|
Thread Number: 28575
/ Tag: Brand New Vacuum Cleaners
Compact Bagless Vax canister vac: which one? |
[Down to Last] |  |
| Post# 318970 , Reply# 1 3/21/2015 at 18:34 (3,323 days old) by sebo_fan (Scotland, UK, member AKA ukvacfan, & Nar2) | ||
Hello.
Personally I wouldn't bother with any of those compacts because they all use the older paper pleated cones or single cyclonic which can require far more cleaning than necessary. Some of these models also cut out prematurely than necessary, particularly when they over heat. I prefer the Vax Mach Air Reach. You may still be able to get that in Poland. It has a long cord, a double extension hose and basic tools enough to do car cleaning as well as offering longer term suction and easy to wash filter. It is a compact upright though, not a cylinder. If you must stick with cylinder vacs go for the multcyclonic ones if you can afford it, or the bagged "Maxim" cylinder vacuum, if its still available. | ||
| Post# 319015 , Reply# 2 3/22/2015 at 05:17 (3,322 days old) by jagodek02 () | ||
|
What about power factor? I see that those cylinder vacuum cleaners have 700 Watts. Is it sufficient to effectively vacuum e.g. carpeted area? | ||
| Post# 319016 , Reply# 3 3/22/2015 at 05:53 (3,322 days old) by sebo_fan (Scotland, UK, member AKA ukvacfan, & Nar2) | ||
|
Not without a moving brush roll in my experience. If any of them come with an air driven turbo floor brush (not a mini one) then there's every possibility that it can aid cleaning carpet. However, the old Vax Mach Air Reach had 1200 watts. So it is still economical and it has a brush roll as standard that can be switched on or off.
Im not sure how powerful those 700 watt vacs from Vax are - they're also a bit new and have only just arrived in the UK. However my experience of those ones are similar to the older models; made of non-durable plastics and not particularly easy to use. Also the old ones were noisy but they all share the same design element - the paper filters/single cyclonic is a dusty experience when dealing with the filters; the multicyclonic ones by Vax are better. | ||
| Post# 319018 , Reply# 5 3/22/2015 at 07:27 (3,322 days old) by jagodek02 () | ||
|
this is a rug I want to clean
View Full Size
| ||
| Post# 319030 , Reply# 6 3/22/2015 at 10:38 (3,322 days old) by marcusprit () | ||
|
I've yet to find a bagless cylinder I like so I'm sticking to bagged. | ||
| Post# 319032 , Reply# 7 3/22/2015 at 11:00 (3,322 days old) by marcusprit () | ||
|
I do like the look of the Rainbow but I wouldn't pay £1500 plus for one. | ||
| Post# 319059 , Reply# 9 3/22/2015 at 16:47 (3,322 days old) by jagodek02 () | ||
|
Ok guys. I have just ordered VAX C86-ID-BE mainly because of its neat compact shape. I hope it will meet my expectations. Thanks!! | ||
| Post# 319065 , Reply# 10 3/22/2015 at 17:34 (3,322 days old) by blakaeg (NW London, UK) | ||
|
Good luck with the Vax machine they are good bagless and the price. Bagged models I like Sebo. Let us know how you're getting on with the Vax. | ||
| Post# 319081 , Reply# 11 3/22/2015 at 21:18 (3,322 days old) by jagodek02 () | ||
|
Sorry, I've ordered C86-TO-BE it's more compact... I will tell you how it's going. | ||
| Post# 319097 , Reply# 12 3/23/2015 at 05:56 (3,321 days old) by Turbo500 (West Yorkshire, UK) | ||
Personally, I would not have opted for one of those models. The cheaper end of the Vax market use very low efficiency, direct filter cyclones that require cleaning after every use to stop the machine from clogging and overheating.
The higher end Vax's use multi-cyclones (similar to Dyson) and require far less maintenance. They're also more reliable and come with longer guaruntees. One of the "Mach" or "Air" cylinders would have been a much better option. Incidentally, 700w will generate more than enough suction to effectively clean. Just look at the 580w Numatic cleaners - the suction on them is fantastic and cleans just as well as the old 1200w models. You have nothing to worry about with regards to lower motor wattages. Any lack of performance will be down to a poorly designed machine, not a lower powered motor. | ||
| Post# 319098 , Reply# 13 3/23/2015 at 05:57 (3,321 days old) by sebo_fan (Scotland, UK, member AKA ukvacfan, & Nar2) | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 319101 , Reply# 14 3/23/2015 at 06:33 (3,321 days old) by marcusprit () | ||
|
I've tried a few bagless cylinders. AEG Ultra craptic, Bosch,Dyson and Vax not been overly impressed with any of them sadly. I will stick with my bagged Miele S8. | ||
| Post# 319103 , Reply# 15 3/23/2015 at 09:07 (3,321 days old) by Turbo500 (West Yorkshire, UK) | ||
|
I quite liked the Vax Air cylinder - it had very strong suction, wasn't too loud and because it didn't have a shroud, it was easier to empty than a Dyson cylinder as the dust didn't get stuck in big lumps in the bin.
CLICK HERE TO GO TO Turbo500's LINK | ||
| Post# 319124 , Reply# 17 3/23/2015 at 12:04 (3,321 days old) by marcusprit () | ||
|
Yes I agree most of the multi cyclonic cylinders are bulky, heavy and ugly! I'm not keen on them. I do like some bagless uprights though :-) | ||
| Post# 319136 , Reply# 18 3/23/2015 at 15:04 (3,321 days old) by floor-a-matic (somewhere) | ||
|
"Yes I agree most of the multi cyclonic cylinders are bulky, heavy and ugly! I'm not keen on them" Not my Hoover Multi Cyclonic SH40040 with Powermatic Nozzle! Its VERY sleek & compact; altho it has a true full size PN that REALLY cleans 
| ||
| Post# 319138 , Reply# 19 3/23/2015 at 15:08 (3,321 days old) by marcusprit () | ||
|
That one looks better! :-) | ||
| Post# 319141 , Reply# 20 3/23/2015 at 15:11 (3,321 days old) by marcusprit () | ||
|
Wish Vax offered a similar model in the UK.I had a similar Vax cylinder in the past but not with a PN. | ||
| Post# 319155 , Reply# 21 3/23/2015 at 18:36 (3,321 days old) by sebo_fan (Scotland, UK, member AKA ukvacfan, & Nar2) | ||
|
jagodek02...
Its a darn shame you don't like uprights - the original Vax Mach Air upright weighs 4.5kg and is is multicyclonic - all of the original Vax Mach Air uprights have softer bristles too - and the Reach model weighs 5.3kg - hardly heavy!
The Vax C88-AM-B Air Mini CYLINDER vac weighs 4.9kg and its multi-cyclonic. Hardly heavy. Also has 2 litre dust bin, 0.5 litres more than the one you've chosen. It is still quite compact. But, anyway let us know how you get on with your new purchase.
View Full Size
| ||
| Post# 319619 , Reply# 23 3/29/2015 at 09:12 (3,315 days old) by jagodek02 () | ||
|
| ||
| Post# 319632 , Reply# 24 3/29/2015 at 11:49 (3,315 days old) by oliveoiltinfoil (England, UK) | ||
jagodek02
Well I'll be the first to say welcome to VL as I can see you are a new member. Don't think we have many from Poland so that is nice to see. I understand in Poland they have different models. Some of the UK models are not available over there, but you seem to have done well there. Vax are very good value for money machine. I like your videos as well. | ||
| Post# 319635 , Reply# 25 3/29/2015 at 12:03 (3,315 days old) by sebo_fan (Scotland, UK, member AKA ukvacfan, & Nar2) | ||
|
The Impact 102 is available in the UK.
Vax official video: This post was last edited 03/29/2015 at 12:32 | ||
| Post# 319639 , Reply# 26 3/29/2015 at 13:01 (3,315 days old) by jagodek02 () | ||
|
Yes, it was imported from UK, that's why the plug is "British" and I need to use plug-adaptor. But, so far I like this cylinder. I did vacuum one room but suction is still strong. Will tell you about my impression when I do entire house with one pre-motor filter. | ||
| Post# 319686 , Reply# 27 3/29/2015 at 21:58 (3,315 days old) by floor-a-matic (somewhere) | ||
|
It looks like a Bissell Zing bagged canister here in the USA | ||
| Post# 319701 , Reply# 28 3/30/2015 at 06:32 (3,314 days old) by sebo_fan (Scotland, UK, member AKA ukvacfan, & Nar2) | ||
|
Like this? I wouldn't say it. The Vax has a much flatter, wider body and the hose locks in down the front as opposed to one on the top of the Bissell. Mind you I do like the look of the bagged Zing. Bissell seldom have bagged vacs in the UK now.
View Full Size
| ||
| Forum Index: | 
| Other Forums: |
|
|
|
|
|
Comes to the Rescue!
;){kind=link}
;){kind=link}