Maytag Commercial MVWP576KW vs Maytag Commercial Technology MVWC565FW (replacing a Maytag A8120)

[speedmaytag]

https://www.lowes.com/pd/Maytag-Com...h-Efficiency-Top-Load-Washer-White/1002579758

https://www.lowes.com/pd/Maytag-4-2...p-Load-Washer-White/1000070587#preview-review

I'm trying to decide between these two washers. I generally do a lot of hiking and have dirty soil, and I want to look for a washer that can at least last 10+ years. Which one is more durable? As far as I know, the MVWP576KW has a higher RPM motor but smaller drum size, while the MVWC565FW has a lower RPM motor but larger drum size. Has anyone had experiences with these? These have been available since 2016, so a year's use or more would be good for experience.
For reference, I already have a pre-Whirpool Maytag (the Maytag A8120, from 1980). It has a permanent press feature and adjustable water level, and it has worked since I've had it in the 1980s. Should I keep it, despite it using 60 gallons of water per wash? It has lasted since 1980 with no problems. Calculating local water rates, I only save $575 every 5 years.

 

[windrivers]

If you must get a new Maytag, I would get a MVWP575KW which I as I understand it is the same as the MVWP576KW but with a 5-year warranty and not sold at box stores.

Maytag is not what they used to be since Whirlpool bought them out and destroyed the Maytag name along with their own brand. Their "commercial grade" 575/576 has some upgraded parts, but on the whole is not what I would consider real commercial grade. But at least with the 575 you get the 5 year warranty.

"Commercial Technology" just means it uses the same technology as commercial equipment with inferior cheap parts that are designed to fail. Sort of like saying a paper airplane uses aircraft technology because they both fly.

I would vote for keeping your old Maytag.

 

[nmassman44]

True Maytag built washers dont use 60 gallons total, more like 40 if its the super capacity big tub. They would only use 60 if you add an extra rinse. If the Maytag you have still runs perfectly...honestly, keep it. That washer will outlast anything that Whirlpool builds today and that Maytag will preform better for you if you do all that hiking and all the grubbiness that you describe.
I had a Whirlpool 4516 washer that did use enough water if one used the Super Wash cycle and Deep Wash setting. I hated that washer since it had issues with soil removal and granted it did well spinning at 700 rpms , there was MUCH lacking. One thing is longevity and once the year warranty is up they dont know you....even if you have the extended warranties that Whirlpool tries to entice people on the Maytag since. Look at the reviews and they speak volumes and CU dont speak highly of them across the board.

 

[panasonicvac]

I agree with the others here, I wouldn't replace your Maytag if it still runs fine. Especially for the fact that the original Maytag company has since been long gone. And I wouldn't replace your older Maytag with either of those newer Maytags, you'll likely be disappointed with your change. I've seen both in person before and I'll tell you what, they both feel cheaply made. Honestly if you did had to replace your Maytag with a brand new washer, you're better off by getting a Speed Queen TC5 instead. In my humble opinion that is the LAST good top loader washer that's on the market as of today. But if it HAD to come down between those two other Maytags, I'd get the commercial model. Like what the other user said, I'd get the MVWP575KW over the MVWP576KW as it comes with a longer warranty and you're definitely gonna need it because unfortunately I've seen these commercial Maytags break while they're under warranty. Not good for someone like me who'd want a washer like a SQ that's designed to last 20-25 years or even longer without ever having to get it fixed. Overall, just keep using your Maytag and try to fix it when it does break. Anyways, that's my two cents here.

 

[qsd-dan]

Your Maytag 810 uses 19 gallons per fill, that's 38 gallons plus a few gallons for the 1 minute spray rinse, puts that around 42-44 gallons.

Want a gander into the future of owning a MVWP576KW?

Maytag Commercial Washer MVWP575GW Warranty Repair

My Maytag Commercial Washer started making a clicking/clanging noise in the spin cycle a couple of weeks ago. I assumed a suspension rod was the culprit, so I scheduled a service call. The technician came this morning. He checked out a few things and then declared that the noise is a...

www.automaticwasher.org

 

[combo52]

If you are concerned about water costs and conservation

I would replace this washer wit a new Front Load machine, doing so will reduce you per load water use down to 12-15 gallons per load compared to around 45 gallons per load. And the new machine will wash larger loads cleaner and better rinsed with much less fabric wear than your current machine.

 

Best new FL machine is a SQ by far but if $1800 is not in the budget consider a WP or MT FL machine in the $1000 dollar range or even an $700 Amana FL machine.

 

John L.

 

 

 

[maytag85]

I’d keep your Maytag running for as long as possible since washers have gone down hill in quality and reliability since 2011. One you get rid of your Maytag, there’s no getting it back since utility companies along with greedy corporations will just about do everything in their power to convince you to replace perfectly working appliances with many years left with new-fangled appliances that can’t make it past 5 years with repairs and don’t work all that well either.

 

[ryner1988]

I echo what most others have said here. If the Maytag you have now runs fine, why ditch it?

If water conservation is your goal, then combo52 is right, you should look into getting a front loader. High efficiency top loaders don't work all that well in my opinion, and the ones that do use nearly as much water as yesterday's machines. Front loaders are meant to clean with much less water and can do it effectively because of their design--they tumble the clothes through the water horizontally so everything in the load still gets saturated.

I think the high efficiency top loader design has potential but it's just not there yet, at least from what I've seen. Others may have had different experiences.

The Maytag MVWP575/76 is as close to an old-school top loader as you can get these days without shelling out the cash for a Speed Queen TC5 and is a good performer from what I've heard, but is built using the VMW platform, just like it's residential cousin. If you are not familiar, VMW stands for vertical modular washer and is what replaced Whirlpool's direct drive design in 2010. These machines are easily serviceable but I've never really heard of them lasting very long before a major and expensive part gives out. My previous washer was of this design and lasted 6 years. Also, and this may just be an irritation unique to me, I can't stand the sound of the VMW machines. It's really hard to explain unless you've heard one. If your laundry is in a separate or closed-off part of the house, that may not be a big deal, but if not, well, just go on Youtube and see if you can handle listening to that noise every time you do laundry. It's definitely different, to say the least.

So to sum up, my vote is keep your old Maytag. If you don't feel like that's an option do to water conservation issues or you simply feel it's time to upgrade, get a middle-of-the-line front loader. That should still serve you well. If you want traditional performance in a more modern body, and can't afford a Speed Queen, grab the commercial Maytag but be aware of durability issues with that design.

Good luck.

 

[windrivers]

As for buying the Maytag "Commercial" if you can't spend the cash for a Speed Queen TC5, keep in mind that the TC5 is a little less than 20% more than the Maytag, at least at the place where I bought my TC5, and by my best guess, the TC5 is likely to last 5 times as long. You can save another $100 buying the Maytag from Lowes, but again you don't the warranty, though Lowes will probably sell you an extended warranty for a couple hundred or more, maybe even raising the cost to the TC5 range.

I agree with others about getting a front loader if you want to save water and energy if it would fit your space and style and you can afford a Speed Queen one, but personally I intend to never buy a new product from Whirlpool. I would consider possibly a Miele if I couldn't get Speed Queen.

I hope the TC5 lasts longer than I do so I don't have to worry about getting a new machine again, but being traditional, old-school, and hard-headed, and listening to stories about the older front-loaders, I have trouble getting my head around how they wash twice as well with half as much water and detergent and are twice as gentle on clothes, and now I'm even seeing people claim they last twice as long as top-loaders. I'd have to see a little evidence for that last one (I wonder shy Speed Queen isn't claiming their FLs last 50 years?).

By the way, I got to this point when I bought a Maytag Bravos around October of '20 when I was desperate for a new machine. Washers were hard to find and I bought the first one available not believing everyone who told me how poorly they're made today. Less than eight months later the machine stopped agitating, not that it ever did a very good job (it was an impeller model). Whirlpool couldn't get a repairman out to my very rural area, so they offered me what I believe was a MVWC565 like you have above as a replacement as the Bravos was apparently no longer available. I wanted something that might last so I asked them to upgrade me to the "commercial" 575 washer. The washer never arrived and I never got straight answers from Whirlpool. Their customer service is dismal, to say the least, it was at least an hour on hold each time to get a representative, and then I never got honest answers as to where the replacement washer was, just dates as to when it was supposed to have arrived and never did. Finally I complained to outside agencies, and that resulted in a full refund from Whirlpool which I used to get the TC5.

Whirlpool did me a favor by not fixing the machine or getting me a replacement. I'm still out my time and frustration, but I think the lesson I learned is worth it, otherwise I would probably never have believed the price of a Speed Queen was worth it. I went into the thing thinking I could get another washer that would last 20 some years for $500.

 

[DADoES]

 
<blockquote>ryner1988: High efficiency top loaders don't work all that well in my opinion, and the ones that do use nearly as much water as yesterday's machines.</blockquote> The best HE toploader thus far is the Whirlpool/Kenmore Calypso, and it is more water-efficient than the impeller designs.  Calypso is long discontinued, largely because ... consumers.

 

[ryner1988]

Whirlpool Calypso

I don't know much about the Calypso, only that there was a class-action suit in the early 2000's and that resulted in the machines discontinuation.

My conclusion about HE top loaders was reached using what I do know about human behavior, which is that many consumers select the deep fill option by default on these machines. And with good reason in some cases. In my experience, sometimes the auto sense works well, and sometimes it doesn't, and that largely depends on how you load the machine. As I said, these washers tend to be picky beasts, which is why I don't like them.

 

[windrivers]

If only it wasn't for the consumers...

Consumers tend to want things that work out of the box without taking a tech course.

Even so, I believe that when most consumers buy a major appliance that doesn't work like they expect, they take the time to try to figure out why and how to make it work. People tend not to like to admit they made a mistake and wasted so much money, so they want to make it work, and in many cases even pretend it's working better than it is. For half a year until it broke I tried to pretend that Maytag was a great machine, I had a hard time admitting I wasted $800.

I understand that there are others who like to immediately start complaining without knowing what they're doing. Unfortunately if they call a company like Whirlpool for assistance because they're too lazy to read the manual, or the manual just isn't adequate they're likely to end up even more dissatisfied with the customer "service". As I recall Whirlpool gave very little to no explanation as to exactly what the differences were between each cycle in the manual. I had to try each cycle. At least the glass top was useful so I could see how the clothes were getting moved through the water, or not.

So maybe companies would be better off without clueless consumers who don't know what's good for them buying their products. I'm glad to oblige Whirlpool in that respect.

 

[foraloysius]

"I have trouble getting my head around how they wash twice as well with half as much water and detergent"

I guess a lot of Americans who are used to traditional toploaders think that frontloaders don't use enough water. But they work better with less water in the main wash than when they would use more. In order to get the maximum out of the wash action, the laundry has to fall back on the side of the drum, not into the water. That action copies the old fashioned way of washing by beating it on a rock.



Look at the rock, it is above the water level. Now if it would be under water, the wash action wouldn't be very effective. Older European front loaders used lower water levels for cottons and permanent press items. Delicates were washed in much more water so the clothes would roll around in a lot of water, preventing the laundry from falling on the side of the drum. So low water level and less detergent, but still enough to make it a concentrated solution make front loaders very effective at cleaning.

 

[foraloysius]

Sean

I'm sorry I have to address the same issue again. We all know by now that you don't like modern appliances. You're beating that dead horse over and over again. Perhaps you could keep in mind that there are people who do like new appliances (including me, although I like older too) and I think it's very impolite to trample on things that other people might like.

IIRC you were the one who defriended me on Facebook after I said in a private message that I found modern European Fords dead ugly. I guess you like Fords. But one negative comment about them was already too much for you. So guess how people who like modern appliances feel like when you are bashing modern appliances over and over and over again. It gets really old now. So say something nice or say nothing at all.

Rant over.

 

[DADoES]

 
I may have mentioned an occasion of washing several lightweight/sheer curtain panels in a (2006 Duet) frontloader with powdered detergent on Delicate, which fills higher to purposely soften the washing action.  Too much water, the items floated with no falling/slapping action.  Undissolved detergent in the folds.  Ran again on Normal, much better with rolling and falling/slapping against the drum surface, no detergent residue.

 

[foraloysius]

Yes, exactly! Therefor often liquid detergent is recommended for delicates.

 

[windrivers]

Beating clothes on a rock...

Thanks for the explanation.

I guess now the problem I have getting my head around is that front loaders clean better because they emulate the action of beating clothes on a rock, and spend more time beating the clothes than a TL, and yet at the same time they are so much gentler on clothes.

Just to be clear, I'm not really trying to be argumentative, I have to admit there are advantages to FLs, I'm just hard-headed and old fashioned and want to keep my TL, which I also think has its advantages.

 

[henene4]

Curtains

Such sheer, floaty synthetic items really are a bain of FLs.

Either you need low water levels so they don't float over the lifters with extremely gentle rhythms or (done correctly IMO) need VERY high water levels with large baffles and a good agitation speed.

Still think that there is a basically no modern washer that can wash sheer synthetic curtains aswell as a Novotronic/Softtronic Miele or even later when they called the cycle "Synthetics" instead of "Delicatey".
Half full drum with water, no interim spins, and regular, but short and low agitation.
The load would float completely for ing itself under water.

That's the one kind of load where even I - a sucker for getting perfect results with as little usage possible - juat haven't found a good replacement for the half tub of water.

On the topic on "how can that clean" the only thing that I can just repeat and repeat is bath vs. shower:

Both cleans your body about equally.
Yet one uses a third or less the water.

A bath still has a reason to exist.
But as a society, we just can't (and most don't want to) afford everybody taking a full bath every day - sometimes multiple times.

Nobody says taking a bath once a week is wasteful. Nobody takes that away from you.
Just doing it every time you need to wash yourself can be considered just plain excessive.

 

[DADoES]

 
<blockquote>... want to keep my TL, which I also think has its advantages.</blockquote> What are your considered advantages of a toploader over a frontloader?