Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Consumer Reports March issue has an updated review of vacuum cleaners and water extraction cleaners.  There is also a review of some cleaning solutions for spot cleaning.  I don't have my copy with me, but some of the results are interesting.     

One bit of curiosity:  the Miele Twist ($550) and Miele Bolero ($800?) are ranked 3 and 5 respectively.  The numerical score is one point higher for the less expensive Miele.  Otherwise the scores on individual tests are equivalent.   CR does not seem to mention whether price is a component in their scoring system, and if so how much influence it has.

Dyson's reliability has dropped slightly, but it is still in 2nd place for uprights.  Kirby is alone in first place.  The Dyson DC28 (13th) is actually ranked higher than the Kirby Sentria (15th); (however, I double checked and the numerical scores are the same - so perhaps it's more accurate to say that they are tied). 

One thing that stands out is that there isn't much difference in the overall scores.  The highest rated vacuums tend to have the best scores for carpet cleaning.  However, the overall scores reflect the tradeoffs inherent in picking a vacuum.  The best cleaning vacuums (with the exception of the 2nd rated Hoover lightweight Platinum) tend to be the heaviest - which tends to cause them to have lower handling scores. 

Another thing that stands out is the high cost of some bags.  One vacuum uses bags that are $7.50 each apparently. 

Regarding carpet cleaners, the best hands down is calling a Pro like Stanley Steemer.   Several Hoover models did well.  CR was not very complimentary about the Dyson Zorb powder.  I don't know if they used it incorrectly, but it also was the most expensive application. 

SEVERUS:

Thanks for keeping us up to date on the CR ratings and rankings.  Bad thing about not subscibing to CR, the store/retailer editions are usually late to arrive on the shelves and newsstands.

Carmine D.

I updated my previous entry.   If I were shopping for a new vacuum, I have to say that I would be concerned by the high cost of some bags.  The highest priced bags come in at about $7.50 each.

A lot of high street sellers notoriously hike up prices of consumables like bags. I shop for mine online sometimes at EBAY depending on the brand and models. A lot cheaper in other words!

Severus wrote:

Hi Severus,

I've been whining about that issue for a very long time.  As a user, Miele bags for my two run about $19 to $20 -- same price for a pack of four for the S7 upright and a pack of five for my Capricorn canister.  I remain convinced that it only takes about a buck-fifty to actually make four filtrete disposable bags, stuff 'em in a box and glue it shut.  Okay, okay, I'll throw in ten cents more for the glue.

Never have I denied that the high-filtration bags, as supplied by Miele, work well but it's the price that I'll never understand despite the niceties like the shield below the bag mouth and the sealing mechanism.  However, it seems that there's not much the consumer can do either than opt for cheaper bags or go for knocks which I think is self-defeating as there's risk of damaging an already expensive investment.  And of course, as vacmanuk has stated that there is always eBay. At best,  Miele dealers will give you a better price on bags, at least here, if you buy in bulk. But not everybody's prepared to drop 70 or 80 bucks on 10 packs of bags.

When you speak to the company, it says. "Well . . . . we have to manufacture this wonderful product, then ship and then and then and then . . ."

Speak to a dealer, he says there's nothing he can do about pricing.

Vacuum bag prices will probably be more effected by consumer trends.  I want to believe that with everything so much more accessible to us due tot he internet that people will opt for cheaper places to buy quality items at more reasonable prices.  Maybe this will prove the same regarding the pricing of the machines these bags are intended  for.

Yet, I'm not sure if the problem's not everywhere.  I stopped at the dry cleaner's today to check pricing on what I saw as simple and uncomplicated.  I have a wonderful wool and cashmere winter coat that I bought at Marshall's for a great discount.  It couldn't have cost more than 90 bucks -- a real steal.  Anyway, a button came loose and it's also time for dry cleaning.  I explained to the person at the counter that the missing button was in my possession and that I just wanted it put on again and that I'd also like the other two buttons tightened to guard against possible loss.  I was informed that it would cost $18.00 to clean the coat and that button replacement/tightening would amount to $3.00 per each of the three buttons.  Thus, basic maintenance for my "bargain" adds up to almost a third of what I paid for it. 

 My feeling was that the whole affair was worth no more than 15 bucks tops but who's right, who's wrong?  AND if that problem's solved elsewhere at a better price there will still come some new incident of railroading to deal with the next over something else.

It's really up consumers to decide where the buck stops. 

Venson

Another curiosity is with the Oreck Halo.  At $600, the performance seems to be a little lacking.  It was rated in the last quartile if I remember correctly.

If I were a consumer contemplating a purchase of a vacuum, the bag prices would be of great concern to me.  I prefer bags, and I buy in bulk at greatly reduced prices.  If I saw $5 to $7.50 per bag for the high filtration bags, I would have to seriously consider a bagless vacuum.    CR did warn that 1/3 of bagless buyers had buyer's remorse due to messy task of emptying the dirt canister and/or maintaining filters, based on a survey of vacuum owners. 

CR does make a nice point about "green vacuums" that supposedly save money by using less electricity.   The savings are so minuscule that the Department of Energy has no intention of offering Energy Star designations for vacuums.

One comment about the rankings - they shouldn't be taken too seriously.  There are a lot of ties in overall scores, and they depend a lot on what other vacuums are included.  For example, in the 2009 buyer's guide, the Kirby Sentria was ranked #5 with an overall score of 67 points. The same Kirby is ranked 15th this year with the same score of 67 points.  

Consumer Reports uses a scoring system such that: 
0-20 = Poor,
>20 to 40 = Fair,
>40-60= Good,
>60 - 80 = Very Good,
>80-100=Excellent. 

Even the highest rated vacuum, the Hoover Windtunnel Anniversary Edition ($230), only scored a 73 overall.  The top 32 vacuums score at least 61 points (i.e. Very Good).   Not a single vacuum gets an "Excellent" score - due to the various tradeoffs in design.  Most likely any vacuum in the top 32 would make a decent choice. 

For the Dyson lovers, here are the scores:
DC28 (score=67, rank=13*)         (ranks 12-15 all scored 67)
DC17 (score=65, rank=21*)         (ranks 18-22 all scored 65)
DC14(score=62, rank=26*)          (ranks 25-27 all scored 62)
DC18Slim(score=60, rank=34*)  (ranks 33-35 scored 60)

Oreck seems to have fallen in the rankings:
XL platinum power team (score=60, rank=33)
Halo (score=56, rank=40)
for reference Gary(score=52, rank=43)

CR likely ranks the results and then rounds the scores for publication purposes. 

Based on the CR scoring system, the best performing vacuum for the money is the Hoover Tempo Widepath at $80 with a rank of 6 and a score of 70.  

Severus wrote:

Howdy Severus,

Wow!  Thanks for all the work.  It's good to know that there's simple "plain jane" machinery around that can get work done as well as or better than substantially costlier machines.  

Best,

Venson

Venson wrote:
I don't know whether the Tempo would be appropriate for allergy sufferers, but the bags were relatively cheap as well.  I would have a hard time purchasing any vacuum that required $7.50 per bag change. 

Severus wrote:

Severus,

What was the CR rating as far the Tempo's emissions level?  Severe allergy sufferers definitely have issues but those with only mild allergies or none should be fine.  It's my feeling that allergy sufferers may be affected by design flaws as much as by actual emissions.  Even if a vacuum filters well, if it disturbs dust while in use the problem's about the same.

I suppose marketers' thinking in general is that if people can spend a thousand bucks or so on a vacuum, high-priced bags and accessories should also be no problem.  This doesn't cover the "splurge" fact however.  Not throwing away money frivolously but spending more than usual in the hope of acquiring long lasting quality.  This is often the pitch high-end sellers use when they talk you out of going for the hundred dollar deal at Sears and get you to spend several hundred dollars above what you'd planned.

Venson

Venson,

Regarding emissions, CR's testing doesn't seem to be that interesting:

Of the 52 uprights tested, 42 scored Excellent (81%), 6 scored Very Good (11.5%), and 4 scored Good (7.7%).    The Hoover Tempo did score an excellent in emissions for what it's worth.

 

I believe Which test the emissions of the vacuum cleaners....

Severus wrote:

Perfect!  It cleans wel and contains fine dust well.  Can't ask for more than that for the price.

Venson

Venson wrote:

Tom Gasko once commented on the dilemma that this model poses for Hoover.  If you can get top notch performance from their $80 product, why bother purchasing their more expensive machines.  I'm kind of surprised that this vacuum hasn't been phased out.  The customer reviews seem to be good too. 

Carmine must be in Time Out since he has not commented on this.

Severus wrote:

Hi Severus,

Not everyone can really afford appliances priced to best sell to those whose income rates from mid-high to above.  As well, as many know, credit card issuers are spontaneously re-adjusting the credit ceilings of even longtime card holders.  Buying power is not what it used to be.  Even more true is that a vacuum cleaner is not a necessity even if it feels so after longtime ownership.

The first rule of business is, never pay anyone anymore than you just have to.  I think this is also being adapted by consumers.  Though you or I might not buy one, there is a need for a vacuum at this price but as infortunately discovered by many shoppers few that that are worth even this low amount.  The same applies in regard to small appliances.  What does one do when he or she decides to start baking and  want a food mixer or blender?  If you don't have the 300 bucks for a KitchenAid, the ideal, you either buy a $70 stand mixer or really go back to the old landmark and buy a two-buck wooden spoon.

The market really doesn't want us going for wooden spoons when it knows there still a possibility to eke profit.  If the Tempo can sell for $70 to $80 it probably barely costs twenty to make and ship.  If the Tempo were dumped to allow the company to up its bottom line pricing another vac maker would pick up the slack with a like or very similar machine.

Consumers can't be forced to buy.

Venson

HARDSELL wrote:

Hi Hardsell,

He's just fine.  Checked in with him.  He's busy living la vida loca in Vegas -- no matter what el Presidente says.

Venson

Venson wrote:

Hello Venson,

The problem is how much quality was sacrificed to build this vacuum at a cost of $20.   Hoover's reliability ratings used to be at the top in CR surveys.   They took a big hit in recent years, and consumers have long memories of poor quality products.   David Oreck preached against the downward death spiral of competing at the very low end.    I used to own a Hoover Preferred Elite upright.  While the vacuum worked well, it seemed to be designed to not make it through more than a couple belt changes.  The cheap brittle plastic tabs on the bottom that had to be removed to change the belt were a poor design.  I'm sure those in the business can point out the weak links in these models.  Do they even repair these models, or just send them to the trash heaps?

Severus wrote:

Hi Severus,

I thoroughly see your point but would reiterate that manufacturers want everyone's money.  That's how cheap appliances come to be made.  There are folks who are tight with a dollar but don't have to be as well as people who have to count pennies to get by. 

Despite that, they all appear to want and wish for modern conveniences but do not want to pay a lot.

Thus, if a 70-buck vacuum shows up in a store aisle -- just fine.  There is no requirement by low-end shoppers that the vacuum be state-of-the-art just that it obviously sucks up stuff.  And as long as the machine does that they don't care.

Though they appear to have changed up their program, it was as easy as pie to walk into to a BestBuy or similar store buy a vacuum, knock it around until it was unusable and bring it back for a new one.  The issue of quality doesn't really pop up in sales pitches until the salesperson is trying to sell you on an expensive item.

I'd say flat out that if many manufacturers were all that concerned over wowwing folks with quality there'd be a lot of stuff missing on market shelves because they'd refuse to offer them to the public and thereby set a standard.

Venson

Venson wrote:

Venson,

I don't think the Hoover Tempo has a brush roll shut off or HEPA filter.    So it is missing some of the features of the more expensive Hoovers.  It probably has a shorter cord, but who knows.  It's not a bad weight at 16 pounds.  Given that it doesn't use a HEPA filter, the cost of ownership shouldn't be too bad - just bags and belts. 

As

Severus wrote:

Hi Severus,

I know and that's why I say there's lots of folks who'll think the Tempo and other less fitted out vacuums are just just fine.  They don't cost a lot to buy, they don't cost a lot to maintain.  You must keep in mind that the larger part of the public isn't much interested in a vacuum cleaner's finer points.  They are better impressed by simple visuals.  They push their machines over stuff on the rug and if it disappears they're happy.  It takes no more or no less than that.

Life should always be so simple.

Venson

SEVERUS and Venson:

No brush roll shutoff on Tempo.  But an effective barefloor adjustment.  Not HEPA but Filtete paper/cloth bags are available.  Not worth the extra cost IMHO.  Regular bags work fine even with dog dander and dear Wife's year round allegies and sinuses.  Cord is on the short side.  But not a big deal for new homes with lots of outlets.

WRT to the $20 cost.  Of note is that Tempo's cost is reduced in large part to its long production run/ sales venue.  Not cheapening the quality.  It's economies of scale.  The longer the production run on vacuums the less expensive to manufacture and sell.  Similarly the shorter the sale run, the more costly.  Especially if discontinued and new models are introe'd in lieu of the old every year.

Carmine D. 

Just for fun, I've been playing with the CR upright vacuum score data.  I've coded CR component scores as excellent=5, very good=4, good=3, fair=2, and poor=1.   For the time being, I've assigned a score of 2.5 for tools to the Oreck, Riccar, and Koblenz models that don't take tools.  Obviously, I don't know what goes into CR's proprietary formula, but I can regress the component scores and other factors (brush off - coded 1=yes, 0=no) on the published scores and see what correlates.  Price is divided by 100 and treated as a linear factor. 

Based on this model:

predicted score = 2.27 + carpet_score*4.36 + floor_score*1.75 + tool_score*2 + noise_score*2 + 1.76*emissions + 2.3*handling + 1.34*pet_score + 0.22*price/100 + 3.47 (if brush roll can be turned off, +0 otherwise) + 2.27.

Since I only have the categorized subscores, I probably can't develop a much better prediction model.  I assume CR uses more precise subscores in their formula.  Overall score tends to increase with price, but the relationship isn't statistically significant.  Under $200 of so, I suspect price makes a big difference in score - you get more bang for your buck by spending more and adding features. Bagless tends to score about 4.3 points lower than bagged on average, but with the other factors in the model, bagless (as an indicator variable) is not a significant predictor of overall score.  

CR seems to be inconsistent in how it codes full bag/bin indicator.  All Dysons get credit for a full bin indicator.  Very few Hoovers do, for whatever reason.   

n=52, adj R-squared=0.895, R-squared=0.91
score	Coef.	Std. Err.	P>|t|
carpet	4.36	0.46	<0.0001
floor	1.75	0.39	<0.0001
tool	2.01	0.36	<0.0001
noise	2.03	0.63	0.002
emissions	1.76	0.59	0.005
handling	2.30	0.63	0.001
pet	1.34	0.42	0.003
price_100	0.22	0.17	0.196
brush_off	3.47	0.96	0.001
intercept	2.27	3.83	0.557

When I look at residuals by brand (difference in predicted and actual score), I don't see any obvious bias in CR's results (i.e. some brands scoring much higher or lower than expected based on the regression model).   

Hi SEVERUS:

That's very good.  What is the 'intercept' at the bottom of the features:  Bag indicator?

Carmine D.

An intercept is just a constant or baseline score.   For example, the equation for a line is y=a*x + b.  b is a constant or y-intercept.  I'm assuming that the CR overall score is a weighted linear combination of subscores.  they may also award points for vacuums having features such as a full bag indicator. 

Keep in mind that CR categorizes the scores that they publish (excellent, very good, good, fair, poor).  However, I assume that they use the exact numerical score when they calculate overall score.  For example, I believe excellent corresponds to a score of 80 to 100.  I have to assign the same score (5) to everyone in that category, since I don't the precise score.  

At least based on my model, it agrees with CR's contention that carpet cleaning is the most important task, since that coefficient is the biggest.   Given that price and features tend to increase to some extent, it makes it difficult to know if price enters into the overall score. 

As I was entering the data, it was interesting to the inconsistencies in "full bag/dust bin indicator".    Apparently if you have a line drawn on the dirt canister that indicates full, it meets the criteria.  I was disappointed that most Hoovers don't have a way to turn the brush roll off.  Kirby was given credit for a way to shut off the brush roll - is that by disengaging the belt?

Severus wrote:

Hi Severus,

Yes indeed.  The dial or lever at the front of Kirby's detachable cleaning heads is called the belt lifter and is used to disengage the brush roll when and if desired.  Meant to ask did you factor in price level?  Kirby usually loses points with CR due to its high price.  Also, how do machines recommended as "best buys" work into the scoring?

Best,

Venson

Venson wrote:

I don't have CR's proprietary formula, so I can only guess.  My guess is that CR picks best buys after the rankings are computed based on price.   I'm also not certain that price goes into the rankings.  In the regression, overall score seemed to increase with price.  If there was a penalty, I would expect price to have a negative coefficient.   Price and features tend to increase together, so it is difficult to untangle them in a regression model. 

Here's a simpler model - overall score = carpet score + floor score + tool score + noise score + emissions score + handling score + pet score.   So based on this we would calculate the overall score as:

score = 1.7 + 1.13*pet score + 0.61*handling score + 2.6*emissions score +2.9*noise +2.15*tool score +2.18*bare floor score + 4.33 *carpet score

score	Coef.	Std. Err.	P>|t|
carpet	4.336026	0.533405	0
floor	2.177052	0.459653	0
tool	2.149497	0.424873	0
noise	2.89352	0.716015	0
emmissions	2.602233	0.689959	0
handling	0.613601	0.641415	0.344
pet	1.131269	0.510868	0.032
_cons	1.718993	4.663754	0.714

residuals are calculated as actual - predicted.  Since the residual for kirby is -.43, this simple model predicts a score of 68.46 for kirby, but cr's actual score is a 67.  Granted I'm using heavily rounded scores as data going into my model, but I'm not seeing much of a penalty for Kirby due to high price.   CR will likely never call Kirby a "best buy" due to the high price, but I don't see any evidence of penalizing Kirby for high price.   Only CR knows the proprietary formula, so only they know if they penalize a high priced machine.  Here are average residuals by brand - based on this simple model.  Note that a large positive residual (actual score better than predicted) is likely due performance above average within several categories.  Whereas I use ranks of 1 to 5 in my model for each subscore, CR likely has scores ranging from something 0 to 100.  Consider a hypothetical (i.e. made up data):  Let's say that both a Dyson and a Kirby score excellent on bare floor cleaning.  Suppose CR  awards 95 points to Kirby and 85 points to the Dyson based on performance - both are in the range for a categorical score of excellent.  I'm stuck giving them both the same score of 5 (on a scale of 1 to 5), because I don't have the exact scores from CR.  I only know that both scored excellent on bare floors. 

Over	average residual by brand
bissell	-1.31062
dirt devil	-2.72875
dyson	0.796197
electrolux	-1.93962
eureka	-0.4353
gary	0.129353
hoover	0.048261
kenmore	3.264786
kirby	-0.43285
koblenz	-5.98061
miele	-0.45761
oreck	0.172512
panasonic	1.564734
riccar	1.588726
royal	4.281464

I can't say for sure either as to how CR does the math on this or if they do much at all. I do know, only using Kirby as an instance, that there are a number of reasons to pull points due to size, weight, price -- which CR highly stresses -- and convenience.  Kirby's belt lifter requires the user to stoop to the floor to kill the brushroll action leading me to believe that other good uprights with electric switch-offs OR foot operated mechanics to stop the brushroll would gain higher marks in that area.

The "best buys" have never ranked as be-all-end-alls but appear per the ratings to have enough all around ability and convenience to make them good deals despite the higher marks of the top-rated models.

Venson

Venson wrote:

The best buy Hoover Tempo is lacking a brush roll shut off - which would be a concern to me.   CR likely uses focus groups and surveys to help decide which factors are important to consumers - and weights them accordingly in the overall score.  However, factors that are important to you and me, may not be the same factors that are important to focus groups.  "Best buys" make for good television/radio recommendations.