Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Hi,

Which? magazine has just made a preliminary announcement re the Sebo D series vacuums.  Bags being my preference, I was pleased to read that the D series sports a 6-liter bag (about a gallon and a half).  The airbelt is a little wasted on me as I've never had problems with marring furniture.  However, if it will keep the machine itself from looking like it belongs in a second-hand shop for a few years I'm all for it.

Which? plans to test the D series soon.

The story is here: http://www.which.co.uk/news/2010/07/new-vacs-with-bumpers-to-protect-your-furniture-219804

Venson

Hertz wrote:
Eh. no.. GHI have tested quite a few vacs in their time including Dyson. I'm sure they have a balanced fair decision when it comes to household appliances incl. vacuum cleaners. The fact that two bagless vacuum cleaners in that top ten are not Dyson is the MOST surprising.

vacmanuk wrote:

But Dyson was also one, too. Look, after having extensively worked on these DC-14's for a while, I can say with COMPLETE knowledge, confidence, and certainty that they ARE well built, VERY (overall) high quality appliances BESIDES the motors. I swear, if they put a frickin' Lindhaus, Kirby, or some kind of German motor in there or a Lamb motor they would be damn near perfect machines! But they use at least THREE - FOUR different kinds of plastics where they're most suited, and sometimes all on different areas of just ONE PART! Dyson also just doesn't "paint" their machines, they go ALL OUT to make sure each part is that color of plastic through and through - a very nice - albeit mechanically and functionally irrelevant - touch. The seals are all excellent, the cleaning's awesome, filtration's great, and it's very well built. I will SAY that Miele's, ofcourse are built a good 40-50% better, if not just for their motor alone, but Dysons are "pretty durable", too - a quote from a Miele Diamond dealer that DISLIKES Dysons, but admits their quality in their due areas.

Hertz wrote:
In your opinion you think that they are well built.

In my opinion and lengthy experience of Dyson vacuums they are not well built due to call out charges and bits that need fixing. They are not durable either since many models have different bits on them that have no uniform design. One air inspection tube is different to the next for example. They are also noisy and unhealthy. Period. You have your opinion and I'll have mine.

vacmanuk wrote:

When used, even abusively, they stand up to it and keep on running and from reviews I've read, for even 7+ years STRAIGHT w/o ANY tune-ups. So yeah, they're durbale, and I can stand and jump on the BODY standing upright (I'm 190+) pounds, and literally drop it and slam it down onto thin carpet with a pound and they don't break a sweat. That's what I consider a well built machine. They are overall quite durable machines, especially compared to all the chinese crap lately. Very good machines, at least from what I can see and comparing it to a Miele, too. Considering they seem to clean the air better than a Miele w/ a Air Clean filter, they're healthy, and I have allergies. Just be careful when emptying the bin. I'll let this one go (for now, haha) but I'm telling you what I have come to see from my own experiences, choose to believe it or not. You're choice sir, I could care less.

vacmanuk wrote:

Miele TT5000 Cat n Dog 91/100
LG Compressor Allergy Care 90/100
Miele Solution HEPA 5000 89/100
Karcher VC6300 88/100
SEBO K1 Pet 87/100
SEBO D? 86/100
Dyson DC23 Motorhead  86/100
SEBO K3 Airbelt Vulcano 86/100
Bosch Compressor BSG 86/100
Philips Marathon FC9222 83/100

Of note, the prices of the 3 bagless vacuums.  LG is priced at 199 BP, dyson is 299-342 BP, and PM is 180 BP.  All 3 are HEPA.  LG and PM have variable speed motor controls.  Dyson does not.  Is that a big deal?  No, the China sourced $50 HOOVER cann has a variable speed motor control too.  BUT it's a big deal to be the most expensive cann rated, by 2-3 times the price and more, and not have it, IMHO.  BTW, the HOOVER cann also has a cordwinder.  Mine is now 4 years old and still working as good as new except for tool wear.  Tools are chintzy.  Buit who's complaining for $50?

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Which also proves that in this case and instance that "premium price" does not mean the best. Also the Dyson DC23 is relatively new against the Sebo K3 Airbelt "old stager" Vulcano which has been on the market in various guises (Sebo just put a paint job) before the DC23's presence.

vacmanuk wrote:

How true.  Caveat emptor.  Buyer beware.  Highest priced does not mean best product.  Despite slick marketing and emotional buying.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

No wonder Orecks so well sometimes.

Hertz wrote:

I paid $150 for my new XL Classic in April 2007.  Still like brand new.  Bought 4 more new and gifted to others who love them.  Worth the price.  If I could find a dozen ORECK's at junk prices I'd buy them too and fix up and gift away.  Haven't yet.  

Carmine D.

Hertz wrote:
MM so this is why hospitals still use bagged vacuums? Really Hertz, you must have iron lungs to think that Dysons are healthier. Hospitals and clinics dont have the money generally but somehow they manage to have contract cleaners who have to use bags by law because it is cleaner!

Also, please don't knock all Chinese built things. I recall Dyson ended up making parts and complete vacuums in Asia...