TubeNet

bloke wrote:I have a $100 vac and all wood floors.

bloke "don' need no stinkin' $3k ' cleaner"

Paid $10 for mine (Hoover Windtunnel II with a broken belt) on eBay. Have 3 dogs, wood and ceramic tile floors with a few area rugs and manage to fill up the canister on a single twice-weekly trip through the house. After 30-some years of a vacuum needing bags, the bagless is the only way to go when you have pets.

When I asked customer service about the belt, they not only sent me a couple of new belts gratis, but a complete new base sans motor and offered to send me a new motor if that didn't make me happy.

Chuck "Don't need no stinkin' $100 vac"(G)

bloke wrote:

Chuck(G) wrote:Chuck "Don't need no stinkin' $100 vac"(G)

bloke "don' need to fix stinkin' stuff all day and then go home and fix stinkin' stuff - just to save eighty-somethin' stinkin' bucks"

Took me 5 minutes and a screwdriver to replace the belt--which cost all of $2.50. Belts break, even on $100 super-deluxe vacs, which is why you can buy them at your local supermarket. Ptiy the poor guy who doesn't know how to replace one--probably ends up putting the thing on eBay.

.

My ex-wife sold for Kirby back in the 70's. Do you know what the commission on one of those machines is?... brace yourself.... it's 50% if you sell at the retail price.

I have an old avacado colored one... I bought it used from a vacuum repair shop for $35 about 15 years ago. Kirby still sells the repair parts. new wheels and belts cost me an additional $11 last winter. Maybe I should sprig another $20 to get a matching power cord... my perfectly functioning Burgundy cord really clashes with the avacado green. This machine is one of my best investments.

The right kind of dog helps a lot. Chessies have course hair; easy to sweep up. And they make pretty good pets too.

Goldens, what can I say? Not for fastidious housekeeprs.

winston wrote:Are you guys actually being serious? $1300, $1800, $2000?

For a vacum cleaner?

Quite. You can find them used at a good price though.

The newer ones (last 20 years or so) have a drive system so it"s "self propelled". You push the handle and the wheels move it forward. Simalar for revers.


I've got a mid 70's, Classic III. (Red). I got it used for $150 12 years ago, with a new cord, bag, brush, and a motor overhaul. about 4 years ago I replaced the bearings, and 6 month ago the brush. about a year ago I changed it to disposible bags for my wife (she didn't like emptying the other bag) for about $50 in parts.

My mother had the same model when I was young, that she bought new. She traded it in on a G3 after a rock put a hole in the case. I';ve seen the generation models at reasonable prices, and might switch some day. Just bnot sure they are as sturdy, and the transmission seams like a likely source of problems.

My wife had a few of the chain brands. Hoover and such, in the $75- $100 price range. They broke in 2-3 years and you couldn't get most parts. Repairs were moe than the cost of a replacement.

I've got a few interestiong attachemnt for mine, like the vibratring sander/polisher(bottom left) and a grinding wheel (but I don't have the flex handle). There are attachments for polishing/wax wood floors too and shampooing carpet.

My house came with a central vacuum system, whiich I highly recommend for anyone with allergies. I do seem to remember Consumer Reports reviewing vaccuum cleaners and determining that Kirbys didn't clean any better than machines that cost a fraction as much, and that the Kirbys were actually less reliable based on their stats.

Lew wrote:My house came with a central vacuum system, whiich I highly recommend for anyone with allergies. I do seem to remember Consumer Reports reviewing vaccuum cleaners and determining that Kirbys didn't clean any better than machines that cost a fraction as much, and that the Kirbys were actually less reliable based on their stats.

My home has one, but hauling the head with the hose around is a drag and the upright does a much better job on the rugs--and it's lighter.

These (Rainbows) were all the rage about 20 years ago and are still being made:



Again, very expensive (>$1000) and sold the same way as Kirby (AFAIK).

Chuck(G) wrote:

Lew wrote:My house came with a central vacuum system, whiich I highly recommend for anyone with allergies. I do seem to remember Consumer Reports reviewing vaccuum cleaners and determining that Kirbys didn't clean any better than machines that cost a fraction as much, and that the Kirbys were actually less reliable based on their stats.

My home has one, but hauling the head with the hose around is a drag and the upright does a much better job on the rugs--and it's lighter.

My house also has a central vac system and I agree with Chuck. The very long hose and the wand and head are more trouble to haul around than a stand-alone vacuum -- and, buying an additional set (upstairs and downstairs) is more expensive than buying a good vaccum.

Chuck(G) wrote:These (Rainbows) were all the rage about 20 years ago and are still being made:

Are those the ones that use water filtration?

Again, very expensive (>$1000) and sold the same way as Kirby (AFAIK).

I'm not sure how much Kirby is sold door to door now. 30+ years ago it was one of the few ways to reach customers. With the internet, they aren't needed as much.

Lew wrote:I do seem to remember Consumer Reports reviewing vaccuum cleaners and determining that Kirbys didn't clean any better than machines that cost a fraction as much, and that the Kirbys were actually less reliable based on their stats.

Any idea when that was?

As I said above, I'm not real sure about the newer, Generation, series, with the transmission and lot's of plastic parts.

I guess any 40 year old vaccum is built better than the current, throw-away crap. The questioon then is which ones can you get parts for, how easily and how much.

Can you get parts for a 60's Hoover or Eureka?

pistons or rotors...
silver or lacquer...
baritone or euphonium...
PC or Mac...
Kirby or Hoover?

I've got no real beef with anyone that wants to buy a $1300 vacuum, whether it's from Kirby, Rainbow, or Oreck. But I'll tell you why I DON'T. I've used my mother's Kirby. It's a nice machine, but very heavy, and with a high motor housing that doesn't get under things so well. And honestly, it just doesn't do as good of a job as my Kenmore. I think the Oreck is a much better machine than the Kirby (maybe a BIT better than my Kenmore, but mostly just lighter), but still priced ridiculously high.

Our Kenmore is about 8 years old. I did have to replace an impeller about 4 years ago when I accidentally left out the little felt filter and a penny got sucked into the impeller, and last year I thought the bearings were worn out (turned out the belt had just stretched) so I checked on the price and availability of them (cheap, and readily available at www.sears.com). I paid about $200 for the Kenmore, and fully expect it to last me at least another 8-10 years, and probably more unless I give it to one of the kids and buy a new one. It has some neat technology I've not seen on the Kirby -- an electronic sensor that ACTUALLY WORKS to tell when the carpet is clean. The Oreck has this feature too, and it is more useful than I would have ever expected it to be. Mom's Kirby had a plastic chamber you could plug in that would "click" when it picked up dirt, which was supposed to tell you when the carpet was clean, but I could never hear the clicks over the motor. New technology like the dirt sensor stands to make appliances better -- and as an expensive "lifetime" vacuum ages it gets more and more behind in these features.

As to spending $1300 on a lifetime vac being a good deal: putting the $1100 I saved buying the Kenmore into a decent mutual fund would triple or quadruple my money in the expected lifetime of my $200 vacuum. I can buy a lot of parts, and a lot of vacuums down through the years if I let that money earn more money instead of sit in the hall closet. Heck, I could buy a *NEW* vac every 3 years and NEVER TOUCH THE PRINCIPAL!!

But like computer choice, car choice, tuba choice, spouse choice -- I don't believe there is a one-size-fits-all "best". To each his own.
_____________________________________
Joe Baker, who admits that those who bought used Kirbys for less than a C-Note got pretty good deals, but who isn't interested in trading.

ThomasDodd wrote:

Lew wrote:I do seem to remember Consumer Reports reviewing vaccuum cleaners and determining that Kirbys didn't clean any better than machines that cost a fraction as much, and that the Kirbys were actually less reliable based on their stats.

Any idea when that was?

When we bought our vacuum, I was prepared to spend a grand or more if I was convinced it was money well spent, so I did some research. I borrowed a Kirby and an Oreck, and read what consumer reports had to say. I found an article on vacuums that was only a couple of months old at that time, and its conclusions mirrored my own -- the Kirby didn't do as good a job as the Kenmore. That was about 8 years ago.

I just went out to their website to see what they have to say now. They did vacuum cleaners again in January '05. They found the Kirby to be the most reliable -- slightly more reliable than the #2 reliability Kenmore -- but only the fifth best performing vacuum. Oreck has apparently taken a dive, because they had among the highest repair rates and were ranked #20 in performance! The Kenmore is third-ranked in performance -- interestingly, right behind the Eureka Boss I bought three years ago to use when I moved to Knoxville six months ahead of my family! That one is in the garage as a backup in case we ever have a problem with the "good" one.
___________________________________
Joe Baker, who will go home tonight and see which of these two REALLY works better!

ThomasDodd wrote:

Chuck(G) wrote:These (Rainbows) were all the rage about 20 years ago and are still being made:

Are those the ones that use water filtration?

That's them--the Bubblematics. I understand that the water reservoir is very messy to clean. With today's HEPA-filtered vacs, I can't see the logic behind them--and particularly not a canister vac.

Joe Baker wrote:I just went out to their website to see what they have to say now. They did vacuum cleaners again in January '05. They found the Kirby to be the most reliable -- slightly more reliable than the #2 reliability Kenmore -- but only the fifth best performing vacuum.

Guess I need to try and find a copy. The CR site requires a subscription for for the Jan 05 review. I'm glad to hear the the newer Kirbys are holding up well.

Personally, I'd never spend a grand on a vacuum.
When I can get a used Kirby woth most attacments, for about a C note, why bother.

I've never had a complaint with the job my 30 year old Kirby does. If It get damaged, I probably repair/replace it with the same model. I suspect it'll still be my vacuum in 20 years.
I may go back to the reusable bag. The disposable bags a a pain. Every time I need to vacuum, the bag needs changed, and there are any new bags ...

I don't need the vacuum to tell me the floor is clean. My parents and grand parents did all right without that feature. What are we comming too, needing a vacuum to tell us if the floor is clean? I don't like things that pretend to know better than me. (notice I don't like Microsoft products, and drive a 35 year old car)

I am surprised noone has mentioned the equally overpriced Eloctrolux yet. As another poster earlier stated, I also have a Kenmore that cost about $200. I bought it about 12-13 years ago, and the only thing I have had to do is replace the belt about every 3-4 years.

ThomasDodd wrote: I don't need the vacuum to tell me the floor is clean. My parents and grand parents did all right without that feature. What are we comming too, needing a vacuum to tell us if the floor is clean? I don't like things that pretend to know better than me.

My grandparents did okay without a vacuum cleaner. And a carpet. And for some years without a floor. And electricity. And indoor plumbing, air conditioning, and a DVD player. I'm happy to have all of those things, AND the dirt sensor. The reason the dirt sensor is so valuable is that a lot of the dirt on the carpet isn't on top, but down in the pile. It's THAT dirt that wears out a carpet prematurely, as the pile grinds against the grit at the base of the fibers. If you can tell when that stuff is gone, you've got better eyesight than I've got!! It also keeps me from having to keep going back when my kids have vacuumed to say "not good enough... still not good enough ... STILL not good enough... *S*T*I*L*L* not good enough...". They have to vacuum 'til the little red "dirt" light quits coming on. You are welcome to do without it if you like, but I REALLY like this feature.

As far as things that "know better" than me... this dirt sensor is just a tool to help me make my decisions. It'd be another matter if the vacuum just quit working when it decided the floor is clean. You and I would be in complete agreement if it did that.
____________________________
Joe Baker, who can use all the help he can get.

SWOrrior wrote:IFive months after I bought it, I installed wood floors throughout the house. If I were any smarter, I would probably be close to a moron.

No moron you--wall-to-wall carpeting has to be one of the filthiest inventions of the 20th century. You can steam it until it's parboiled and it's sill holding a ton of dirt.

I replaced the WTW carpeting with wood just moths after we bought our current house. Where there's not wood, there's ceramic tile. A few area rugs that get sent out for cleaning every couple of years completes the setup.

Laminate might be a good choice now, but I can't stand the look of it. Reminds me of the cheap wood-grain Formica that's sold for countertops.