|
Thread Number: 17078
I've gone and bought another one! |
[Down to Last] |  |
| Post# 182864 5/28/2012 at 10:10 (4,349 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland) | ||
I couldn't resist... Well, I almost did actually!
The reason being, I first went into my local recycling store (yes, the famous recycling store I always mention!) this morning at 10:30 but only saw a Vax tub and a HOOVER Aquajet, neither of which tugged my rug, or vacuumed it as it were. So, I asked if there were any more, to which the man told me there was a load of uprights in the back which he hadn't PAT tested yet. He said he'd have them tested by this afternoon, so come back then. I asked if any of them would be cheap enough for me to afford, £9 being my maximum budget. He said he had one older model which took bags (he made that sound like a negative, hardly!), so I said I'd be interested in that. I went back at 12:30 and didn't see any Vacuum Cleaners on display, but shortly after my arrival the man came through with the Vacuum Cleaner. Boy was I not expecting what I saw! A HOOVER Turbopower! My initial reaction was, darn it, I've already got one! Granted, it was the U2016 model in green without Autosense, but still, I have the U2812. I actually said to him that I already had a Turbopower and declined the U2016. However, while walking around looking at other things I saw the U2016 being thumped down on the ground waiting to be used and abused by a "general consumer" and I had a change of heart... Heck, you can't have too many Turbopowers! So, I went back over, appologised for being a pain and said I would accept the U2016 after all. The price sticker they'd affixed to the bag door said £15, but they only charged me £9 as previously agreed - BARGAIN! After walking the half a mile home with 16 Tonnes of a Number 9 HOOVER, I took a good look at it, here's what I found: - It came with two spare Genuine HOOVER bags, plus a new one fitted - The Exhaust Filter was black as coal (two Frankie Lane puns, wow, I'm excelling myself) - The belt was almost new and Genuine HOOVER - It is in damn good condition! Oh yes, and it is dated July 1999 judging by the Serial Number. OK, here is what I've done - Removed the bag, filters, hose, tools (all intact), brush roll guard, brush roll & belt - Cleaned up brush roll and lubricated bearings - Cleaned out the belt area (they always get dirty on those Turbopowers) - Replaced Pre-Motor filters and Exhaust Filter - Cleaned the whole thing with soapy water - Put underside back together - Cleaned tools and hose - Polished the body (it came up like new) - Dropped a couple of Vanilla scented vacuum fresheners in the bag - Tested her out! And how did the testing go ? Brilliantly! OK, she's louder than a Bugatti hitting the governor, but the performance is amazing. Due to the fact the later Turbopowers had the wider hose, it lets more suction get to the cleaning head, so the activator brush roll works even better with the assistance of the added suction power. So am I pleased ? Hell yes! £9 for a Vacuum Cleaner with spare bags, a good belt and that looks like it has never been used!? My theory on the Turbopower's life is that it was bought as an upstairs Vacuum Cleaner for an elderly person (even I struggle to lift if up and down the stairs, so I completely understand elderly people having a designated "upstairs vac"), a part of the house which only gets vacuumed a couple of times a month in most houses, thus why it has hardly been used in its 13 years. I will post pictures later on, when my crappy Lidl "Tronic" (more like Chronic) batteries eventually charge enough to work for 5 whole minutes before dying again. If only HOOVER made Nickel Cadmium batteries, eh ? | ||
| Post# 182873 , Reply# 1 5/28/2012 at 11:58 (4,349 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland) | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 182874 , Reply# 2 5/28/2012 at 12:00 (4,349 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland) | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 182875 , Reply# 3 5/28/2012 at 12:01 (4,349 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland) | ||
|
| ||
Post# 182876 , Reply# 4 5/28/2012 at 12:02 (4,349 days old) by bagintheback  (Flagstaff, Arizona) |
||
1999 Model? | ||
| Post# 182877 , Reply# 5 5/28/2012 at 12:03 (4,349 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland) | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 182878 , Reply# 6 5/28/2012 at 12:03 (4,349 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland) | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 182879 , Reply# 7 5/28/2012 at 12:06 (4,349 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland) | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 182880 , Reply# 8 5/28/2012 at 12:07 (4,349 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland) | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 182881 , Reply# 9 5/28/2012 at 12:09 (4,349 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland) | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 182882 , Reply# 10 5/28/2012 at 12:10 (4,349 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland) | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 182883 , Reply# 11 5/28/2012 at 12:13 (4,349 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland) | ||
|
Correction, the model number is U2106, not U2016 as I previously stated.
As some of you eagle eyed members may have noticed, the only thing missing on this Vacuum Cleaner is the little yellow toggle that attaches to the hose to prevent the cleaner toppling over when in use. I don't really care though and won't be adding one. | ||
| Post# 182885 , Reply# 12 5/28/2012 at 12:18 (4,349 days old) by rutger (England) | ||
|
£9 for that! Bargain !!!! Great looking Hoover, I really like that colour & the condition is great. I agree it possibly was an upstairs vacuum for an old person, my parents used to have one for that purpose (oddly enough that too was a Hoover). | ||
| Post# 182888 , Reply# 13 5/28/2012 at 12:21 (4,349 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland) | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 182894 , Reply# 14 5/28/2012 at 12:50 (4,349 days old) by Turbo500 (West Yorkshire, UK) | ||
 | ||
| Post# 182922 , Reply# 16 5/28/2012 at 14:59 (4,349 days old) by Alexhoovers94 (Manchester UK) | ||
 Jamie that is a very nice Turbopower 2 and like suggested i would be more geared to using the Turbo 2 to the 1000 is you were gonna use it as a daily, as the 1000 is more rare and a little older, but they are your machines so it is entirely up to you :) "The autosense feauture dives me nuts" acually you will be suprissed, it doesn't go from low to medium all the time, it may be sensative but you need a decent amount of dirt on the carpet bfore it can think about activating the medium setting, but that is just from my experiance. I also found that the regular Turbopower 2 sounds the same as an autosense Turbopower 2 in the High mode. Not sure about suction wise, to be honest there is very little difference in suction on the medium to the high setting. | ||
| Post# 182924 , Reply# 17 5/28/2012 at 15:01 (4,349 days old) by vintagerepairer (England) | ||
|
My wife had a TP3 2881 and the constant up-down-up-down of the motor drove her insane. Well she was already insane, so maybe I should have said more insane than usual. She used to use it on full power. | ||
| Post# 182929 , Reply# 18 5/28/2012 at 15:24 (4,349 days old) by Alexhoovers94 (Manchester UK) | ||
|
The turbpower 2's are really heavy, they pull down on your arm and make it ake after a while however the the turbopower 1 is at the other end of the scale it is so light that when you lean the handle back it just stays where it is, it does not crash to the floor, unless the bag is almost full of course. I really like the fact that when you use the turbo 2 in hose mode it does not fall over easily, you can stretch the hose quite far before it beggins to tip, less can be said for the purepower,URGHH, with just the slightest pull on the hose and it crashes to the floor, lol. Maybe if you have pets and kids and you only vacuum once a week the autosense will go crazy but vacuuming daily even with pets and kids i have found it to be not to bad going up and down constatly, it does work propperly though, I just don't hear it go up and down constantly, maybe once or twice when someone has dropped crums after eating but I find it quite soothing how the motor pitch goes higher and then lower again, lol. | ||
| Post# 182939 , Reply# 20 5/28/2012 at 15:37 (4,349 days old) by Alexhoovers94 (Manchester UK) | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 182941 , Reply# 21 5/28/2012 at 15:44 (4,349 days old) by vintagerepairer (England) | ||
|
I have no idea either, and those autosense cleaners with narrow hoses weren't around for long anyway. Either the model was discontinued or it ran on with the wider hose post 1994. | ||
| Post# 182943 , Reply# 22 5/28/2012 at 15:55 (4,349 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland) | ||
|
"This, essentially, will be like running the TP1000 on the middle speed constantly." I thought it would be like running the TP1000 on Turbo constantly ?
One thing I did notice was on the rating sticker it says the wattage can go as high as 1050W, so does this mean the motor differs from the one in the TP1000 or is it just being more specific ? | ||
| Post# 182944 , Reply# 23 5/28/2012 at 15:56 (4,349 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland) | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 182946 , Reply# 24 5/28/2012 at 15:57 (4,349 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland) | ||
|
"I also found that the regular Turbopower 2 sounds the same as an autosense Turbopower 2 in the High mode." I totally agree - It does!
To the best of my knowledge the Turbopower 2 1000W had the same motor as the Turbopower 1000 but it was wired up to constantly run at the full 1000 Watts opposed to having variable wattage via an electronic control unit. | ||
| Post# 182953 , Reply# 26 5/28/2012 at 16:12 (4,349 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland) | ||
|
Ah, we're onto the Autosense debate again, joy! Ha ha.
I think we all know I'm a big fan of the Autosense! As the advert said - It gives you the power you need, when you need it. Equally, it doesn't give you unnecessary power when it is not required, thus saving electric and reducing wear to the motor and brush roll bearings. Oh and the belt too for that matter. As for which will I use as my daily driver - I really don't know. I know I'll use one of them, as they are the best all round cleaner with great carpet grooming and great hose suction, but which one... Hmm... I know the TP1000 is rarer and older, but I'm more drawn to it because the TP2 is in immaculate condition and I want to keep it that way. The TP1000 is already quite scuffed and marred, so although I don't want any further damage, if I had to subject one cleaner to daily "abuse" (I use that term in the loosest possible fashion - I'm very careful while vacuuming), it would be the one that is already slightly worn. I may change my mind though, I do that often :) The one thing I... Dislike, if you could be as harsh as that, is the fact that because the TP2 runs at full power all the time, the hose suction is so immense with an empty bag that the crevice tool really increases the motor pitch and glues itself to anything it goes near. The TP1000 on the other hand is fine even with an empty bag if you let the Autosense drop down to the lowest power. That, of course, was a big problem for powerful uprights without electronic variable wattage control. My 1993 Philips U800 is also guilty of that, but not as badly as it isn't quite as powerful. Remaining on topic, but veering off the current talking point - I've noticed the Bag Full indicator on the TP2 is a different, more sharp (if you know what I mean) light, rather than the soft light the TP1000 has. | ||
| Post# 182955 , Reply# 28 5/28/2012 at 16:14 (4,349 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland) | ||
|
"
Mr Murray, I know you said that your memeory is poor, but the variation of wattages on a rating plate was talked about at length. The maximum wattage will be the power consumed at maximum voltage. So, as an example, if the rating plate says "220 - 240v, 800-1000w" and what comes out of your wall socket is, say, 224.1777777777777v , them the wattage will be in between the 800 and 1000 range." I do remember that, but the Turbopower 1000 says "MAX 1000W", no mention of the 1050W value the Turbopower 2 states... I was just curious as to why this was. | ||
| Post# 182957 , Reply# 29 5/28/2012 at 16:16 (4,349 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland) | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 182960 , Reply# 31 5/28/2012 at 16:21 (4,349 days old) by vintagerepairer (England) | ||
|
No I meant the model of cleaner is from around 1998. The fact that yours says 1999 confirms this as models usually ran for a couple of years or so. | ||
| Post# 182962 , Reply# 32 5/28/2012 at 16:25 (4,349 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland) | ||
|
"As for the difference in bag full lights, on electronic models the lamps are LED's, whereas on ordinary standard cleaners a neon is used, same sort of thing as seen on irons, kettles, extension leads, and so on. Well spotted though." That makes sense! I did notice when I put my hand over the hose to check the indicator worked that it was a very "on and off" light, if that makes any sense.
| ||
| Post# 182963 , Reply# 33 5/28/2012 at 16:28 (4,349 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland) | ||
|
"That's ok and I wasn't telling you off, sorry, it does look that way though. I see what you are getting at now, yes I think they were being more specific by saying 1050w as opposed to 1000. Or it could be that the motor does actually run that little bit faster." The only person who would really know the answer is HOOVER I suppose.
If they were being more specific I would have thought they'd have put 1050W on the bag door instead of 1000W, but maybe the straight forward value was less complicated for the general consumer. | ||
| Post# 182970 , Reply# 34 5/28/2012 at 17:06 (4,349 days old) by Alexhoovers94 (Manchester UK) | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 183036 , Reply# 35 5/29/2012 at 07:16 (4,348 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland) | ||
|
Well that's true (parts made at different times), because the two parts of my Turbopower 2 that have the date clocks on them is the brush roll guard and the motor cover.
The brush roll guard is dated way back to 1992 when the Turbopower as we now know it was first released and the motor cover is dated 1994. It seems in the late nineties HOOVER (or Candy rather) started using up old parts that they had lying around rather than manufacturing new ones. | ||
| Post# 183057 , Reply# 36 5/29/2012 at 10:13 (4,348 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland) | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 183093 , Reply# 38 5/29/2012 at 14:26 (4,348 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland) | ||
|
I don't know why they were date stamped either, but thank goodness they were, for collectors like me!
As for the H4 bags being used in place of H18 ones, I can believe you did see that often. To the general consumer the H4 would seem like the correct bag, because it would slot into place and be the right size, plus it does say "Turbopower" on it, the lack of "2/1000/3" would not generally be noticed by most people! What they don't know is that because the collar of the H4 bags are slightly smaller they don't seal tightly enough and let some dust through to clog up the Pre-Motor filters and God forbid, get into the motor. I don't know what I'll do with the two brand new Genuine HOOVER H4 bags I have that came with the Turbopower 2, but they certainly won't be making their way into the bag chamber, that is for sure! I do need to replenish my stocks of bags though, as I've only got three spare H18 bags. I suppose I shouldn't be to worried, three bags will last a year at the least, but I always get anxious about running out of bags/belts and being stuck... Don't know why, it is just my nature. The Turbopower 2/1000/3 cleaners really were brilliant, the only thing they lacked was a Hedlite! Funnily enough if you look closely there is actually a piece of the hood that is molded to fit a headlamp if you put a lens in there and a bulb, with wiring of course. | ||
| Post# 183100 , Reply# 40 5/29/2012 at 14:42 (4,348 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland) | ||
|
Yes, the hole was a perfect fit, but because the actual collar was slightly too small it didn't clip into place with the tightness required for a near 100% seal that the H18 bags gave.
Of course, if you only had a Turbopower 2/1000/3 as your Vacuum Cleaner and the only bag you had was a H4 one, you could use it and it would work, but I would not recommend it for regular use, just as a stop gap. With the original Turbopower being dirty fan, the seal wasn't as important as on a clean fan. | ||
| Post# 183107 , Reply# 41 5/29/2012 at 14:54 (4,348 days old) by vintagerepairer (England) | ||
|
It isn't just the seal though, with the H4 bag in a TP2/3/1000 the bag had nothing to grip onto, so as well as dirt escaping from the hole, the entire bag would often come away altogether, leaving the dirt to congregate in the bag unit. | ||
| Post# 183111 , Reply# 42 5/29/2012 at 14:59 (4,348 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland) | ||
|
That is what I meant, the collar (by collar I mean the whole cardboard fixture, not just the hole) doesn't clip in tight enough to hold in place.
Granted, when the bag is empty it will stay in place, but as it fills the combined weight and suction will pull it out of the housing. I don't know why HOOVER didn't design the Turbopower 2/1000/3 to take the same bags though. They made the hole the same size, all they needed to do was make the housing slightly smaller and differently shaped so the collar of the H4 bags could clip in tightly. | ||
| Post# 183118 , Reply# 44 5/29/2012 at 15:14 (4,348 days old) by jmurray01 (Scotland) | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 183974 , Reply# 45 6/2/2012 at 18:54 (4,344 days old) by alexhoovers94 (Manchester UK) | ||
|
They could not use the same bags anyway the turbopower one bags are alot longer than the turbo 2 bags, unless you folded them up to the correct size and then attach the bag clip, but you don't want to mess about doing that, you just want to put the bag in then go vacuum. qualtex do make some turbopower 2 bags that are the size of turbopower one bags, but have the turbopower 2 bag collar on, so you could fold them up for the turbopower 2 or just keep them as they are for the turbopower one which is a good idea really, hoover should of done that. | ||
| Forum Index: | 
| Other Forums: |
|
|
|
|
|
Comes to the Rescue!
