I've got a guest bathroom toilet that is about 25 years old (original to the house). It works pretty well but has a leaking wax ring, and I'm wondering, while I'm at it, is there any reason to replace the whole toilet with a newer model? I'm aware that there might be some water bill savings with the newer low-flow models, but aside from that, are there any compelling reasons to replace?
- Magnusfarce
No. Saving water is really the only reason to replace a toilet that isn't broken.
If water consumption is not a big issue and you like the way it looks, there is no reason to replace a 25 yr old toilet. Replacement parts are cheap and readily available to fix any problems.
We replaced the two of our toilets that get most use by new water-saving ones, but we didn't bother about the one that seldom gets used except by guests.
I'd be inclined just to replace the wax ring.
Perce
On 05/09/05 08:07 am Magnusfarce tossed the following ingredients into the ever-growing pot of cybersoup:
*ABSOLUTELY* !! Over and above the simple esthetics of a nice new shiny one without years of impacted crud, there is the possibility (probability?) that Congress will mandate the creation of Water Police who will visit you and - after a big fine - require you to rip out the anti-social water guzzler on the spot.
No need to take the old one to the dump, just send it to me :)
-- dadiOH ____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06... ...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that. Get it at
Saving on water is important, some say crucial, and a few say life-or-death! You will save about 1 cent per flush by switching from a 6.5 to 1.5 gallon toilet. If you have guests 25 weekends per year and they use the potty ten times each visit, you can bank $2.50 per year in savings.
At, oh, $250 for a super-dooper toilet, you'll recoup your investment in but
100 years (not counting interest and lost opportunity costs).On the other hand a new wax ring will run you $3.00 and an hour's labor.
Praise the Lord and thank him for your old toilet. These low-flow models mean you need to use a plunger every other time you take a shit. I have one of those annoying newer toilets and am looking for an old one to replace it. The low-flow toilets DO NOT save water because you have to flush them 2 or 3 times after plunging to get the crap to go down.
On 05/09/05 11:46 am snipped-for-privacy@UNLISTED.com tossed the following ingredients into the ever-growing pot of cybersoup:
Perhaps there were (or still are) poorly designed low-flow toilets, but we replaced two of our old water-wasting toilets that sometimes needed multiple flushes by low-flow AS Champions that have never needed to be plunged or to be flushed more than once.
Perce
I like my low-flow Cadet. Never have flushed it twice in the 3-4 years I've owned it. I can't say that for my other 2 toilets. The Cadet works great, has a stronger suction flush than my other toilets and it's a lot easier on my septic system too.
Only with some of them. Our three 1,6 gpf Toto's have never failed to flush completely on the first flush. Never! In fact, they flush much faster and more complete than the much more expensive Kohler's that they replaced.
The only reason to replace are for cracks or poor appearance. You would never recover the cost through water savings of a new unit.
A few years ago I refurbished our bathrooms (one stool was cracked at the hold down and one just looked awful). I replaced the cracked green stool with a new white one. The awful looking white one (we had used all sorts of stuff to try to remove hard water rings and stains, and it appeared to have scratches in it) I pulled and left outside where it completely dried out. Some of the hard water stuff cracked off, so I decided to see what would happen if I used one of those pumice blocks. To my amazement, it cleaned up well and looked like new, so I reinstalled it. It is now 30 years old and looks and works as well as the new stool.
Who makes that toilet? Approx how much did you pay for it? Who sells them?
The low-flow toilet I got keeps itself much cleaner than the old one it replaced. (it saves a lot on water bills, but it is used a lot)
American Standard makes the Cadet. I don't recall exactly what I paid for it now but I think it was
On 05/10/05 09:00 am wmrah tossed the following ingredients into the ever-growing pot of cybersoup:
Our American Standard Champions were just under $250 (one at HD, the other at Lowe's). I thought that the Cadets were cheaper than the Champions, but they may cost more at HD Expo than at a regular HD "warehouse."
Perce
A better choice is the Toto Drake. The Champion is rated to handle
500 grams, the Cadet is rated at 750 grams, but the Toto Drake is rated at 900 grams per flush. All three are well above minimum standard, but the Drake is clearly much better than either of the American Standards. You can buy a Toto Drake at HomeclickSee Terry Love's site at
Dick
Does the description "Comfort ADA" on the Toto Drake, mean that it is 17" high? I'm not disabled, but when I replace mine, I want a higher model. I looked at Love's site, but height wasn't listed. TIA... bj
Yes, the ADA model is 16-1/2" high (without the seat) whereas the standard model is 14-5/8" high (the one we bought.) You can see all the specs on the Homeclick site if you click on Product Specifications for each toilet.
Dick
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.