Couldn’t agree more about the camera inspection—skipping that step is asking for trouble, especially in houses with cast iron or old clay lines. I’ve seen folks swap in a low-flow thinking it’ll save water, but if your pipes are already half-blocked with buildup, you’re just trading one problem for another. My rule of thumb: snake and scope first, then install. And if the lines are really rough, sometimes it’s worth considering a pressure-assist model instead. Not every old house is ready for the 1.28-gallon flush, no matter what the box says...
Not every old house is ready for the 1.28-gallon flush, no matter what the box says...
That’s exactly what I keep wondering—how many people actually check their lines before swapping in a low-flow? I mean, it sounds great on paper, but if you’ve got decades of gunk in those pipes, isn’t a “water-saving” toilet just going to make clogs more likely? I’ve seen a neighbor have to plunge almost daily after switching. Has anyone tried those dual-flush models in older homes? Curious if they’re any better or just another version of the same problem.
I hear you on the plunging—my brother swapped to a low-flow in his 1950s place and it’s been nothing but trouble. He tried a dual-flush thinking it’d help, but honestly, the “big flush” still isn’t enough if your pipes are half-blocked with old buildup. Makes me wonder if it’s smarter to invest in getting the lines cleaned out first, or just stick with the old toilet until you can do a bigger plumbing upgrade. Has anyone actually saved money after factoring in all the extra maintenance?
