We would like to publicly thank Paul Bishop of HP Vacuflo for his combined efforts with AMETEK back in the late 1950's for designing the first central vacuum motor-the 115334. Unequivocally no other motor for household central vacuum use has had the reliability that this motor has provided. We applaud HP for their pioneering efforts in this field and we hope that someday newer, better performing, longer lasting motors may eventually replace the 334.
Furthermore we would like to commend HP on their enhanced developments of air driven power brushes specifically the T210 (or Turbocat II) Powerbrush. We feel there exists no better air turbine than this and therefore recommend it in our top-of-the-line air driven kits.
While we do feel that HP Vacuflo does produce a good built-in vacuum unit also; we would like to point out the main underlying philosophies and the minor differences between the two products. We obviously feel that our designs are superior and until ASTM (American Society of Testing and Materials) comes up with appropriate "Fact Tags" the consumer may have a difficult time interpreting all the data. Please review the following summary and feel free to contact us with any misstatements, errors or additional differences we may have over looked.
Similar to our evaluation of Vacumaid; Vacuflo exposes a "true cyclonic" filtration compared to our paper bag philosophy. Please reference this previous article along with our report entitled. "Filtration Analysis" in Newsletter Volume #2. Of particular interest we would like to review Vacuflo brochure HVS 490D, which stated that, their units has "100 percent efficiency at all times.... "you'll be cleaning with full power every time" and Publication HVS-651-B Vacuum power doesn't decrease, no matter how often you clean. It's always constant.". Their most recent brochure HVS-833 6/94 first states that their unit contains "no filters" and then defines "true cyclonic" which explains the cyclonic action and then says "Once the air, in a downward spiral, reaches the bottom of the cone or plate, it is suddenly unrestricted and slowed abruptly. At this point, 96-98 percent of the dirt thrown to the outside simply drops out of suspension and spirals down the cone and into the dirt can". "At the same time, the clean air containing 2-4 percent of the fine dust particles has reduced it's speed and is drawn to the center of the inverted cone. From there it rises and is exhausted to the outside of the living area."
We hereby challenge them on these claims of no loss of performance specifically from direction in their own service manual! To quote directly from their service manual publication HVS-861 Page 3, "Each time you empty the dirt pan, brush off the protective screen under the motor of the power unit. This eliminates any lint or dust build-up?keeps your Vacuflo system working at maximum efficiency." Now remember they "have no filters"!! Wait; page 5 gets even better! "Experience has shown that when cleaning new carpets or rugs for the first few times, it is advisable to check the dirt pan and screen at more frequent intervals. Much excessive, loose lint and nap, normal in all new floor coverings, is removed in these early cleanings and some will settle on the screen, allowing a build up that will impair the suction power unless removed."
The manual then continues in its "Power Unit Maintenance" section; "A guard screen is located directly above the dirt pan inside the power unit. It should be inspected and cleaned occasionally. This is to prevent such things as carpet fiber, cloth, etc. from getting into the motor's impeller blades. A build up of dirt or other larger, clogging type material may result in loss in vacuum." Under the "Troubleshooting Guide" of page 6 "If there is a loss of vacuum" "the guard screen....may be clogged with lint or carpet fiber". While we agree that they do warn the consumer about this FILTER we feel that their sales brochures are misleading by insisting that they "have no filters." The consumer would not find this out until after purchasing the product as evidenced in a recent full sales presentation, we personally heard made by one of their top sales representatives. One of the big selling points they stress is that there are no filters!"
We further find it ironic that their claim in their own reprint of a Builder/Architect Magazine dated June 1992 states that "Competitive testing shows even the best filter and bag central vacuum system loses from 25-90% of their cleaning performance over time." In Publication HVS-836 1990 they stated that their triple filtration unit (yes, they do produce a bag type) was "uniquely designed to...allow air to flow through the sides of the paper bags by vacuum power. "Since the filters do not touch the sides of the canister, air flow is maintained and the Model 200 has no drop in vacuum performance"!!! Sounds like they stated that our paper suspended system has no loss of performance! Use this quote (their own) next time they try to convince a consumer that cyclonic is better than bag because paper bags supposedly loose performance!
At M.D. we feel this filtration system causes a few problems. 1. Over filling the unit presents a very serious motor problem. 2. The power unit always requires exterior venting; otherwise, considerable dust accumulates from the exhaust. 3. When cleaning off this screen, much of the debris will go through the screen. With razor sharp fax blades spinning at 20,000 Rpm's it won't take long for this debris to cause motor imbalance and excessive bearing wear. 4. Some of our dealers also complain that it's very difficult to completely clean this screen. For an average homeowner it would probably be even more difficult. 5. This cyclonic action demands that the motor be installed close to the center of the can. It is, therefore, much more costly to build a 2-motor system which would have to use a manifold or a separated motor assembly. Their model 99 and model 960 are built like this and employ an 18" can.
Aside from filtration we also note the following differences: 1. None of the Vacuflo units have utility valves. 2. All Vacuflo units have only left side intake ports compared to the convenient dual port intakes M.D. offers. 3. Vacuflo units attach to the wall on one stud compared to the more versatile, secure 2-stud M.D. mounting. 4. Their bag type unit has only a very small 3-gallon capacity. 5. Vacuflo was one of very few Built-In Vacuum manufacturers who ever recommend a smaller 1 5/8" tubing. They now recommend our standard 2" tubing. 6. Vacuflo units are generally mounted higher in the garage than MD's and having the motor on top subjects them to minor additional heat due to the fact that hot air rises and cool air sinks. 7. Potentially the cooling air intake for the system could become easily blocked if a homeowner should inadvertently put a piece of paper or box on top of the power unit. This could cause major motor trouble. 9. Only M.D. can offer Silent Master sound suppression technology. Currently H.P. Vacuflo is being asked to withdraw their "Whisper Maxum" from production due to the fact that it infringes on MD's Silent Master patent.
They now offer 3 cyclonic units. The Model #260 uses a high performance motor and the Models #560 and 960 use a new single and double "Premier" motor from Lamb. This motor, we believe, has not yet been thoroughly market tested but shows excellent signs of performance. We are awaiting full introduction of the motor by Ametek before we produce a unit with it. Their other units, Maxum and Maxum Whisper are paper bag type, very weak and generally not recommended except in very small homes.
Vacuflo offers a 5 year warranty on their 260/3 60 power units which is in direct proportion to what AMETEK offers on all their 7.2" diameter motors. The Maxum unit offers a lifetime warranty against "defects in materials and workmanship under normal use and care as long as the original consumer purchaser owns the home of original installation." We trust you now have a clear and concise understanding of the Vacuflo products and are now more than ever convinced that M.D.'s are still "silencing the competition"! Your comments are welcomed.
Written by Grant Olewiler