Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

ORECK - The business, the history, the machine, the man and related.

(Below: Oreck 1979 to 2008)

  < yr. 1979  < yr. 5/2008

HS:
 

45 years and 475 ORECK stores speaks volumes for the company that launched

the lightweight 8 pound vacuum upright.

BTW, correcting you.  HOOVER WT is better than ORECK on rugs.  But ORECK for the

weight is a worthy second.

Carmine D.

 “If you’re going to clean the air then you have to move the air.”

DIB:
This is a statement of fact you quoted.  
Statements of fact are not "coined" by authors at the exclusion of use by all others.  
If this gentleman believes they are, and you too, then he and you have a skewed sense of perspective.
Certainly one I do not hold.
Carmine D.

Reputations are not always built on truths.  Priests were respected and trusted for hundreds of years.  I think you know why there is now some doubt about the clergy.

HS:

This did not get passed me.  It's irrelevant in the thread here about vacuums.  I will be happy to engage you off line on the topic.  It is near and dear to my heart and my faith.  Jsut let me know.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Why is it irrevelant?  I do not consider it to be blasphemous. .  You continually bash Dyson when it is not revelant to the topic.  I was only making a point that one can not always rely on reputation.

If it is too hot inthe kitchenm  GET OUT

HS:

I have never shunned hot topics on any Forum.  But, this is not a Forum about religion and faith. 

It's about vacuums.  In particular, this thread is about ORECK and how it measures up to other

vacuums.  Which, I might add, is the standard bearer for all the lightweight vacuums that followed.

Even your favorite the dyson, which recently entered the market with a DC24 supposed lightweight

vacuum with full size performance.  Except unlike the ORECK bag that has a 6 quart dirt capacity, the DC24 has a peanut can dirt bin capacity.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Carmine,

I have to agree with you.  Dyson needs the 6 qt bin because it picks up so much more than Oreck.

It would take a year to fill an Oreck bag.  Of course it probably not fill because it would loose so much suction it half full.  Suction is already poor per reports.

CarmineD wrote:
Are you back peddling?  It seemed obvious to me that was the case but as you are very fond of quoting and highlighting posts I offer you the following from one of your previous messages.

See unlike a big box retailer who doesn't stand behind the vacuum products it sells, ALL ORECK buyers/users praise ORECK for honoring its warranties.

I simply pointed out that this wasn't true and provided evidence to back it up.

Dusty

HARDSELL wrote:

Hardsell:  Bag makers (3M included) and vacuum manufacturers do not like the phrase "suction loss", they instead use and bury in their manuals the clandestine term "Low pressure loss."  Why?  Because the average consumer has no idea what this term means.        DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

ou are beginning to sound like Carmine.  Call it what you wish.  Performance declines as the bag fills.

Dear Boneheads.

When a filter bag fills with debris and other objects the suction does not decrease the cfm or the speed of the air starts to decrease, take a bag of your choice loaded to the max install back in the cleaner put your suction meter on the suction port where does the needle go? put a fresh bag in the machine run the test again,where does the needle go? it has the same suction does it not?

Watch how fast the needle moves,theres the trick.

For the last time all vacuums dont loose suction,[except when the hoses or filters are blocked and no air can get through,]

the only usefull meaning in vacuum performance is air movement or cubic feet of air per minute,,,,,,,

Heres another myth but makes for a good pitch, an upright moves the air faster so it must clean better than a tank or canister right,


MOLE