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:

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).