Inside CR Test Labs: Sewing machines

One of the busiest spots these days in our Yonkers, New York, headquarters is a lab in which you'll find four people sitting among hundreds of swatches of cotton and bolts of chiffon, corduroy, and denim. They're not reviewing washing machines or laundry detergents but are diligently testing sewing machines for our upcoming report (see photo, right).

In early September—which happens to be National Sewing Month—the testers were making straight and zigzag stitches and buttonholes on cotton swatches to gauge ease of use for the machines. One tester repeatedly had to refer to the owner's manual, scratching her head as she tried to figure out how to use one of the machines. (Just like our readers, who have been clamoring for a report on sewing machines, our testers have varying levels of sewing experience.)

We're testing 18 different models, including some from brands your grandmother knew and one that's familiar to project-oriented fashionistas who keep an eye on the runway.

We're checking out mechanical and electronic machines, some with a foot pedal, others without. Some machines have automatic threaders, eliminating the tedious job of having to thread the needle. My vision's still pretty good, but an automatic threader seems a worthwhile feature.

One electronic model even has an LED screen that displays videos with step-by-step instructions. It's a lot quicker than reading a manual or calling your mom. Note that we conceal the brand and model information from testers so that they remain objective.

Our full report on sewing machines is scheduled for the March 2009 issue of Consumer Reports, on sale and online in February. Until then we'll keep you updated on our testing. To tell us what you're looking for in a sewing machine, post a comment below.—Kimberly Janeway

Essential information: Read our free buying advice for sewing machines.

Inside Consumer Reports Test Labs: Kitchen-cabinet organizers

“Top drawer” took on a new meaning when Bob Karpel (in the video right), a Tech/Appliance Program Leader for Consumer Reports, and his team put a wide array of pullout drawers, refuse/recycling containers, and rotating lazy Susans through a series of grueling tests as part of our August 2008 report on kitchen-cabinet organizers. At prices ranging from $20 to $220, these add-ons can be a cost-effective upgrade to kitchen cabinets.

Here’s how we tested the gear:

Ease of Installation
One of the heavily weighted factors in our Ratings is ease of installation. Each of the 28 organizers we tested was installed in a typical kitchen cabinet. Those models with clear instructions and modest tool requirements (typically a screwdriver, ruler, and cordless drill) earned higher marks.

In general, bottom-mounting slide-out drawers and refuse/recycling containers were easy to install, but those with side-mounting rails proved difficult as a one-person job. Three of the refuse/recycling containers mounted directly to a cabinet door, which entailed the extra step of shimming out the side-mounted rails with wood blocks.

With the lazy Susans, centering and leveling the center posts and fitting all the needed large parts into a restricted cabinet also proved difficult. Note that if you have stone or composite counters, you’ll need to add a spacing block inside the cabinet to attach the lazy Susan’s top spindle mount.

Pulling-Force and Spinning Usability Testing
Bob added weight to each drawer component, then measured the force needed to pull it open. An alarming surprise: After durability testing, the stop mechanism on one low-priced unit worked only when its front section was heavily weighted; otherwise it just slid free of the rails.

Bob loaded each lazy Susan with some common kitchen items and turned each unit a set number of times to test for smoothness, stability, and sagging. Considering the installation also, the least-expensive model was best overall. And one model had a nice feature: an internal spindle with special grooved threads to allow quick shelf-height adjustments.

Durability Testing
Bob’s “pièce de résistance” for this project was a “durability rig” (right) that used a pair of electric motors and a couple of crank arms to pull the drawer components in and out thousands of times; it also rotated the lazy Susans back and forth. Bob felt this setup would simulate five to 10 years of use, depending on a family’s size and lifestyle. The testing machine was set to push each drawer unit against its stop.

Q&A: Where does Consumer Reports test lawn mowers?

I noticed that Consumer Reports is based on Yonkers, New York, which means you can't review new lawn mowers and tractors over the winter. Where do you test this kind of equipment?

To test walk-behind mowers, lawn tractors, and zero-turn mowers each year, project leader Peter Sawchuk heads a team of experts in Fort Myers, Florida. We prepare our six acres of test fields in late fall so they are ready in midwinter for us to put dozens of models through their paces with enough time for us to prepare a test report for the May issue of Consumer Reports and for the kickoff of prime outdoor-power-equipment buying season. If you’re in the market for a new model, see our latest reviews of mowers, tractors, and string trimmers. (Get your lawn mower in shape for spring and see how we test mowers and tractors.)

But grass isn’t all that flourished in the meadows during our six weeks of testing in February and March. Frequent visitors to the test fields included two pairs of red-shouldered hawks and a comical flock of white ibises.

By far, though, the most ubiquitous and numerous visitors were cattle egrets, one of which (shown) chanced upon a Toro zero-turn-radius mower parked near our test shed. Trying to nab uprooted insects, cattle egrets follow behind horses and cattle—and our tractor. Our feathered friend stayed put for several minutes before alighting for apparently greener or other bug-filled pastures.

As fun as it was to see the birds, our 2008 testing featured these more-interesting highlights:

Inside Consumer Reports Test Labs: How we review string trimmers

When you work for Consumer Reports, friends, family, and acquaintances often are curious about how we examine products, wondering if we really do put each and every item—be it a vacuum or a Volkswagen—through rigorous testing.

For string trimmers, an essential yard-care tool, I can tell you, based on first-hand experience, that a lot of work goes into reviewing these machines.

One day early last fall, despite a looming deadline, I snuck off for a ride to Lyndhurst, a New York country estate once home to former New York City mayor William Paulding and railroad tycoon Jay Gould. This 67-acre property north of our Yonkers, New York, headquarters includes a nearly 170-year-old Gothic Revival mansion. The National Trust for Historic Preservation, which maintains the site, has let Consumer Reports test leaf blowers and string trimmers there for more than 10 years.

Running the tests that afternoon were Peter Sawchuk, our outdoor-power-equipment maven (shown with the highly rated Stihl FS 45 gas-powered string trimmer), and Mike Sedlak. I caught up with them as they were whacking away at tall weeds and grass on a little-used portion of the estate along the Hudson River, testing the 21 new gas and electric models that will appear in our upcoming review of string trimmers. (You’ll find the new story on our string trimmers page along with updated Ratings and CR Quick Recommendations, available to subscribers.)

I watched Peter and Mike run the grass-and-weeds test, which replicates the worst conditions you might encounter along the perimeter of your property—some of the growth is more than a yard high and is rife with deer ticks and poison oak. They timed how long it took each model to chop the grass in a 5x8-foot patch down to about three inches. They also tested the edging capability of each model along wood pilings and some of the walkways.

Our testers also assess each string trimmer on how well it’s balanced, how easy it is to replace cutting line, and how noisy the machine is at the operator’s ear.

The testing at Lyndhurst might not have been as much fun as my machete-swinging hikes in the boonies of Guam . . . that’s another story. But from all appearances, the best weed whackers we tested are far more precise.—Ed Perratore

Essential information: Read about the pros and cons of gasoline and electric trimmers and learn how to find the right model.

For some vacuums, smaller isn’t better

Got a cramped closet? Some of the latest vacuums Consumer Reports tested for our March 2008 report fold for compact storage, while others meld upright and canister features into one machine. But our vacuum tests show that several brands need to pay more attention to cleaning.

New uprights that fold include the Hoover Fold Away Widepath ($70) and the Electrolux Intensity ($300). We also tested the folding Dyson Stowaway ($500), the brand’s latest canister. Yet only the Electrolux was impressive at cleaning carpets—our toughest test and the type of cleaning vacuums typically do most. Indeed, only three of the latest models we tested were better than mediocre for carpet cleaning.

Our tests of more than 60 uprights and canisters include a new top performer among canister vacs. (See an alphabetized listing below of the vacuums in our Ratings as of the end of February 2008.) We also tested vacuums that claim to kill germs and clean their own filters, among other promises. But some could disappoint you if you value cleaning over gadgetry. Here are the details:

Less-than-magical wands. The new Dirt Devil i M130000 ($250), Dyson DC15 The Ball All Floors ($500), and Panasonic AeroBlast MC-UL975 ($700) uprights have handles you can remove and use as a canister-style wand to clean curtains and battle those dust bunnies beneath the couch. But like most of the newest folding vacs, two of those scored only a good for carpets, and the Dirt Devil scored only fair.

Big claims, middling performance. The AeroBlast includes a unique feature that promises to stretch filter life, among other benefits. (See our blog on the Panasonic AeroBlast.) But our test results belied those claims.

Halo Technologies says its uprights, including the UVX ($400), kill dust mites, flea eggs, and germs using UV light. We didn’t test those claims because the UVX was only so-so at the more primary tasks of cleaning carpets and picking up pet hair. What’s more, it has no hose or tools. (On February 26, 2008, the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus recommended that Halo modify or discontinue certain advertising claims for one of its vacuums. Read more here: Download HaloVacuum.pdf)

Clobbered by cat fur. The Electrolux Harmony canister ($300) is the latest to flub our grueling pet-hair test. As with the brand’s TwinClean model, cat hair wound itself around the brush and stopped it—partly because the brush is driven by airflow, rather than by a motor.

A venerable brand has problems. A predecessor company to Hoover was the name on the first widely available electric vac in 1908, and Hoover is still a best seller. While Hoover vacuums are often fine values, our latest survey found more reliable upright brands, including Dyson, a relative newcomer.

Read our expert shopping advice and watch our video buying guide (above) for detailed information on what to look for in your next vacuum. And continue reading this blog to find out which models we’ve tested.

Claim Check: Venta-Airwasher “Humidicleaner”

The claim. The Venta-Airwasher—a “humidifier & purifier—two in one," according to the manufacturer’s Web site—is supposed to trap particles as small as 10 microns while adding moisture to the air. Four models of these German-made products are available for rooms of different sizes: LW 14 (1.2-gallon capacity, $200); LW 24 (2-gallon capacity, $300); LW 44 (3-gallon capacity, $400); and LW 84 (6-gallon capacity, $1,440).

A Venta-Airwasher uses a series of rotating plastic discs to clean the air and add moisture to it. Those discs, mounted on an axle that constantly rotates, dip in and out of a water-filled reservoir. As the wet discs emerge from the reservoir, a built-in fan evaporates the water on them, boosting humidity in a space. Particles in the air are supposed to stick to the discs, then wash off as the discs pass through the reservoir again.

The check. We tested the LW 14 and LW 44 (shown) models as we usually test air purifiers, by measuring their clean-air-delivery rate with the fine dust and cigarette smoke (0.1 to 3 microns) that are of more concern to people with respiratory problems. To test their humidifying chops, we placed each device in a sealed chamber and let it run overnight, recording the humidity level in the room.

The Consumer Reports take. The claim of ridding the air of particles as small as 10 microns is kind of a nonstarter: A 10-micron or larger particle is so big that it's unlikely to remain aloft in the air for long.

Both models we tested proved no better at removing dust and smoke than no air purifier at all. They were, however, efficient at adding moisture to the room. Note that they lack a sensor and controls to let you set a humidity level. Without those features, humidity could rise too high and contribute to mold and mildew growth. What’s more, the Venta-Airwashers are pricey and require you to buy water additive and cleaning solution—a cost of about $90 per year.

Essential information: Watch this video to see how we tested the Venta-Airwasher. Before you buy any air purifier, read the expert advice in our latest report, and find out how well some models eliminate odors and learn how much maintenance your air purifier might require.

Inside CR Test Labs: Measuring washing machine performance

It’s one thing to wish away stains that are both metaphorical and real, as in Lady Macbeth’s tormented line, “Out, damned spot! Out, I say!” (Macbeth, Act V, Scene I). But in the Consumer Reports test labs, we do our darnedest with literal spots and stains in our assessments of how washing machines remove grime from a variety of common sources.

For our washing-performance test, we use industry-standard strips of sewn-together six-patch swatches (shown). Before washing (top swatch), each patch gets soaked in either cocoa, wine, sebum—that’s human sweat—or oily charcoal dust. For the Lady Macbeths out there, there’s even a blood patch, along with an untreated control patch. Several strips go into each of various normal and heavy-duty cycles in both an 8-pound and a maximum-size load.

After washing, our technicians analyze the swatches and compare the results using a special instrument, called a colorimeter. (They use the same device to analyze the swatches before washing, too.) The middle swatch shown was washed in the front-loading Kenmore Elite HE5t Steam 4778, without steam; this model scored excellent for washing. The bottom one is a reference swatch indicating how a model that rated a poor in wash performance would do. Compare that swatch to the unwashed sample at the top, and it’s nearly, well, a wash.—Ed Perratore

Essential information: Read our February 2008 report on washers and dryers, then refer to our Ratings of front- and top-loading washers and dryers to find the model that’s right for your family. And if you’re having trouble with spots, see our washing tips and laundry detergents coverage. Finally, watch how we tests washers in our labs.

Inside CR Test Labs: Maintaining an air purifier

How well you maintain your air purifier will directly affect its performance over time

Do you remember the last time you cleaned the filter in your range hood or replaced the filter in your furnace or air conditioner? If no, you’re not alone. As part of our testing for “Filtering the Claims,” we wanted to see how air-cleaning performance would changes as an air purifier’s cleaning media became loaded with dust, smoke, and other airborne particles. We also hoped to determine if you  need to replace filters as manufacturers suggest or if doing so is a waste of money.

To measure how cleaning performance changes over time, we tested the Friedrich C-90B plate-type electrostatic precipitator, or EP, air purifier and the Whirlpool Whispure AP45030S and IQAir HealthPro Plus HEPA-filter models. We ran these air purifiers nonstop for one year in a very large commercial space whose air we expected to contain dust and smoke particles.

We also rearranged the devices in the space to ensure each machine experienced the same conditions. And throughout the year at regular intervals, we brought the purifiers back to our labs to gauge their cleaning performance.

While the performance of the two HEPA models declined gradually and at a similar rate, that of the Friedrich (shown) fell more abruptly—about 20 percent in one month. It took the entire year, including not changing the prefilters at the manufacturers’ recommended intervals, for the HEPA models to decline that much.

However, because the Friedrich’s initial performance was the best of this group, after a month its absolute performance, indicated by its clean-air-delivery rate, or CADR, was still higher than that of the IQAir when new—265 compared with 237. It took about another month without cleaning its plates before the Friedrich’s CADR dropped below 237. What’s more, after we cleaned its prefilter and collection plates, the Friedrich saw its CADR return to its original high value of 335, confirming the importance of maintenance.

The bottom line: You need to maintain your air purifier if you expect it to keep cleaning the air in your home. Our testing supports the typical maintenance recommendations from manufacturers. Note that our testing also shows that plate-type EPs generally require more-frequent filter cleaning than filter-based purifiers.

But you’ll likely spend more to maintain and run a filter-type purifier than you will for an electrostatic precipitator since the former type normally uses replacement filters and consumes more electricity.

Still, if you’re unlikely to perform the necessary maintenance, opt for a filter-type purifier, which we consider your best choice overall because it cleans the air without producing ozone. Research is increasingly warning against adding ozone to indoor air, though more studies need to be conducted to determine the effects of low-level ozone exposure on humans.—Ed Perratore

Essential information: Our Ratings of room and whole-house air purifiers include annual costs for energy and filters or other media. Read our advice on how to improve the air quality in your home without an air purifier.

Inside CR Test Labs: How we test microwave popcorn settings

Each microwave oven in our Ratings (available to subscribers) gets evaluated with a number of different tests, including heating evenness, defrosting, and ease of use. One score that you won’t see in the test results in the Ratings is how well each microwaves makes popcorn, though it is a small part of a microwave’s overall score.

We use the automatic popcorn setting on each microwave to pop a 3.5-ounce bag of a national brand’s natural-flavor popcorn. The vast majority of the machines we test do at least a good job, producing a minimum of 9 cups (about 2,100 milliliters) of popcorn.

We do encounter the occasional kernel clunker. The automatic setting on one model we recently tested tended to burn the popcorn, for example. The model in the video (below) that left 56 unpopped kernels is no longer on the market—it’s our “reference” microwave whose popcorn abilities leaves us hungry.

If your machine usually overcooks popcorn or typically leaves lots of unpopped kernels, skip the automatic setting and adjust the time accordingly.

Essential information: To avoid being a dud yourself on February 3, be sure to have enough food, drinks, and other essential provisions on hand for the Super Bowl. If you’re in the market for a new microwave, read our February 2008 report.

 

Q&A: Can air purifiers get rid of household odors?

Our kitchen is poorly ventilated, so cooking odors tend to linger. Will an air purifier eliminate the smells?

Some manufacturers of air purifiers claim their machines will remove odors from your home as well as improve the overall air quality there. Hoping to sniff out the truth, we put five room air purifiers to the test.

Manufacturers use a range of different technologies to enable their machines to remove odors:
• The Whirlpool Whispure AP45030S, $230, highly rated in “Filtering the claims,” uses a thin carbon-fiber mat that also serves as a prefilter to remove large particles.

• The Bio-Net EGF Enhanced, a $750 electrostatic precipitator–type purifier, has a small shallow cartridge loaded with carbon granules.

• The IQAir HealthPro Plus, $800, and the Austin Air Systems HealthMate HM-400 (shown), $450, are equipped with large cartridges filled with carbon granules.

• The Winix PlasmaWave 5000, $300, combines a carbon filter with “PlasmaWave” technology said to, generate “both positive and negative ions” to create plasma clusters that “instantly neutralize viruses, bacteria, chemical vapors and odors in the air.”

Over the course of several days, we ran each of the five machines through its paces in the same sealed chamber we used to test for dust and smoke removal. Read the results of the testing below.

Why Consumer Reports doesn't rate specific models of mattresses

Among people who bought a mattress in the last two years, one-third can't recall the brand they purchased, according to Synovate, a market-research company.

That weak brand identity might be a result of the confusing nature of mattress shopping. Unlike refrigerators, cars, or other big-ticket items with specific models that you can easily compare at different stores and dealers, mattress are sold in a way that might give you nightmares.

The model names from the top mattress brands such as Sealy, Serta, Simmons, and others change from store to store, so there's no way to truly compare models. What's more, our research has revealed that even for mattresses that retailers claim are similar, significant differences exist in important characteristics, including quilting, padding, and springs, all of which affect comfort and firmness.

Given this lack of consistency—Brand A's ultra-premium firm queen-size mattress sold at one national retail chain will have a model name and composition that are different from Brand A's ultra-premium firm queen-size mattress sold at another retailer—it's impossible for us to be able to make an apple-to-apples comparison that will be useful to you. And that's why we don't publish Ratings of specific models of mattresses, as we do for the hundreds of products we test each year.

Despite that, we have a lot of useful information about mattresses. Read "How to Buy a Mattress Without Losing Sleep" for expert advice on choosing the right mattress, analyzing prices, understanding how mattresses are made, and for tips on getting the ever-elusive good night's sleep. Be on the lookout for more in-depth coverage of mattresses in the next year.

"It's difficult to compare mattresses unless you cut them open," says Eugene Schayer, who worked in the mattress industry for 46 years, including stints in the marketing department of two major mattress makers. "The retailers demand exclusivity of the cover and label. They don't want their product shopped." Even the Better Sleep Council, which is paid for by the mattress industry, says that buying a bed can be confusing because "it's not easy to see what's inside."

Our testers do delve inside to analyze mattresses. For one mattress report, we dissected mattresses to compare the construction, including in-depth analysis of padding, quilting, and springs of mattresses that retailers told us were similar. We found that when retailers claimed they were selling mattresses similar to those found in other stores, the mattresses often differed. We've also found in past mattress studies that except for the cheapest models, all mattresses are likely to be sturdy.

In our most recent study, we looked at alternatives to conventional innerspring mattress from Duxiana, Select Comfort, and Tempur-Pedic. Couples slept at home on the three different mattresses for a month at a time, while about five dozen panelists tried them out in our lab as they would when shopping.

Based on the findings of our panel tests, we concluded there's no best mattress for everyone—sleep comfort is very personal. So take time to find the mattress that's the most comfortable to you.—Kimberly Janeway

Essential information: Learn how to shop for a new bed and make your mattress last.

Microwave vs. Range Cooking: The juicy details

Microwave makers are increasingly hawking features like convection cooking, sensor settings, and auto-cook, which are designed to produce tastier food faster. Can a pricey, full-featured microwave oven serve up a roast chicken that's as crispy and juicy as one made in a traditional oven—€”and in less time?

To find out, we cooked 4-pound chickens in two appliances we've rated highly: the Kenmore (Sears) 94212 coil-top electric range, $500, and that brand's model 8082 over-the-range convection-equipped microwave, $630. In the electric oven, we cooked the chicken at 375°F. For the microwave, we used a microwave-convection combination setting.

It took the electric range (shown) an average of 72 minutes (including 15 minutes of preheating time) to cook the chicken to the 165°F temperature needed to kill bacteria. The microwave required an average of 45 minutes, with no preheating necessary. But at the end of the microwave's cooking cycle—which was supposed to run about 40 minutes—the internal temperature of the chicken had reached only 140° to 158°F in several tests. We had to add more time to finish cooking. (Always use a meat thermometer to verify that the proper temperature has been reached. See our January 2007 report for more information on dangerous bacteria in chicken.)

The microwave (shown) was a significant 27 minutes faster overall, and the latest models you'll find in stores can do a lot more than just reheat food or cook popcorn. But as you can see in the video below, the range-cooked chicken was crispier and browner on the outside and juicier within. In our cook-off, the range still ruled.—Kimberly Janeway

Essential information: Read our latest ranges and microwaves reports and buying advice for ranges and microwaves. And take our microwave-safety quiz.

 

How long can CFLs last?

Our focus recently has been on compact fluorescent lighting, but Consumer Reports has been analyzing lightbulbs for decades, as this photograph from 1965 shows (left). The bulbs in this vintage image were incandescents, but a primary goal of that project was the same as it is for our ongoing testing of energy-saving CFLs: to measure the life span of lightbulbs.

By the end of this month our engineers will have tested five brands of 15-watt mini-spiral CFLs, equivalent to 60-watt incandescent bubs, for about 5,000 hours each. (A typical incandescent bulb lasts 1,000 hours.) The tests will continue until more than 50 percent of the test samples for a given brand have burned out. The process is kind of like the Beckett play “Waiting for Godot," but something is going to happen--really. It might take several more months, however, for the longest-lasting bulbs to expire.

Turning CFLs on and off frequently shortens their life, so our testers, curious as they are, are now running nonstop cycles during which each CFL is on for 5 minutes and then off for the same amount of time. The purpose of the test is to see if any differences in life span exist among CFL brands and to compare the longevity of the different CFLs to that of incandescent bulbs.

(One way to help your CFLs last as long as possible is to install them in fixtures that are typically on for more than 15 minutes at a time or several hours throughout the day, according to the people who run the federal government’s Energy Star program.)

By the way, as I reported last month in this story, Wal-Mart had set a goal of selling 100 million CFLs this year in the U.S. market. The Bentonville Behemoth recently announced that it has surpassed its sales target, with stores in California, Florida  Illinois, Ohio, and Texas ringing up the highest CFL sales.—Kimberly Janeway

Essential information: Reduce home energy consumption and start saving hundreds of dollars annually with these 10 easy steps. And see more vintage Consumer Reports testing photographs in our archives.

Inside CR Test Labs: A cleaner glass?

I love looking through clean windows, but washing windows is among my least favorite chores. So when I saw Andersen’s High-Performance Low-E4 windows at the International Builders’ Show last February, I knew we had to test this new product as part of October 2007 report on windows. The sunlight-activated titanium-dioxide coating on the glass is supposed to create windows that, claims Andersen, “stay cleaner, dry faster for easy cleaning and that have up to 99% less water spots.”

Five months after the Builders’ Show I found myself on the roof of our Yonkers, New York, headquarters with Ed Perratore, one of our senior editors, and Rico De Paz, a Tech department project leader. We were examining two Andersen windows—one with the Low-E4 glass and one with regular low-e glass—to see whether we could identify which had Low-E4 glass. At that point the windows had been exposed to the elements for three months as part of our testing.

We looked at the exterior glass of each window from a few feet away and then scrutinized each one from up close. They appeared the same—one was not any filthier than the other. We also ran our fingers across the glass on each to determine whether one felt grimier. We still couldn’t tell them apart. Finally, we looked through the interior side of the windows. Again, one wasn’t noticeably dirtier than the other. In fact, neither was particularly dirty.

Our conclusion: When it comes to window cleanliness, it’s not worth the extra money to upgrade to the Low-E4 glass; in our tests, Andersen’s standard low-e glass stayed just as clean.—Celia Kuperszmid Lehrman

Essential information: Look for our special report, Save Hundreds on Energy Costs, in the October 2007 issue, on sale in late August. It includes full reports on windows, space heaters, compact fluorescent lightbulbs, and much more. Visit GreenerChoices.org for the latest news on environmental issues and expert advice on ways to save energy and money every day.

Inside CR Test Labs: Vacuum regularly to avoid allergies

On sweltering days like those that affected huge swaths of the country last week, warnings about ozone levels and harmful particles in the air abound, highlighting concerns about outdoor-air quality.

But if you suffer from allergies, being indoors might not provide any relief, especially when you vacuum. Allergen-related health concerns have spawned an increasing number of claims from vacuum manufacturers, like the ability to filter “99.99% of particles down to .3 microns,” as the Oreck Web site boasts about the XL Titanium Series cleaner.

For our October 2007 report on vacuum cleaners, the project team decided to check some of the latest allergen-trapping claims from manufacturers. Our testers generally count smaller particles from 0.1 to 5 microns as part of their standard vacuum-emissions testing, according to project leader Deborah Wallace. The smaller particles typically get dispersed into the air and are inhaled. For this test, however, they wanted to count larger particles, in the 10- to 25-micron range, which come from pollen, animal dander, and assorted insect parts and feces from dust mites and other tiny critters. To test this size particles, they used an even more sensitive machine, the LASAIR II model 310A.

(All that counting brought me back to when my kids would watch Sesame Street’s The Count. This cheerful vampire delighted not in biting necks but rather in counting everything he happened upon, as he crooned in “The Song of the Count”:

“You know that I am called the Count
Because I really love to count
I could sit and count all day
Sometimes I get carried away . . . ")

Testers enlisted the Dirt Devil Ultra Vision Turbo, Dyson DC14 Complete, and Electrolux Intensity, all of which make allergen-capture claims. They performed the same tests with the Kenmore Progressive With Direct Drive 35922, the top-rated upright from our last report, once with a HEPA dust bag and once with a standard dust bag. (The HEPA bag has allergen-capture claims while the regular bag does not.)

The testers found that while any vacuuming task produces an initial jump in airborne allergens, relatively large and heavy 10- to 25-micron particles immediately fall back to the floor. The Dirt Devil, Dyson, and Electrolux did trap allergens, but that is not surprising since the particles are large. More important is how well the vacuum captured smaller particles; you’ll find those emissions-test results in the October 2007 issue, on sale in September.

The bottom line? Don’t rush out to buy a vacuum that touts extraordinary allergen-trapping powers. Just vacuum regularly as part of an overall allergen-elimination plan.—Ed Perratore

Essential information: For expert advice on choosing a vacuum, see our buying advice and video buyer’s guide. Then refer to our Ratings for upright and canister vacuums (available to subscribers) before you shop. For more on indoor-air quality, use this guide from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Vintage cooling

In the midst of the current nationwide heat wave, take a moment out of your day to say thanks to Willis Haviland Carrier. Who's that? His last name—Carrier—should provide a clue.

Carrier is credited with inventing air-conditioning—he received a patent for a system to control heat and humidity way back in 1906.

Consumer Reports didn't start testing air conditioners as long ago as that, but we have been at it for many  years. In the 1957 photo shown here, a technician mounts an air conditioner inside a special chamber as part of a room-air-conditioner test. The strands running about are thermocouple wiring used to determine the uniformity of air temperature in the room.—Steven H. Saltzman

Essential information: Read this recent blog entry to learn which air conditioner to buy for your home.

Brawny blender is ideal for summer

Few things taste better after a day of playing in the summer sun or, if you're like me, an afternoon of doing yard work and other household chores, than an exotic frozen cocktail or a fresh-fruit smoothie. No wimpy machine will do—you want a blender that's got enough power to pulverize the ice and create a smooth, flavorful drink.

We recently tested one of the most powerful blenders on the market, the Blendtec Total Blender. The manufacturer claims this countertop demon can "Blend, Chop, Grind, Freeze, Cook, Hash, Crush, Mince, Dice, Mill, Purée, and Much More!" This 1,500-watt, 16-speed blender tackled our toughest chores and proved a smoothie-making and ice-crushing star. Note that at full speed it's extremely loud, so raucous, in fact, that we recommend you wear hearing protection. And at $400, it's much pricier than other blenders we've tested. (Ratings of blenders are available to subscribers.)

Learn more about the Total Blender in our First Look, and see it in action here.—Steven H. Saltzman

Essential information: If you're in the market for a new gas grill, read our latest report on outdoor cookers. Before your next party, pick up some easy-to-prepare recipes and find out which beer and wine to serve.

Zero-turn mowers rival tractors for snob appeal

If one-upmanship weren’t a national pastime, fewer Americans would lust after 1,000-horsepower sports cars, 103-inch plasma TVs, and mowers designed at least in part to make the neighbors feel a little less significant.

Riding mowers are the biggest and priciest mowers by far. Front-engine lawn tractors from Craftsman, John Deere, and other big brands still make up most of this wide-cutting slice of the mower market.

But rear-engine, zero-turn-radius mowers—known as ZTRs by the cognoscenti—are challenging that turf. Independently controlled rear-steering wheels let these landscaper-inspired machines spin tight circles for trimming around trees, posts, and other obstacles. And some models can cut a 60-inch swath. Those features and lower prices (about $3,000 versus $4,000 to $9,000-plus for pro versions) have helped ZTRs grow to more than 10 percent of the nearly 2 million consumer mowers that are shipped annually in this country. (The Cub Cadet RZT 54 is shown.)

But as we found in our recent mowers and tractors roundup, using a ZTR’s lever steering smoothly and precisely takes practice. Front casters can make straight tracking on hills challenging, while the rear-steering wheels frequently tear up turf on turns.

If you value better mowing over trendy products, take heart: Several lawn tractors outperformed the best ZTR we tested, including two from John Deere and Craftsman that cost about $1,600.

Another option if you have a big lawn studded with obstacles: Lawn tractors that combine the tight turns of a ZTR with a familiar steering wheel. Two we tested include the $3,500 John Deere X304 and $3,400 Cub Cadet i1046. The top-scoring Deere provides more-even mowing, better mulching, and much better side-discharging (a bagging kit will add $300 to $900 to the price of these machines). The Cub Cadet offers zero-turn capability with much better hill stability and won’t tear up grass as lever-steer models do.

If you have a smaller lawn or want to spend less, consider an electric mower. In our tests, many plug-in electrics delivered fine mowing with less noise, less maintenance, and zero exhaust emissions for about $300. Several gas-powered models mowed even better, if more noisily, for as little as $230 for push mowers and $270 for self-propelled versions. And all gas-powered mowers run more cleanly and efficiently than they did only a few years ago

The bottom line: Decide on a push or self-propelled mower, a lawn tractor, or a zero-turn-radius model based on the size of your lawn and the terrain. Check our Ratings for push mowers,  self-propelled mowers, and tractors (Ratings are available to subscribers) for the models that did best in the mowing mode you use most.

Mow safely and mow regularly (at least once a week in most regions) so you don’t harm the grass by slicing off too much of it at a time (no more than a third of its height). And see “How to fix the top 10 lawn problems” for expert advice on how to get a great-looking lawn.—Bob Markovich

Q&A: Are there any drawbacks to compact fluorescent bulbs?

I’m all for saving energy, but I’ve read that CFLs contain mercury and that there are some performance issues with them. What are the pros and cons of these bulbs?—D. Pancer. via e-mail

Mercury is the only major toxicity issue for CFLs, as we noted in a recent blog entry on the technology. Many manufacturers have been able to reduce the mercury content to less than 5 mg per bulb and are working on further reductions.

It’s worth noting that even though CFLs contain a small amount of mercury, they still contribute less mercury to the environment than incandescent bulbs. CFLs use only one-quarter to one-fifth the electricity that incandescents do—the less electricity produced at coal-fired power plants, the less mercury gets spewed into the air.

We’re investigating many other issues as part of our testing of CFLs, which we’ll be reporting on in the October 2007 issue of Consumer Reports, on sale this September. In the meanwhile, we recommend that you purchase Energy Star–qualified CFLs, which have been tested to meet minimum performance standards that other bulbs might not meet. Here are some other ideas to keep in mind.

Other upsides to Energy Star CFLs:
• Even with their higher upfront cost, CFLs save you money because they provide the same amount of light as incandescent bulbs but use significantly less energy.

• They fit into many of the same fixtures as incandescent bulbs and so are direct replacements in many fixtures and applications.

• After their initial warm-up, they are just as bright as equivalent incandescent bulbs. They also produce a light color that many perceive as equal to incandescent bulbs and are available in a wide range of colors from yellowish (soft white) to bluish white (daylight).

• CFLs are “instant-on” and do not normally flicker. All Energy Star CFLs use an electronic ballast that reduces or eliminates slow or flickering ignition.

And their downsides:
• The time to brightness is longer than that of a typical incandescent bulb. Some Energy Star mini-spirals can take 20 to 30 seconds, while floodlights can take up to 3 minutes to approach full brightness.

• They can make some colors look slightly different than when the same colors are viewed under incandescent lights.

• You can’t use many CFLs with some electronic timers, photocells, dimmers or motion detectors. However, more manufacturers are planning to produce dimmable bulbs soon.

• There are some limitations on where and how you can use CFLs, such as spots with extreme temperatures or high humidity. If you use them where the temperature is colder or hotter than the manufacturer’s suggested range, you could shorten the life the bulb. Check the package for information on temperatures, and avoid using bulbs in high-humidity areas.

• CFLs can burn out prematurely if you frequently turn them on and off. As a rule of thumb, recommend the experts at the federal government’s Energy Star program, use CFLs where they will be left on for extended periods, and turn them off only when you’ll be out of a room for more than 15 minutes. It might be more cost effective for you to leave the lights on instead of causing your more expensive CFLs to burn out prematurely.

• The mercury in CFLs can end up in landfills if you do not properly recycle the bulbs. Use the database on Earth911, searchable by ZIP code, to find recycling options in your area. Also visit LampRecycle.org for further details on CFL recycling.—Kristi Wiedemann, Science and Policy Analyst, GreenerChoices.org 

Essential information: Visit GreenerChoices.org for the latest news on environmental issues and expert advice on ways to save energy and money every day. And take our informal survey to let us know if you use CFLs in your home.

A real deep freeze

Among the many interesting aspects of working at the 71-year-old institution that is Consumer Reports is the opportunity to tap into our rich archives. When I’m scanning past issues to see how we covered a story related to one I’m editing or when I’m researching photographs in our InfoCenter, I’ll often spend a few minutes admiring the vintage black-and-whites that appeared in the magazine. As you can see in our book, Consumer Reports Images of America, the images capture a moment in time and tell stories about not only the products but also about our society.

For instance, many of the technicians and engineers in our testing photographs from the 1940s and into the 1960s were wearing dress shirts and ties under their lab coats. Let’s just say that today the attire in our headquarters is a bit more casual than it used to be. (And I’m happy about that.) As for the appliances that have long been featured on our pages, one can’t help but notice how the plain while boxes have morphed into gleaming high-tech machines.

One cool (pardon the pun) photo I came across recently is this shot from our April 1952 report on freezers. "The advent of the home freezer appears to be bringing about what amounts to a revolution in the housekeeping habits of American families who own them," is some of the news that emerged from that story. The photo shows the Kelvinator FR-63, which raised a couple of concerns: The poorly counterbalanced lid needed to be propped open so it wouldn’t slam down on someone using the freezer, and the design and depth of the unit made it hard to reach items.

If you’d like to see more vintage photos from Consumer Reports, drop me a line.—Steven H. Saltzman

Q&A: Are front-loading washers worth it?

We need a new washing machine and are considering a front-loader since this type of machine is more energy efficient. Any drawbacks to front-loaders?—Robbie W., via the Internet

Front-loaders are the most efficient washers, using the least water and energy. What’s more, their high spin speeds reduce drying time, further increasing energy efficiency. Learn more about the energy efficiency of washers in “Sticker shock: coming clean on energy use.”

Our tests point to other advantages: These machines do the best job washing and are gentler on clothes than many top-loaders.

Still, some drawbacks exist. You have to stoop to load and empty laundry, though you can add a pedestal to elevate the washer. You also need to use high-efficiency (labeled HE) detergent, and the machines tend to cost more than top-loaders.

Another issue to consider is noise, especially if your laundry room is on the first or second floor of your home. While front-loaders are quieter overall, during their fast spin cycle, they emit a high-pitched sound and can cause the floor to vibrate. Read our guide to setting up a laundry room near living space. Whether you’re buying a top-loader or a front-loader, use our Ratings (available to subscribers) to find a machine with a very good score for noise and an end-of-cycle signal you can turn down or silence altogether.

Essential information: Our buying advice for washers and dryers will help you find the right machine. If you’re installing a new dryer, read “Truths and myths of dryer fires” and “Dryer fire caution.” Finally, look for our latest report on washers and dryers in the June 2007 issue of Consumer Reports, on sale in May.

Inside CR Test Labs: Deck treatments

If you live in the northern part of the United States and have a deck, you’re probably antsy to get back outside and enjoy your outdoor living space. (Those of you in the Sunbelt, well, we hope you had a pleasant winter.) But wherever you live, now’s the time to carefully examine your deck—whether wood or some other material—to determine what repairs you need to do or whether you should reapply a deck treatment to protect the surface.

We’d been planning to wrap up our testing of several different types of deck treatment, but as you can see from the recent photo above, the mid-March nor’easter that hit our Yonkers, N.Y., headquarters slowed down the process.

While you might clear your deck after a heavy snow, we don’t sweep, shovel, or blow the white stuff off our test surface so as not to damage any of the myriad treatments we’ve applied over the past few years. Our test deck is made of 500 pieces of lumber treated with one of the following wood preservatives: CCA (chromated copper arsenate), ACQ (alkaline copper quaternary), or copper azone. We scrutinize each section of decking to see how well the treatments resist dirt, color change, mildew, and cracking. Read our free buying advice for deck treatments to learn more about these products.

Look for our latest report on deck treatments, including Ratings (available to subscribers) in the July issue of Consumer Reports, on sale in June.—Ed Perratore

Inside CR Test Labs: A mower that lives large

Spring is upon us, so you’re probably pondering your lawn and the yard work in front of you. If your lawn measures a half-acre or so, your needs fall midway between a self-propelled gas-engine mower and a riding mower. A lawn tractor and a zero-turn-radius cutter are options if you prefer sitting and steering to pushing a walk-behind machine. But if you see yard work as an opportunity to get some exercise, consider the Craftsman 88933 (shown), a consumer version of a professional wide-area mower with a 33-inch-wide cutting swath; most walk-behinds are 21 inches. The mower is made by Cub Cadet, which sells its own version, the CC-760ES, $1,200.

During our testing, the 88933 proved a bit difficult to handle, but that’s not surprising given its 262-pound weight. To run the mower after startup—our model did not have an electric start, but that option is available—you push down on the two control levers, one on each handle. The four forward speeds and one reverse (handy for backing up a hill) allow you to use ground speeds from very slow (for maneuvering around bushes) to fast (for getting the job done quickly). With the knee-operated gearshift, you won’t have to release the handles to change speeds.

Our early tests showed that the twin-blade mower provided an even cut; distributed grass clippings out of the side discharge chute in a very wide and even pattern, eliminating the need for raking; and did well at mulching. We can’t comment on bagging because this mower isn’t equipped to do so.

At $1,000, the 88933 is not inexpensive, especially for a mower that doesn’t bag. For $200 more, you could buy the gear-driven Craftsman 28713 tractor, but then you wouldn’t get any of the cardiovascular benefits from pushing this behemoth walk-behind.—Ed Perratore  

Essential information: You’ll see our first-ever comparisons of mowers, tractors, and zero-turn-radius machines together in the May 2007 issue. Our 10-page special yard-and-garden report also includes advice on how to deal with the most common lawn problems. Meanwhile, check out our free advice on choosing the right mower, tractor, or zero-turn-radius machine and maintaining the mower or tractor you already own.

Walk-behinds roll ahead

During our recent testing of walk-behind mowers over the four acres of test track in Fort Myers, Fla., innovation held the day, as many manufacturers have rolled out some interesting new machines for 2007.

We tested one Lawn-Boy mower with a cast-aluminum deck, designed to promote better airflow and better cutting performance. The aluminum deck appeared to do better in our initial mulching test than a Lawn-Boy model with a steel deck.

Toro has added features to make its mowers easier to use. The mulching plug, for example, is now integrated into the rear cover flap; it used to be a separate part you had to insert each time you mulched. All the Toros we tested were equipped with a washout port for cleaning the underside of the deck, key to maintaining good cutting performance. Just connect a garden hose to the fitting on top of the deck, turn on the water, and run the mower for a few minutes. The washout port was promising in our initial tests.

Cub Cadet has introduced 19-inch self-propelled and push mowers with overhead-valve engines, which are considered a premium on a lower-cost mower. Manufacturer MTD told us the engine, also used on some Yard-Man mowers, is produced in China. The arrival of this engine could signal a trend of companies using lower-cost engines made offshore.

We evaluated six electric mowers this year, both corded and battery versions. I’ve always felt that electrics are ideal for small yards, from both the environmental and maintenance standpoints. The Worx electric is lightweight and has a smart ergonomic design. In some respects, this mower looks more like a toy than a mower, but it did perform adequately in our initial tests. One drawback is that this 16-inch mower is narrow, requiring more passes to complete the job.

We also tested a wide-cut mower, sold under the Craftsman (Sears) and Cub Cadet brands. This 33-inch, 10.5-hp mower is basically a consumer version of a commercial wide-area walk-behind mower; it fills the gap between a conventional 21-inch walk mower and a 42-inch lawn tractor. Despite its price (we paid $1,000 for our test model), it doesn’t have an electric start. In our preliminary tests, cutting performance was acceptable, and in the side-discharge mode, the mower was very good, distributing clippings evenly over a broad area. However, it does take some muscle to maneuver it, and you need to exert a lot force to engage the two handlebar-mounted control levers.—Peter Sawchuk, Consumer Reports mower expert

Essential information: You’ll see our first-ever comparisons of mowers, tractors, and zero-turn-radius machines together in the May 2007 issue. Our 10-page special yard-and-garden report also includes advice on how to deal with the most common lawn problems, along with what many of you are doing right. Meanwhile, check out our free advice on choosing the right mower, tractor, or zero-turn-radius machine and  maintaining the mower or tractor you already own.