I’m conflicted in regards to the $899 Maytag MVWB765FW top-load washer. It performs effectively, however its show panel is a whole mess. The assorted buttons and associated LED standing lights are all jumbled in, making it onerous to search out the precise setting you need. Its clumsy design is not a complete deal breaker, however it is going to take some getting used to. It additionally used over 38 gallons of water on common per cleansing cycle — considerably greater than most washers we have examined. 

The MVWB765FW is a tremendous washer, however you will discover even higher efficiency on the $600 Kenmore 25132, and with none show wonkiness or extreme water utilization. 

The MVWB765FW up shut

Evaluating washing machines

Maytag MVWB765FW

Samsung WA52M7750AW

Kenmore 26132





Coloration end





four.7 cubic ft

5.2 cubic ft

four.eight cubic ft

# of cycles




Vitality consumption

356 kWh/12 months

180 kWh/12 months

169 kWh/12 months

Dimensions (width, top, depth)

27.5x42x27 inches

27x46x29.three inches

27.5x37x27.9 inches



Samsung SmartCare


The Maytag MVWB765FW’s specs are fairly sturdy stacked up towards a few of its equally priced competitors. It has roughly the identical cubic foot capability and variety of cycles because the $830 Kenmore 26132. Its 356-kilowatt-hour estimated yearly power consumption is sort of excessive, although, notably in comparison with its counterparts. 

It additionally used over 38 gallons of water on common per regular cycle. Earlier than testing the MVWB765FW, the Kenmore 25132’s water utilization was among the many highest for the top-loaders we have reviewed at about 20 gallons per cycle. And, in contrast to both the Kenmore 26132 or Samsung’s $899 WA52M7750AW, this midrange Maytag washer has an agitator. 



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.