Cheap = Inferior?
May 14th 2005, 7:51 pm
#31
Account Closed
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 853
Re: Cheap = Inferior?
Originally Posted by Bob
Aye, but it is something straight out of the 70's for design, and those things weigh a tonne to lug about...and they throw out a lot of heat.
Agreed on design - I think you're even being too kind! They have reduced the weight a lot though. The one they brought here was lighter than my Riccar (another over-priced and under-efficient make)
May 14th 2005, 9:01 pm
#32
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,272
Re: Cheap = Inferior?
Originally Posted by Bob
to be fair, black and decker do design to fail...that's why you never see professionals use black and decker, they use there professional versions Dewalt.
My Mum bought a Kirby vacuum cleaner in the UK 20 years ago for 700 quid and although it's very heavy she still uses it and I think it's way better than any of the new vacuums on the market. She has all the accessories to go with it but has hardly ever used them apart from the shampoo attachment. I used to borrow it every so often to shampoo my carpets and it was as good as any shampooer you could rent from a supermarket. She also has an Oreck which she uses for the stairs.
May 14th 2005, 11:47 pm
#33
staying around
Joined: Jul 2003
Location: In peace
Posts: 2,328
Re: Cheap = Inferior?
Originally Posted by Dimsie
According to my husband, Kirby for vacuum cleaners and Maytag for washers, fridges etc are the "Rolls Royce" of domestic appliances here.
I think Kirbys look like something from the 1950s, but after having a door to door crew clean and shampoo my living room carpet with a Kirby I might change my mind - though I balk at spending $1000 on a vac - I can think of better things to spend it on! Likewise the frontloader washers, which I do prefer. I'm stuck with Maytag top-loaders like my Mum had when I was a kid (longer ago than any of you can remember!) - but heck - my clothes were clean then! Living in this time-warp is not all bad - or so I keep trying to convince myself.
I think Kirbys look like something from the 1950s, but after having a door to door crew clean and shampoo my living room carpet with a Kirby I might change my mind - though I balk at spending $1000 on a vac - I can think of better things to spend it on! Likewise the frontloader washers, which I do prefer. I'm stuck with Maytag top-loaders like my Mum had when I was a kid (longer ago than any of you can remember!) - but heck - my clothes were clean then! Living in this time-warp is not all bad - or so I keep trying to convince myself.
i have a kirby would not buy one again....
if the dysons had been out over here at the time i would of bought one of them instead...
May 15th 2005, 1:12 am
#34
Here we go Pittsburgh!
Joined: Aug 2002
Location: Pittsburgh PA, USA
Posts: 581
Re: Cheap = Inferior?
Originally Posted by tomelina
Am I missing something? I think the Dyson comes with a free vibrator and the blokes just don't know about this women oriented marketing campaign?!
May 15th 2005, 3:04 am
#35
Gurning up a storm!
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: Just moved back to NH from UK after the wife and I tried living in UK
Posts: 80
Re: Cheap = Inferior?
Originally Posted by Guelder Rose
I hear so often how cheap everything in the US is compared to the UK, and in many respects I would agree ... BUT, has anyone else here noticed that certain things may be cheaper, but they are also quite crappy too?
Example ... purchased Braun electric kettle for $45, the same brand in the UK would cost quite a bit more than that, but the quality would be far superior. Seems to me that manufacturers have products destined for the US (i.e. cheaply made and cheaply priced) and products destined for the UK (i.e. expensive but superior quality).
And what is it with some brand names seeming to have a total monopoly on shelf space in many of the stores ... Conair (sp) comes to mind?
Example ... purchased Braun electric kettle for $45, the same brand in the UK would cost quite a bit more than that, but the quality would be far superior. Seems to me that manufacturers have products destined for the US (i.e. cheaply made and cheaply priced) and products destined for the UK (i.e. expensive but superior quality).
And what is it with some brand names seeming to have a total monopoly on shelf space in many of the stores ... Conair (sp) comes to mind?
Its called 'BUILT IN OBSOLESCENCE'. And American society comes built in with this invisible tag very deeply.
May 15th 2005, 3:32 am
#36
Powder Maggot
Joined: Nov 2004
Location: Nuevo Mexico
Posts: 4,452
Re: Cheap = Inferior?
Originally Posted by Dimsie
According to my husband, Kirby for vacuum cleaners and Maytag for washers, fridges etc are the "Rolls Royce" of domestic appliances here.
May 15th 2005, 5:13 am
#37
Banned
Joined: Oct 2004
Location: Santa Monica,CA from Birmingham, UK
Posts: 18,402
Re: Cheap = Inferior?
Originally Posted by ukemigrant
I like your avatar. We have that pic on our bedroom wall, and in Miami South Beach they have a hotel with lots of DeLempcka pics on the walls.
May 15th 2005, 5:20 am
#38
Payed up premium member
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: The desert
Posts: 2,327
Re: Cheap = Inferior?
Originally Posted by tomelina
Thanks it's just outside our bedroom
May 15th 2005, 10:21 am
#39
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,532
Re: Cheap = Inferior?
Originally Posted by mandpete
I've searched everywhere for a DeWalt food processor but can't find one anywhere
My Mum bought a Kirby vacuum cleaner in the UK 20 years ago for 700 quid and although it's very heavy she still uses it and I think it's way better than any of the new vacuums on the market. She has all the accessories to go with it but has hardly ever used them apart from the shampoo attachment. I used to borrow it every so often to shampoo my carpets and it was as good as any shampooer you could rent from a supermarket. She also has an Oreck which she uses for the stairs.
My Mum bought a Kirby vacuum cleaner in the UK 20 years ago for 700 quid and although it's very heavy she still uses it and I think it's way better than any of the new vacuums on the market. She has all the accessories to go with it but has hardly ever used them apart from the shampoo attachment. I used to borrow it every so often to shampoo my carpets and it was as good as any shampooer you could rent from a supermarket. She also has an Oreck which she uses for the stairs.
May 15th 2005, 2:06 pm
#40
Banned
Joined: Oct 2004
Location: Santa Monica,CA from Birmingham, UK
Posts: 18,402
Re: Cheap = Inferior?
Originally Posted by evoal2003
Hey Tom, how are you today?
May 15th 2005, 3:52 pm
#41
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 3,338
Re: Cheap = Inferior?
LOL at this 3 page vacuum cleaner discussion.....
The wife talked me into a Dyson a couple of months back - got to say it's brilliant.
Not had any trouble with electrical gear so far, touch wood.....
The wife talked me into a Dyson a couple of months back - got to say it's brilliant.
Not had any trouble with electrical gear so far, touch wood.....
May 15th 2005, 6:31 pm
#42
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,296
Re: Cheap = Inferior?
Originally Posted by AdobePinon
Consumer Reportshas always said thaat Kirby is very good, but not worth the price. They claim that you can get vacs 1/3 the price that are at least as good. As for Maytag, mixed bag. Some of their stuff (like Neptune) is complete junk, others are decent. Personally I would have got a Bosch washer, but don't have the 240V hook ups for them.
I agree- I bought a Kirby in UK many years ago, bloody expensive and after a few months use was no better than my old electrolux- very diasappointing. I think Dysons are much better than Kirbys. You can keep Maytag...not impressed. I'm happy with my front loaders- although would be even happier with a Dyson... if they were available.
May 16th 2005, 2:23 pm
#43
Not living a 9 to 5 life
Joined: Jun 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 11,061
Re: Cheap = Inferior?
Originally Posted by AdobePinon
<<snip>>As for Maytag, mixed bag. Some of their stuff (like Neptune) is complete junk, others are decent. <<snip>>
I've washed all manner of things in it including my British duvet and all my smalls.
NC Penguin
May 16th 2005, 2:48 pm
#44
Homebody
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: HOME
Posts: 23,181
Re: Cheap = Inferior?
Originally Posted by NC Penguin
Oi! I've washed all manner of things in it including ... all my smalls.
NC Penguin
NC Penguin
May 16th 2005, 8:31 pm
#45
Not living a 9 to 5 life
Joined: Jun 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 11,061
Re: Cheap = Inferior?
Originally Posted by DonnaElvira
Would these be 'functional' smalls or the lacy kind?
NC Penguin