VPI HW17 vs Loricraft PRC4 Deluxe

The fact for me is that record washing is so low on my mental totem pole that I always felt the HW17 must be "good enough", and I never worried whether some other machine would do a better job.  I did wash one of my most often played LPs on the Loricraft that is up for sale, and the owner of the Loricraft and I both heard an improvement in noise and treble response, but that LP has been played quite a bit since it was last washed on my HW17.  (We played the LP before and after the Loricraft washing.) Thus that little experiment may only prove that the LP needed another good washing after many plays and that the Loricraft is certainly capable.  I've never heard of the KL Audio company or their washing machine.  I really was not in the market for a new washer until this Loricraft came up for sale right close to home and at a very attractive price.  So, it's buy the Loricraft or keep the HW17.  I have no intention of moving to ultrasonics, either.

Lewm: I use a Monks which is similar to the Loricraft as a point nozzle vacuum; I have also used a VPI since the early ’80s and still have it. I have also owned both commercial ultrasonics, the Audio Desk and the KL Audio.
My experience with point nozzle (Monks/Loricraft) v wand style is:
both get the records dry; whether dry really = clean is another question. I think the point nozzle is more effective in pulling the fluid with suspended contaminants off the record.
I also found that with the VPI, I got better results with enzyme fluids, like AIVS 15, followed by a rinse. With the Monks, it seems like its effectiveness is less dependent on fluid used.
I know there are some quirks to the Loricraft that others have addressed in threads you should be able to find- tweaks to make operation more effective. As I recall, Loricraft have an affiliate/representative operation in the States, so that may give some comfort in knowing you can get parts or service. My current method- for the last several years- has been to use both vac cleaning and ultrasonic. I like the ultrasonic, but with old records (of which I buy many), it doesn’t always tackle some of the noise problems caused by ’gunk’ in the grooves. Thus, the combined methods. Without owning a Loricraft I can’t really offer more insight, so take this as a general set of observations involving machines of the same type. Just to make it more complicated, the Library of Congress preservation facility/archive uses both a big VPI and Monks! I didn't ask them why. 

I really do appreciate these thoughtful responses.  I did a bit of internet searching before starting this discussion. The results of that search included nothing of a very compelling nature as regards which machine to choose. With the VPI, I bought several extra suction wands.  As I clean consecutive records, I also clean the wands that are not in use, by soaking them and wiping down the velvet, so as to always keep relatively clean velvet in contact with the LP surface. Then I periodically rotate a cleaned wand into use.  I also wipe down the velvet after every side, manually. What I like about the VPI is the speed with which I can clean a side and the automated steps that would become manual steps were I to switch to the Loricraft.  But it's nothing too tedious.  I suppose I was looking for someone who could say that one machine (probably the HW17, since most seem to give a slight edge to the Lori) is decidedly inferior to the other (probably the Loricraft), and base it on some direct experiences.