|Posted by Deb on February 07, 2004 at 10:32:19:|
|In response to Re: Why not an acylic tub?|
: I'm remodeling a bathroom. I have a cast-iron pepto - pink tub, which is in fine shape (but pink) and a total crap plasic three-piece surround.
: I have already decided to replace the surround and the floor with ceramic tile, which means that replacing (rather than refinishing or lining) the tub is probably the most cost effective route - except for the cost of a new cast-iron tub.
: The cheapest I can get is actually smaller in bathing area and water depth than what I have now, and will cost me about $360. ( An Eljer 'Naples', if that helps)
: For $240 I can get a Kohler 'Devonshire', which is much more spacious and still fits my existing alcove.
: I have seen lots of recommendations on this site and others in strong favor of cast iron over other materials, but before I give up my luxury tub ( and haul a cast iron tub upstairs!), I want to know exactly what is wrong with an acrylic tub. I'm willing to accept that they lose heat quicker and radiate more noise when filling, but not that they only last 3 years or dissolve if you use the wrong kind of soap.
: Details, please?
I think you have pretty much hit the nail on the head. I would say heat loss and noise are two of the major reasons that people choose cast iron. They will also last a lifetime.
|Replies to this post|
|There are none.|