Re: Low-flush toilets
Posted by hj on May 23, 2003 at 09:11:41:
In response to Re: Low-flush toilets
In the first place all the toilets have improved over the first low water consumption models. Aesthetics, and sometimes cost, are about the only difference between the two designs, except for the Toto adjustable which needs the smooth sides to hide the piping.

: First off, thanks for providing such an excellent Web site, particularly when it comes to your discussion of toilets. There seems to be this conspiracy of embarrassment about toilets, which is frustrating because we use the darn things every day. And it's a total drag when they don't work!

: Anyway. We currently have a Toto toilet. I don't know the age or model, but I'm presuming it dates back to the early days of water saving legislation. And it's really really bad. Usually need two flushes to clean things out and it churns up the surface of the water.

: So. We're looking for something new, but are a bit wary about Toto now. Would you say that their product quality has improved over the past ten years?

: Second question - I noticed you don't seem to list a lot of toilets like the Toto Pacifica with concealed trapways. Are there performance reasons for this? Or is the difference purely aesthetic and for cleaning convenience?

: Thanks again for the great site.

Replies to this post
There are none.