Ottawan
New Member
Hi, Terry. Given that they both have the same G-Max flush mechanism, what accounts for difference in flushing capacity between the Toto Drake (900 gm) and the Toto Ultramax (700 gm)?
Ultramax versus Drake
- Thread starter Ottawan
- Start date
One has a taller tank.
Since both have a MaP higher than 500 grams, they work pretty much the same.
Since both have a MaP higher than 500 grams, they work pretty much the same.
Sponsor
Paid Advertisement
I have the Eco Gywenth in the main bath, and an Eco Drake in the Master.
I have a 1.6 SG Ultramax downstairs.
I used to have the Dual Flush Aquia in the Main.
They all work pretty good.
Anything over 500 grams is very good.
I have a 1.6 SG Ultramax downstairs.
I used to have the Dual Flush Aquia in the Main.
They all work pretty good.
Anything over 500 grams is very good.
Last edited:
Peanut9199
Customer Service Manager Plumbing Wholesale
G-Max Drake Elongated regular height has a Map test of 900.
The E-Max same size has a Map test of 600.
Anything over 250 is a good flush.
We have the Gyweth in our Ladies bathroom and the Aquia in our Men's bathroom and both work great, we have no problem with flush or staining and they are both used quite alot in the day.
The E-Max same size has a Map test of 600.
Anything over 250 is a good flush.
We have the Gyweth in our Ladies bathroom and the Aquia in our Men's bathroom and both work great, we have no problem with flush or staining and they are both used quite alot in the day.
Gary Swart
In the Trades
I think the problem many people have in understanding low flow toilets is that we all were brought up to believe you needed anywhere of 3 gallons to 7 gallons to properly flush. Common sense tells us that the more water used, the better the flush. It didn't help when the low flow mandate came out that many well known brand manufactures tried to use old designs with less water and of course that didn't work, but it gave most folks the idea that low flow toilets would require lots of plunging, lots of double flushes, and just poor performance in general. Since most people don't spend much time researching advances in toilet design, this opinion remains in the minds of many consumers. It is hard to accept the fact that a toilet using only 1.6 gallons per flush will perform as well as or even better than old 3 gallon toilets. Maybe even harder to accept is that a toilet using just 1.3 gallons will do as well as a 1.6 gallon toilet! To me, an interesting thing about this is that although the toilet is the most frequently used device in our homes, with the exception of the water heater, it is the least understood. Dishwashers and disposals are used maybe 1 or 2 times per day, and showers once a day per person, but the toilet is used 3-4 times per day per person everyday.
Neotonic
New Member
I agree. People think that we need tons of water to flush, but with advances in water conservation technology, we can do a clean flush with only 1.1gpf. I have modified my 1.6Gpf Cadet 2 to only flush with approx. 1.4 to 1.3gpf (I think..or I am totally wrong).
My Parents have a Toto Eco-Drake and they never complained about it. My Modified Cadet 2 from 1997 flushed better than out 1985 American Standard Cadet that uses 3.5Gpf.
I think what sparked peoples idea of low-flow toilets being a bad ideas was when the low-flow toilet first became popular. they were designed for 3.5GPF but they were using 1.6Gpf so there was an off-balance in performance thus causing problems with clogging and double flushing. Nowadays we design toilets that can actual handle as low and lower than 1.28gpf and do a complete flush with excellent performance. People are being reassured that new low flow toilets are better than the low flow toilets from the 1990's or earlier. (Refrencing 1989 1.5Gpf URC
)
