Ours has just arrived but until now we could not find an example to inspect before placing an order. Perhaps our discoveries so far, and pre-purchase deliberations may be of some interest
There is also a 'first try' report added at the end
Living in uk the choice of toploaders has been more and more restrictive but the Whirlpool (sometimes prefixed:3) GSC9400 seemed exactly what we were looking for: we wanted speed of cycle, better capacity, easy access, and simplicity of operation
We last had a very compact hoover toploader but although it worked well the accessibility during, or even after, a wash was frustrating because of a built-in safety delay. It was very compact and had good economy figures but a fiddly internal hatch had to be latched/unlatched even when you finally got the outer door open - which rather negated the potential advantage of a toploading machine. We gathered that the few other available compact toploaders also use drums which revolve on a horizontal axis (rather than the vertical axis used by the large capacity ones, including the 9400)
Most frontloaders or compact toploaders have spin speeds of 1000rpm or more, which can seem alarmingly violent and sound rather noisy. As mentioned elsewhere, the max. 640 spin speed of 9400 is more effective than one would expect because it has a larger diameter drum. In fact there does not seem to be much difference in the sogginess of the clothes at the end of what is a much more civilised process
There is little point in rehearsing all the requirements and specs. of the currently available (June 2006)
Whirlpool toploaders we were interested in: (LSQ8000 ?old model), (3) LSQ8033, and (3) GSC9400, both on current Whirlpool website, because they are fairly well advertised. The main thing is that they do not have heaters, so they need separate hot and cold water supplies and adequate water temperature and pressure to achieve a hot enough wash at the various settings
On the other hand they share the same dimensions, and are otherwise very similar. Actually the points of difference are quite hard to find so may be of interest if, like us, you are having trouble deciding between them
I will also mention a couple of other points about how well they might fit into a uk standard kitchen, and the business of the 15psi requirement for separate hot and cold water supply
The "pewter" coloured 9400 and is really a non-metallic light battleship grey, instead of the white finish of the others
9400 has a drum which looks to be in white stove-enamel, smooth and, we think, much nicer than the more usual stainless steel. Otherwise this feature is only mentioned, if you can find it, in the downloadable brochure and on Whirlpool website, and on the lid! Even the supplier could not confirm the type of drum and somewhere there was a caveat 'specs may vary'. However there is a logo "porcelain on steel wash basket" printed with the instructions on the inside of the top hatch which probably confirms it is a standard feature of this model
9400 has gradually variable water level for different loads compared with 3 individual settings described for 8033, although some illustrations of this seem to show the same controls. Again perhaps 'specs may vary' so worth trying to check with supplier if it seems important
It has 9 instead of 8 settings but the significance of this is not obvious from the info. we could find
The overall width was more than our standard kitchen cupboards. The machine's depth, together with the 3" gap which is required behind it, (given as 4" in the manual) allowed the machine to fit with its front sticking out 2" beyond our 700mm deep worksurfaces. I think it would have been neatly inline without the old water pipes we did not remove
The top hatch "requires a minimum of 17inches" between the top of the machine and any wall cupboards above. In our fairly standard kitchen there was 3.5" space between the open lid and the trim of the wallcupboard above
As far as the required water pressure is concerned ("15 psi"): this is equivalent to around 1bar (=14.5 psi) or a 30ft height of water from the header tank, in the loft, to the top of the machine.
Because it is a bungalow we plan to connect each water feed to a nearby shower pump (mira "ppt3") which is double-ended, pumps hot and cold separately, and is designed to feed a shower through a mixer tap. As the water flow supplied by this pump increases, the supplied pressure drops, from around 1.5 bar initially to 1.0 bar at 12 litres per minute but, absurdly, Whirlpool could not say what the max flow in the pipes would be for a hot wash - and the telephone number for a recommended pump fitter did not work!
We shall see......but initial impressions are of excellent value, and of a very straightforward and convenient machine. Just what we wanted
P.S. The installation leaflet indicates the need for a 2" minimum size of waste pipe, or an alternative sort of holding tank arrangement with the exhaust hooked into a sink. We can only find a standard 1.5" waste so might try this first, and see if it causes a flood!
Update 28th June 2006 ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' It was worth trying with our (uk standard) 1.5" waste pipe because no flood occurred. However the water run away seemed marginally adequate at some stages so, to be on the safe side, a simple loft header-type tank was installed in a nearby cupboard to take the water from the machine, and we used a shower waste trap in the bottom of the tank
You may instead have a sink handy and this would do. There was only a couple of inches of water in the bottom of our waste tank during maximum flow so, depending on the max. flow in the waste pipe used, the sink or tank would probably only need to be of small capacity and not the 20 gallon capacity recommended in the manuals!
The (mira "ppt3") double ended shower pump seemed more than adequate for separate supply of cold and hot water. However we normally keep our hot water tank at 50 degrees C and, with the washer set for hot (out of the alternatives: hot, warm, cold ), the water entering the machine for a 'hot' wash was at a slightly lower temperature than this i.e. 'hot' setting seemed to give a 'warm' wash. This is ok for us but, depending on your setup and requirements, you may wish to put the tank temp. up up to compensate
First try ''''''''''''''''''' There are 3 main cycles available, as well as separate combinations of hot/warm/cold for wash and rinse, and "size of wash" to determine the level of water in the tub. There is an extra rinse option for any cycle, and pre-wash and soak for "cottons". Changes can be made during operation, and the machine just interrupted the cycle if the lid was raised
Our first try consisted of a 'super plus' load: A king-sized fitted sheet and one K.S. plain sheet, 4 Pillow cases, 4 Shirts, 6 Boxer shorts, 5 Pants, 9 Large handkerchiefs, 2 Pairs woolen socks. This would apparently have required four loads to be done in our previous frontloader
'Cotton cycle' was used which involves high-speed agitation followed by a brief period of low-speed agitation, low and high spin, then rinse and spin again and it took 45 minutes. My wife considered that the washing was slightly damper after the 650 rpm spin of the Whirlpool than it would have been after a 1200 rpm frontloader spin (I thought there was no difference)
We then used a shorter 'delicates' cycle with an 'extra small load' setting for a few dark coloured socks, which took 30 minutes
In operation the machine was quieter than the shower pump we have to supply it. It did not move or rattle with vibration during spin, when light low frequency vibes could only be sensed by touch. At the end of the cycle a quite loud buzzer sounded - all very satisfactory
tranx @ June 2006
Update December 2007:- No problems at all. Large capacity, ease of use, and unobtrusive performance have all been very satisfactory
How helpful would this review be to a person making a buying decision? Rating guidelines
very helpful by (100%):
