Comments on: Dual Flush Retrofit Kits for Dual Flush Toilets – Do They Work?

By: Jean C.

Jean C. — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 19:07:39 +0000

I’ve been looking at kits and reviews of these products since seeing one installed on the PBS show some time ago. My toilets were new when this house was built in 1967. Google led me to your last year’s review and promise to do more tests. Have you modified your original take on the kits?

Thanks

By: Lance Gemmill

Lance Gemmill — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 02:00:37 +0000

Have you completed anymore studies to see if the dual flush retrofit for 3.5 gallon toilets is effective? I’d like to use one of these but I’m afraid it is like you said….too good to be true. I have an older 3.5 gravity fed toilet.

By: Professor Toilet

Professor Toilet — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:54:26 +0000

Thank you Bruce, JD, Andy and Carl for your input. As any politician knows, if you take a stand, you’ll have opponents. Taking a stand in favor of the retrofit kits would bring in the comments from the other side!

A few points to ponder: There are a lot of different toilets out there, so results differ on old 3.5 gallon per flush (gpf) toilets vs. old 1.6 gpf toilets vs. new 1.6 gpf toilets vs. the old wall hung bowl with a flush tank mounted six feet high in the air.

The recommendation comes because while it may look like retrofit kits are working properly, some consumers may not realize it if the water doesn’t come back to seal every time so that sewer gases don’t get into the room. Or if it overfilling the bowl and putting wasted water down the outlet. Or if there is sufficient carry-out into the drain line so that the pipe won’t eventually get stopped up?

That said, some of these new retrofit kits look like they are more sophisticated than some of the original kits that came on the market. The Professor is back in the lab doing more tests.

Finally: yes we do remove brand mentions from comments. Nothing personal.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 07:07:29 +0000

The professor isn’t quite right. The best toilets that used the least water were the old wall hung units. Recently I was changing out all of the flush mechanisms in a local Bed and Breakfast for dual flush units( that all flush better now with less water)and two of them I left alone. They were the old style high units with the tanks six feet off the floor. it turns out that they only use about a gallon of water to get the job done. This is part of the principle behind the dual flush kits. When installed the water level is left to the old height or even a little higher. The water force is increased because the water force from the top of the tank is pushing it better. Quite a bit different than a brick. Also, most of the dual flush toilets on the market are using the same design as the 1.6 gallon toilets that came out as far back as 1992. There are a few high tech ones out there that are very expensive. I challenge you to read what actual customers of our dual flush kits are saying. Those are real experiences by real customers

By: JD Krieger

JD Krieger — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:32:49 +0000

We just installed one of these in our home earlier this month and haven’t had any issues with it. Our toilets were installed in 1985 when the home was built and hadn’t been altered in any way (we purchased from the original homeowner).

By: Andy Parks

Andy Parks — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 04:45:07 +0000

My wife insisted we retrofit our dinosaur toilets to help save water (and ultimately, money on our water bill). We compromised, and installed one in our master bathroom. I hated to admit it to her, but it actually does work. I think they key was to not only find the right brand, but also have the right type of older model system. We had no luck at all with the American Standard product, but DID have luck with a product from . So far, we are saving water – I measured since I was sure I was going to be right about this – and we may attempt to do the same with our other 2 systems.

By: Carl

Carl — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 10:56:57 +0000

Makes sense, Haven’t heard much about these gadgets in the field yet, but one would think that it is a design failure.