Honestly, I appreciate your take—there’s a lot more to it than just swapping out fixtures and calling it “eco.” We had to rethink our plans after realizing our 70s-era pipes weren’t up for the low-flow life. Glad to hear someone else gets it.
MAKING THE SWITCH TO WATER-SAVING TOILETS: WORTH IT?
- Not surprised you ran into pipe issues. I see this a lot—people think it’s just a quick swap, but old plumbing can’t always handle the reduced flow. Sometimes you end up with clogs or even backflow if the slope or diameter isn’t right.
- “Eco” isn’t just about the fixture. It’s about the whole system. If the pipes are from the 70s, they were designed for way more water per flush. That’s a big mismatch.
- I’ve had clients who went all-in on low-flow, then had to rip out sections of pipe after the fact. Not fun, not cheap.
- On the flip side, if your plumbing is newer or you’re already planning a reno, it can make a lot of sense. The water savings are real, and some of the newer models actually work better than the old ones.
- One thing I always ask: how many people are using the bathroom? In high-traffic homes, you might notice more issues with low-flow than in a single-person setup.
Curious—did you end up upgrading your pipes, or did you find a workaround? I’ve seen some folks go with dual-flush as a compromise, but even that’s not always perfect with older systems.
“Eco” isn’t just about the fixture. It’s about the whole system. If the pipes are from the 70s, they were designed for way more water per flush. That’s a big mismatch.
That’s exactly what I was worried about when I looked into switching. The up-front cost of a new toilet is one thing, but if you end up needing to redo pipes, it gets out of hand fast. Did you notice any difference in your water bill, at least? I keep wondering if the savings really add up, or if it just shifts the cost somewhere else. Dual-flush sounds like a decent middle ground, but I’ve heard mixed things too.
Honestly, I went for a dual-flush a couple years back, thinking it’d be a quick win for the wallet. The water bill dropped a bit—maybe ten bucks a month?—but I did run into some clogging issues, and the plumber said it’s because my place still has those old pipes from the 60s. Had to snake things out twice last year. At that point, I started wondering if the whole “eco” upgrade was just shifting the cost to maintenance instead. The savings are there, but it’s not as straightforward as the ads make it sound.
MAKING THE SWITCH TO WATER-SAVING TOILETS: WORTH IT?
That’s the catch with these upgrades—ads make it sound like a no-brainer, but older plumbing can throw a wrench in things. I’ve seen this a lot: dual-flush or low-flow toilets just don’t push enough water through old, narrow pipes, so stuff gets stuck more often. If you’re in an older place, sometimes it’s worth checking pipe diameter and slope before swapping out fixtures. Otherwise, you might save on water but pay more for maintenance. It’s not always a straight win, unfortunately.
