MAKING THE SWITCH TO WATER-SAVING TOILETS: WORTH IT?
I get the argument for water savings, but honestly, I’m still not convinced the newer models are always better. Maybe I’ve just had bad luck, but I’ve seen more callbacks on “efficient” toilets than the old-school ones. Sometimes it’s a weak flush, sometimes it’s parts wearing out faster than they should. Sure, you can swap in better components, but at a certain point, it feels like you’re just patching up a design that’s trying too hard to save every drop. Maybe I’m just old-fashioned, but I’d rather have something reliable than chase every last bit of efficiency.
MAKING THE SWITCH TO WATER-SAVING TOILETS: WORTH IT?
- Reliability is a fair concern. Not all low-flow toilets are created equal—some early models really did struggle with weak flushes and clogging.
- In recent years, though, the engineering has improved a lot. I’ve specified newer 1.28 gpf (gallons per flush) models for several projects, and the performance gap compared to old 3.5 gpf units is much smaller than it used to be.
- Quality of components matters more than ever. Cheap fill valves and flappers will wear out regardless of water usage. I usually recommend sticking to brands with a solid track record (Toto, Kohler, American Standard).
- There’s a bit of a learning curve for installation—proper slope and venting are even more critical with efficient toilets. If those aren’t dialed in, you’ll get weak flushes no matter what.
- Water savings do add up, especially in multi-unit buildings or places with high water costs. Over a decade, it’s not trivial.
- Personally, I’d avoid the absolute lowest-flow models (like dual-flush 0.8 gpf) unless you’re really chasing LEED points. The 1.28 gpf “sweet spot” seems to balance efficiency and reliability.
Honestly, if you’ve had bad luck, it might be worth trying a higher-end model or double-checking the install. The tech has come a long way, but yeah, nothing’s perfect...
MAKING THE SWITCH TO WATER-SAVING TOILETS: WORTH IT?
I get the hesitation around ultra-low-flow models, but I’ve actually had decent results with 0.8 gpf dual-flush units in a couple of commercial retrofits. The key was making sure the drain lines were cleaned and sloped right—otherwise, yeah, you’re asking for trouble. I do think the “sweet spot” is real for most homes, but if you’re willing to invest in prep and quality hardware, the lowest-flow options aren’t always as risky as they seem. Sometimes it’s the install, not the toilet, that’s the real culprit.
MAKING THE SWITCH TO WATER-SAVING TOILETS: WORTH IT?
I’ve seen way too many projects where people blame the toilet when it’s really the old cast iron lines or bad slope causing issues. If you’re retrofitting, it’s worth camera-inspecting the drains first. The water savings add up, especially on larger developments, but only if the infrastructure can handle it. I’d argue most of the “low-flow horror stories” come down to skipping that step.
MAKING THE SWITCH TO WATER-SAVING TOILETS: WORTH IT?
That’s spot on about the infrastructure. We did a retrofit in a 70s apartment building, and skipping the drain inspection was a mistake—constant clogs until we fixed the slope. Once that was sorted, the water savings were actually impressive. It’s not always the toilet’s fault... sometimes it’s just old pipes.
