By Steve Graham, Networx
For several years, front-loading washing machines have been the best choice for laundry rooms, offering better cleaning and higher efficiency than top-loading machines. However, top-loaders remain popular because they are more convenient (no bending down to load and unload the machine) and because front-loaders have a couple of persistent flaws. The industry has also tried to level the playing field with better, more efficient top-loading washing machines.
It’s time to revisit the old top-loading vs. front-loading faceoff, with the new high-efficiency models joining team top-load. We compare the price, efficiency, performance and convenience of front-loading and top-loading machines.
A small, no-frills top-load washer will set you back about $300. The cheapest front-loading machines cost at least $200 more. Another $50 will get you into a high-efficiency top-loading machine. These work more like front-loaders, cycling clothes through a partially full tub of water instead of using a large central agitator to slosh clothes around a full tub.
However, as we’ll explain in more detail below, the front-loaders are the cheapest to operate, using the smallest amounts of water and energy. By some estimates, a front-loading washer can save $100 per year on utility bills compared to a traditional top-loader.
Front-loading machines may also save money in smaller ways. Clothes should last longer when washed in front-loading machines than they would in traditional top-loaders. The front-loaders also use less detergent, but this might not translate to monetary savings because low-suds detergent for high-efficiency washers often costs more than standard detergent.
As noted above, front-loading washing machines are more energy- and water-efficient than traditional top-loading machines. Of 190 Energy Star-approved washers, only a handful are top-loaders, and even these specially designed high-efficiency models fall behind the front-loading models for energy and water usage.
The most efficient washer, according to the Department of Energy, is a Whirlpool front-loader with an advertised 5 cubic feet of capacity (the Energy Star table lists 4.33 cubic feet of capacity, but every brand seems to round up generously with capacity ratings). It uses 114 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity per year, making it 165 percent more efficient than the federal standard.
The best top loaders are only 90 percent more efficient than the federal standard. Kenmore makes a smaller 3.7 cubic foot washing machine that uses 128 kWh per year.
The front-loaders also provide substantial secondary energy savings by using less water and spinning more water out of clothes, requiring shorter, less energy-intensive drying cycles.
On average, front-loaders reduce water use by about 40 percent, according to TXU Energy, a Texas utility with a Texas-sized online library of energy information. TXU estimates that the average family could save about 7,000 gallons of water per year by replacing an inefficient top-loader. Heating 7,000 gallons of water also requires significant amounts of power.