Search the forums

Loading

3.6 Gal. American Standard toilets AV...

Steve_Kasower's picture

*
Gabe,
I am a great fan of the ULFT laws. I recognize that the 1.6 GPF toilet works well and saves water out here in California. Please don't sell any of your wasteful crappers out West where we have more water demands than we have water.

By the way, do you know a good source for asbestos shingles, lead solder, and single family nuclear fission reactor power plants?

Steve save-the-planet Kasower

(post #168215, reply #13 of 19)

*
Gabe:

Sorry I missed out. Let me know if you get your hands on any 5gal.

JW

(post #168215, reply #14 of 19)

*
Gabe:
Sorry I missed out. Let me know if you get your hands on any 5gal.

JW

(post #168215, reply #1 of 19)

*
Gabe,
I am a great fan of the ULFT laws. I recognize that the 1.6 GPF toilet works well and saves water out here in California. Please don't sell any of your wasteful crappers out West where we have more water demands than we have water.

By the way, do you know a good source for asbestos shingles, lead solder, and single family nuclear fission reactor power plants?

Steve save-the-planet Kasower

(post #168215, reply #15 of 19)

*
Hi fellows,

If anyone is interested, I have found a supply of 70 American Standard toilets in the 3.6 gallon size. These toilets are white with the standard bowl. Supply is limited and are priced at $189.00 Canadian or about $135.00 US. NO DUTY on toilets. Shipping Extra but is reasonable to most parts.

Anyone wants one or whatever, Email me and I will organize to orders for you.

Gabe

(post #168215, reply #2 of 19)

*
Steve- I don't se how a toilet that has to be flushed 2-3 times to get everything out is less wasteful than one that needs to be flushed only once. Not to mention the sanitary aspect of it. As to saving the planet, I wonder if you enjoy air conditioning or have you given it up to save our dwindling resources?

By the way- I hear California would like to pipe Great Lakes water to help meet their water demands. It's not enough to have tapped out the Colorado River is it. Don't get your hopes up.

John

(post #168215, reply #3 of 19)

*
Dear Steve save-the-planet Kasower,

If you want one, you'd better hurry, I'm down to 19 units available. If the 1.6 gal. toilets worked well, they wouldn't leave any crap behind.

Gabe

(post #168215, reply #4 of 19)

*
I have seen many perfectly efficient 1.6 gallon toilets. Aside from being illegal, bringing back the 3.5 is like bringing back the Edsel to avoid that darn catalytic converter.

(post #168215, reply #5 of 19)

*
Steve

I don't think people WANT to WASTE water but at least the early 1.6 flushers DID require multiple flushes AND a plunger. Face it, the designs were poor. The old toilets were simple, inefficient, but WORKED. Most of those "old" toilets were held down with 4 bolts and had a bigger footprint. The way people have been packing on the pounds they could really get a 2 bolter rocking with little effort just climbing on and off--so sometimes its not just an issue of water consumption.

By the way, if I remember correctly, CA is currently using water that properly belongs to Colorado but the Corps of Engineers won't let a dam be built in Colorado to impound it (I think it may have to do with electoral college votes). I think if the politics were taken out a dam would be built and you would have to BUY the water.

Invention being the mother of necessity (or vice versa) look for .8 flushing designs to be coming out...of course there's more to just getting the stuff out of the toilet....it has a long way to go..stuff that is. Well, got to hit the two holer out back....
P.S. I always wanted to see a demonstration of a 1.6 vs a 3.5 using clear plastic pipes and a typical run of 100' to the street just to see how far things go with one flush. Anyone heard of any good research that documented this? Not wacko--people ask ME this all the time.

(post #168215, reply #6 of 19)

*
.8 gallons? Geez. Anyway, the "Toto" 1.6 gallon is supposed to flush a tennis ball without problem, more than our old 3.5 gallon could.

I think they could have made things easier by first introducing toilets with a reduced flush for liquid-only waste. Someone recently posted a cite to the "Mister Miser" site for a subtle-looking urinal that uses 10 oz. per flush.

I have heard of problems with lack of "push" down the sewer line. A good design would put the clothes washer or at least the shower drain upstream.

(post #168215, reply #7 of 19)

*
Hi Andrew,

There is always an assumption by legislators that only by regulating can goals be achieved.

We water our lawns every day during droughts and if a ban is imposed, we do it at night. We wash our cars at least once a week and think nothing of it. We buy water saver shower heads then spend 1 hour doing what we use to do in 5 minutes. Everyone who lives by the water has a swimming pool and the water is exchanged on a regular basis.

But then someone decides that everyone in North America can't have a toilet with a 3.5 gallon capacity. The industry decides that this change is a great opportunity to raise the price of toilets and no one notices. You can buy a new power flusher for 500 bucks or you can have a 1.6 tank on a 3.5 gallon base, that works poorly, for 150 bucks.

Personally I like things that work right the first time. I like things that are not overpriced. I like to conserve water by being selective in it's use. Some times of the year, my lawn is brown because it hasn't rained in 2 weeks. I don't wash my car because the neighbour is washing his.

I live in the country, and that means I have a well. I take water waste seriously but you'll have to excuse me if I still enjoy a four flusher.

Gabe

(post #168215, reply #8 of 19)

*
The Toto also has two flush functions. Pushing the handle one direction it will do a minor flush for the liquid waste and the other will cause a full flush for solid. Add to that the captains seat with all the spray and blow functions and its a save the trees tool too. However because it has so little water in the bowl to start with it has a high bowl mantinance dependant upon the eating habits of the user(s).

Our motto in Japan was you ate it you did it you clean it.

(post #168215, reply #9 of 19)

*
God, I love this topic, one of my pet peves.

I have very poor experience with the 1.5 flushers. I am getting callbacks, and it simply isn't my fault.

I agree with JRS that flushing a 1.5 2 times to get solids down and out simply doesn't save water. I recommend to my clients that they rebuild as opposed to replace old toiltets. I have fairly good luck with muriatic acid in cleaning the jets, and new rubber for the flush mechanism. If they feel guilty, then we add some rocks or bricks to displace a gallon or two of water.

I do a lot of restoration projects here in SoCal, and pretty much use high boy pull chain tanks. The combination of gravity and a 2 1/2" flush tube really drives the solids out. They are truly wonderfull toiltes, and have a lot of charm (such as decals embossing and the like). If the client still does not like the wall hung babies, then a modified model that is not attached to the stool is also nice, and uses a 3" flush tube. They both can be loaded with bricks and rocks to reduce the 4-5 gal capacity.

So fellas, visit your architectural salvage yard today. Expect to pay about $250-600 for one of these antiques.

PS, I don't think the govt should be in the business of telling us how to sh*t. If they want to controll water use, tax the darn stuff so people recognize that it is in their best interests to conserve. The market place is the best conservation system in the world. Redwood is an example.

As for water use, California bought and paid for a large portion of the Hoover Dam, and had exclusive rights to all the water (because they paid for it). Now thats its all paid for, Nevada and Arizona want the stuff for free. You gotta love these freeloaders. I'd drain Lake Superior, but its too poluted.

(post #168215, reply #10 of 19)

*
Hi Andrew,

Wouldn't it be nice if we each had a mint Edsel in the garage though.

Gabe

(post #168215, reply #11 of 19)

*
I installed a Western Pottery 1.6 gal. toilet in my shop and was so impressed that I decided to replace three of the four 3.5 gal. toilets in my house with these. The cost was about $70 per toilet. With the rebates the cost to me was $0. These toilets work better than any 3.5 I have ever seen including one that I replaced that had always required 2 flushes.

I hated that toilet so much that I decided to put it out of its misery and at the same time reduce the volume it would require burried in my yard. Several rounds with a .22 proved in effective, although there were no ricochets, so I resorted to a higher caliber, .357. Although this worked it was not as dramatic as I had hoped. Next time I will fill the tank and bowl with water before shooting the thing.

Don't try this without eye and ear protection.

If someone is shooting at you with a .22 you might want to hide behind the toilet.

(post #168215, reply #12 of 19)

*
Thanks fellas,

The toilets are all spoken for.

Gabe

toilet (post #168215, reply #16 of 19)

You can go back to the outhouse!!

toilet (post #168215, reply #17 of 19)

You can go back to the outhouse!!