Miele Eco Models
- Thread starter sebo4me
- Start date
Help Support VacuumLand:
turbo500
Well-known member
Very doubtful. I have the C3 Electro Comfort - 700w with the powernozzle. I tried it with the normal Cat & Dog turbo brush. It works perfectly well, as does my 620w Henry on low power.
turbo500
Well-known member
High wattage does not equal more suction power. My vintage machines pick up just as well as any modern machine and the most powerful vintage cleaner I own is 1000w max. My current 620w Henry actual has a 10% suction increase over the old 1200w model, or so Numatic say. Personally, I haven't found ANY difference in actual suction power.
The difference is that the eco motor in the Miele's has been completely redesigned, so it still pulls in strong suction power without the need for a stupidly high power motor.
Remember, we had perfectly clean houses in the 70's and 80's with far less powerful cleaners and, in some cases, they cleaned better! I'd rather clean my carpets with a 250w Hoover Junior than a 2200w Hoover Purepower.
The difference is that the eco motor in the Miele's has been completely redesigned, so it still pulls in strong suction power without the need for a stupidly high power motor.
Remember, we had perfectly clean houses in the 70's and 80's with far less powerful cleaners and, in some cases, they cleaned better! I'd rather clean my carpets with a 250w Hoover Junior than a 2200w Hoover Purepower.
Miele introduced the Airteq Floorhead for use with their Eco models which they claim has the same performance as the previous 2200w models but at 800ww.
They must think there's a reduction in suction and designed the Airteq to compensate.
They must think there's a reduction in suction and designed the Airteq to compensate.
turbo500
Well-known member
Not necessarily. It doesn't just take suction to clean a carpet. Remember that with the lowering of wattages also came the "ratings" (which are just ridiculous and completely flawed). Many companies are redesigning brushrolls and floortools to give greater pick up to get higher ratings. For example. Vax completely redesigned the brushroll's on the Mach uprights and Numatic changed from the old style to a Wessel Werk Miele style floortool.
Also important to remember is that the public have, over the years, been conned into the believing that higher wattage motors are better. People are constantly surprised when I remind them that Dyson have never made a cleaner more powerful than 1400w and Numatic have never more a vacuum more powerful than 1200w and those are 2 of the best loved and biggest selling brands on the market today. The redesigned floortool could also be a huge marketing tool to combat the belief that lower power won't clean as well.
Also important to remember is that the public have, over the years, been conned into the believing that higher wattage motors are better. People are constantly surprised when I remind them that Dyson have never made a cleaner more powerful than 1400w and Numatic have never more a vacuum more powerful than 1200w and those are 2 of the best loved and biggest selling brands on the market today. The redesigned floortool could also be a huge marketing tool to combat the belief that lower power won't clean as well.
sebo_fan
Well-known member
Miele used the word “AirTeq” to describe the heavier heavy duty style built Wessel Werk derived floor heads from Wessel Werk who designed them to fit vacuums with a heavier pull on flooring in general.
Miele then cashed in on the name “AirTeq” as a name added to mostly all of their current combi suction floor heads regardless of the weight differences. I can see why there is confusion here.
I use the lower bands all the time on my Miele vacuums - I have no need for highest power - but then don’t forget the lower power bands aren’t supposed to be used with a turbo brush - there is a setting for carpets/turbo brush specifically higher up on the machine’s suction settings - the lower ones are there for use with the cleaning tools or cleaning soft and delicate upholstery or furnishings.
Even SEBO vacuums with the lowest band of power offers up very little spin speed compared to the highest or middle settings.
Floor heads have been made heavier to compensate for the lack of pull. I recall Chris had a Vax cylinder at some point which had a redesigned combi floor head where the inner suction channels have been covered over -these have been added purely to justify or get around the EU test criteria. In use it may well provide more suction downforce on the floors rather than lighter gliding. Another way then to compensate for the lack of pull.
Respectively, vintage vacs aren't half as well built in some cases as some German brands today. Better sealing, better concentrated airflow and better durability - in some cases of course. Lower power "back in the day" versus lower power today isn't the same in my opinion.
Miele then cashed in on the name “AirTeq” as a name added to mostly all of their current combi suction floor heads regardless of the weight differences. I can see why there is confusion here.
I use the lower bands all the time on my Miele vacuums - I have no need for highest power - but then don’t forget the lower power bands aren’t supposed to be used with a turbo brush - there is a setting for carpets/turbo brush specifically higher up on the machine’s suction settings - the lower ones are there for use with the cleaning tools or cleaning soft and delicate upholstery or furnishings.
Even SEBO vacuums with the lowest band of power offers up very little spin speed compared to the highest or middle settings.
Floor heads have been made heavier to compensate for the lack of pull. I recall Chris had a Vax cylinder at some point which had a redesigned combi floor head where the inner suction channels have been covered over -these have been added purely to justify or get around the EU test criteria. In use it may well provide more suction downforce on the floors rather than lighter gliding. Another way then to compensate for the lack of pull.
Respectively, vintage vacs aren't half as well built in some cases as some German brands today. Better sealing, better concentrated airflow and better durability - in some cases of course. Lower power "back in the day" versus lower power today isn't the same in my opinion.
sebo_fan
Well-known member
I have a K1 Eco 700 and a K1 Pet 2100 watt. Both are as good as each other. There is some lack of power noticeable -especially in the lowest mode but SEBO have got around this with the use of their renamed Kombi Deluxe combi tool - it is now called Kombi without the "Deluxe" tag and has removable side channel partitions in the dust channels on the sole plate. They don't make a huge difference in my opinion; obviously put there to get around the EU testing criteria.
turbo500
Well-known member
There will of course be a suction difference, but ultimately, the real test is whether or not you can clean just as effectively. Which also begs the question, how much suction power do you actually need to clean the floor and how much is actually wasted power? If 700w of suction power picks up the same amount of dirt from a carpet as a 2200w motor, that's 1500w of wasted power. That is, after all, what the new EU regs are all about.
When I tested the C3 Electro Plus with the turbobrush, it span pretty much at the same speed on the maximum setting as it did on the 1600w Cat & Dog on the everyday setting.
When I tested the C3 Electro Plus with the turbobrush, it span pretty much at the same speed on the maximum setting as it did on the 1600w Cat & Dog on the everyday setting.
Yes that is true.
If manufacturers can get the same cleaning performance out of a lower wattage motor that is a good thing.
But if it ends up taking longer to get the same standard of clean you're not going to be saving on energy.
Personally I'd like to see the cap at 1200w.
If manufacturers can get the same cleaning performance out of a lower wattage motor that is a good thing.
But if it ends up taking longer to get the same standard of clean you're not going to be saving on energy.
Personally I'd like to see the cap at 1200w.
sebo_fan
Well-known member
The expectation that a vacuum should be faster than it was 20 to 30 years ago should be taken into account though.
Also if the brand concerned have produced a crap floor head to justify Eco tags which then prevents faster or more efficient cleaning, then I can't see it any time "saved" where energy of the machine is left switched on for longer.
Not all brands are the same. Some leak more air regardless of whether they are eco tagged vacs or not.
I've always thought the SEBO X4 at 1300 watts has enough power without it being energy deficient. You'll know already that SEBO were at the forefront when they first appeared with products appearing with 650 watts to 1300 watts.
Even a vacuum at 1400 watts would be powerful enough without being classed as high; after all, its 100 watts off basic starter 1.5kw/1500 watt convector heaters - an area that has yet to be hit with eco laws.
Also if the brand concerned have produced a crap floor head to justify Eco tags which then prevents faster or more efficient cleaning, then I can't see it any time "saved" where energy of the machine is left switched on for longer.
Not all brands are the same. Some leak more air regardless of whether they are eco tagged vacs or not.
I've always thought the SEBO X4 at 1300 watts has enough power without it being energy deficient. You'll know already that SEBO were at the forefront when they first appeared with products appearing with 650 watts to 1300 watts.
Even a vacuum at 1400 watts would be powerful enough without being classed as high; after all, its 100 watts off basic starter 1.5kw/1500 watt convector heaters - an area that has yet to be hit with eco laws.
vintagerepairer
Well-known member
Like I said on another thread here, the floor of any space is potentially always going to be the dirtest part of the area. Because of this, the laboratory tests can say what they like, but for the man-on-the-street it will always come down to what looks clean, or at least looks clean enough.
The reference to convection heaters is another debate altogether, as many of these have thermostats which of course shut down the electricity supply at intervals. The convection heaters by design are energy inefficient as the heating element is what heats the air, but their advantage is that they can heat rooms fast. An oil filled radiator as a contrast uses electricty to heat the oil and the hot oil is what heats the air. This method takes up time to heat the room, but once it's at temeprature the oil retains so much heat and the heating element cuts in & out via the thermostat to keep the oil hot.
Even if a convector heater had a lower KW rating it would not svae electricity as it would need to be running for longer to get the room up to temperature.
Because temperature and time can be measured, it is very easy to make calcualtions on energy consumption. The equation very clearly consists of time taken to reach the desired temperature in an agreed condition (for example a room of a certain size with all the doors and windows closed) and the power consumed to get to that temperature.
It's like 3KW fast boil kettles. The time taken to get the water from cold to boiling point is much less than it is for a 2.2KW standard element kettle. So whilst it uses much more power when it's on, it's on for much less time to do the job.
Going back to the vacuum cleaner, this of course draws energy the whole time it's in use - it doesn't rely on external factors as temperature to control the power consumption.
The reference to convection heaters is another debate altogether, as many of these have thermostats which of course shut down the electricity supply at intervals. The convection heaters by design are energy inefficient as the heating element is what heats the air, but their advantage is that they can heat rooms fast. An oil filled radiator as a contrast uses electricty to heat the oil and the hot oil is what heats the air. This method takes up time to heat the room, but once it's at temeprature the oil retains so much heat and the heating element cuts in & out via the thermostat to keep the oil hot.
Even if a convector heater had a lower KW rating it would not svae electricity as it would need to be running for longer to get the room up to temperature.
Because temperature and time can be measured, it is very easy to make calcualtions on energy consumption. The equation very clearly consists of time taken to reach the desired temperature in an agreed condition (for example a room of a certain size with all the doors and windows closed) and the power consumed to get to that temperature.
It's like 3KW fast boil kettles. The time taken to get the water from cold to boiling point is much less than it is for a 2.2KW standard element kettle. So whilst it uses much more power when it's on, it's on for much less time to do the job.
Going back to the vacuum cleaner, this of course draws energy the whole time it's in use - it doesn't rely on external factors as temperature to control the power consumption.
ralph123
Well-known member
the Miele S7580 AutoEco was a competent performer in Consumer Reports testing, but it wasn't nearly as good as the full power versions (e.g. Miele Dynamic U1 Twist). I would be curious to know how the performance difference changes as the bags fill.
sebo_fan
Well-known member
Convector heaters vs vacuums with high power
Good points - however I know from experience that convector heaters and oil radiators are expensive to run. I used to live in a flat that had no central heating in Glasgow and it was in the 1990s. Id be spending £70 a week on electricity cards knowing back then the mark up that companies were taking off the cards to supply power. The heaters would take a huge chunk of available power on the cards whereas the old water immerser boiler wasn't all that energy deficient. Not when living on your own anyway.
That was at the time when I got into collecting vacuums. My main vacuum at the time was a 1700 watt Hoover Telios. It didn't take up a lot of power charge from the cards I kept buying compared to those heaters. Due to power cards I was able to work out which appliances took up the highest power from the constant top up cards.
Oil radiators are not energy efficient either - the better ones from Dimplex/Glen appeared only a few years ago with metal bars under oil radiator like fins replace oil filled types. These heat up and similiarly heat up the fins inside designed to direct the heat upwards. Panel heaters are far more efficient but have less power, creating a warm border of heat compared to the far more powerful convector heaters.
3kw kettles can be energy efficient = provided you boil the amount of water in small amounts rather than boiling up all 1.5 or 1.7 litres in one go.
Good points - however I know from experience that convector heaters and oil radiators are expensive to run. I used to live in a flat that had no central heating in Glasgow and it was in the 1990s. Id be spending £70 a week on electricity cards knowing back then the mark up that companies were taking off the cards to supply power. The heaters would take a huge chunk of available power on the cards whereas the old water immerser boiler wasn't all that energy deficient. Not when living on your own anyway.
That was at the time when I got into collecting vacuums. My main vacuum at the time was a 1700 watt Hoover Telios. It didn't take up a lot of power charge from the cards I kept buying compared to those heaters. Due to power cards I was able to work out which appliances took up the highest power from the constant top up cards.
Oil radiators are not energy efficient either - the better ones from Dimplex/Glen appeared only a few years ago with metal bars under oil radiator like fins replace oil filled types. These heat up and similiarly heat up the fins inside designed to direct the heat upwards. Panel heaters are far more efficient but have less power, creating a warm border of heat compared to the far more powerful convector heaters.
3kw kettles can be energy efficient = provided you boil the amount of water in small amounts rather than boiling up all 1.5 or 1.7 litres in one go.
sebo_fan
Well-known member
"...the Miele S7580 AutoEco was a competent performer in Consumer Reports testing, but it wasn't nearly as good as the full power versions (e.g. Miele Dynamic U1 Twist). I would be curious to know how the performance difference changes as the bags fill..."
Well, firstly I wouldn't read too much in whatever CI report. For starters both the U.S versions of the S7 in terms of the S7580 and the later Miele Dynamic U1 Twist have the SAME 1200 watt motor - here in the U.K (and as far as I remember) the previous motors were 1800 watts compared to the 1500 watts now on sale because or our European law to reduce vacuum wattage - this of course doesn't affect America or other countries outside Europe.
The only possibility are the suction settings - but then there are apparently 6 with the previous and 4 with the new range/where the base level Dynamic U1 is concerned.
Well, firstly I wouldn't read too much in whatever CI report. For starters both the U.S versions of the S7 in terms of the S7580 and the later Miele Dynamic U1 Twist have the SAME 1200 watt motor - here in the U.K (and as far as I remember) the previous motors were 1800 watts compared to the 1500 watts now on sale because or our European law to reduce vacuum wattage - this of course doesn't affect America or other countries outside Europe.
The only possibility are the suction settings - but then there are apparently 6 with the previous and 4 with the new range/where the base level Dynamic U1 is concerned.
fantomlightning
Well-known member
I'd...
Bet Consumer Reports left the machine on the Automatic mode instead of having the suction all the way up compared to the other models... Their testing is horrible, why people here continue to use/pay attention them is beyond me. They've already been sued twice over falsifying results back when they still using the "Consumer Union" name...
Bet Consumer Reports left the machine on the Automatic mode instead of having the suction all the way up compared to the other models... Their testing is horrible, why people here continue to use/pay attention them is beyond me. They've already been sued twice over falsifying results back when they still using the "Consumer Union" name...
