Toilet over-analysis - have some questions

[uscpsycho]

I am losing my mind trying to pick toilets. Losing. My. Mind.

1) Toto Ultramax I vs Ultramax II - As far as I can tell the difference is e-max vs tornado flushing but it's hard to decide which is better. What Toto needs to do is have a page with the pros and cons of all their flushing systems (so many!). But of course you never see "cons" so every system sounds like it is the best system because there is no fair comparison. Best I can tell is that the e-max might have a little stronger suction but the tornado does a better job of keeping the bowl clean. Is that correct?

2) Kohler Santa Rosa vs Ultramax toilets. I have an opportunity to get a couple of Santa Rosa's for under $200 each. Great deal but not worth it for me to get reduced performance to save a little money. Santa Rosa has tons of great reviews on every website that sells it and it seems to compare well to Toto's best. Is the Santa Rosa performance as good?

3) Kudos to Kohler for keeping it simple instead of offering a bunch of confusing and competing systems like Toto does. But using Kohler's comparison tool I see a huge price difference between toilets that seem to have the exact same features. For example the Memoirs toilet is nearly triple the price of Santa Rosa and they have a toilet at every price point in between. Are these price differences just based on size & aesthetics because I don't see much other differentiation.

4) There is some confusion on Terry's report on low flow toilets - https://terrylove.com/crtoilet.htm
He rates the Ultramax 4.5 hearts/stars and the Ultramax II 5 stars. So you'd think the Ultramax II is considered superior but then further down the page he says "My favorite toilet is the UltraMax by Toto." even though Ultramax II and Drake II both have higher heart/star rating.

This is very confusing when you're trying to decide between Ultramax I vs II. Why is a lower rated toilet his favorite?

Many thanks in advance.

 

[Jadnashua]

Given the choice and budget, I'd go with a Toto over a Kohler.

Given the choice and budget, I'd go for a II version of the toilet verses the 'original'. As the toilets get more efficient in the use of water, their water depth and surface area gets smaller to compensate. This exposes more surface area for debris. The II's flushing helps to offset that issue, plus, is easier to clean because there is no rim like in a conventional flush toilet. That's one reason why their super smooth glaze is standard on the II series...it makes it easier to remove 'skid marks' with the lower water usage.

 

[Sponsor]

 

[uscpsycho]

Why automatically go with Toto over Kohler? I'm also considering a Niagara Stealth but the one-piece I prefer takes 3-5 weeks to ship.

The Santa Rosa MAP flush score is >1000

However the Ultramax II is either 500 or 800 (see below); hard to know because the MAP website has conflicting information. I don't know which to believe, that's a 60% difference, which is correct? Either way the Santa Rosa outperforms the Toto according to MAP score, so why isn't that the automatic choice?

Same model numbers listed as 500 and 800:

Toto
Ultramax II EL (one-piece - 12-inch rough-in)
Model # MS604114CEF(G) OR CST604CEF(G) OR MW***CEF(G) (one-piece)
MaP Flush Score >= 800

Toto
Ultramax II EL ADA (Formerly Gwyneth One-Piece)
Model # CST604CEF(G) OR MS604***CEF(G) (one-piece) OR MW604***CEF(G) OR MS604164
MaP Flush Score >= 500

 

[Jadnashua]

FWIW, the guy who invented the MAP scores said anything over 500 is excess. Manufacturers have learned how to make their MAP scores higher, but that does not mean they perform that much better in the real world...plastic sleeves on paste are not the same as the real stuff! The test has evolved over time, so it depends somewhat on when the test was performed...the newer test is (IMHO) easier to get a higher number on than the older one. So, somewhat depends on how long the model has been around as to which test procedure they used.

If you look at the exposed trapway on a Toto toilet, then most of the Kohlers, you'll see that the Toto has a more gradual curve that puts the end pointing straight (or nearly) down into the flange. Most of the Kohlers have a fairly distinct right-angle bend going into the flange which slows things down, and offers a blockage point if things are a bit harder than normal...they don't like to turn that corner. Plus, Toto has the lower return rate for defects. Being about the largest manufacturer of toilets in the world also helps...it's important to get the product right. Kohler is famous for making changes, sometimes, just for the sake of change, making getting parts harder, too.

 

[Terry]

Some of the MaP scores are from the old way of testing. Bean paste being flushed. But then they decided they want to reuse the paste and started wrapping them in plastic. All the scores went up after that. So the older bowls get the low numbers and the recently tested bowls get the high numbers, and in the end it doesn't really matter. Bowls that test 500 grams have been working great.
My review was started early on and does need updating. Any Ultramax works very well. It's mainly the 3" flush valve from the tank and the shape of the trapway. The II series changes the rinse pattern, but not the flushing. I have both in the home and they both work well. I have sold thousands of them. We also do service and installation. I sometimes pull out the other brands when I'm replacing with TOTO and find homes for them for those that prefer the CR reviews. They're happy, and I get to dispose of something that a now happy TOTO owner wanted gone.

All of the bowls have gotten better recently. The choices you listed above will work fine.

 

[uscpsycho]

I discovered that there is a 1.0gpf Ultramax II in addition to the 1.28gpf Ultramax II.

I'd love to get a toilet that uses less water but am I sacrificing performance if I get the 1.0 version? Or if that's a dumb question, will the difference be significant or noticeable?

 

[Terry]

I discovered that there is a 1.0gpf Ultramax II in addition to the 1.28gpf Ultramax II.

I'd love to get a toilet that uses less water but am I sacrificing performance if I get the 1.0 version? Or if that's a dumb question, will the difference be significant or noticeable?

I sell a lot of the 1G Drake II's in Seattle where they get the rebate.
It's a good toilet.

 

[WJcandee]

If you're really wanting to save water, then you will probably be amazed at how well the Drake II 1G works with so little water. If what you're looking for is raw performance, however, including great bowl rinse, a good-sized water spot, and a flush that seems to have authority, there's a meaningful difference between the two: that one-quart of water (20 percent of the usage by a 1.28) is not an insignificant amount. What happens in the 1g is that you push the handle and most stuff goes down very-reliably, with decent bowl rinse. Like I said, it's WAY better than one might expect, but it screams, "I'm saving water, look what I can do with one gallon!" rather than "Look how powerful I am!!" The people on here with 1.6gpf Totos who ask if there's any way to put MORE water in the flush and ask if there's a way to drain the whole 3.5 gallon tank every time just because they're not satisfied that there isn't a huge rush of water every flush are not the target market for this thing.

Here's a video of the 1G flushing. Like I said, if you're looking to save water, it's amazing. The stuff that stays on the bowl in this video is there because the videographer put avacado in the bowl and then let it dry. Nothing but scrubbing is gonna get that off.

 

[Terry]

The one gallon Drake II tank. It's a different flush valve and handle.

The CST453CUFG Round front Drake II

 

[uscpsycho]

I ended up getting the 1 gallon Ultra Max II. I haven't used it full time because I haven't moved into the house yet but I feel like I've used it enough to be glad I made the choice I did. There have been times I thought it would struggle but it hasn't missed a beat. And I'm happy to be saving water with every flush, I'd already have wasted a lot more water if I got the 1.6 gallon version.

It's kind of amazing how well it flushes with so little water. Thanks to you guys for giving me the courage to pull the trigger on this.

Just posting this update for anyone else who is researching toilets and comes across this thread. I've brought my share of toilets to their knees so an endorsement from me does not come lightly. If anything should happen to change my mind I'll post an update. If there are no updates to this thread you can assume I'm still a happy camper.

 

[WJcandee]

I'm delighted you gave it a try and more delighted that you love it. Thank you for your honest review. I think that video that I linked to says it all: the thing really works. But I also know that some folks would look at the same video and pass, because they would not be happy with anything less than 1.6gpf, and would want even more. I feel like you made a rational evaluation based on your own preferences, pulled the trigger, and ended up with a product that did what you wanted: a toilet that works exceptionally-well on a minimal amount of water.

Thanks again for sharing your process and your result! I hope that you love your new house once you are fully-moved-in, and that you continue to love your 1G!

 

[uscpsycho]

Every fiber in my being told me not to buy this thing because of my "track record" with toilets. But I want to conserve water and the whole reason I came here is to get the advice of pros. So if I don't take that advice I'm wasting my time. I forced myself to have faith in you guys and now I have no regrets.

Thank you for helping me make a very good decision!

Now hopefully someone will help me out over in the hot water heater board