Their favorites among uprights-HooverWindtunnel aniversary Edition,Kenmore Intution,and the Meile Twist.Bagless,Hoover Windtunnel T series Rewind,LG Kompressor Total Care.Bagged canister,Kenmore Intutuion. they DID NOT like the Rainbow.
New CU vacuum cleaner reviews.
- Thread starter tolivac
- Start date
rainbowkid107
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 180
IMHO,
IMHO, I love the Rainbow. I think that Consumer Reports just promotes the low end vacuums as being a "Best Buy". I think that the Rainbow is an AMAZING machine. They also didn't like the Kirby. Which, also, is a load of crap. The Kirby is the best upright money can buy and the Rainbow is the best canister money can buy.
IMHO, I love the Rainbow. I think that Consumer Reports just promotes the low end vacuums as being a "Best Buy". I think that the Rainbow is an AMAZING machine. They also didn't like the Kirby. Which, also, is a load of crap. The Kirby is the best upright money can buy and the Rainbow is the best canister money can buy.
electrolux~137
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2009
- Messages
- 2,950
Consumer Reports historically has not liked Kirby and Rainbow. I have vacuum cleaner review issues back to the late 1930s. Once these two brands showed up, CR almost immediately started panning them.
also note-where are the Royal metal uprights?Not a test of one in sight.I too,am a big fan of Kirby.I have some Rainbows in my collection-but like other canisters much better.and yes-it seems CU likes to promote some of the "dumpster Vacs".
Yes, Where are the Royal metal uprights?
I checked out this thread hoping that CU may have shed some light on what they thought of the current Royal metal offerings, but I had a feeling that they would not even make a showing.
I have sort of given up on Consumer Report's ratings, as they historically seem to give the highest ratings to products that have little lasting quality in the marketplace.
For instance, since I am a bit of an audiophile, their loudspeaker ratings continue to be a bit of a joke in the industry. Even when subjected to "scientific" measurement by CU, they often give highest marks to some of the accepted worst brands on the market.
Likewise, I somehow don't expect them to give much positive feedback towards vacuum brands that still show some semblance of real quality such as Royal, Kirby, Rainbow, and so on.
Regards,
Doug E.
I checked out this thread hoping that CU may have shed some light on what they thought of the current Royal metal offerings, but I had a feeling that they would not even make a showing.
I have sort of given up on Consumer Report's ratings, as they historically seem to give the highest ratings to products that have little lasting quality in the marketplace.
For instance, since I am a bit of an audiophile, their loudspeaker ratings continue to be a bit of a joke in the industry. Even when subjected to "scientific" measurement by CU, they often give highest marks to some of the accepted worst brands on the market.
Likewise, I somehow don't expect them to give much positive feedback towards vacuum brands that still show some semblance of real quality such as Royal, Kirby, Rainbow, and so on.
Regards,
Doug E.
eurekaprince
Well-known member
I don't really have much of a problem with Consumer Reports ratings. It's not perfect (like democracies) but it's often the best you can get when you want someone to compare products under controlled laboratory circumstances. The test results may not really be helpful when it comes to vacs that are closely rated ("very good" versus "excellent" for bare floors for example), but you can really get an idea of which machines to say away from at the bottom of the ratings. And in fact Consumer Reports tells you that models with close ratings are essentially the same and the gap is not significant. What's great about being an "on-line" subscriber like me, is that you can use their new "interactive" feature filter which allows you to eliminate vacuums on the test list based on your personal priorities. For example, I do not use canisters for carpet cleaning, but I demand that the canister have decent suction through the hose for tool use. So I adjust the slider to eliminate all tested vacs that rated lower than "very good" for "airflow throught the hose" and voila! - about half the tested vacs disappear from the list! Same with uprights - I eliminate any upright that rates lower than "very good" in the carpet cleaning category - and that kills off about 1/3 of the rated vacs. When it comes to uprights, if it can't clean a carpet well, it's off my list - no matter how good the filtration is or how quiet it is! On the other hand, if you are really sensitive to noise, you can decide to bypass the top-rated Hoover Self Propelled Windtunnel - excellent at carpet cleaning, but only "fair" in the noise control department.
Consumer Reports also tells you a little bit about brand reliability which is based on CU members answering questions like: "Did you buy a new vacuum in the past year? What brand was it? Did it require a repair in the first year?" With the results of these questions, you get an idea of which brand is most reliable, and they warn you that this says nothing about differences between a brand's models - just the general history of consumers' experiences with a particular company. For instance, though Hoover uprights often get good ratings in the test results, it is way down on the list for brand reliability and CR tells you that. Dyson and Kirby lovers will be glad to know that these two companies are at the top of the reliability list for upright vacuum cleaners.
I think Consumer Reports wants to be able to help the average guy who walks into Walmart or Sears looking for a vacuum - not the vacuum fanatic or wealthy person who will buy one at a specialty vacuum shop. Vac fanatics like us know enough about vacuum cleaners that we can go into a specialty shop and not be pressured into buying something that we know is not good for us. But CR can help the average guy know that you don't need to spend $1000 to get a good vacuum - and with that knowledge he won't be pressured to do so. It's not a good use of CR's resources and time to test a lot of $1200 machines, when most people would never think of spending that amount on a vacuum cleaner. And most people who can afford a $1200 machine won't care if it does not work well or dies on them very fast - they have the cash to go and buy a replacement every year. And if their carpets aren't getting clean, they either have a cleaning person work longer hours with a bad vac to clean them, or they buy new carpets!
For a guy on a limited budget like me, I thank Consumer Reports for telling me that I can buy an $80 Hoover Tempo and get excellent carpet cleaning from it. It helped me avoid paying $930 for a Lindhaus that can't clean carpets as well. And yes, the Lindhaus may last longer, but I generally don't abuse products I buy, and with care, my Hoover Tempo should offer me many years of good carpet cleaning service.
Just my 2 cents worth - no offence meant to those who love Lindhaus!!!!
For me personally, I also consider the business choices a company makes when it comes to making their vacs - something that does not enter into the ratings of Consumer Reports tests. I have a problem with companies who are making their vacs in countries that don't treat gay people well, or don't treat other minorities well. And though Sweden's Electrolux have a pretty poor "brand reliability" position in CR ratings, I like the fact that they are doing a lot for the environment, including making their UltraSilencer Green out of recycled materials.
The only mystery I have about CR ratings is that I never see a Filter Queen canister tested. If they have the interest in throwing a Rainbow into the mix, not sure why they leave out Filter Queen.
Anyhow, just my personal opinion about Consumer Reports. Most of the time, the test results have really helped me save money and time. I am not good with high pressure sales people in any store, and so I usually buy something with a little list of approved models from the latest CR test in my pocket. I avoid having to listen to bs from salespeople (we all can tell stories about the lies we have heard from dishonest sales people), and most of the time, I end up with a decent product thanks to the work done by CR.
Consumer Reports also tells you a little bit about brand reliability which is based on CU members answering questions like: "Did you buy a new vacuum in the past year? What brand was it? Did it require a repair in the first year?" With the results of these questions, you get an idea of which brand is most reliable, and they warn you that this says nothing about differences between a brand's models - just the general history of consumers' experiences with a particular company. For instance, though Hoover uprights often get good ratings in the test results, it is way down on the list for brand reliability and CR tells you that. Dyson and Kirby lovers will be glad to know that these two companies are at the top of the reliability list for upright vacuum cleaners.
I think Consumer Reports wants to be able to help the average guy who walks into Walmart or Sears looking for a vacuum - not the vacuum fanatic or wealthy person who will buy one at a specialty vacuum shop. Vac fanatics like us know enough about vacuum cleaners that we can go into a specialty shop and not be pressured into buying something that we know is not good for us. But CR can help the average guy know that you don't need to spend $1000 to get a good vacuum - and with that knowledge he won't be pressured to do so. It's not a good use of CR's resources and time to test a lot of $1200 machines, when most people would never think of spending that amount on a vacuum cleaner. And most people who can afford a $1200 machine won't care if it does not work well or dies on them very fast - they have the cash to go and buy a replacement every year. And if their carpets aren't getting clean, they either have a cleaning person work longer hours with a bad vac to clean them, or they buy new carpets!
For a guy on a limited budget like me, I thank Consumer Reports for telling me that I can buy an $80 Hoover Tempo and get excellent carpet cleaning from it. It helped me avoid paying $930 for a Lindhaus that can't clean carpets as well. And yes, the Lindhaus may last longer, but I generally don't abuse products I buy, and with care, my Hoover Tempo should offer me many years of good carpet cleaning service.
Just my 2 cents worth - no offence meant to those who love Lindhaus!!!!
For me personally, I also consider the business choices a company makes when it comes to making their vacs - something that does not enter into the ratings of Consumer Reports tests. I have a problem with companies who are making their vacs in countries that don't treat gay people well, or don't treat other minorities well. And though Sweden's Electrolux have a pretty poor "brand reliability" position in CR ratings, I like the fact that they are doing a lot for the environment, including making their UltraSilencer Green out of recycled materials.
The only mystery I have about CR ratings is that I never see a Filter Queen canister tested. If they have the interest in throwing a Rainbow into the mix, not sure why they leave out Filter Queen.
Anyhow, just my personal opinion about Consumer Reports. Most of the time, the test results have really helped me save money and time. I am not good with high pressure sales people in any store, and so I usually buy something with a little list of approved models from the latest CR test in my pocket. I avoid having to listen to bs from salespeople (we all can tell stories about the lies we have heard from dishonest sales people), and most of the time, I end up with a decent product thanks to the work done by CR.
nick
New member
filter queen
the majestic 360 at1100 was listed in the 2008 buying guide. listed as very good in carpet cleaning, and called a good bagless vac with notable flaws
it rated 65 out of 67, with the new constellation, and the infomercial thane h2o vac under it
the majestic 360 at1100 was listed in the 2008 buying guide. listed as very good in carpet cleaning, and called a good bagless vac with notable flaws
it rated 65 out of 67, with the new constellation, and the infomercial thane h2o vac under it
eurekaprince
Well-known member
Interesting info about the Majestic! Thank you very much Nick!
kirbyvacuum
Well-known member
Consumer Reports
Hi All I use CR. only for their reliablity score nothing else. How true it is they never give the high end vacuums a good grade. Air Way also never got a good grade and only now they are starting just a bit to give Kirby a better rating.Well we here at Vacuumland no who is good and who is not. Take care Doug
Hi All I use CR. only for their reliablity score nothing else. How true it is they never give the high end vacuums a good grade. Air Way also never got a good grade and only now they are starting just a bit to give Kirby a better rating.Well we here at Vacuumland no who is good and who is not. Take care Doug
vac_whisperer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2011
- Messages
- 1,312
Thays right--- we know that kirbys and rainbows are great vacuums. A bit pricey, but totally worth it.
VW
VW
eurekastar
Well-known member
"Dumpster Vacs"
That's good!
That's good!
Thata something I find puzzling too-CU's Hi-Fi equipment ratings-yes speakers.It seems that CU TESTS the speakers but doesn't LISTEN to them as an audiophile would.same thing with other AV equipment.I don't take ANY of CU's tests as gospel-most of the choice of things is up to you.YOU have to try the vacuum cleaner and listen to the speakers you are considering.And CU isn't into "hi-end" hi-fi equipment like "hi-end" vacuums.Its just getting to the point CU states that a product works-but not how well.
Well Said!
I think you got it right. While I do think that Consumer Reports would be a decent to adequate starting point for the average consumer who wants value for their money, the CU testing procedures seem to miss something.
Whether it be vacuum or loudspeaker or whatever, they base their ratings on a set of predetermined tests and/or criteria. If the device in question meets a certain number of such criteria adequately, it earns a given rating. However, it seems like the testers miss the big picture in terms of how well the thing actually works in daily use.
It's like saying, "This vacuum does such and such well" but failing to mention it is made of flimsy plastic and probably won't last more than a year or two, Or "this speaker measures perfectly" but boy,... is it painful to listen to!
Cheers.
Doug
I think you got it right. While I do think that Consumer Reports would be a decent to adequate starting point for the average consumer who wants value for their money, the CU testing procedures seem to miss something.
Whether it be vacuum or loudspeaker or whatever, they base their ratings on a set of predetermined tests and/or criteria. If the device in question meets a certain number of such criteria adequately, it earns a given rating. However, it seems like the testers miss the big picture in terms of how well the thing actually works in daily use.
It's like saying, "This vacuum does such and such well" but failing to mention it is made of flimsy plastic and probably won't last more than a year or two, Or "this speaker measures perfectly" but boy,... is it painful to listen to!
Cheers.
Doug
kc_kirby
Well-known member
The reason for the low rating of Door to door vacs is the price. A Kirby or Rainbow are not worth the money they charge for them new. And CU is testing new vacuums, not used. I would never recommend someone buy a new Rainbow, Kirby, Filter Queen or any other door to door vac new. The price has a high commission built in. And CU even states something like this in their reviews. They say that the Kirby doesn't clean significantly better than the much lower priced vacuums so it is not a good VALUE when new. But take that same vacuum and buy it used and you have a great vacuum for a much more reasonable price. So I don't think you will ever see CU recommend any door to door vacuum as a good buy. And most people that buy door to door vacuums probably weren't looking to buy a vacuum, they were sort of forced into it by a salesman showing up at their door asking to demo the unit. If the door to door vacuums were priced closer to the non door to door vacuums, I think you'd see a different result from Consumer Reports. Remember Consumer Reports is all about helping consumers save money and buy good products that actually work. How could they in good faith recommend a vacuum cleaner that is 10 times the price of a lower priced vacuum that does about as good of a job? The door to door vacuums would have to be extraordinarily better to justify the extra cost but alas, they are not. I'm not saying they aren't good, they just aren't significantly better than the rest. I'm not bashing door to door vacs, I am a huge Kirby lover, but I don't think the door to door vacuums are worth what they ask for them new.
eurekaprince
Well-known member
You know I think that all of us have a strong opinion about the usefulness or validity of Consumer Reports tests and ratings. Just like some people are passionate about a vacuum brand like Dyson or Kirby or Rainbow, some people either love or hate the work that Consumer Reports does. I guess I fall in the category of really appreciating what they do - the reports have really saved me time and money over the years on a variety of products from cars to vacs. And no - they are not paying me to say this (they accept no commercial advertising to maintain neutrality).
One of the most valuable marks they give to vacs is called "handling" which measures how easy the vac is to push, pull and carry. It's great to be able to compare how heavy each vac is, and Consumer Reports test results provide the total weight of the product with only the necessary tools connected. It's a really valuable bit of information: if you compare the Rainbow e-Series E2 with the Miele S2180 Titan, you see that both provide comparible cleaning performance, emissions control, and pet hair removal. The Miele is a bit quieter and and has better airflow through the hose for use with tools. But when filled with water, the Rainbow weighs a whopping 33 pounds, while the Miele weighs a little over half of that: 17 pounds. Which vac would you like to carry up a flight of stairs? The Rainbow also costs more than twice as much: USD1,350 versus USD600.
It's interesting to read the information provided on their website which explains how they pick the models to test and about how they design their tests. Here is what the website says for appliances:
(start of quote) "How do you pick the models you test?
We try to test models that represent the spectrum of products in a given market. Our analysts seek out products with new features and technological advances and a wide range of prices. After they analyze market share, marketing strategy, and advertising and promotional materials, they contact manufacturers to determine whether items will be available for at least three months after a report is published. The analysts then recommend a list of models that managers in our technical and editorial divisions review.
During the next step, staff shoppers buy the products at retail outlets throughout the Northeast—our offices are in the suburbs of New York City—or online, never revealing that the purchases are for Consumer Reports. (We want to ensure that we test the same products you'll buy.) When we need to buy best-selling regional brands, we use shoppers across the country. Most significant, and unlike most other publications, we buy everything we test.
In rare instances, when a product isn't in stores yet, we buy it from the manufacturer, revealing this in our report. We'll subsequently test a version that we buy at retail and report on those findings.
How do you test?
Our experts develop tests that re-create the experience you'll have with the product. They also consider industry standards for testing a particular product. Note that those tests usually gauge only a minimum level of performance while our tests aim to find the highest-performing products. We develop tests for those products that lack industry standards for ease of use.
In some cases, an industry models its tests on ours. For example, we developed an emissions test for vacuums that determines how much dirt and dust blows into the air when a model is running. The industry then devised its own test that's based on ours, and now that test is the industry standard." (end quote)
Consumer Reports seems to be very open to hearing opinions from their membership. At one point many years ago, CR had included the need to change a brush roll belt as a factor in vacuum brand reliability. I wrote them a letter explaining that this should be expected from any vacuum that uses a brush roll and that high frequency of belt breaks should not be considered in the reliability analysis. They listened to me! The vacuum questions about repairs now explicitly exclude incidents of belt changing!
One last thought - perhaps I'll write them about this: I think that CR should consider the design and quality of attachments provided with a vac in their ratings. It does no good to make a Hoover SP Windtunnel upright with excellent high power suction through the hose, if TTI insists on including poorly designed tools that can actually damage things when cleaning some materials and surfaces, and when the hose does not allow you the freedom to move with ease while using it. I guess it's my little obsession with attachment design that makes me annoyed at this oversight.
One of the most valuable marks they give to vacs is called "handling" which measures how easy the vac is to push, pull and carry. It's great to be able to compare how heavy each vac is, and Consumer Reports test results provide the total weight of the product with only the necessary tools connected. It's a really valuable bit of information: if you compare the Rainbow e-Series E2 with the Miele S2180 Titan, you see that both provide comparible cleaning performance, emissions control, and pet hair removal. The Miele is a bit quieter and and has better airflow through the hose for use with tools. But when filled with water, the Rainbow weighs a whopping 33 pounds, while the Miele weighs a little over half of that: 17 pounds. Which vac would you like to carry up a flight of stairs? The Rainbow also costs more than twice as much: USD1,350 versus USD600.
It's interesting to read the information provided on their website which explains how they pick the models to test and about how they design their tests. Here is what the website says for appliances:
(start of quote) "How do you pick the models you test?
We try to test models that represent the spectrum of products in a given market. Our analysts seek out products with new features and technological advances and a wide range of prices. After they analyze market share, marketing strategy, and advertising and promotional materials, they contact manufacturers to determine whether items will be available for at least three months after a report is published. The analysts then recommend a list of models that managers in our technical and editorial divisions review.
During the next step, staff shoppers buy the products at retail outlets throughout the Northeast—our offices are in the suburbs of New York City—or online, never revealing that the purchases are for Consumer Reports. (We want to ensure that we test the same products you'll buy.) When we need to buy best-selling regional brands, we use shoppers across the country. Most significant, and unlike most other publications, we buy everything we test.
In rare instances, when a product isn't in stores yet, we buy it from the manufacturer, revealing this in our report. We'll subsequently test a version that we buy at retail and report on those findings.
How do you test?
Our experts develop tests that re-create the experience you'll have with the product. They also consider industry standards for testing a particular product. Note that those tests usually gauge only a minimum level of performance while our tests aim to find the highest-performing products. We develop tests for those products that lack industry standards for ease of use.
In some cases, an industry models its tests on ours. For example, we developed an emissions test for vacuums that determines how much dirt and dust blows into the air when a model is running. The industry then devised its own test that's based on ours, and now that test is the industry standard." (end quote)
Consumer Reports seems to be very open to hearing opinions from their membership. At one point many years ago, CR had included the need to change a brush roll belt as a factor in vacuum brand reliability. I wrote them a letter explaining that this should be expected from any vacuum that uses a brush roll and that high frequency of belt breaks should not be considered in the reliability analysis. They listened to me! The vacuum questions about repairs now explicitly exclude incidents of belt changing!
One last thought - perhaps I'll write them about this: I think that CR should consider the design and quality of attachments provided with a vac in their ratings. It does no good to make a Hoover SP Windtunnel upright with excellent high power suction through the hose, if TTI insists on including poorly designed tools that can actually damage things when cleaning some materials and surfaces, and when the hose does not allow you the freedom to move with ease while using it. I guess it's my little obsession with attachment design that makes me annoyed at this oversight.
nick
New member
not worth the money they charge for them new
i do think that a good used or refurb door to door vac is a good value. just look at all the kirbys, electrolux's, rainbows, filterqueens, compacts, etc still around and cleaning up
i do think that a good used or refurb door to door vac is a good value. just look at all the kirbys, electrolux's, rainbows, filterqueens, compacts, etc still around and cleaning up
