Re: Oct 2002 Consumer Reports Mag
Posted by Jim on October 11, 2002 at 13:52:14:
In response to Re: Oct 2002 Consumer Reports Mag
I often find that CR does not seem to agree with real world experience. I have also found that they don't always test a product the way a manufacturer designed it. Finally, they somehow factor in cost into areas that should not be considered, such as safety or performance (granted, safety is not an issue with most toilets) ;-]

: Hi Terry,
: I just read everything you have online about low flow toilets. I also read the latest article in the Oct 2002 Consumer Reports Mag. How can you rate the Toto Ultramax the best when CR rates it really low? Also, how come they rate the Briggs Vacuity the highest while you rate it poorly.

: I'm not trying to start an argument or long email thread here. I really want the best flush for the money and find it confusing how 2 reputable sources can come up with 2 completely different assessments?

: Please respond!! Inquiring minds want to know!

: Thanks in advance,
: Jeff

: Jeff,
: They also rate the Toto Carlyle as very good, it has the same flush system as the UltraMax.

: They rate the Kohler Wellworth as a good flusher, yet I'm receiving all kinds of calls from very unhappy homeowners that installed them based on what CR wrote.
: I'm now going back and installing Toto for these people and they love it.
: It's a tough way to learn though.
: CR should have had better reporting.

: Did CR mix up these two lines on their report? That was my first guess.

: Homeowners that have used both the Vacuity and the Toto products, tell me that Toto is much better.
: CR never tested the toilets with paper.
: I think you will find, that paper clogging is the main problem with toilets.
: Every plumber and homeowner knows that
: Every toilet will flush small round balls.
: What will you be flushing? Round balls?

: Some home-testing would have done wonders for their "test" results.

: Terry Love

Replies to this post
There are none.