Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

A week ago I accquired a rebuilt G4 and today spent the last few hours testing the machine with a Keeler bagless conversion. Whoa! It is fabulous!

I had vacuumed thoroughly for the last three days with the paper bag on the Kirby, and also with my Rainbow D4SE with an E2 P/N. The KIrby sucked up the carpet one notch higher with the conversion than with the bag and held it there while vacuuming, both with the Tech drive engaged and off. The dirt did not swirl in the dust container as I thought it might, but it doesn't matter. The improved dirt pickup is astonishing, on carpet, area rugs, level loop, anything. After 2 hrs of almost continuous operation, the motor was no hotter than if I had been running it with a bag, and dirt was still accumulating in the jar. I emptied it, lightly brushed the filter and continued vacuuming.

The upright pushes a lot smoother  with the conversion as opposed to the bag, but scatter rugs are harder to vacuum, they are sucked up more easily. The hand portable on the steps is more balanced with the Keeler conversion, and the Zippbrush just screams. The bagless conversion really is a quantuum jump in performance. Way to go Jim!

Trebor

Vacuuman wrote:

Hello Vacuuman:

You summed up your feelings very well.  Tho, I have not used it, don't plan to, and more importantly I don't need to in order to formulate the same opinion despite beliefs held by those to the contrary.    No offense to the inventor, who I'm sure is a very smart industry fellow, and his clientele who see value in it, buy and use it with high regard.  Glad to know that there is a market for it and the inventor is meeting the need and profiting from it.  Despite the latter, I don't feel the need to if I were an owner and user of a KIRBY as my household vacuum.   That's just my nature based on years in the biz.  I believe the only after market changes I've ever made to my vacuums and those of my customers are conversions to paper bags from cloth.  Before the near-do-wells impute a profit motive to my actions, let me say it was always more for convenience and ease of use rather than the dollars. 

Carmine D.

As a PS:  For many years, I also converted vacuums with paper bags to cloth for maintenance users and cleaning staffs.   Again, the reason was not dollars as much as for the convenience and needs of the users.

Carmine D.

Another manufacturer alteration I made for customers who requested:  The HOOVER Constellation canister model 87 with the on/off switch on the hose end.  Frequently these hoses/switches went bad.  A new hose was very costly oft times half the cost of a new HOOVER canister.  I by-passed the switch on the hose by installing an on/off switch on the vacuum and/or if a new hose was needed, allowed customers to trade down with a a new standard after market hose and added a switch on the vacuum.  I didn't patent the idea or sue others who copied it.  In fact, after I informed HOOVER representatives, HOOVER offered it as a work-around to customers too.  Ironically, as one might expect, that was the only HOOVER Constellation canister in a long production run of models that ran for over 20 years that used that set up. 

Carmine D.

Trebor wrote:
I have no interest in trying the filthy dirtbelching device.  I hate bagless machine because they are, no matter what, nasty and filthy.  You have to empty that vile capsule of yuck, dump it and cause a dirt cloud, then the filthy job of cleaning that gross filter!  The nasty container is bad enough on the Ewreaka, much less glued to a Kirby hose adaptor.  I wouldnt own the dirt cup on the Eureka, much less buy it for the cost of the whole Eureka and downgrade my $2000 Kirby! 

I don't have to try it to know its garbage, some things I can tell are garbage just by looking.

Vacuuman:

In rebuilding vacuums for many years for both myself and the industry, I used a similar philosophy as you.  To the maximum degree possible, I would maintain the integrity and distinctiveness of the manufacturers' original aesthetics.  If the vacuums were a buffed chrome, I would buff.  If the vacuums were hammertone blue, tan, etc. metal finish, then I used the original paint colors and finishes.  If the colors and trims were whatever they were for cords, outer bags etc, I repeated and used the same in the rebuilt models.  Lacquer enamel paints in bulk and spray were even designated by the brand model colors for vacuum rebuilders in the industry like me.  Always worked well for me and the buyers to recognize the classic look of the makers' own models.  Oft times they could not tell the rebuilt from new due in large part to the original color scheme.  I never presumed myself to know more than the makers about what would work better/appeal to the buyers.  Usually the makers employed special designers and experts in the field on such matters.  I was always pleased they made it easier for me to rebuild rather than attempting to redo/outdo.

Carmine D.

Its nothing but another SALES tool pitch,It has a nice story behind it,

The smart consumer should ask themselves ,what  real benefit does this device offer me?

Keeler has kirby training and background,some of the best  dazzle them with B.S. in the world.


How come  my customers wont pay more than 300.00 for a kirby?. Maybe im not a very good con man, but hey im still in business and doing better than ever.

THE GIGS UP ,THE WANNABES ARE GOING DOWN THE TOILET .

Carmine and I told you so , 5years ago.

SELL,SELL,SELL,

regards

MOLE

mole wrote:
Hiya MOLE,

I think people are more savvy than in past. There's so much information available now. Don't hate me but I think that $300 to $400 for a used/rebuilt Kirby in good condition is fair. (Considering that sold to distributors and salespeople for just about that when new.)

The selling point is that with reasonable care and use a ten or fifteen year old used or rebuilt Kirby bought today is highly likely to still be working twenty years later. If you just want a good vacuum and aren't worried about impressing the neighbors any model from the latter G series is a good deal. I'd guess for younger buyers uninformed re its history, the downside for Kirby is that it looks dated and is a little heavy.

That aside, if I needed a vacuum now I'd be out looking for an affordable used all-metal machine BUT I am already aware of what they can do.

Best,

Venson

Yo Venson,

I have the utmost respect for you and your buying prowness, you are one of the few that can weed thru the B.S. and make an informed decision[spelling]. I agree that a G series kirby are worth 300 to 400, but must be pristine and be backed up by professional service, what good is a machine no matter what brand that has no backup service or competent repair people?

regards

MOLE

Hi MOLE,

It's good you mentioned back-up as it is really important.

By the way, there's a dealer out of Utah on eBay who's put a new spin on his Kirby refurbs. He's offering about 10 "pet version" Ultimate Gs for $400 a pop basic attachment set included. The Zip brush has been replaced with a generic turbo tool and there's also an after-market brushroll with spaced out white bristle that's supposedly designed for pet owners. There's a five-year warranty on the cleaner and very low shipping. Also, there's a pretty comprehensive explanation of the difference in the G series model range.

Venson

mole wrote:

Hello MOLE:

You said it first, I just agreed with you.  You also said that we would see consolidations in the industry.  So far you're right on.  ORECK acquired halo.  TTI Floorcare acquired HOOVER.  And we know there are more to come in the months and years ahead.  Even some not expected right now.

Carmine D.