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. 

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?