I am conflicted about the $899 Maytag MVWB765FW top-load washing machine. It performs well, but its display panel is a complete mess. The various buttons and related LED status lights are all jumbled together, making it hard to find the exact setting you want. Its clumsy design isn't a total deal breaker, but it will take some getting used to. It also used over 38 gallons of water on average per cleaning cycle -- significantly more than most washers we've tested.?
The MVWB765FW is a fine washer, but you can find even better performance on the $600?, and without any display wonkiness or excessive water usage.?
The MVWB765FW up close
Comparing washing machines
||Maytag MVWB765FW||Samsung WA52M7750AW||Kenmore 26132|
|Capacity||4.7 cubic feet||5.2 cubic feet||4.8 cubic feet|
|# of cycles||11||13||11|
|Energy consumption||356 kWh/year||180 kWh/year||169 kWh/year|
|Dimensions (width, height, depth)||27.5x42x27 inches||27x46x29.3 inches||27.5x37x27.9 inches|
The Maytag MVWB765FW's specs are pretty strong stacked up against some of its similarly priced competition. It has roughly the same cubic foot capacity and number of cycles as the $830. Its 356-kilowatt-hour estimated yearly energy consumption is quite high, though, particularly compared to its counterparts.?
It also used over 38 gallons of water on average per normal cycle. Before testing the MVWB765FW, the Kenmore 25132's water usage was among the highest for the top-loaders we've reviewed at about 20 gallons per cycle. And, unlike either the Kenmore 26132 or, this midrange Maytag washer has an agitator.?