I have to replace a toilet. It’s in a rental so I’m not interested in the turbo models.
Last inexpensive one I installed was a second generation design by Briggs. Have been happy with it, but wondering whether there are any new trick, cheap things out there.
Find no lively discussions in the archives. Don’t tell me to get an old one….there’s such a black market here that they either can’t be found or are way over priced.
Any suggestions?
Shelley
Replies
The irony?
With 42 rentals, I prefer that the best toilets I can find go in them. The last thing I want is a clog or overflow and getting a call at three in the morning.
So, sez I...Toto.
Low flow toilets are an ongoing discussion in our office. Our spec's typically list all the usual brands, but, given the continuing number of problems low flow units cause us, we are currently considering changing our spec to sole sourcing Toto's (wherever clients will permit us to). Though all the brands we specify state that they meet the same standards, they all give us problems consistently, except for the Toto's. The Toto's only clog occasionally.
I've had good luck with the Gerber low flow. On the inexpensive side but seem engineered well enought to handle the 1.6gpm
Low flow toilets aren't a problem once you learn the one simple trick to them: You just have to flush 3 - 7 times. ;-)
-- J.S.
Toto Augusta. There is learning curve, though. Hold down the flusher a little longer and they rarely clog...
from a houseful of flushes...BB
LOL! and no $#!+
Yes, unfortunately they thought only about clearing the toilet itself, and not about having enough water behind the solids to keep them moving all the way thru the rest of the system. That's what happens when politicians tamper with plumbing.
-- J.S.
Lowflush is good idea, and it works if you use it right. Our resevoirs,here, are down about six feet. I have no political affiliations and the water is still down? I need to join the Rainmaker party? And ,, when I flush, nothing's getting out til it hits the septic field, and I mow that a lot. Now, if you live in the city, I should be sympathetic because...?
Edited 5/10/2002 10:34:16 PM ET by bucksnort billy
> Now, if you live in the city, I should be sympathetic because...?
Because in many buildings, especially larger older ones, low flow doesn't work. There isn't enough water behind the solids to keep them moving all the way to the city sewer. So, people really do learn to flush several times or pay the plumber, thus rendering the low flow toilets counterproductive to their water conservation goal. Yet another example of the fundamental stupidity of government.
-- J.S.
If you don't have acess to Consumer Reports, go to your library and check out the back issues (index on last page) for toilet reviews. Also, there's some good info at http://www.terrylove.com/crtoilet.htm .
The guy also sells the stuff, so you have to take that into consideration, but worth the trip to his site.
Sounds like the Toto moves to the top of the list. Have used the Gerber and like it too.
Thanks everyone,
Shelley
Ahhh, low flow toilets in rentals....another problem we learned to deal with. We let every plumber and remodeler we knew that we would buy their used toilets if they were still servicable. We had 'em stacked in a store room. Most times guys would call and just ask us to pick it up, never usually cost us more than 10 bucks or a couple of six packs.
Plumbers I have talked to recently now believe that low flow failures are more tied to failure of old plumbing or poorly engeneered waste lines than failure of the toilet itself. If the waste can't flow effeciently away from the toilet it will backup and you find this more with antique installations than in new. We have a gerber (in a new waste line installation) and it has never failed.
> Plumbers I have talked to recently now believe that low flow failures are more tied to failure of old plumbing or poorly engeneered waste lines than failure of the toilet itself.
But the old plumbing works fine with the old toilets. The failure isn't the plumbing or the toilet, the failure is altering one part of a system without considering the whole system.
-- J.S.
John -
As I understand it, the whole water system in L.A. would have failed without water conservation measures, of which the low flow toilets were an important part. With a projected increase in population in the L.A. basin of something like 50% over time, Arizona demanding their legal share of Colorado River water, reduced draw from Monolake area, etc., the whole system of L.A. just isn't going to have the water to keep dumping 5 gallons down the waste pipe for each flush and still have water coming out of the taps.
I remember some of the fantastic schemes to route Columbia River water to keep the swimming pools in S. Calif. filled, but you guys are too late - we've now decided to give all that water to the salmon. Too bad - I don't know where you guys are going to go next for your five gallon flushes...
BTW, regarding stupid government, as I learned it in grade school, we are a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people", so I guess that means we're all stupid... (although that seems to be changing to "of the people, by the people, and for big business...)
> As I understand it, the whole water system in L.A. would have failed without water conservation measures, of which the low flow toilets were an important part.
The point is that people flush them three times and more to make them work with the existing plumbing, so they end up being counterproductive to conservation.
-- J.S.
Yes, existing plumbing designed to require more water is a problem, but it wouldn't matter if the existing plumbing were perfect. It wouldn't even matter if there weren't any plumbing. If there was a little black box under the floor that transposed the waste to an alternate universe, the low flow toilets would still be annoying because it takes multiple flushes to clear the bowl.
And the whole thing was so unnecessary. The water utilities can set the water usage at whatever level they like by adjusting the price. Let the water users decide what's the best way to save water. They're paying for it.