- Swapped out all the toilets in a 60s apartment block last year.
-
100% agree—those old cast iron lines just aren’t built for low-flow.If your pipes are pre-1970s, expect some headaches.
- Had to snake a few lines more than once, which wasn’t in the budget.
- Water bill dropped, but factoring in the extra plumbing work, payback’s slower than I hoped.
- Next time, I’m definitely doing a full inspection on waste lines before committing.
- Wouldn’t call it a mistake either, but “eco-friendly” upgrades always seem to have that hidden price tag.
Definitely hear you on the hidden costs. I swapped out a couple in my own place (built in ‘68) and had similar issues—slow drains, needed to snake more than I’d like. The water savings look good on paper, but if your waste lines are old, it’s a gamble. If I did it again, I’d probably budget for at least some pipe work upfront. Those old cast iron pipes just don’t play nice with modern low-flow.
Funny, I’ve run into almost the same thing in a few client projects—mid-century homes especially. You’d think swapping to a sleek new toilet would be pretty straightforward, but those old pipes just don’t cooperate sometimes. I’ve seen situations where folks had to rip up half a bathroom floor just to get things draining properly again. Have you found any brands that handle the low-flow/old pipe combo better than others, or is it all pretty much the same headache?
MAKING THE SWITCH TO WATER-SAVING TOILETS: WORTH IT?
Yeah, those mid-century homes are a trip when it comes to plumbing. I’ve noticed that sometimes the “universal fit” claims on toilet boxes are more optimism than reality, especially with older cast iron pipes. Honestly, I’ve seen Toto and American Standard do okay with low-flow models in tricky situations, but it always seems like the real issue is less about brand and more about the age and slope of the drain lines. Some of those old runs just aren’t made for today’s water-saving flushes.
I’m curious—has anyone actually measured the long-term water savings after making the switch in an older house? I get that low-flow is better for conservation, but if you’re flushing twice or dealing with clogs all the time, does it really net out? Sometimes I wonder if retrofitting pipes should be part of the conversation instead of just swapping fixtures. It’s not cheap, but maybe worth it if you’re already tearing up floors anyway.
Also, has anyone tried dual-flush models in these situations? I keep hearing mixed things—some folks say they help balance things out by letting you use a bit more water when needed, others say it doesn’t make much difference with old plumbing. Just wondering if there’s a sweet spot between saving water and keeping everything moving smoothly, or if it’s just a compromise either way.
And honestly, there’s something weirdly satisfying about getting an old system to work efficiently without a massive overhaul...even if it takes a few tries and some creative problem-solving.
MAKING THE SWITCH TO WATER-SAVING TOILETS: WORTH IT?
I get the appeal of just swapping out fixtures, but honestly, I’m not convinced it’s always the best move with old plumbing. I’ve seen more than a few “water-saving” upgrades turn into constant plunging sessions. Sometimes the extra flushes kinda defeat the purpose. Dual-flush is a neat idea, but in my last reno, it didn’t really solve the slow drain issue—just made it less predictable. Maybe sometimes sticking with a higher-flow model is actually less wasteful overall?
