Totally get where you’re coming from. I swapped out an old standard toilet for a water-saver last year, and honestly, the noise difference surprised me—it’s way quieter than the old one. Didn’t expect that at all. I was worried about flushing power, but it’s been solid. Sometimes you do pay a bit more upfront, but in my experience, it’s worth it for the daily comfort and not having to deal with constant repairs or noisy flushes right next to the living room.
MAKING THE SWITCH TO WATER-SAVING TOILETS: WORTH IT?
I hear you on the noise—my old one sounded like a jet engine. The new water-saver is quieter, but I’ll admit, I was skeptical about the flush. Had a couple of clogs early on, but after tweaking the flapper and making sure the vent stack was clear, it’s been fine. Still, I do wonder if these things will last as long as the old tanks did... time will tell.
MAKING THE SWITCH TO WATER-SAVING TOILETS: WORTH IT?
I get where you’re coming from on the durability question. The older toilets—especially those heavy porcelain tanks from the 70s and 80s—were built like tanks themselves. You could drop a wrench in there and not worry about a crack. The newer water-saving models, especially the early ones, did have their issues with weak flushes and more frequent clogs. Manufacturers have improved the designs quite a bit over the last decade, though. Most of the reputable brands now use better flushing mechanisms and higher-quality seals, so you’re less likely to run into problems if you stick with a good name.
One thing I’ve noticed on job sites is that installation makes a big difference. If the flange isn’t set right or the venting isn’t adequate, even the best toilet will give you trouble. Sounds like you already sorted out the vent stack, which is more than a lot of folks do. As for longevity, the tanks themselves are usually fine—it’s the internal components (flappers, fill valves, seals) that tend to wear out faster. Luckily, those are cheap and easy to swap out. I’ve seen some of the newer models go 10+ years with just a couple of minor fixes.
Honestly, the water savings add up, especially if you’ve got a full house. I’ve had clients see a noticeable drop in their water bills after switching out all the old 3.5-gallon units. If you’re in an area with rising utility costs, it’s hard to argue against it. That said, if you’re in a house with old plumbing or low water pressure, it’s worth double-checking compatibility before making the switch. Some of the ultra-low-flow models just don’t play nice with certain setups.
In short, I’d say they’re worth it for most folks, but you do have to keep an eye on the small parts and be ready for a little maintenance. The days of “install it and forget it for 30 years” are probably behind us, but the trade-off in water savings and quieter operation is a fair deal in my book.
MAKING THE SWITCH TO WATER-SAVING TOILETS: WORTH IT?
You nailed it about the old-school toilets—they really were built to survive just about anything short of a direct meteor hit. I do miss that “install it and forget it” era sometimes, especially when I’m crawling around a tight powder room trying to swap out a fill valve for the third time in five years. But you’re right, the newer models have come a long way. I’ve put in a few Toto Drakes lately and haven’t heard a peep from clients about clogs or weak flushes.
One thing I still wonder about is how these low-flow units will hold up over 20+ years. The tanks seem solid, but those plastic internals always make me a bit nervous—maybe that’s just nostalgia talking. On the flip side, I’ve seen water bills drop by $20-30/month in bigger households after swapping out all the old guzzlers, which is hard to ignore.
I do wish manufacturers would make the replacement parts a little more universal, though. Nothing like realizing you need a proprietary gasket at 8pm on a Sunday... Still, for most folks, the trade-off seems worth it—just maybe keep an extra flapper or two in the junk drawer.
MAKING THE SWITCH TO WATER-SAVING TOILETS: WORTH IT?
- Agree on the nostalgia for the old tanks. I’ve demoed houses from the 60s where the toilets looked like they’d outlast the foundation. But yeah, water bills are a real thing now, especially with how rates keep creeping up.
- From a development perspective, I’m seeing cities push harder for low-flow everything. Some places even require it for permits. Makes me wonder if we’ll even have a choice in a few years.
- The plastic internals are a sticking point for me too. I get why they do it—cheaper, lighter, less corrosion—but I’ve had to replace more fill valves in the last decade than my dad did in 30 years. Maybe that’s just the price of progress? Still, I’d rather swap a $12 part every few years than deal with a $200 water bill.
- Universal parts would be a game-changer. Nothing like standing in the aisle at Home Depot with three different flappers and none of them fit. I’ve started keeping a little stash of random gaskets and seals just in case.
- One thing I’ve noticed: in multi-unit projects, the savings really add up. Not just on water bills, but also on sewer fees (which are often tied to water usage). That can make a real dent in operating costs over time.
- Only real downside I’ve seen is sometimes you need a double flush for, uh, “larger jobs.” Not ideal, but honestly, most of the newer models seem to have figured that out.
- All in all, seems like the trade-off is worth it—especially if you’re looking at long-term costs. Still, part of me misses those old tanks that weighed a ton and never needed anything but an occasional jiggle of the handle...
