LG LDF8072ST Review

Introduction

Aside from the wash options, the {{product.model}} is a solid machine, if a bit expensive and erratic. It also well designed, with an extremely high capacity (thanks to the cutlery rack). Our biggest complaint regards its inconsistency, specifically with efficiency and cleaning performance. For those who are concerned about cost, the $1,200 price tag may be an insurmountable barrier. And we’d have to agree.

Design & Usability

{{section_header}}{{section.name}}{{/section_header}}

The LDF8072ST is a tastefully designed machine that delivers a somewhat clunky user experience.

This stainless steel model has a very traditional design that should be familiar to anyone who has owned a dishwasher before. The matching stainless interior holds two main racks, plus a cutlery rack. Unfortunately, they all felt rather flimsy and the cheap wheels came off the track without much provocation. The top rack features a series of blue latches and holders that did little more than get in the way. The angle and placement of the tines was also somewhat unusual, forcing us to rethink our traditional dish loading pattern. The bottom rack is highly adjustable, and features a metallic front handle and a collapsible cutlery basket that breaks down into three smaller units.

The control panel looks daunting, what with all the doodads and curlicues, but the touch response is accurate and reliable. Our main beef with the control panel is its lack of intuitiveness. You’ll have to consult the manual to figure out which button or logo means what. We also really like the blue back-lighting, and the timer is a much appreciated (yet under-utilized) bonus—what's more, it’s accurate.

{{photo_gallery "Front Closed Photo", "Fingerprints Photo", "Controls 1 Photo", "Controls 2 Photo", "Front Open Photo", "Interior Detail Photo", "Top Rack Photo", "Top Rack Detail Photo 1", "Top Rack Detail Photo 2", "Top Rack Detail Photo 3", "Bottom Rack Photo", "Bottom Rack Detail Photo 2", "Bottom Rack Detail Photo 3", "Cutlery Basket Photo", "Cutlery Basket Detail Photo 1", "Cutlery Basket Detail Photo 2", "Cutlery Basket Detail Photo 3"}}

Features

{{section_header}}{{section.name}}{{/section_header}}

The array of wash options and features is so extensive that it feels somewhat like a smokescreen for the middling performance.

There are six cycles in the {{product.model}}: Steam Power, Steam Dual (which washes the upper and lower racks with different spray intensities), Steam Delicate, Normal, Quick & Dry, and Quick. While that's a pretty big number of cycles, the array of extra options is so large that they're difficult to keep track of. You can adjust the spray intensity (soft, medium, and strong), set a delay of up to 19 hours, or activate the extra dry (adds 30 minutes of extra dry time), sanitary (heats water to 160 degrees), or extra rinse (adds another rinse to cycle) functions.

If that's not enough, there are several additional wash options, too: a rinse only (simply rinses dishes to be washed later), an Eco option that uses less water, and a half load setting (washes just the upper or lower rack). There are also a number of other goodies, unrelated to washing, such as a child lock, a digital time display, and LG's Smart Diagnosis for any troubleshooting needs that may arise.

Performance

{{section_header}}{{section.name}}{{/section_header}}

It won’t knock your socks off, but it shouldn’t disappoint you either.

Most of the {{product.model}}’s performance issues had to do with inconsistency. Across multiple passes, the cleaning power seemed to fluctuate—an issue that only gets worse if you don't clean the filter regularly.

Clearly the best performer, the Steam Power cycle adds (you guessed it) steam for a superb clean. While it was far from perfect, most of our stained dishes still came close to completely clean. The Steam Power cycle will cost you a bit more to run, but if this isn’t a concern, we’d recommend using it for even slightly larger-than-normal loads.

It's all downhill from there, though. Since the Quick Cycle consumed more than nine gallons of water, we expected some shiny dishes. Unfortunately, none of our test stains were completely washed away. Because this cycle is less efficient than the Normal wash and only slightly less time-consuming, there really aren’t many reasons to run it. The Normal wash is a better choice: while still disappointing, it is more efficient. It left some food particles floating around inside the dishwasher, and none of the stains were completely removed, either; it sounds worse than it is, as it essentially delivered low- to mid-range performance. Trouble is, that doesn't jive with the price tag.

Conclusion

{{section_header}}{{section.name}}{{/section_header}}

Lots of control over a machine is only as rewarding as its base performance, and this machine is found wanting.

The {{product.model}} is all about you, in that it puts a high level of control in your hands. You can opt for the simple default settings, but what’s unique about this machine is how much you're able to control individual cycles, customizing them to suit your needs.

That said, the base performance of this dishwasher just isn't worth a $1,200 price tag. If you can find it on sale, it may be worth a closer look; the best we could find, though, was just $1,100, a discount that's too shallow to make it worth your attention.

Science Introduction

{{section_header}}{{section.name}}{{/section_header}}

While the non-performance related aspects did well, take a closer look at the data from our time with the {{product.name}}. It'll give you a better idea of why we were so disappointed.

Performance

{{section_header}}{{section.name}}{{/section_header}}

If a machine doesn't perform well on the most basic level, is it ever really worth buying?

The Normal wash failed to remove any stain in its entirety from our test dishes; this is a more common occurrence with cheaper models, but not for others in this price range. Aside from the usually difficult spinach test, leftover food soils were sparse but scattered throughout. The water-guzzling Quick & Dry was far from perfect; it, too, failed to remove any stain in full, and it had some serious trouble with the spinach test.

The Steam Power cycle was the best by far, leaving only a few specks of dried-on residue behind. That said, it's also the longest (and, as such, least efficient) cycle on the machine, clocking in at 167 minutes. Like the rest, it's not exceptionally long, nor is it terribly fast, comparatively speaking. The Quick & Dry cycle took 87 minutes to complete (pretty slow for a quick wash), while the Quick Cycle (which skips the drying phase) took a much brisker 38 minutes. The Normal wash lasted a somewhat lengthy 139 minutes.

{{photo_gallery "Science Section 1 Images"}}

Efficiency

{{section_header}}{{section.name}}{{/section_header}}

This model is right up there with some of the most inefficient machines we’ve tested.

Electricity consumption was mostly average. We found the Quick & Dry cycle consumed 0.56 kWh per wash, while the Normal used 0.65 kWh. The Steam Power cycle, however, used quite a lot: it required a sizable 1.23 kWh.

While that on its own isn't great, water consumption is where things really start to fall apart. We found the Quick & Dry cycle drained a whopping 9.17 gallons of hot water, a ridiculous amount for any cycle, let alone a quick wash. The Normal and Steam Power cycles used slightly less—6.07 and 7.02 gallons, respectively. Assuming that the Normal wash will be selected 50 percent of the time, we calculate that the {{product.model}} will cost you roughly $37.19 per year to operate. We’ve seen far worse, but folks who are already worried about their utility bills may want to take this into consideration.

{{photo_gallery "Science Section 2 Images"}}

Capacity

{{section_header}}{{section.name}}{{/section_header}}

Tons of room for extra-large loads

Because of the cutlery rack, which allows you to store silverware and utensils separately, we were able to fit a whopping 12 place settings, including a serving setting. There is a small caveat here, though: industry testing standards call for the inclusion of one serving setting for every six place settings. Since we were unable to fit that last serving setting, this dishwasher was docked somewhat, officially holding up to 11.5 place settings.

{{photo_gallery "Science Section 3 Images"}}