Opinions on rotovac are people sitll buying these things?

[juniorc82]

I owned a rotosoaker original a few years ago . just like all the other newbies I got sucked in to the whole rotovac marketing thing and ended up finding a used one on ebay for like 800 that was in pretty good shape. I first used it on some cut pile nylon in a rental and loved it. After that I used it on some residential and hated it . I think its a good concept but between soaking the carpet using all my water and adding a 3rd coard to my porty set up the rotovac became a huge pain in the ass. not to mention you cant really use it on berber or cgd. So I began to ask my self why am I holding on to the rotosoaker? I ended up selling it and have no regrets about getting rid of it. I think a 175 with a brush or a pad kicks the rotovacs ass on all levels ( most of us agree) Are there any people out there that use the rotovac daily? I am not against rotary machines as I will be getting an rx 20 when I get my tm but I just think the rotovac was a machine develpoed by marketers and not carpet cleaners.

 

[Mikey P]

I owned and used one for a good year or so.
Pre Glide era.



A 175 and just about any glided wand will be far more versatile, cheaper and equally effective in 98.7% of the soil/pile conditions you'll come across.




they are handy for candle wax puddles though.

 

[ascrubabove]

I have one, and like you got it off ebay during my porty year. I still have it on the van and use it on major rat nasty stuff, I don't have a 175 so when something needs a prescrubin I use the rotovac then clean with the wand

 

[DevilThomas]

The Rotovac is just one tool...All of my work is apt., house rental turnovers so while I do not use it daily ...I do use it ...it is just another kind of "wand". Turn down the water, and use it in the right situation and it gives good results.

I think my OP machine is much better than a 175 on all levels... :wink:

 

[juniorc82]

The Rotovac is just one tool...All of my work is apt., house rental turnovers so while I do not use it daily ...I do use it ...it is just another kind of "wand". Turn down the water, and use it in the right situation and it gives good results.

I think my OP machine is much better than a 175 on all levels... :wink:

and how does your op machine do on cut pile carpet ? I would think a 175 with a nylon brush is gonna provide alot better aggitation than a pad that can only penetrate the sufrace of the fiber. I would also say the 175 is better because you can use a pad , brush , or a bonnett. arent you limited to a bonnett or pad with your op? so what are these other levels the op is superior on? a op machine seems to be just a tweeked 175 with a pad instead of a brush

 

[DevilThomas]

OP machines can use pads, brushes, and bonnets....OP machines provide much better agitation, 1750 oscillations versus 175....clean tile and grout, do an excellent job on commercial carpet....OP machines just clean better. I use them for agitation on cut pile all the time. In addition they clean Hardwood floors, vinyl, concrete, encap, sanding...etc.

 

[FloorPizza]

I used a "Rotovac Power Wand" a few weeks ago with a fairly under powered porty (1001DX) on an extremely nasty house. While I didn't like how the powerwand set the speed at which I could move the wand for me, I was floored (ewwww... bad pun, sorry) with the results. It made this new guy look good. The carpets look brand new. Maybe TM's are just able to get those kind of results without a powerwand, and an underpowered porty needs the PW to do that level of cleaning. No idea, but for max cleaning with a weak porty, the PW made a huge difference.

 

[juniorc82]

OP machines can use pads, brushes, and bonnets....OP machines provide much better agitation, 1750 oscillations versus 175....clean tile and grout, do an excellent job on commercial carpet....OP machines just clean better. I use them for agitation on cut pile all the time. In addition they clean Hardwood floors, vinyl, concrete, encap, sanding...etc.

1750 seems a little high. thats almost like a high speed burnisher. well to each his own

 

[DevilThomas]

you seem to be confusing oscillations with rpm. RPM for both machines are about the same, but with OP you also get 1750 oscillations in all directions per minute.

 

[DavidVB]

With OP machines you also get 1750 centers of orbit that can untwist tufts on cut piles. Watch out!!!

When I looked at a Rotovac years ago they said to run about 200 psi. Does it still oversoak if lower pressure is used. Surely you don't need the agitation from higher pressures with the rotary extraction.

 

[rotovacguy]

I owned and used one for a good year or so.
Pre Glide era.



A 175 and just about any glided wand will be far more versatile, cheaper and equally effective in 98.7% of the soil/pile conditions you'll come across.




they are handy for candle wax puddles though.

I totally agree Mikey.




I sold my Rotovac last year on Ebay, and picked up on a 17" 1.5 HP Sanitaire 175...........best move I ever made. Dry times came down considerably, plus I have much more agitation, and I can use it on just about any floor surface, not just carpet, and the slow speed of a Rotovac sucks, too, a glided wand and a 175 will run circles around a Rotovac on ANY type of carpet. The one thing I do miss about it was the light weight of it with the brush heads, worked wonders on stairs, and didn't kill my back. Not really worth the $2200 they want, heck even used they fetch good coin, mine went for over $900 (with the brushes)...not worth it to me, but some guys rave about them. To each their own I guess.

 

[The Great Oz]

Having used all of the mentioned equipment, I'd say they all have their place. If I'm doing cleaning of residential carpet though, I'd routinely carry the more space-and-time-efficient Rotovac rather than a rotary.



Commercial and pigsty cleaning excluded of course.

 

[rotovacguy]

Having used all of the mentioned equipment, I'd say they all have their place. If I'm doing cleaning of residential carpet though, I'd routinely carry the more space-and-time-efficient Rotovac rather than a rotary.



Commercial and pigsty cleaning excluded of course.

Bryan, I remember the guy at Rotovac telling me that DA Burns bought like 10 at once, so obviously they must work for you guys. I agree about the space issue, it was a little smaller than my 175 and a whole heck of a lot lighter, but you think they are faster than a 175? Even on residential? Maybe I wasn't using mine properly, idk, but it sure wasn't fast. My 175 and glided wand seems a lot faster and doesn't soak the carpet, the 1.5" downtube doesn't help the "suck factor", either. I know some guys that use them with a jet blocked off on each head, to reduce the amount of water, and they seem to like it. Personally, I'd rather have all the flow WITH the suction of a full 2" top to bottom.


Those brushes worked great on stairs, and that's where the light weight came in handy. But on an open room it just didn't seem to have enough weight to really allow those brushes to pull the crud out. And those heads are rather tiny, at least on the original one, the 360 is larger, but I've heard not too many good things about the 360. I have 16" pads for my 175, so it'll make quick work on any room, large or small.


I guess we all have our preferences. The Rotovac does seem to have a 50/50 following, guys either love them or hate them. I loved mine......until I started using a 175.

 

[GeneMiller]

I bought mine in 05 after I had back surgery. I was back at work in 2 months because of it. My customers all said that it left the carpet drier. I used it at the recommended 300 psi without any problems. I did a dry pass the same as with a wand and the roto action helps to remove more water. You have to adjust it properly. I still use it if on the rare nasty carpet. I agree that I would like a 2"tube but it leaves the carpet drier for me even with the 1.5.

Gene

 

[Greenie]

My customers all said that it left the carpet drier.


Gene

wow. there is some insight there somewhere. what wand were you using at the time to compare it to?

 

[Bob Foster]

Shame on you Steve!