Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Have any of you gentlemen heard anything about the performance on "New" Hoover Constellation.  There seems to be more on Ebay to purchase then in the stores. It seems the novelty has worn off.

Hi George,

I really think the Constellation is very underrated for what it is, and DEFINITELY not marketed or advertised enough.  To me, it's a great, well-made machine for the price, then of course there's the retro styling.  The motor is the same motor used in the Riccar Radiance (clean-air motor that is), so there's obvious quality there.  If TTI or whoever would just pitch it more!  But you take that and the fact that it was placed second to last in the canister category of CR's October '07 vacuum test (only above a horrid non-separator water vacuum, the Thane H2O), and I can see where the Constellation's lack of popularity or success comes from.  CR is confusing and there have been many times where I've wondered what in the world they were thinking, but there still many out there who *do* take their ratings seriously when making a purchasing decision...

I have the S3341 in Pearl White, received it for Christmas last year.  Since I also have a vintage Constellation (circa-1972 Model 843), I had something to compare it with.  As far as ease of use goes, the new machine is a lot better than the old one.  Instead of the large blower port on the underside of the old machine, the exhaust on the S3341 is distributed evenly so it hovers much better.  Also unlike the old one, the new Constellation hovers quite well on carpet.  The neck pivots on the turbo (rug) nozzle so you do not have to bend over and hold the wand way down so it is in full contact with the carpet...that's my main complaint about those vintage Hoover rug/floor tools, with the exception of the later all-plastic nozzle like on the Celebrity.

As for performance, the power is quite good, and the Filtrete-style bag, while pricey, holds quite a bit before suction and airflow drop off (unlike the Type J bag on the old version).  The attachments are also different from other modern machines in the sense that they are quite decent.  The dusting brush has a considerable amount of bristle and isn't your standard "scrub brush" found on new machines these days.  My only gripe is that I wish this machine was either equipped with or had a provision for an electric power nozzle.  For rugs, the turbo brush is OK and surprisingly enough does "groom" a little, but it just won't cut it on wall to wall carpet.  One of these days I'll bite the bullet and purchase a better Turbocat nozzle and see how it does...who knows, the Connie may not be powerful enough to turn it but we'll see. 

One other thing--I've heard complaints before that it is noisy especially when compared to the old one, however, I don't find that to be true at all.  I've compared the two I have side by side, and while yes, the new one is a touch louder, the difference is not that noticeable, especially when on carpet.

So there you go.  My feeling is, if they just gave it a power nozzle and advertised it more, TTI/Hoover may very well have a winner.  I love mine.

***EDIT***:  I noticed Venson's comment about the Connie being a dust-blower on hard floors and have to agree with him on that;  when the machine is used on bare floors, it seems that would defeat the purpose of any filters in place.  Hopefully (depending on how frequently they're vacuumed) it will not kick up as much dust on carpets, but regardless, I removed any comments I made about possible filtration ability.  And speaking of that, I had heard at one time that the old Constellation fell out of popularity with the rising popularity of carpet cleaning powders such as Shake & Vac, etc.; obviously the exhaust would create quite a cloud if the machine was to hover over the area where it was just applied...

Hi,

My main complaint about the Constellation is that it is a dust blower.  It reigned in the time before the public had been effectively whipped into a frenzy over perfectly pure emissions.  Even during that its heyday, the Constellation was not best in show but affordable and cute.  The basic mechanics of the thing never caused any bells to ring in the heads of a fad prone public.  My main astonishment is how, at this point in time, folks who appear to be air quality conscious can be swayed by high-filtration bags and filters when who knows how much stuff the "floating" Constellation's exhausts sets airborne.  What can you clean when you're blowing half of it into the air?  I'd prefer it if those who like the Constellation simply recognize its shortcomings and say, "I like it anyway."  Then . . .

We could leave Halos and Rainbows and all manner of HEPAs behind and maybe shake away the cobwebs as we shake out cloth bags again AND maybe move back to a gentler, more practical of mind that might even leads to world peace.  Hmm.

Best,

Venson

HYSTERIA IS A LUXURIE.....................

 

Thanks Motorhead for your contributions and thoughts.  As a Dyson supporter myself (supporter of inventors, inventions and hopefully revolutionary) I indeed read your posts.   Keep it up!        DIB

Hi Motorhead,

I'm not sure if it was carpet freshening powders that wrought the demise of the Constellation because during the 1970's the company tried the same idea on a later low-end model of it's saucer shaped series -- name and number escape me.  The Constellation had had a long run and lost its fascination potential.  (You'll note that the Hoover Convertible upright was basically the same vacuum but kept getting faceslifts every few years to make it interesting to buyers.  The same applies to Eureka.)  Anyway . . .

The real benefit of any of the company's "floating" vacuums was more Hoover's than the general public's.  Imagine the production money saved by not having to supply wheel sets in the name of "new convenience."  Air Rider also took a turn with the sames sales pitch and, not having heard much from them lately, apparently failed as well.  To such sales pitches I say -- "So sell me the Brooklyn Bridge too."

There should and must be benchmarks -- standards for good performance and practical use.  Any good portable vacuum have should reasonably enduring pulling power, satisfiable dust capacity, good emission levels, convenient weight, well-diffused air exhaust, an easily bearable level of sound and sensible maintenance requirements.  Though anyone certainly has the right to make 'em any way they want, product not in that league should never cost more than fifty bucks.

Regards,

Venson

THE WAY OF CORPORATE THINKING IT SEEMS, WERE NOT IN BUSINESS TO MAKE A GOOD PRODUCT WERE IN IT TO MAKE A PROFIT AND LOTS OF IT............

MOLE

Too true Mole, all too true.  Nonetheless, if that's problem we have the right to tell manufacturers to keep what they've got.  No voice speaks louder than money withheld.  We simply have to get past our "must have" attitude and become more observant as to what we're buying.  Do many Americans drop $20,000 or more just on say-so when they purchase new cars?  It's the same deal.

Corporate heads are just as big floozies as politicians are and you now how they begin do backflips and somersaults when they think they may not get the vote.

Venson

Hi Venson, the saucer shaped machine your talking about was the HOOVER celebrity,some versions of this model [floated on air]...Decent suction, HUGE BAGS,type H,

as usual hoovers lousy attachments,but by todays standards [they would be amoung the best of them].

MOLE

HOOVER's Constellation gets the worse rating designation of all the canisters tested by Consumer Reports in October 2008 with a dismal Fair in 2 of CR's big 3 Tests: Carpets and pet hair removal. 

Carmine D.

Talking about HOOVER canisters, the Constellation is selling for $145 new.  A host of HOOVER products are on sale as a year end clearance/inventory sale.  The HOOVER WT Supreme is selling new for $100, regularly $150.  Have to ask the local HOOVER store about the WT Supreme's price tho, since the discount is not reflected on the HOOVER Web Site.

http://www.hoover.com/product.aspx?model=S3345&ds=true

http://www.hoover.com/Product.aspx?model=U5468900&ds=false

Carmine D.

I came across this ad from 1952 and thought I'd share by posting.  I could not get the print larger, but you can vaguely see the price is $97.50, not exactly cheap for the early 50's.  Enjoy. 

Carmine D.

   

we have the stainless steel model at the shop...1 sold in 3 months..and just like the hoover z that also sits in our showroom,,[a couple yrs ],intresting to look at ..and thats it...i like the ideas behind them...edgy looks....,but in the end an okay looking vac with really good performance wins everytime..imo

retardturtle1 wrote:

Hello retardturtle1:

The "Connie" as HOOVER reps called them has a long storied and starried history unlike the HOOVER Z.  I was surprised to see HOOVER reintroduce this model in 2005.  The model in the ad is an 82 and does not have the "floats on air" feature which soon followed in the Constellations.  Amazingly, with the large felt pre-motor filter in these old Constellations, the motor stayed clean and cool during operations.  With all the these Connie models made over a generation of production years, I can't recall ever having one with a bad motor.  Despite the users who improvised filters and/or didn't use one at all at times.   Good suction for a straight suction cleaner and "wow" design that passed the test of time.  Certainly a signature HOOVER canister model for the ages.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

hi carmine

the hoover we have is the 700z ,the one that never sold yet the owner wont put it up on ebay..would rather let it oxidize i guess?...the const. at the the store kinda justs bumps into everything as u vac. ..not sure what kind of WOW factor i was expecting from the FLOATER..guess i was wanting to see it HOVER...guess i set myself up for that one tho...but i dont ever recall ever getting one in for service either...not once. ...

retardturtle1 wrote:

Hello retardturtle1:

The Z 700 is the deluxe model with the LED lights.  The owner is waiting for someone to come in and specifically ask for the Z, then he'll command top dollar for it! 

For its time, the early fifties, the global shape of the Connie was a wow factor.  It was futuristic.  Some early ads even called it the 'flying machine." The double stretch hose with telescopic wands were new.  It was in my opinion the first popular selling  vacuum that sold on looks.  Suction wise it was decent.  By all measures it was a fad because most vacuum buyers were hooked on uprights.  The floatation system on the Connie would have been better served with a sensor to avoid collisions with furniture and walls.  But no such thing existed for vacuums at the time so the best substitute was the large full wrap around bumper in the middle of the vacuum.  Easy to work on.  Rarely required any service save a new hose, switch, cord, filter and bag.  All inexpensive on most Connie's except the 87 which has an electric hose with a switch on the hose end. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

hi carmine.

a few strips of led lights on the floater here and there..along the circular bottom might be a pretty cool  addition...that would add some pop to it.

retardturtle1 wrote:

Hi retardturtle1:

I like that.  You have the makings of a new age vacuum cleaner designer, erhh, I mean engineer.

On the old Connies, 4 screws less than a 1/2 inch long [agitator brush screws] held the entire machine together including the motor mounted in an inverted position with the commutator end of the motor frame at the bottom.  Simple design and function.  The motor's fans were directly under the pre-motor filter and paper bag drawing the expelled bag air circulating around in the huge half globe bag compartment directly into the motor cavity for motor cooling.  An important feature.  Why?  With the vacuum's weight atop the exhaust [for floatation] the Connie motors would have a predisposition to overheat.  Never did if bag and filter were maintained properly.  Excellent bypass motor design despite the added imposition going back over 50 years. 

Carmine D. 

CarmineD wrote:

hi carmine

you would think that because of the possibility of overheating the motor,despite the 'dome' of air ..that they would add a small cooling fan...just in case....i say this because ive heard that back in the day is when stuff was built to last....quality over quantity.

retardturtle1 wrote:

Interesting that you say so, retardturtle1.  However, it wasn't needed.   Plenty of air flow and circulation throughout the global Connie bag and motor cavities.  Cooling fans on the other hand were standard and staples in most all fan first uprights. 

Also interesting to note is that the HOOVER portable canisters, all using bypass dirt motor systems, used a cooling fan on the commutator end of the motor, with an outerstage housing cover, to increase the cool/clean airflow circulation around the motor. 

Carmine D.