The love-hate relationship with my Fishy Pickle!
Written: Apr 10 '09 (Updated Jan 05 '10)
|
Product Rating:
|
|
| Ease of Use: |
 |
|
| Durability: |
 |
|
| Ease of Cleaning: |
 |
|
| Style: |
|
|
|
Pros: Very energy efficient. Reasonable capacity. Gentle on clothes. Small footprint.
Cons: High failure rates. No internal water heater. Goes out of balance on occasion.
The Bottom Line: A fantastic machine when it works. If you must have it, buy the extended warranty. You will most likely need it.
|
|
|
| waynephinney's Full Review: Fisher and Paykel WL26CW2 Top Load Washer |
A washer... my kingdom for a washer!
Ok, well, perhaps not my kingdom, but about 18 months ago, I was in dire need of a new washing machine. Our previous model, while only about a year old, was terrible on energy, and the drum would regularly cut my fingers. I was tired of it. So, it was time to take advantage of some no interest financing and upgrade! And thus, I brought home a Fisher and Paykel.
There were many factors in me choosing this machine, and one of those factors was actually the matching dryer, which will be reviewed seperately. But, onto the washer. Why did I choose this machine over a nice Whirlpool Duet or GE Harmony? Let's explore that, shall we?
The first factor I had to take into consideration was energy efficiency. That was the main reason for the upgrade, and as such, I refused to look at any standard model washers. With the Fisher and Paykel using less than 200 kwh/yr of electricity (compared to the typical 600+ of five years ago), and using approximately 18 gallons of water per load (source: Energystar.gov) versus the typical 40-50 of a standard washer, it was a no brainer. But, most front-load washers have similar efficiency, so why go this route?
In truth, the final decision maker was my bad back. Reaching into a front-load washing machine is very difficult with my back problems, and although the GE Harmony and Whirlpool Cabrio were similar machines (with better capacity and features, I might add), this one had a matching dryer that also loaded in the top. In addition, pedestals to boost front-loaders cost $150 - $300 a piece! What a waste... Ergonomics for the win!
But, perhaps these reasons are not suitable for you to purchase one, or perhaps it's something else entirely that you like about the machine. So, in that case, let me get into some of the finer details.
Fisher and Paykel Washer
Height - 40 1/8 (56 3/4 max with lid open)
Width - 25 1/2 (1.5 inches smaller than most machines)
Depth - 25 1/2 (again, a bit smaller than most machines)
Capacity - 3.7 cu. ft. IEC
Electric use - 175 kwh/yr (which comes to $26.25 a year using Maine's high electric rates)
Water use - 18.6 gal (again, pulled from Energystar.gov)
1,000 RPM high spin w/ ribbed drum
Auto-temp controls for water
Out of balance correction (a terrible feature, which I will explain more about later)
Soak (one would hope so in a top-loader)
Stainless steel tub
Wash plate system (as opposed to traditional agitator)
Load sensing
Primary Cycles
Regular
Heavy Duty
Wool
Delicate
Colors
Whites
Bulky
Easy Iron
Sheets
Handwash
19 "Lifecycles"
Washing Capability
Although energy efficiency was key in this purchase, the machine still needed to wash clothes. After all, every bit of energy efficiency in the world is of no use if the product does not do what it's supposed to. So, how does the F&P stack up in the cleanability department?
I would definitely give it a rating of above average to excellent. If the operator can trust the machine and select the appropriate cycles, one would get a great wash every time. Even some of the more difficult stains can be properly taken care of, and the machine does all the work!
Let me cite a real-life example of this excellent cleanability. Last summer, I came home from work, and for once, it wasn't raining. The lawn was long overdue to be mowed, and I knew that darkness was coming soon, as I had worked late. So, instead of changing, I simply kept my dress slacks and button-up shirt on. I mowed the lawn, but slipped in the back yard on a dew-damped slope. I had a three foot grass streak up the leg of my light gray dress slacks. I was not happy.
After finishing the lawn, I came inside and changed. I decided it was time to put this machine to the test. So, I threw that pair of pants in the wash with a few other items of similar color. I then ventured into the "Lifecycles" part of the computer system and found the "Grass" option. Well, a cycle that says grass must certainly be capable of taking care of a grass stain. So, I started the cycle. I did not pre-treat the fabric, or anything of the sort. I simply let the machine do all of the work. When I pulled the pants out at the end of the cycle, there was not a hint of grass on them whatsoever. I was officially impressed.
However, for as well as this machine can wash, there are a few times where it may just fall short. If you have an oily stain, such as margarine, vegetable oil, motor oil, etc. good luck getting it out. Even with pretreating, these stains do not tend come out. I suspect this is due to the lack of an internal water heater within the machine. Although this is just conjecture, I believe a machine with an internal water heater would be able to break up these oily stains, as I have seen machines with that feature be more than capable of taking care of said stains. Whether it's the heater, or simply the other washers I've used being better is up for debate. Without doing a true side-by-side comparison, this would be difficult to prove.
Capacity
What exactly is 3.7 cu. ft capacity anyhow? Well, for those not in the know, an IEC rated machine must be able to hold (and wash!) as many clothes as a standard agitator machine of the same rated size. So, although this tub is rated at 3.7 cu. ft., that is not the true capacity. It simply is able to hold what a 3.7 cu. ft. agitator machine can hold. Much of this is due to it not having a central agitator within itself.
Even so, it can still hold a fair bit. Large laundry baskets are no match for this machine. Queen-sized comforters and sheets are not an issue with this machine. They wash, and they wash well. One will observe an odd "mushrooming" of the comforter due to the wash motion, but it does clean properly with no damage. It's just different from what one would expect, so at first sight, it may seem odd.
Since I have purchased this machine, I have upgraded to a king-sized bed. Had I known, I would not have purchased this washer. It can not effectively wash a king-sized comforter. It is certainly capable of soaking a king, and it does something of a wash, but it's not to the same effectiveness. It's simply not large enough to properly clean a comforter of that size.
High Speed Spin
As mentioned, this machine has a 1,000 RPM high speed spin. This is becoming the standard speed in HE washers (front-loaders or low energy top-loaders). But, what is not standard about this machine is the tub design. The wash tub has a corrugated look, like that of the middle layer of cardboard. This tub-design combined with the spin extracts more water, as the centrifugal force causes the water to channel towards the tub holes and properly exit the machine. When pulling out a load of towels after a full spin, one is amazed at simply how dry they already feel. Less work for the dryer means more energy savings!
In addition to this high spin, the machine is more than capable of lower spin speeds. Your casual shirts will not be wrinkled in this machine, and your delicates will not be damaged by being spun too fast.
Gentleness
Speaking of which, this machine is very gentle in the wash cycle as well. The smooth wash-plate at the bottom of the tub circulates the clothes in a smooth washing action without pulling, tugging, or yanking on any fabric. In 18 months of having owned this machine, only one garment got damaged during the wash cycle. It was no fault of Fisher either, as the moron of an operator (me), left nails in his pants pocket. With my old machine, something got damaged every week. With this machine, buttons don't even fall off.
Savings
I have calculated my personal savings since I have gotten this machine. In the first year, I saved approximately $200 in electricity. My water tank, which is propane, uses a lot of fuel. Due to using so much less warm water, I now save $600 a year in my fuel bill. This is a total savings of $800 a year! This doesn't take into consideration any savings from using much less detergent, and it's virtually impossible to calculate wardrobe savings from my clothes never getting damaged in the washer. Even so, I made back just under half of my initial investment after the first year.
Perfection?
Ah, but no machine is perfect. A front-loader of equivalent capacity can effectively wash more per load due to the tumbling action. However, front-loading machines can vibrate unsturdy floors (such as the floors in my mobile home, which is why I wanted a top-loader). They also are more prone to mold build-up due to the rubber door seal.
Unfortunately, this machine can go out of balance. Its Auto-balance feature brings in extra water to rebalance the load, effectively killing the efficiency of the machine. As such, I personally think it's a feature that needs to go. It can be turned off, and I have done so, but if memory serves correctly, it is on by default.
The frame of the machine itself is built rather solid. It's hard to believe, as a lot of it is made of plastic. However, the lid, for example, is fiberglass reinforced, and it's curvature gives it extra strength. Back when I was at my max weight of 300 pounds, I was able to stand on top of the lid without leaving any dents. That's pretty amazing if you ask me. Try that with a traditional washer. And hey... bonus! Plastic lids don't rust after fifteen years!
However, the biggest failure of this machine is with its electronic controls. I do not wish to admonish electronic controls in general, as many of the efficient programs would not be do-able mechanically. In addition, many other models and brands have had no consistent problems with their circuitry. Unfortunately, my electronic controls are already acting up on me, and I even have the machine on a surge protector! In addition, over half of these machines that I have sold have come back for repair after a year due to control board failures. I wish I could say I was exaggerating, but I am not. I was one of the early adopters for this new model (all prior F&P models had an agitator and less circuitry), and it works great! Unfortunately, so many that I have sold have failed, and my own (yes, the dryer too) are acting up as well.
For as wonderfully as this machine performs, I can not give it a solid recommendation due to its service issues. Blowing out a control board, while inconvenient, wouldn't be a huge issue in and of itself. But, Fisher & Paykel has reduced their warranty down to just one year, and it takes anywhere from three to eight weeks to get a new control board from them. It's one thing to have a machine break under warranty and have to do without for a few days. It's another to have the same happen and have to do without for several weeks. That, in my view, is completely unacceptable. I would not be surprised to see a class-action lawsuit head their way much like the one Maytag fell victim to due to their constant Neptune service issues.
As a result of these problems, the company I work for (which shall remain nameless) has moved all F&P laundry into the back warehouse. Every piece on our floor is non-functional due to having to rob parts to repair warrantied units. Why would anyone want to promote a brand that has gained such high failure rates in such a short time? Prior to this model, we probably saw a 15% warranty rate, which was still high. Now, we're closer to 50%. This is completely and undeniably absurd.
Perhaps this is less of an issue outside of New England where electricity is more consistent, but even machines on surge protectors are having problems, so I find it hard to blame the environment on those issues. However, since I have not used these machines all across the nation, I don't think it's fair for me to judge completely. However, reports that I have heard elsewhere on the internet correlate with my personal and professional experience. This leads me to believe these problems are definitely legitimate, and Fisher & Paykel needs to address them instead of trying to sell the company to Whirlpool Corp. (and being turned down, no less!).
In conclusion, this machine performs very well, even with a few quirks, but its high rate of failure means that I can not recommend it to anyone else under virtually any circumstances. With other competetive models on the market, there is little reason to grab this machine... unless you have a masochistic side, of course.
I have already made up my mind about this set. When it completely fails, I will be getting rid of it outright and getting the Maytag Bravos instead. At least if one of those machines were to fail, I can get parts overnighted under warranty. Fisher doesn't offer support anything like this.
It's not just about the product... you always have to ask about the after-the-sale support. Without that, you could be caught with your pants down, and nobody likes that kind of embarassment and inconvenience.
*************************************
Author's Note - The WL26CW2 is the newer version of the WL26CW1. The only functional change is with the dispenser system. The fabric softener dispenser was replaced with a bleach dispenser. In the newest model (as of April 2009), the dispensers were changed again, this time having all three dispensers (Detegent, Bleach, and Fabric Softener). Why this wasn't done in the first place is beyond me. Official word from Fisher and Paykel themselves is that nothing else has changed about the newest machine with exception of a slight improvement in efficiency. As such, any information within this review is also 98% applicable to the latest model.
And knowing is half the battle... :)
***********************************
12/6/2009 Update - A feature... or lack of a feature that is driving me nuts. It was never an issue for me, but now I have a baby at home, so this is a problem. The washer (and the matching dryer) do not have an end of cycle signal. Not only is it not on by default, but there is no option for it at the least. This is a problem, as I rarely notice right away that the laundry has finished. With a baby in the house, I do more laundry, so I need to get more loads done in a single day. It's getting to the point where I am considering getting an egg timer for my laundry room because I really need a timer. Thought I would let everyone know, as I don't believe I mentioned it in my original review. :)
1/5/2010 Update - Turns out, there is an end of cycle signal. It's just so darn quiet that I've never heard it until just yesterday when I happened to be standing right next to the washer when it finished its cycle. Ha!
Recommended:
No
Amount Paid (US$): 899
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
waynephinney
|
|
Member: Wayne Phinney
Location: Maine, USA
Reviews written: 7
Trusted by: 2 members
About Me:
Aspiring author.
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2010 Shopping.com, Inc.