Low Map Scores? And help choosing

I read Terry's comments that any MaP score above 500 equals about the same performance. But it bugs me that the relatively reasonably-priced Totos mainly did about 500 in the last (Nov. 28: 13th ed) MaP testing when there are now so many toilets rating 1000. I'm not sure how to place this in perspective with my "real world" concerns: flushing it all down, staying relatively clean, low maintenance, decent looks.

As someone 5' 1" tall, I'm looking for a non-ADA toilet that meets WaterSense for a local rebate. I have two toilets to buy, thinking of starting with one of the following:
*Aquia II EL. Orig. Aquia is MaP 800, the II is 500. Does this matter?
*EcoUltramax RF (MaP 550)(no guys in the house)
*Or EcoDrake EL (non-ADA)(MaP 600)

I'm finding it hard to commit to a Toto, since I originally limited my choices to toilets with MaP scores over 800. Any guidance from the great folks on this site would be so much appreciated.

Terry, this is the best place on the web for toilet info. Thanks so much.

John Koeller of MaP bought a Caroma rated at 550 grams for his home.
He then commented that the bowl does not stay clean.

You will never plug a Caroma, but that doesn't mean the bowls are clean.

The MaP testing doesn't not tell you if it's a "good" toilet.

It does tell you that it will flush soy paste wrapped in plastic that is 3/4" in diameter and about 4" long.

What we try to do with our information, is to also consider:

How well the bowl rinses.

Quality control, does the plumber have to return bowls or tanks until he gets a complete working toilet?

Can you get after market parts for it? Parts for for Aquia

Is the flush startling or annoying?

Does the flush valve start leaking after a short period of time?

Homeowners and plumbers help to write this report.
www.terrylove.com/crtoilet.htm
The "only" report that uses homeowner input.


Quality Control for Toto is very good. No, make that excellent.

On the difference between the Aquia CST414M with the 2-5/8" trapway and the Aquia CST416M with the 2-1/8" trapway, they work very much the same. The odds of anyone noticing a difference is slim.
In the Seattle area, we are mainly stocking the enclosed bowl CST416M with the 500 Gram rating. The sound levels on this bowl are a little nicer. You can say that the homeowners have voted, and they seemed to have chosen the enclosed Aquia II bowl over the old style.

Either of the Eco Drake bowls would be fine. The only real difference between the elongated and the regular bowl, is the extra 1-1/2" at the top of the bowl for needed space. The lower part of both bowls are the same. If one is rated higher than the other, I don't know why. The ADA version of the same bowl is rated at 900 grams, using the same tank and trapway.
Either way, I have used the Aquia dual flush, the EcoDrake 1.28, and Gwyneth 1.28 in my home. They all work very well.

Don't get too hung up on the MaP score. While it is important, once you get over a certain score you should be good enough. I have had an Eco Drake elongated standard height for a year and I have zero complaints so far.

Thanks, fellows, for the helpful clarifications.

I'm going to order an Aquia II for the downstairs bath, and then consider which of the 3 for the upstairs master bath.

Wish I could afford one of the cyclone wash toilets!

Aquia II, PDF spec file sheet

I would agree and say bowl rinsing is more important than Map rating. You will double flush more because of poor bowl rinse than not taking everything on the first try (10:1). Remember, 1000 g is 2.2 lbs, imagine putting two lbs of hamburger in the bowl. I don't care what 1.6 g toilet you use, if your dropping that, you will be flushing twice, maybe even three times.