FILTER QUEENS??

You say the Filter Queen cones aren't that expensive, eh? To buy the Medipure filter kit- which is a 6 month supply & contains the Medipure filter, 6 cones & a motor filter- is $39.55 including taxes to buy at my local vac shop. This is what would be required to make the vacuum filter at levels equivalent to modern brands, such as Miele....IF you believe Filter Queen's claims about the Medipure filter. That would work out to $80 a year for an allergy sufferer like myself to maintain. It costs only a little bit more to supply my Miele, Fakir & Sebo canisters with bags & Certified HEPA filters, & if I was to use my Kenmore or Electrolux canisters, I could buy a year's supply of HEPA cloth bags for either of them for under $50.

So, why spend ALL THAT MONEY, & be exposed to all that dust, & use a vacuum with a filter that CAN'T PROVE IT'S CLAIMS?! NOWHERE ON THE MEDIPURE FILTER PACKAGE, OR ON THE WEBSITE, DOES FILTER QUEEN STATE WHAT STANDARDS THE MEDIPURE FILTER HAS BEEN TESTED TO, OR MEETS. Especially when I can spend just a little bit more on filters for vacuums that use proven filtration technology, & are tested & certified.

Josh: You really don't think Filter Queen would make false claims about their product to get a consumer to buy one? Last time I checked, ALL THE DTD COMPANIES, including Filter Queen, have their "tricks" they teach demonstrators to prove their system works "better" than the competition, & all of them have their own exclusive patented features. That's all that the Medipure filter is, another "feature" that they claim works better than their competition. Tell ya what, Josh....you go ahead & grab a Medipure package, & tell me what standards the filter is supposedly tested to, or better yet, show me a scientific study that proves the Medipure filter works, & then I'll believe you. I prefer to believe companies that prove their claims with COLD HARD FACTS, & Filter Queen has yet to do so with the Medipure filter. I'm surprised the FDA in the States hasn't come down on them yet for the claims they make about the Medipure filter, in fact.

Robert: The testing that you say was done by Twining Labs....what year was this testing done, & was it done with the Filter Queen using the cellulose cone filter & Medipure filter, or just the cellulose cone filters? This is the first time I have EVER heard of the Filter Queen being tested for filtration. It would be interesting to see if it passes the same particle-scanner test a Miele, Sebo or Riccar canister will pass with flying colors. If it DOES filter down to zero on a particle scanner with the Medipure filter installed, then I will recant my statement about the Filter Queen having an outdated filter system.

Brad: That's good that the Filter Queen works for YOUR home & YOUR cleaning needs....unfortunately, though, it does NOT work for MY home or MY cleaning needs. I do agree, though, that they do have a good design, do function well, & have a nice appearance & do seem to last forever before breaking down. But for my cleaning needs, a bagged canister works far better. I rarely use my Filter Queens it seems. As I have stated before in past postings, I find I pick up lots of sand & fine dust, & little carpet fibres & no pet hair, as I don't have animals....as a result, I find my bags tend to clog very easily, as well as filtered bagless vacuums. With a bagged canister, I can easily stuff a damp rag into the vacuum bag's hole, give the bag a good vigorous shake to loosen the dust from the bag's walls, take the rag out & rinse the dust off of it, close the vacuum & continue vacuuming....I can easily stuff a bag quite full before needing a bag change by doing this. There is NO WAY you can easily clean the dust off a Filter Queen cone without being exposed to dust & having a sneezing fit. For this reason, I find a bagged canister works best for me, as well as direct-air uprights such as Kirby & Royal, & Multi-Cyclonic vacs, such as my Bissell Healthy Home or Fantom Lightning. And I will admit that I feel that Multi-Cyclonic technology is one of the best vacuum innovations that has ever happened in the vacuum industry.

This is also a BIG reason why I prefer Electrolux over other vacuum brands....I can easily take the self-sealing bag outside, give it a good shake, put it back in, & I have full power back. I also like the way the vacuum is designed....they are extremely user-friendly, & I have also found that the after filters on the Electrolux are very cost-effective, yet they retain the dust very well & I don't sneeze or smell dust in the air during or after use. I do use other vacuums, such as my Mieles, Sebo, & Fakir, & do find them easy to use & they do work very well....but for some reason, I always come back to Electrolux. And I have always had a deep respect for the quality of Electrolux vacuums....ever since my Mom owned her housekeeping company & had her Lux 89 for 29 years, with the canister & motor itself breaking NOT ONE TIME FOR 29 YEARS, except for needing 1 set of carbon brushes. You tell me how many other vacuums could stand commercial use like that for 29 YEARS without breaking?! Not many I bet!

And Brad, after all, what would you expect me to say? There's a reason why my user name is KirbyLux :)

Rob


Forum Topics & Rules Manuals & Literature	New users Click-here to sign-up

Post# 183032 5/29/2012 at 07:06 (4,342 days old) by baglessball ()
Checkrate/Likes I've been curious of these for a while. What do you guys think of them? Pros/cons? I want them all!! Thankyou!

Post# 183046 , Reply# 1 5/29/2012 at 08:43 (4,342 days old) by kirbykid63 (Wilmington Delaware)
Checkrate/Likes *One of the best canister vacuums* They are very well made machines that perform well,as with other machines you do need to maintain the filters and brush rolls for optimal perfomance.I have worked on them and there motor compartments stay very clean.Yes they are very good machines.

Post# 183052 , Reply# 2 5/29/2012 at 09:57 (4,342 days old) by Trebor ()
Checkrate/Likes *Filter Queen never....* used a really good power nozzle. Add a Centec, or a Lindhaus, or a Wessel-Werk to a FQ and you have an incredibly good cleaning machine.

Post# 183084 , Reply# 3 5/29/2012 at 13:24 (4,342 days old) by kirbylux77 (London, Ontario, Canada)
Checkrate/Likes The Filter Queen is a good vacuum, for sure, & you do pick up a LOT of dirt with them. The only real problems I have found with them are that the paper cones seem to attract a lot of dust on them & make the vacuum lose it's airflow & suction prematurely. Another big problem for an allergy sufferer like me, is that the filter system is outdated. Yes, they do have a "Medipure" filter that can installed that claims to be "better-than-hepa" standards, but reality is that it's nothing more than a thicker filter stuffed into the dirt container. And Filter Queen has NEVER, to my knowledge, published any scientific studies, nor is there any claims on the filter package claiming to what standard it has been tested to. So, to me, it's nothing more than claims, & a feeble attempt to update old, outdated technology. Robert, you claim the Filter Queen never had a good PN? Well, I have found with all my flat-belt Filter Queen PN's that if you put the brushroll in the "old" position inside the housing, so the brushes protrude out the bottom plate more, the Filter Queen PN's perform on a par with the Electrolux PN5 & PN6. Also, do remember the GE PN & Dirt Devil "Can Vac" PN were copies of the Filter Queen PN, & it is a design that was used by other makers as well. Was it the world's greatest PN? No, for sure not! But was it good for the time period which it was made? Yes, it was as good as any other. Rob

Post# 183085 , Reply# 4 5/29/2012 at 13:26 (4,342 days old) by kirbylux77 (London, Ontario, Canada)
Checkrate/Likes Might I also add that there was a permanent cloth cone designed for the Filter Queen, if I remember correctly Tom Gasko said it was brought to them by James Dyson, & they REFUSED to even consider it! Why? They wanted the profits from the disposable filters, & were in denial about the problem with the paper filter cones clogging prematurely. Rob

Post# 183104 , Reply# 5 5/29/2012 at 14:47 (4,342 days old) by joshdonnell ()
Checkrate/Likes *Well* I dont think there just fake clams to get you to buy.

Post# 183190 , Reply# 6 5/29/2012 at 17:33 (4,341 days old) by beerad (Beautiful Vancouver BC)
Checkrate/Likes *Rob..........* You have some very interesting view points on the Filter Queen vac. I find it fascinating that the design of the F/Q vacuum really has not changed in over 75 years. Yes , as any vacuum , it has its pros and cons. I appreciate the design , function , versatility, dependability, beauty, and longevity of these vacuums. If you want a powerful cleaning team, just adapt a Sebo power head to a F/Q and voila! Also, I have tried attaching a 30ft central vac hose onto my F/Q and there was ample airflow and suction at the end of the hose. I have actually set this up in my apt as my "central" vac. I just put the F/Q in a closet that is central , and the 30ft hose reaches to clean my whole apt.I even have a turbo air driven nozzel for the carpeting, and it works great on the type of low pile carpeting. I also find F/Q vacuums to be the most easiest to repair or maintain , because of their very simple, basic ,unique design. Yes. you could say that I really do like Filter Queen vacuums.

Post# 183193 , Reply# 7 5/29/2012 at 17:53 (4,341 days old) by pr-21 (Middletown, OH)
Checkrate/Likes *Filter Cones* Genuine Filter Cones are not that expensive. The manual says to replace once a month, but if you find they clog with the texture of dirt you pick up, you could change them more often for the price. Bud Mattingly PR-21

Post# 183216 , Reply# 8 5/29/2012 at 21:50 (4,341 days old) by Trebor ()
Checkrate/Likes *Filter queen did pay to have testing done..* by independent laboratories, one being Twining Labs. The material filtered was sulfur dust, no clue why they chose that. At one time lots of hospitals used Filter Queens. In their heyday they competed mainly against cloth bag dump out machines, or the water based Rexair. They also are quiet. I don't know about more recent testing. Their P/N may be adequate, but put a really good one on the wand and watch the performance increase.

Post# 183244 , Reply# 11 5/30/2012 at 02:17 (4,341 days old) by Blackheart (North Dakota)
Checkrate/Likes . I was merely agreeing with his post

Post# 183229 , Reply# 9 5/29/2012 at 22:47 (4,341 days old) by Blackheart (North Dakota)
Checkrate/Likes *Filter Queens* As already stated by Rob you do it's full airflow fairly quickly but you are still left with enough to continue to clean As Robert said their power nozzles could use improvement i've got both the old box style and the newer direct connect they are okay nozzles but i prefer to use it with a higher performance nozzle such as the Lindhaus or Eureka VG3 Overall i like Filter Queen they have nice motors they are not too loud the tools onboard are fairly nice.

Post# 183241 , Reply# 10 5/30/2012 at 01:12 (4,341 days old) by beerad (Beautiful Vancouver BC)
Checkrate/Likes *Blackheart* How about allowing Rob to speak for himself. I did read his post and was responding to him in that post. Brad.

Post# 183326 , Reply# 12 5/30/2012 at 23:00 (4,340 days old) by eurekastar (Amarillo, Texas)
Checkrate/Likes I've owned a couple of different Filter Queens and liked them both. With the older power nozzles (as already noted), placing the brush roll on the "older" setting made them perform much better. I really prefer the older power nozzles with the height adjustment. The newest nozzle simply floats, which I guess is fine for many carpets. But I have very thick pile carpeting in some of the house, and it was very hard to push and would get bogged down on the forward stroke. As much as I liked it, I ended up giving it away because the power nozzle just wasn't right for my carpet. Overall, however, they are hard to beat. They last forever!

Post# 183463 , Reply# 13 5/31/2012 at 22:03 (4,339 days old) by kirbylux77 (London, Ontario, Canada)
Checkrate/Likes *Bud:* You say the Filter Queen cones aren't that expensive, eh? To buy the Medipure filter kit- which is a 6 month supply & contains the Medipure filter, 6 cones & a motor filter- is $39.55 including taxes to buy at my local vac shop. This is what would be required to make the vacuum filter at levels equivalent to modern brands, such as Miele....IF you believe Filter Queen's claims about the Medipure filter. That would work out to $80 a year for an allergy sufferer like myself to maintain. It costs only a little bit more to supply my Miele, Fakir & Sebo canisters with bags & Certified HEPA filters, & if I was to use my Kenmore or Electrolux canisters, I could buy a year's supply of HEPA cloth bags for either of them for under $50. So, why spend ALL THAT MONEY, & be exposed to all that dust, & use a vacuum with a filter that CAN'T PROVE IT'S CLAIMS?! NOWHERE ON THE MEDIPURE FILTER PACKAGE, OR ON THE WEBSITE, DOES FILTER QUEEN STATE WHAT STANDARDS THE MEDIPURE FILTER HAS BEEN TESTED TO, OR MEETS. Especially when I can spend just a little bit more on filters for vacuums that use proven filtration technology, & are tested & certified. Josh: You really don't think Filter Queen would make false claims about their product to get a consumer to buy one? Last time I checked, ALL THE DTD COMPANIES, including Filter Queen, have their "tricks" they teach demonstrators to prove their system works "better" than the competition, & all of them have their own exclusive patented features. That's all that the Medipure filter is, another "feature" that they claim works better than their competition. Tell ya what, Josh....you go ahead & grab a Medipure package, & tell me what standards the filter is supposedly tested to, or better yet, show me a scientific study that proves the Medipure filter works, & then I'll believe you. I prefer to believe companies that prove their claims with COLD HARD FACTS, & Filter Queen has yet to do so with the Medipure filter. I'm surprised the FDA in the States hasn't come down on them yet for the claims they make about the Medipure filter, in fact. Robert: The testing that you say was done by Twining Labs....what year was this testing done, & was it done with the Filter Queen using the cellulose cone filter & Medipure filter, or just the cellulose cone filters? This is the first time I have EVER heard of the Filter Queen being tested for filtration. It would be interesting to see if it passes the same particle-scanner test a Miele, Sebo or Riccar canister will pass with flying colors. If it DOES filter down to zero on a particle scanner with the Medipure filter installed, then I will recant my statement about the Filter Queen having an outdated filter system. Brad: That's good that the Filter Queen works for YOUR home & YOUR cleaning needs....unfortunately, though, it does NOT work for MY home or MY cleaning needs. I do agree, though, that they do have a good design, do function well, & have a nice appearance & do seem to last forever before breaking down. But for my cleaning needs, a bagged canister works far better. I rarely use my Filter Queens it seems. As I have stated before in past postings, I find I pick up lots of sand & fine dust, & little carpet fibres & no pet hair, as I don't have animals....as a result, I find my bags tend to clog very easily, as well as filtered bagless vacuums. With a bagged canister, I can easily stuff a damp rag into the vacuum bag's hole, give the bag a good vigorous shake to loosen the dust from the bag's walls, take the rag out & rinse the dust off of it, close the vacuum & continue vacuuming....I can easily stuff a bag quite full before needing a bag change by doing this. There is NO WAY you can easily clean the dust off a Filter Queen cone without being exposed to dust & having a sneezing fit. For this reason, I find a bagged canister works best for me, as well as direct-air uprights such as Kirby & Royal, & Multi-Cyclonic vacs, such as my Bissell Healthy Home or Fantom Lightning. And I will admit that I feel that Multi-Cyclonic technology is one of the best vacuum innovations that has ever happened in the vacuum industry. This is also a BIG reason why I prefer Electrolux over other vacuum brands....I can easily take the self-sealing bag outside, give it a good shake, put it back in, & I have full power back. I also like the way the vacuum is designed....they are extremely user-friendly, & I have also found that the after filters on the Electrolux are very cost-effective, yet they retain the dust very well & I don't sneeze or smell dust in the air during or after use. I do use other vacuums, such as my Mieles, Sebo, & Fakir, & do find them easy to use & they do work very well....but for some reason, I always come back to Electrolux. And I have always had a deep respect for the quality of Electrolux vacuums....ever since my Mom owned her housekeeping company & had her Lux 89 for 29 years, with the canister & motor itself breaking NOT ONE TIME FOR 29 YEARS, except for needing 1 set of carbon brushes. You tell me how many other vacuums could stand commercial use like that for 29 YEARS without breaking?! Not many I bet! And Brad, after all, what would you expect me to say? There's a reason why my user name is KirbyLux :) Rob

Post# 183469 , Reply# 14 5/31/2012 at 22:47 (4,339 days old) by vacu-finder ()
Checkrate/Likes *Pros/cons on Filter Queens* I like the way they roll around, easy i guess for the sake of been round. Powerfull machine when empty..! I like that fact that if you suck up a Diamond ring all you have to do is open the machine and hunt for it inside using a long object. I have repaired many power heads. That is a weak point on the FQ's.. Especially the motor where it mounts inside the bottom casing of the power nozzle, Have seen many where the plastics Stand-offs broke rite off. Expensive repair, also the motors do not last. Have replaced many brush rolls and (sleeve) bearings. And the Power nozzle itself does not clean all that well.

Post# 183470 , Reply# 15 5/31/2012 at 22:49 (4,339 days old) by pr-21 (Middletown, OH)
Checkrate/Likes *Filter Cones* Rob, I said filter cones not the kit. The thread was talking about the cones clogging fast when I answered. My point was to get more cones if the level of suction cut out too much. Bud Mattingly PR-21