare, Severus:

I was going to suggest that Aerus fit the Consumer Reports test models with a paper bag that while not as effective as a genuine bag for peek vacuum operations and performance would at least pass the CR cleaning tests with flying colors.  Probably any cheaper bojack lux bag on the market would sail through the CR cleaning tests better than the original Aerus bags do. 

WRT filtrete bags for Aerus, I don't think the automatic shut off and pop out feature would work in concert with a filtrete bag.  Why?  In the old days, customers who were die hard luxers but didn't want to use the paper bags would ask for a cloth retro.  Of course the major drawback was the voiding of the auto shut off and pop out feature.  I would offer a compromise.  Use the cloth bag temporarily until the major cleaning task at hand was done and then revert to the paper. 

Carmine D.

Carmine,

  People using the bojack bags come back to genuine because they would get 1/3 -1/2 bag full versus almost full bag with the automatic. Today the automatic in the Guardian Ultra is preset to normal dirt.This setting came thru years of testing in normal people's homes. The bag today is 4 times better than the 4 ply bag that was replaced.  The 4 ply bags had 16 patents on them when they came out. I don't see Aerus using filtrete bags being used. Performance is already enhanced by these new bags. Filter Queens in tests done by me have found they will seal faster than Aerus. Rainbows will not hold the Talc as it will continue on into the HEPA filter and seal it. I am not sure about Dyson but feel it will have the same problem of sealing it's filters.  In my expirience I can go against any competitor that is higher rated and beat it out in cleaning household dirt better. I have done it  without gimmickry.

                                                                                                                                                              Procare

procare wrote:

Thanks Procare.  The Aerus [once aka Electrolux] paper bags and auto shut off/pop out features are unique.  They have never been duplicated/copied by any other vacuum maker in the world although over 50 years old in the industry.  It's noteworthy that Aerus will not use a work around bojack bag just to trump the Consumer Reports cleaning tests.  Instead, remaining true to its heritage and product history. 

Carmine D.

Consumer Reports' March 2011 edition has the latest line up of vacuum ratings.  With some new twists: Bagged and bagless vacuums are seperated for the purpose of ratings.  Cutoff scores for the best ratings edged up to a floor of 63 from the past 60 and a ceiling of 73.  HOOVER uprights while peppering the highest ratings of the CR list are off the picks for "Best Buy" and Recommended" due to the recent concerns by CR for HOOVER's reliability.  As are Electrolux vacuums. 

Some intriguing developments and/or lack thereof:  LG and its latest bagless uprights are a big hit on the CR list for their superb rug cleaning ability and dirt compression technology.  The latter getting kudoes from CR for cleaner dirt bin dumping.  CR says WRT LG "newer" is "better."  BUT, CR goes on to say, the latest and greatest Kenmore Intuition up models fall short of the older models while increasing in prices over their predecessors.  No review on the latest RICCAR USA made canns.  Shark Navigator at 16 pounds gets a respectable 57 score with good to excellent ratings in all categories.  Not too shabby for a $160 price tag.

• Most of the CR picks for BEST BUY and Recommended are in the $300-$800 price range [with a limited few notable exceptions] thanks in part to MIELE and SEBO models.  Is CR impugning big box store brands/models for the more tried and true vacuum store brands?  At least WRT reliability.  Maybe.
• Canns get slighted with an abbreviated list of models.
• According to 1/3 of bagless customers polled by CR, dumping the dirt bin is reported to be a "dusty chore."  Looks like the dust has finally settled on the matter of dumping bagless dirt bins. 

As always I add my own caveat to the above:  CR is a guide not the gospel.  Local vacuum stores, vacuum industry experts and vacuum professionals are the best source of reference and information after reading CR's findings and results.  

Carmine D.

Since Consumer Reports has raised the bar on its "Best Buy" and "Recommended" picks by including reliability into the mix, it owes vacuum consumers more details on the data and information used to determine reliability of the vacuum brands and models.  Having a 3-4 percent margin of error isn't good enough when the brand reliability percentages are so close together.  Why do the two brands with the most new unit sales, HOOVER and Electrolux, result in the worse reliability.  It begs the question:  Does Consumer Reports reliability test data favor the least sold brands like KIRBY and RAINBOW for reliability at the expense of the most sold brands like HOOVER and Electrolux.  If this is even minimally the case, CR is partly at fault for its survey methods. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
The question is though, how far are consumers going to go to buy something based on the test data that CR supply? I can see from a UK point of view to why Hoover reliability would be bad, and to a certain extent with the recent TTi recall on certain T-series vacuums in the U.S, the reliability of Hoover models as being worse than others. It however begs the question how much CR are making a mountain out of a mole hill, particularly the frequency of new models, certain changes, uprated power etc. CR have to keep up to date with the fast launches of the models brands are bringing out. However Carmine, I do know Electrolux has had bad press following many of their Eureka bagless uprights, so it is not "news" to me that reliability by CR records for this company are worse than others.

I think the parameters for supposed "in depth testing,"  can only be done for so much. CR are clearly not spending enough time like owners do with their vacuums - whatever fails on the day of the test (or does better) gets the vote. WHICH? have a bad tendency to test each vacuum cleaner they have on their books with Miele models doing better than other Miele models, when they're clearly the same machine with a different floor head or something minimal - of which, the WHICH UK organisation often fail to spot.

Hello Vacmanuk:

You're validating the point that more popular selling vacuum brands/models get the most high profile negative PR for recall problems.  While least popular selling vacuums don't.  I recall recently that RAINBOW models were recalled for the same/similar electical shorting problems as the TTI WT series.  But RAINBOW's recall did not make national news and did not affect CR's reliability rating of RAINBOW.  Moot point perhaps from CR's point of view in part because RAINBOW nevers makes high enough grades for BEST BUY/Recommended.  However from a purist's perspective, a recall of the same percentage of RAINBOW made/sold units should be comparable for reliability as that for HOOVER and/or Eureka/Electrolux.  Not knowing the details behind CR's reliability criteria/measure make it difficult, if not impossible, to accept CR's conclusion for reliability of brands as truth/fact.  Now [March 2011], CR raises the bar for recommendations and best buy picks to include reliability.  That's a CR perogative.  BUT...it's disingenuous to use the same criteria for reliability for $300-$800 priced brand/models for $70-$100 priced brand/models.  Just as CR separates bag from bagless vacuums for ratings, perhaps it should separate brands/models by price ranges too for rating purposes.  Or, as I suggested, provide more details about the methodology for testing/rating reliability of vacuums.   

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Hi Carmine,

I wonder if striving to prove efficient -- which seems the reasoning for CR's sometimes too short, sweet and to the point ratings, means missing the forest for the trees.  If that's what's happening, is it worth it?  My first problem with CR is that, though it groups bagged and bagless models, regarding canisters it does not group the straight-suction models separate from the cans with power nozzles.  CR used to do this and should consider continuing to.  Straight suction cans are great in certain situations and not so great in others and the line of division should be be made clear.

As for Rainbow AND Kirby, both are too expensive for the larger part of consumers and I think they merit lesser ratings by way of CR  because there are match-ups that clean as well or better than either and that match or surpass emmissions numbers for far less cost to buy.  CR has appeared lax in my books about making this clear.  As well, if they are going to test ultra-high-cost vacuums I haven't felt much of a serious effort has been made in that the prior companies mentioned do not constitute the total brands of pricey door to door sold machines.  Delphin, Miracle Mate, Filter Queen, Big Power, Hyla -- just to name some -- are also being hawked here DTD.  Though ultra pricey achines need not be tested every year, I'd appreciate assessments of value from CR for these every few years or so.

Hi Venson:

Perhaps Consumer Reports shuns the ultra high priced models because of its own budget restrictions and limitations. 

No excuse for CR to withhold details for HOOVER and Electrolux brands and models if the brands do not meet CR's reliability standards.  Give consumers and the vacuum makers the CR standards and let us determine if the brands/models fall short.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Ah But Carmine, if CR were to give truer findings, they'd probably lose the sponsorship from the companies who loan out the vacuum cleaners or strike a deal. On EBAY UK there are many models appearing that have been quoted, "used for a professional testing organisation," under the "manufacturer refurbished," tag recently - and one can't help wondering if these "professional testing organisations," include Which? consumer mag and other likewise testing fields. Those models have a set price, much lower than the brand new boxed one in the shops/online.

vacmanuk wrote:

Hi Vacmanuk:

CR buys its products for testing and refuses sponsorship from all and any product makers.  Says it does this to remain independent and honest.  Unlike Consumers Digest which solicits fees from product makers to allow the makers to use the CD recommendation in printed ads. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

These claims are the only reason I've bother with Consumer Reports over the years.  I pay little attention to Consumers Digest or Good Houskeeping's Seal of Approval.  Does Which? bear the same standard or does it get funding from manufacturers?

Venson

CarmineD wrote:

These claims are the only reason I've bother with Consumer Reports over the years.  I pay little attention to Consumers Digest or Good Houskeeping's Seal of Approval.  Does Which? bear the same standard or does it get funding from manufacturers?

Venson

Venson wrote:
We heard you the first time.

HARDSELL wrote:

Okay, okay -- I'll shut up!

Venson

Venson wrote:

Hello Venson:

You along with 20 MILLION monthly readers of Consumer Reports.  While I don't subscribe to CR, save for gifts of subscriptions given to me over the years, I do make it a point of buying selected CR issues off the shelf.  Usually at COSTCO where the price is discounted from the newstand and store prices by 30 percent. 

Carmine D.

Venson wrote:
I think Which does get the machines on loan. They test quite a few models and wouldn't be able to afford to buy all of them, even at reduced costs.