toilet, water saving or not?

[Yaofeng]

I posted a week ago about a 5 gallon toilet lacks flushing power. It is one before the water saving feature comes along and one I am very hesitant to replace. It also sits on a an old lead bend which I cut and replaced with a PVC one a few years ago.

Well, I removed it during Thanksgiving. The PVC bend I put in was clean as a whistle literally. I even looked into the rubber connector to lead bend (what remains of it) from inside (with a small mirror and a flashlight). The joint was holding up very nicely. I determined the spill tube on the flush valve was too short which resulted in the water level in the tank too low. So I replaced the flush valve assembly with a longer over-spill tube. I don't mind replacing the toilet at all provided if they do the job. They are cheap. But do they do the job?

While weighing my options loooking at the toilets in Home Depot, I noticed the toilets are different from a few years ago when water saving ones were just being introduced. I remember buying my first water saving toilet which didn't do the job maybe 6 or 7 years ago and have to chuck it 6 months later. All toilet on display now seem to have been re-engineered. Many have this jet siphoning feature. What is it?

I am still of the opinion that those of us who live on the east coast where water is abundant do not need this water saving toilet forced down our throat. Afterall water is a renewable resource so far as flushing waste is concerned. But my question is how good are the present day re-engineered toilets? Are they getting the job done as the old 5 gallon ones? I don't mean those over engineered ones like using compressed air pressure or external power which cost an arm and a leg. Just the run of the mill engineered regular water saving toilets.

[willshak]

On 11/29/2004 12:42 PM US(ET), Yaofeng took fingers to keys, and typed the following:

I don't know about the new ones. My 3 American Standards are all 20 years old and still work. The only replacement parts to them were the flappers, and in the one in the overused guest bathroom, the handle and lift arm.

[Art Todesco]

[John Hines]

Get one with a large (> 1 7/8") glazed trapway. The bigger the pipe, the less likely to clog.

In a word, yes, they work very good. Not to say you can't plug them up, but they do work, at least as well as the old ones.

[Joseph Meehan]

The good new ones are very good. The poor ones are little better than the first ones. I might add that most offer two flushes, standard, and if you hold the handle down, deluxe.

Generally you want a suphon jet design (many of the old ones used this design as well) but really important is a fully glazed trap and a large trap. Larger the better. Many peole like the Cadet line.

[Percival P. Cassidy]

We replaced two of our old water-wasting (4+ gal.) toilets that were always getting plugged up and needing multiple flushes by low-flush (1.6 gal.) American Standard Champion toilets and have never needed to flush more than once.

Perce

On 11/29/04 01:14 pm Art Todesco tossed the following ingredients into the ever-growing pot of cybersoup:

[bumtracks]

if you haven't read the official toilet performance reports, they are worth reading. here's copy's from my local water gov...

interesting, somewhat funny too.

[Arthur Shapiro]

I've had an Toto Ultramax for about 3 years, and remain more than delighted with its performance. It is far superior to whatever it was that it replaced, and I keep thinking I should replace the other bathroom's unit as well despite the nontrivial expense. It is a pleasure to have a contraption that consistently works well.

Art

[altitude]