Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Subscribers to consumerreports.org have been able to add user reviews of vacuums for several years now.  It's not uncommon to read a user taking CR to the woodshed for a shoddy product purchased due to CR's high ranking.  Some of the highest ranked products have some of the worst reviews.  I suspect CR readers are toughest on the highest ranked products and more lenient on lesser ranked products since expectations are lower.  The disagreement many times is associated with CR's overall criteria not aligning itself with the needs of some consumers.   For example, it is common to see a consumer complaining that the highly rated canister vacuum weighing in at 26 pounds is too difficult for them to handle.  Many complaints seem to deal with reliability.  

Rather surprisingly , the Rainbow which rates very poorly in the Consumer Reports ratings, gets 4.5 out of 5 stars from the users.  I don't know if this is a direct result of the sales pitch that goes with the Rainbow, or a deficiency in the testing by CR.   Dyson owners are especially testy.  They always seem surprised that their vacuums don't perform better in CR's tests carpet cleaning tests.  

It's difficult to know whether the user reviews will influence ratings in the future due to their inherent biases.  Perhaps CR will do a better job of evaluating reliability data in the future.   CR has reported that when they get a lot of user complaints about reliability, that they dig deeper into the members annual survey to look for problems.  However, users with problems are more likely to publish reviews than users that are content.  

I believe feedback from members has resulted in the tests on cleaning pet hair and more emphasis on lightweight and ease of use. 

Hi Severus,

The big problem here is that people want to take Consumer Reports as being tantamount to the word of the Lord and that's not possible. The real deal is that shoppers for whatever product should educate themselves as to how x-appliance works and what features may supply highest efficiency and easiest use. The vac repair people here know that consumers seldom do that.

As for disagreement as to someone's dislike of what I perceive as a winner -- what of it? As long as I have it and am happy who cares if CR doesn't give it the glowing praise I do?

CR would be better served to as well emphasize the issue of generally good features to prospective vacuum buyers by way component design, easy height adjustment systems, exhaust placement, dust capacity, easy maintenance, etc. Yet, as I consider it, that too would require more pages than are practical or profitable for them to lend to a specific topic if all we're talking is household appliances.

Did you know that the shape of a blender jar or a food mixer bowl can influence how well they work? People in general never think about things like that. They just run to the store with their money expecting to buy solutions for their needs and problems.

Considering price alone, there is nothing to recommend a new Rainbow, Kirby, Miele, Filter Queen or Aerus over many other machines on the market. You may even end up with a little more for your buck because, just like ugly girls, some of the lesser priced brands try harder to please.

However, if someone really wanted one, I have no qualms about suggesting that they go for a used or rebuilt machine within those brand areas. But, getting back to CR . . .

I have always done my shopping for myself. When I shop I know what is important to me as well as what will work. I bone up on the brands, their features and also do my best with whatever accessible information available to learn what is required on my part to get the best out of what I buy. I've used CR for years merely as a guide not a deliverer of gospel and have been pleased.

Best,

Venson

CarmineD wrote:

Right on.  I am full up with your BS and pee poor excuses for a pro.  Again, you quote as if it is the gospel then say they are for reading purposes only.

Dyson kicked you arse over your shoulders and Hoover bounced you out on your arse like a basketball.

 
FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP.

HARDSELL wrote:

Hardsell,

CR does not evaluate performance on all carpet types.  They only run tests on medium pile carpeting.   That's certainly a limitation of their testing, although they do supplement their testing with in home testing by employees of CU.   I would think that almost any vacuum would do really well on low pile carpeting.   If I had really thick carpeting, I would want to pick a vacuum that scored very good or excellent in the carpet cleaning tests.   Most Oreck buyers made their choice due to the light weight rather than anything else. 

By the way, CR does make a point of Hoover's less than stellar reliability.  However, they don't have enough data since the takeover by TTI to comment on whether reliability has improved.   CR does not provide reliability data by model, only by manufacturer. 

HS:

Like SEVERUS says, CR has long written that while the HOOVER brand scores high in the tests, and is a best selling brand, it has been one of the least reliable brands tested.  Right!  You know that since you quoted it here many times.  Also as SEVERUS says with HOOVER's transition from Maytag to Whirlpool to TTI in a few short years what happens?  Some things suffer.  The loss of its senior experienced employees along with quality building.  

Venson nailed it on the head.  If customers do their research well, including seeking the advice of experts, and settle on a brand/model that CR is tepid about, then they need to make a purchase decision.  Their choice or CR.  For me that is an easy one.  My money, my choice.  If you let others tell you how to spend your money, whether CR and/or anyone else, that's on you, not them.  You are a problem not them.  CR or whoever you listen too is the easy party to blame when something goes wrong.  All the more reasons to do business with an indy.

Carmine D.

HS: 

You liked the HOOVER bagged Platinum upright after using at SEARS.  CR rates it number 2.  Did you buy it because you liked and wanted it or because CR does?  Or both?

Before you answer, let me say and you probably know this already.  So it's redundant.  I wasn't impressed with the HOOVER lightweight.  I used it [in BEST BUY] and considered it for a gift to the Church parish Office when BB ran the sale several months ago for $299.  It is not as good on low pile carpets as ORECK's.  I don't care that CR subsequently rated HOOVER lightweigh bagged Platinum number 2.  Makes no difference to me in this case.  I'm gifting the ORECK XL Classic because the Church office has low pile carpets perfectly suited for ORECK uprights.  BTW, the reason in part ORECK's are ideal for all bare floors.  Even w/o a low speed, which coincidentally the HOOVER lightweigh has.  I think a lo-speed is a waste for most uprights on carpets, unless there are tools on board.  Just like the lo-speed on the mid-high end price ORECK's.  Waste.  One speed is fine for most users on carpets.

Carmine D.

 

I used to think Consumer Reports was gospel. I went to the library and read every back issue I could. At different times in the past, they have put useful detailed information in their report on each vacuum tested. ( Bag change indicator, two speed motor, cordwinder, how easy the bag or dust bin was to change or empty....I have some of the cleaners that they continually rate low or just average in carpet and hard floor cleaning. I totally disagree with them. As one example, I have two Rainbows, a Rainbow SE PE (my favorite of the Rainbows) and a Rainbow E Series. This year they gave the same Rainbow above average in hard floor cleaning that in the past has always gotten a fair...Rainbow has one of the best floor tools for hard service floors ever made, I even use it with my Electroluxes. In the past when they vacuum hard surface flooring, they use the power nozzle in stead of the floor tool that was made specifically for cleaning hard surface floors. That is complete stupidity! on their part. What changed this year? (The power nozzle didn't) I want to make one more point about Consume Reports. If you study the ratings from year to year on the same vacuum model they did the year before, it will be different and yet it is the same model. How can this be? I will continue to buy the vacuum issue even though I know I will disagree with them, but as a vacuum enthusiast I feel more prepared to filter out the good from the bad in their reports. Unfortunately regular consumers who could probably care less about a vacuum will unfortunately fall prey to their not so good testing methods.

Sincerely,

Bud

HARDSELL wrote:

HS:

You are quick to say you get what you pay for.  I'm not unless and until I know the facts.  I would buy and have bought "bagged" HOOVER TEMPO's at several different big box retail stores.  Make no mistakes.  Cheap in price has no bearing on cheap in product quality/performance.  Read the TEMPO reviews.  It is one of the highest if not the highest rated vacuum product by consumers for any and all vacuums regardless of the review sources. 

While spending in the range of $54-$80 for each of the the HOOVER TEMPO's I bought, they have all provided service and reliability comparable to vacuums costing much more.  As much as 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 times more in price.  With the same features too that are normally found on these more expensive vacuums.  Don't be so quick to judge.  Usually doing so makes for errors.  After a year's worth of use, the TEMPO's pre-motor and post motor filters looked brand new.  The benefits of using quality paper bags.  This vacuum comes with an UNCONDITIONAL ONE YEAR WARRANTY.  Everything is guaranteed even belts and bulbs! 

What I said works in reverse too.  Don't be so quick as you are to WRONGLY say that a product is of good quality and performance just because it sells at the highest prices in its class.  It's a marketing ploy that brand makers use to deceive, connive, and sell products that normally would not sell otherwise if properly marked for its worth/value. 

Carmine D.

budmattingly wrote:
One of the reasons that the ratings change is that the criteria changes to reflect the times.   for example, the tests on pet hair are relatively new.   The weightings of individual test scores may change to reflect the needs of subscribers.  For example, although carpet cleaning ability might be the most important factor, ease of use might be weighted more due to subscriber demands.  I say this based on the relatively high ratings of light weight vacuums.   Then again, these tend to be fan first designs which are very efficient. 

As I've stated before, I'm not certain I trust the results for the Rainbow.  The Rainbow is truly unique with the water filtration, and I'm not convinced that it's the worst vacuum tested on carpet.  That said, I wouldn't buy one due to the ridiculously high price and high maintenance.   However, the CR subscribers who own Rainbows and submit user reviews seem to love them.  There's something to be said about a vacuum that user's like. 

Hello SEVERUS, Bud:

I always chaulked up the differences to the people doing the tests.  They are subjective in their review of the findings and the results, not objective.  Perhaps that is oversimplifying, but not knowing the test procedures and processes doesn't make the matter better.  The example I would use is a supervisor evaluating his employees.  If a supervisor is very strict the evaluations are not as glowing as those given by a supervisor who is lenient. 

Carmine D.

WRT Rexair/Rainbows, I have found their product loyalty among users rivals that of KIRBY and Aerus [formerly Electrolux].  I have a dear friend who brags that he bought a new Rainbow over 40 years ago when he married.  His wife left him after a few years but he still has the Rainbow and it works perfectly.

Carmine D.