The testing firm you love to hate just posted their findings on the now twice-tweaked TR series, which carry the model numbers 7003, 5003 and 3003. The machine's total score went up to 62 and it zipped past several competitors in the rankings chart (top-loaders with an agitator division).

They test each machine's Normal cycle using the warm water and heaviest soil settings on an 8-lb. load. SQ/Alliance lengthened that cycle from the previous 60 minutes to 70 minutes, with the additional time being added to the wash agitation portion of the cycle.

This helped boost the TR7003's cleaning performance to Very Good. The original version of the TR scored Poor in cleaning. The first tweak in cycle length (about a year ago maybe?) nudged that score up to Fair.

However, the score for energy efficiency dropped from Very Good to Fair, which leads me to believe the Normal cycle now provides true warm water for the wash. The parameters that most affect the energy efficiency score are the amount of energy used to heat the water and the amount of water extracted from the load. Since the spin speed and the length of the final spin appear unchanged, that leaves wash water temperature as the deciding factor. The original TR7000 (like my 2017 9-Series) provides what amounts to a cold fill regardless of wash temp selected.

The water efficiency score also dropped from Good to Fair, leading one to the assumption that the auto-fill setting is opting to provide more water.

While CR claims (or at least used to) that cleaning performance is the most heavily-weighted factor of a washer's total score, the TR7000 still beats the TR7003 by one point, receiving a 63. I can only assume the big drop in energy efficiency coupled with a drop in water efficiency explains why a washer receiving a Very Good washing score is still bested--marginally--by a machine receiving only a Fair rating.

As I've commented numerous times, I wish they'd just print the numerical score for each testing parameter. There's a 20 point spread in each rating (Poor, Fair, Good, Very Good, Excellent) and I'd really appreciate knowing if a machine's cleaning score, for instance, just barely made it over the line to Very Good, or if it missed being rated Excellent by only a point or two. But no, we aren't allowed access to something as impenetrably complex as a freaking two digit number.

At any rate, SQ figured out that if you provide enough true warm wash water and add 15-20 minutes of wash agitation time (compared to the very first iteration), even the TR series does a better job of cleaning.

Still glad I have the truly old-school 9-Series.😉

Good observations, I just went to CR online and read the updates.

The fact that Energy Star ratings are based on the normal cycle with no options and the fact that CR ratings are based on the same configuration have made these ratings nearly useless in the real world.

The low-cost Roper/Amana comes in dead-last but there are knowledgeable users here who have it and love it.