We put all the vacuums we evaluate through the same battery of tests. Unfortunately, this one fared increasingly poorly as we moved from hard wood floors to high carpet.
OK—not great—on everything except high carpet.
The Hoover MultiCyclonic SH40060 picked up just over 11 percent of the dirt we put down in our high pile carpet test. That’s far less than other similarly-priced cleaners we’ve tested. Unless you want around 90 percent of dirt to remain stuck in the fibers of your carpets and rugs, this vacuum may not be the best choice. Pet hair performance was also sub par, with fur flying and hair getting wrapped around the brushroll. When it came to lightweight debris—things like rice, noodles, and cereal—it all got sucked up without incident. The heavier stuff—coins, paperclips, candies—stayed behind.
Even on short carpet, where vacuums routinely pick up 70 to 90 percent of dirt, the Hoover barely got 57 percent of the standard load of sand, dust and talc we added to our test berber. It was quite disappointing.
Finally, some good news: The Hoover managed to pick up 92 percent of dirt from our hardwood floor. Since we turned off the powered brushroll, that’s thanks to straight suction. Unfortunately, you’ve paid for a vacuum that promises to agitate dirt out of thick carpet, too...not entirely true, as it turns out.
Lightweight and easy to maneuver, but not enough handle controls.
Because it’s a canister vacuum, the user doesn’t have to move the entire 16 lb. weight of the cleaner with each pass. That means the Hoover MultiCyclonic SH40060 is somewhat easier to maneuver than most uprights. Its brush head is extremely low to the ground, so it’ll fit under furniture, too. A major complaint? Only the brushroll can be controlled on the handle. Otherwise, the on/off switch is a foot pedal on the cleaner itself. That’s a bit annoying.
There are plenty of pieces that hide away and store on-board. The power cord may be very short, but it is retractable. It requires some coaxing, though, as the retracting mechanism is a bit weak. The hose wand does extend, but because it requires the user to push the unlock mechanism in the opposite direction that the hose is extending, and because the wand fits quite snugly, it’s definitely a two-hand task. A crevice tool and upholstery brush sit beneath the handle. There’s no wide floor brush or small, turbine powered brush.
The dirt holder clicks into place at the front of the container, and empties with a touch of a button. It’s easy to use, though—as with all bagless vacuums—there’s a risk of some dirt ending up in the air. The vacuum comes with a washable prefilter and a HEPA exhaust filter, but it's worth mentioning that it's not a sealed HEPA design.
Relatively quiet and efficient.
At around 72 dB, this was a relatively quiet vacuum. The motor whine was soft, and the snarl of the power brush wasn’t at all bothersome. Compared to similar vacuums with powered brushrolls, this one draws about 100 fewer watts on average.
The higher the carpet, the worse the clean.
By far, the most disappointing result we found from our tests of the MultiCyclonic SH40060 came from its lack of power on thick carpets, leaving nearly 90 percent of dirt behind. Though it has a powered brushroll that—in theory—is supposed to kick up embedded dirt so it can get sucked into the dust cup, the Hoover MultiCyclonic SH40060 was a total disappointment in this regard.
It did well enough on hardwood floors, though, and wasn’t all bad on short carpet. Pet hair and heavy debris performance was similarly sub par, though smaller items got sucked up without incident.
The MultiCyclonic SH40060’s small cleaner head and diminutive footprint mean that it’s perfect for moving around a small room or apartment. Unfortunately, that's about all it has going for it.
What looks like a promising package—a $140 canister with a powered brushroll that’s lightweight and maneuverable—doesn’t seem so attractive after our tests showed how much it struggled with carpet cleaning. Add in a few usability issues, and this vacuum doesn't seem like as good of a deal.
Meet the tester
Former Editor in Chief, Reviewed Home@itskeithbarry
Keith was the Editor in Chief of Reviewed's appliance and automotive sites. His work has appeared in publications such as Wired, Car & Driver, and CityLab.
Checking our work.
We use standardized and scientific testing methods to scrutinize every product and provide you with objectively accurate results. If you’ve found different results in your own research, email us and we’ll compare notes. If it looks substantial, we’ll gladly re-test a product to try and reproduce these results. After all, peer reviews are a critical part of any scientific process.Shoot us an email