Do the new low-use-water toilets work as good as the older models?

Users who are viewing this thread

CountryBumkin

Active Member
Messages
915
Reaction score
70
Points
28
Location
Orlando, FL
I still have the older (1990) model 3.5 gallon toilets in my house. I plan to remodel one bathroom and if wife wants different color sinks and tub, toilet will need to be replaced to match colors.

Should (can) I explain to her that the new toilets are not as good as the old models and therefore we should keep the one we have? Or do the new ones really work as good or better than the older models?

Did you ever see the episode of "married With Children" where Al goes out of his way to buy a black-market toilet just to get a "real man's flush". That's me. Honesty, I don't care that much about saving water (shame on me. I know) I'd rather have a proper flush.

 

WJcandee

Wise One
Messages
3,181
Reaction score
170
Points
63
Location
New York, NY
Back when that episode was made (and a subsequent King of The Hill episode, too), the transition towards lower water usage wasn't being accompanied by very smart engineering. So the flushes of the original 1.6 gallon-per-flush toilets were pretty bad. Didn't evacuate much mass from the bowl and didn't work reliably. We had a beautiful Kohler toilet from that era. Expensive. Very nice-looking. I swear if you put much more than one sheet of toilet paper in it, it clogged. And the design was so bad that adding water to the flush, holding down the handle, didn't help one bit. I eventually replaced it with a Toto Drake, one of the earlier high-performance low-flows, and never looked back. That toilet works wonderfully.

For a long time, we were advocating almost entirely Totos on this forum, because across the model line, they flushed very will and were very-consistently-made, with high quality-control, so when you got it home, it had zero defects. (Japanese company, so it's made like a Toyota, meaning well and consistently). They still flush as well or better than any brand, but some other manufacturers are finally starting to catch up on performance, and starting to realize that quality means something.

A friend of mine recently put a $99 Glacier Bay 1.28 gallon-per-flush toilet in the mens room at her bar (which is a colorful place where things get broken). I don't think the fill valve was ready for prime time, but the contractor replaced it with a Fluidmaster 400A. The thing ran fine, with virtually no clogs despite some real abuse, until someone smashed the tank about 2 months ago. Replaced it with another $99 Glacier Bay. Because a cheapo brand like that is often changing models, the tank from the new one didn't fit the old one, so the whole thing had to be replaced, but the new one (also with a cheapo fill valve that isn't likely up to frequent commercial use) has flushed everything thrown at it for several weeks. But putting in a good valve costs maybe $14, so no big deal.

The new flushes aren't "manly" like Al Bundy's preferred flush. It's more like "slurp, gurgle...gone". The science of the flushes is not that the bowl fills with water and pushes the waste down. It's that a siphon is created using very little water, which sucks (slurp) the waste from the bowl. Very anticlimactic, but very effective.

We can recommend the Toto Drake (CST744E), Toto Drake II (CST454CEFG), and even the Toto Entrada (CST244EF), as well as the more-expensive Totos. The Entrada is a Best Buy, very-reasonably-priced yet very well made, with a very-very-effective flush. The street price (from a good plumbing supply place or other good sources when you do your research) is substantially-less than list price on these toilets (even less than Home Depot charges for them on special order), so they are worth looking at.

If you want a very-exciting flush that offers a real WOOSH!!!, then look at a pressure-assist toilet, with the Sloan Flushmate (the other pressure flush units are less-reliable than the Sloan and should be avoided). It uses the same amount of water as the efficient gravity-flush toilets, but is much more dramatic. And it flushes well. Gerber and American Standard make some good pressure-assist models.

I shy away from Kohler, because they made that horrible, expensive, badly-performing low-flow that tortured me for years and marketed it as if it were a great toilet, when they had to know how badly it sucked. Between the toilet and the plumber's markup on it and the plumber's expensive price to "set" it (a Long Island thing), we probably spent over a thousand dollars on it. And I will never forgive them for that. Particularly after I was able to replace it myself with a fantastic Toto for less than $250. No more Kohler in our house ever. There are plenty of other manufacturers who didn't gleefully inflict garbage on their customers for years.
 
Last edited:

Gary Swart

In the Trades
Messages
8,101
Reaction score
84
Points
48
Location
Yakima, WA
You really have no choice but to go with a low flow. It is illegal to sell anything else in this country. You do not want or need a pressure assist toilet. I still think Toto is the best brand going, there are numerous styles to select from with a wide range of prices. You should have no problem find Toto in Orlando.
 

CountryBumkin

Active Member
Messages
915
Reaction score
70
Points
28
Location
Orlando, FL
My choice is to keep what I have now - I just don't let wife change color of sinks and tub (since the toilet color has to match those). Plus that would save me some me money.
But "happy wife = happy life" so ... your right, I really don't have a choice.
 

Terry

The Plumbing Wizard
Staff member
Messages
29,942
Reaction score
3,459
Points
113
Location
Bothell, Washington
Website
terrylove.com
I never cared for the 3.5's
There was a short period of time when they went from 5.0 to 3.5 and didn't really have it right.
The new 1.28's will work better.

I don't know anyone with the current crop of perforance bowls that bothers having a plunger around.
With the 3.5's you need the plungers.
 

Gary Swart

In the Trades
Messages
8,101
Reaction score
84
Points
48
Location
Yakima, WA
Just for fun, figure what you pay per gallon of water. Then estimate how many times your toilets are flushed in a day then a week, and finally a year. Multiply that by 3.5. Multiply that by the price per gallon. That's how much your toilets cost per year. Now, divide that by 3. That's how much your new 1.28 gpf low flow toilets would cost. It might surprise you.
 

CountryBumkin

Active Member
Messages
915
Reaction score
70
Points
28
Location
Orlando, FL
Just for fun, figure what you pay per gallon of water. Then estimate how many times your toilets are flushed in a day then a week, and finally a year. Multiply that by 3.5. Multiply that by the price per gallon. That's how much your toilets cost per year. Now, divide that by 3. That's how much your new 1.28 gpf low flow toilets would cost. It might surprise you.

I'm on a well, so the cost is more about the additional electric and wear on my well-pump (and the environmental cost of wasting water).
Regardless, since Terry and others have said the new low-flow toilets (i.e. Toto) are as good as the older high-water-use toilets (with regards to flushing) I won't try to convince my wife not to pick a new color for the bath remodel.
I'll convince/remind myself that the additional cost of adding a toilet to this project will even out after some time in electricity savings and pump wear.

Thanks for the interesting discussion.
 

Wallijonn

Member
Messages
335
Reaction score
15
Points
18
Location
Arizona
Totos are NOT like low-flow faucets and shower heads. Totos work just fine. May I suggest the ADA height Elongated Drake with 1.28gpf? It should work just fine. Don't use double ply toilet paper (or silk), though - depress the lever all the way down and let go of the lever. Presto - it should be gone.

No, if you're going to have problems in FL. it will probably be because your house is level with the road (no pipe inclination) or you have a cistern (low water pressure), or you have a septic tank. If your house is level with the road you will probably want the 1.6gpf Drake. idkfs, but the greater gpf should help flush it better than the 1.28gpf.
 
Last edited:

CountryBumkin

Active Member
Messages
915
Reaction score
70
Points
28
Location
Orlando, FL
Thanks again.
I'm on a septic system too. I appreciate the advise. I'll look at getting a Toto Drake.
Wife wants ADA height toilet - I'm resisting because I don't want to accept that I'm getting old (I mean if I can't get off a regular height toilet - just shoot me now and get it over with).
 

Chefwong

Member
Messages
949
Reaction score
11
Points
18
Location
District of Columbia
CountryBumkin -

Those toto's are the cats paws !
I don't really pay much to water bills but when I switched to Toto's, I saw the light !
I too was concerned about how little water usage it used but I don't pay much attention to that anymore
 

Wallijonn

Member
Messages
335
Reaction score
15
Points
18
Location
Arizona
Wife wants ADA height toilet - I'm resisting because I don't want to accept that I'm getting old.

Hmm, usually I hear that women prefer regular height toilets since they tend to be shorter than their husbands. I have both the regular sized Drake and the ADA height Drake. Here's the problem as I see it - the regular height toilet is too low, for me, so I need a 1" thick seat to bring it up to 15.5" and the ADA, at 16.25" is too high so I need a 0.5" - 0.75" plastic seat to get me as low as possible. ymmv. To me (!!!) the perfect bowl height would be 15.0 - 15.25" (without seat) - which would mean a height of 16.0" with a seat. But Toto doesn't make one that size.

The ADA height adds a little more "oomph" when flushing because the greater height adds a little more water velocity. But what I really notice is that the water spots are different on the two Drakes, with the ADA being more rounded than the regular height, and the regular height having more of a squarish/diamond shaped water spot. And for some reason it seems that I get more water splash back with the regular height, which also means that it gets dirtier as you are trying to hold up the wall. So, as a guy, I suggest the ADA height. Just don't add a slow-close seat. Definitely add a slow close seat on the regular height Drake, though. In the master bathroom - go ADA; in the hallway bathroom - go with the regular height. (Heck, you may even want to go with a rounded bowl - just in case the elongated bowl causes frustration with the females in the house - some complain of front splash). With the regular height you may want to go with the 1.6gpf and with the ADA you may want to go with the 1.28gpf, all things being equal. As I said, if the house is level with the sewer pipes you may want to go with the 1.6gpf to make sure you have enough pressure to flush completely.

You will have to trust me on this - the ADA looks much better. It looks racier. Part of it is the Kohler seat. The Toto seat makes it look clumsier since the height juts up more. Do a Google search for Toto toilet setas to see what I mean. The ADA is about 30.0" high, which is about the same height as the vanity cabinet, which makes it seem as if it flows more with the room. The closer the 30" vanity is to a regular height Drake the smaller it will look.
 

CountryBumkin

Active Member
Messages
915
Reaction score
70
Points
28
Location
Orlando, FL
Heck, you may even want to go with a rounded bowl - just in case the elongated bowl causes frustration with the females in the house - some complain of front splash).

Ha.
My friend had a plumber install a new toilet. He told me, the plumber suggested he get the elongated bowel as it has a little extra room up front "for the guy" (wink, wink). My friend didn't want to argue/admit that he didn't "need" any extra room up front, so he just got the elongated bowl.
 

Jadnashua

Retired Defense Industry Engineer xxx
Messages
32,770
Reaction score
1,190
Points
113
Location
New England
Most dining room chairs are higher than an ADA toilet...you should not be sitting for very long on a toilet, anyways. If you are, maybe you need more roughage!

The functional differences between toilets that used lots of water (some of the really old ones could use 7 gallons or more!) is that the low-flow ones won't clean the bowl as well. WHether that is an issue depends a lot on your diet. Toto's dual-cyclone flush helps minimize some of those differences, as does their (optional on some) super smooth glaze they call CEFIONTECT (similar glazes are sometimes available on other brands - I've not had a chance to actually compare, though).

Even with a well, minimizing water use can be the right thing to do, especially if you are also on a septic system.
 

CountryBumkin

Active Member
Messages
915
Reaction score
70
Points
28
Location
Orlando, FL
the low-flow ones won't clean the bowl as well. WHether that is an issue depends a lot on your diet.
Well I don't clean the toilets - but I'd rather not hear any complaints from the wife - and I've been married long enough to know that whatever dirt may be left in the bowl will surely be blamed on me.
So "CEFIONTECT" it is.
 

JerryR

Active Member
Messages
584
Reaction score
41
Points
28
Location
Florida
I've owned 3 homes in Florida at once 2 years ago. I replaced every toilet with Toto Drakes in every bathroom but one (pool bathroom).

As of last month I'm down to one home. It has a Toto drake ADA in master bath, standard Drake in guest bath and 1997 American Standard in pool bathroom.

My toilet of choice is my ADA height Toto Drake in my master bathroom. I also have a Toto Washlet on that toilet.

I installed a standard height Drake in guest bathroom only because my 11 year old grandson spends time with us and he uses that one. I don't like using it.

I'm 6' and 240 lbs. My wife is 5' 4" and at least 100 lbs lighter than me. She also prefers the ADA height Drakes.
 

JerryR

Active Member
Messages
584
Reaction score
41
Points
28
Location
Florida
FYI, I don't see much difference between Sanigloss and non-Sanigloss bowl. They both stay clean.
 

Jadnashua

Retired Defense Industry Engineer xxx
Messages
32,770
Reaction score
1,190
Points
113
Location
New England
Diet can play a big part of 'skid marks' on a toilet bowl...but, regardless, CEFIONTECT brushes clean pretty easily...much more so than one with standard glazes. If you never experience that, more power to you. It's standard on some models, and not an exorbitantly expensive option...I find it worthwhile. My Toto toilets with it have been easier to keep clean than the ones they replaced.
 

JerryR

Active Member
Messages
584
Reaction score
41
Points
28
Location
Florida
Country bumpkin,

Before you do anything, measure the "rough-in" of your current installation.

Every home in Florida I've owned rarely had 12" rough in. Almost all mine measured between 10.75-11.0" from finished wall to toilet hold bolts on the flange. That's 10 toilets I measured and only 2 exceeded 11.0". Toto Drake fits roughin to about 10.75". Drake II needs at least 11.375"

Original Drake in ADA height is not available with Sanigloss. Standard height original Drake, Drake II ADA and standard height Drake II are available with Sanigloss.

There is a Original Drake available with a 10" rough in in ADA height (Universal Height). It will install down to 9.25" rough in. It does not have Sanigloss. I installed one of those in a previous home guest bathroom and it worked very well.
 
Top
Hey, wait a minute.

This is awkward, but...

It looks like you're using an ad blocker. We get it, but (1) terrylove.com can't live without ads, and (2) ad blockers can cause issues with videos and comments. If you'd like to support the site, please allow ads.

If any particular ad is your REASON for blocking ads, please let us know. We might be able to do something about it. Thanks.
I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks