Toto UltraMax rim wash

[norbus]

Local plumber agreed this Toto is good. His only criticism is that it doesn't wash the rim very well. He likes the Gerber UltraFlush better. I know this is a lot personal experience and opinion, but any comments on the rim cleaning? The Gerber seems like it would have a louder flush due to the compressed air. (The Toto doesn't use the same system, does it?)

Appreciate any comments.
Dave

 

[Terry]

The main selling point for the Gerber, is that only plumbers sell them.
I started off selling the Gerber Ultraflush in 1996. It was a bit hard to sell more then one to anybody. The old units could startle you when you went to flush. The new tanks have reduced that somewhat. The noise curve is still upfront for the pressure assist and later for the gravity.
The Toto uses gravity with a larger flush valve. Most of the noise comes in at the end of the flush. By that time you have gotten used to the fact that yes, you have indeed flushed a toilet. The reverse sound curve of the pressure assist means that "Wham" I just flushed it. It's a little different.
If you are looking for bowl rinse, pick up the Toto Ultramax II, it comes with CEFIONTECT and double cyclone rinse. I'm selling a lot of those right now.
If you are comparing two piece toilets, then it would be the Drake II, and the Gerber, or even the original Drakes and the Gerber.
My price for the elongated Drake is $220 versus $300 for the Gerber. I sell a heck of a lot more Toto Drakes at $220 then I do the Gerber at $300

 

[Sponsor]

 

[norbus]

Wow - thanks for the quick reply, Terry.

Toto looks like a good brand - I'll just have to read a bunch of posts to see the differences between models for the money. Main selling point between the Drake and Ultramax seems to be the one-piece construction, which does look good, but more $$$! Do any of the Drakes have better bowl rinse like the Ultramax II?

 

[Gary Swart]

Terry didn't mention one real drawback to pressure assisted toilets. When the pressure mechanism goes bad, and it will, it will cost as much as a new toilet to fix it. IMHO, pressure assisted toilets are a gimmick to try to overcome basic internal design flaws. Toto doesn't make a pressure assist because they have superior internal design. In the beginning of low flow toilets, most of the toilet manufacturers tried to tweek existing their existing toilets to meet the requirements. They failed miserably, and this gave low flow toilets a bad reputation. Toto on the other hand redesigned the basic internal concept and created low flow toilets than work and do not require expensive hard to find repair parts.

 

[SteveW]

Wow - thanks for the quick reply, Terry.

Toto looks like a good brand - I'll just have to read a bunch of posts to see the differences between models for the money. Main selling point between the Drake and Ultramax seems to be the one-piece construction, which does look good, but more $$$! Do any of the Drakes have better bowl rinse like the Ultramax II?

Toto calls this type of bowl wash "Double Cyclone." You can go to their web site and do a search just for toilets with this design.

 

[norbus]

Thanks, Steve. I see the "double cyclone" is lower gpf. Are we giving up flushing performance to get the bowl wash or is the flushing just as good as the GMAX system? And, is the bowl wash important? - the local plumber kind of implied that the Gmax system didn't clean the rim.

 

[Terry]

Of the thousands of customers that have bought both, the overwhelming preference has been for the G-Max over the UltraFlush by Gerber.
I don't know what planet your plumber is from though. I have the G-Max TOTO Ultramax downstairs, and it looks good to me.
The Flushmate puts out about 1.5 gallons. You don't have the option to use more unless you wait for a minute or so. With the G-Max, you can hold the handle down and use as much water as you want, instantly.
In what way does the 1.5 gallon Flushmate clean better then 1.6? Is there special magic involved?

 

[norbus]

Thanks, Terry. My question was more about two Toto systems - GMax versus "double cyclone". Any comment on performance differences there? And, due to price, I'd probably need to go with the Drake. Since they both use the GMax system, I assume it and the Ultramax would perform about the same, right?

 

[Gusherb94]

Thanks, Terry. My question was more about two Toto systems - GMax versus "double cyclone". Any comment on performance differences there? And, due to price, I'd probably need to go with the Drake. Since they both use the GMax system, I assume it and the Ultramax would perform about the same, right?

The dual cyclone has two large jets one at the back and one at the left side of the bowl. It swirls the water around the bowl to provide a more thorough even rinse. Terry posted a video of the Ultramax II a few posts back. that would be the dual cyclone system. the "Gmax" system is just traditional jets around the rim of the bowl, decent bowl wash, but not the best.

 

[norbus]

Thanks a lot for the info. In reading other posts, it seems that you're giving up a little flush performance (aka, the "solids" test) in return for the lower water consumption and better bowl wash. Would that be right?

 

[Jadnashua]

The dual-cyclone verses the eco version both use 1.28g, and the flushing performance is essentially the same. The dual-cyclone improves on the bowl wash. On many older toilet designs, they didn't use a jetted siphon flushing system and this required a lot of water to get things moving fast enough to provide the siphon and flushing action. The newer toilets use a jet of water right down opposite the exit point to start the siphon immediately. The rest of the flush is bowl wash. Also, most of the older designs (and even the newer ones if you don't use the proper flush valve if you ever replace it), overfilled the bowl. That extra water just ran down the drain (slowly) and did little except waste it. The newer ones use calibrated flapper valves and fill valves to apportion the refill water to the bowl and tank so they both fill properly at the same time to minimize wasted water. Most people in the know realize that anything above 500g is plenty, everything else being equal. Very few people dump anywhere near that amount at one time. And, the tests use plastic wrapped paste, and this is much easier to push through than the 'real' stuff. A two-piece verses one-piece toilet will generally provide a little better performance because the added on tank will sit a little higher therefore the water has further to fall during the flush. But, that is usually a minor difference.

 

[Terry]

The Double Cyclone Drake II gets 800 on the MaP test.
A normal flush needs 250 grams.
The EPA gives their Watersense sticker if it flushes 350 grams.

Everyone that does testing thinks that anything 500 grams is very good.
You must love numbers, because you will never ever see more then 400 grams being flushed.

The video below is a 1.6 gallon flush Drake, but it's good to show much much 800 grams is.
For example, I was using a Toto Ultimate one-piece toilet for two years in a high use area without plugging it.
It was rated at 325 grams in the MaP testing. I pulled the Toto and installed a Class Five Kohler Cimarron, and that one plugged weekly. I then removed that one and installed over at my daughters home in Lynnwood; she has two Toto Drakes and the one Cimarron. She's been bugging me to get a third Drake.

There is a balancing act between bowl rinse and bowl flush to be sure.
I use some toilets while I'm out, and while I was at the movie theater Sunday, I had to flush five times with a flushometer bowl. I could not see the brand on the bowl, which was strange, and I was in the mens room for a while flushing the darn thing. There was very little bowl rinse from the front of the bowl, so even if it had been map tested, with high ratings; because it's not all about things dropping precisely into the drop zone. If you manage to drop everything into the "drop" zone, you have a better chance of clearing the bowl. Woman tend to drop paper in the front of the bowl, and some brands that get 1000 on the MaP will leave paper on the front of the bowl. Most of the water is diverted to "pass" the MaP. MaP knows this, but they are committed to years of testing that didn't look at that problem. For them to "change" the test, would mean throwing out all of the old data and starting over.
I on the other hand, have always had customers that "demanded" bowl rinse. More then half of my testers are women and children. I don't really care about the engineers that like to flush round golf balls. Golf balls never stick and they always bounce their way down the drain. MaP has gone to plastic wrapped paste in the last few years. When they did that, all the scores went up. When you have slippery plastic, you can flush a lot more bulk.
In my case, I have been using an ileostomy bag, and it gives many bowls problems. I plan to use this method over the next year until I finish up with two more surgeries. In the mean time, I can tell a lot about bowl wash. The Ultramax II will clear most anything in one flush. Sometimes, if I have been eating chocolate, it may take a full handle down flush to clear the bowl. When I use other brands, it can take five full tank flushes. That's sometimes 15 gallons to clear a bowl. The most I've ever seen the Ultramax II need is 3 gallons. 95% of the time 1.28 gallons is all that is needed.
Lowe's Movie theater in Lynnwood, fives flushes at 15 gallons
Kohler Memoirs, Ingenuium Flush, 15 gallons
Safeco field flushometer, 7 gallons
University Hospital flushometer bowls range between 3 gallons and 15 gallons depending on the bowl. They have American Standard and Kohler.

And let me repeat this

MaP does not test for bowl rinse. They haven't a clue on this.

There are two big complaints that I get:

1) Flushing of solid waste, does it plug? MaP does test for this

2) Cleanliness of the bowl after the flush, Map does "not" test for this, I do however take this into account when I do my reviews. There are many people that view this as important, and so do I.

The MaP test is only one part of the seven things that I look at.

Cased Test Media.
If you wrap the "test" media in a condom, how will you know if the rinse water removes the streaks?

3.1 Soybean paste nominal specifications: 35.5% water, 33.8% soybean, 18.5% rice,
and 12.2% salt, and having a density of 1.15 ± 0.10 g/mL (i.e., density greater
than water).
3.2 Cased Test Media:
3.2.1 Latex casing shall be made from non-lubricated latex condoms (e.g.,
LifeStyles® brand, purchased from Ansell Healthcare Products LLC, Dothan,
AL 36303 USA).

3.2.7 Individual test specimens shall be discarded after they have been subjected to
100 flushes.

http://www.map-testing.com/assets/files/MaP_test_protocol_version 4.pdf

I don't know about you, but flushing something 100 times?
Consumer Reports uses rubber sponges, mainly because they can reuse the testing media.
Do any of us need to flush rubber sponges or things wrapped in rubber?

 

[SteveW]

Thanks a lot for the info. In reading other posts, it seems that you're giving up a little flush performance (aka, the "solids" test) in return for the lower water consumption and better bowl wash. Would that be right?

I had this same concern, but after using 2 one-piece Gwyneths in my house for a couple years, I don't see any decrement in flushing performance with the Double Cyclone bowl wash. It is actually kind of amazing watching these toilets seem to instantly suck waste out of the bowl (as compared to old toilets which "push" it out of the bowl).

 

[norbus]

Thanks to everyone for the detailed info. Now, I just have to find a local plumber with a decent installed price on the Drake II. Toto doesn't seem to be sold retail around here.

Dave