New Kholer CIMARRON toilet is a step backwards?
 

Yesterday I got to see the new Kholer toilet that is suppose to be
competitive with the other low volume super flush toilets. I was
surprised at the itty-bitty tank (1.4 gal). Does not the small volume
of water defeat the purpose of increased size to flush system so that it
is once again an average toilet? Is the 1.4 gal tank required by law
(same pin-heads that give us the plug up toilets of today)? Doesn't the
American Standard and TOTO have 1.6 gal tanks and do they work better?

Thanks for any help


u4ick

--
-Laissez Les Bon Temps Rouler-

We replaced two of our old water-wasting (4+ gal.) toilets that were
always getting plugged up and needing multiple flushes by low-flush (1.6
gal.) AS toilets with huge waterways and have never needed to flush more
than once. I don't see why 1.4 gal. wouldn't be sufficient with even
better design.

MB


On 11/17/04 09:32 am u4ick put fingers to keyboard and launched the
following message into cyberspace:

Yesterday I got to see the new Kholer toilet that is suppose to be
competitive with the other low volume super flush toilets. I was
surprised at the itty-bitty tank (1.4 gal). Does not the small volume
of water defeat the purpose of increased size to flush system so that it
is once again an average toilet? Is the 1.4 gal tank required by law
(same pin-heads that give us the plug up toilets of today)? Doesn't the
American Standard and TOTO have 1.6 gal tanks and do they work better?

Thanks for any help