View Full Version : Toto Clayton vs. Dartmouth/Drake

12-25-2005, 06:32 PM
Midway through a bathroom remodel in my 1904 Southern Colonial 2-story, I have decided upon a Toto toilet based on overwhelming consensus on the forums. However, having now seen these toilets in person at a local Toto supplier, I am most interested in the Clayton. The Dartmouth would be a 2nd choice, while the Drake (appealingly priced as it may be) is simply too "plain" looking to fit this house.

I was nearly set to purchase the Clayton when, having perused this site, I notice that in Terry's reviews notes he puts a "900" rating in both the Drake and Dartmouth reviews, and yet in the Baldwin (Clayton) review the number is a mere 675.

What gives with that? My understanding is that if the toilet was a GMax-equipped Toto, then the performance should be identical. Am I correct in saying that the Drake and Dartmouth disposed of 900g of waste, whilst the Clayton managed just 675g? This seems a non-negligible difference.

Are the Dartmouth/Drakes toilets simply better-performing than the Clayton, and thus more worthy of my consideration? Or is the Clayton identical in performance and i'm must misreading/misinterpreting Terry's notes?

Perhaps the Baldwin (when it was a Baldwin) was 675, but when its name changed to the Clayton it got improved to be a 900?

Any advice/suggestions/clarifications on this?

Thanks very much,

12-26-2005, 11:21 AM
Anything above 500 grams is very good.
There is a bit of variance on the testing. Sometimes it doesn't make sense.

The rated one model at 325 grams, never plugged it.
Then I put in a rated 650 gram model, and plugged that one.

The test uses 3/4" by 4" paste wrapped in plastic now.
When they tested with unwrapped paste, the numbers were lower. Now they slide through quicker.
Some of it depends on "when" they were tested, and the method they were using at the time.

12-26-2005, 11:48 AM
Are you aware of any reason why the Clayton is rated lower? Or if there really is any difference?

Over 500 may be quite good, but the difference between 675 and 900 is pretty large, methinks. I looked on that source website (the Canada/California ratings) and the Dartmouth is not listed.

In your opinion, is the 900-rated Dartmouth a smarter buy than the 675-rated Clayton? If they were truly identical I'd take the Clayton for the extra $10 and the better looks.... but if one of them actually performs better (even if both are "very good"), then performance takes precedence over any small aesthetic differences between the two....


12-26-2005, 04:48 PM
The MaP didn't have testing on the Dartmouth, the 900 was a guess based on the common parts and trapway design.

The Dartmouth has a bigger drop in the trapway than the Clayton, however the Drake tested was the standard height CST744S and it got the 900.

I don't worry too much about model differences. I've had the 325 gram Ultimate in my home and I thought it was good.

We commonly got 30 to 50 on a weekend and parties would hit 200.
I think I went a year with that one before I had to look to see where I kept a plunger.

Toto Clayton

Reader Review
08-20-2009, 12:11 PM
I recently stayed at the Monterey Hotel & Spa (5 Star) located in Monterey, California. They have Toto toilets in the suites which where amazing. We called them to find out more information, which they replied with: TOTO Low Flow Toilet Model # CST754EF

It also had a lid that had a back upward lip, like a tray would have to keep things from falling behind the toilet, and this toilet had the soft-close toilet seat.

Claudia H

Gary Swart
08-20-2009, 02:49 PM
That number is for a Dartmouth. Terry's Report shows Dartmouth with the number CST754SF. I'm not sure what the difference between an SF and EF is, perhaps SF is 1.6 gallon flush and EF is 1.3 but that's just a guess. The real tip off that it is a Dartmouth is the lip on the tank. I've had a Dartmouth in my home for nearly 2 years. It has never clogged, always flushes everything with 1 flush. Streaking occurs only rarely, and a quick bushing takes care of it when it does. I like the good sized water spot which I think helps keep the streaking to a minimum.

05-13-2011, 07:12 PM

TOTO CST754EF Dartmouth
So here it is Friday, and we installed two of these today. One in Woodinville and one in Shoreline.
This one is the Watersense model, so it gets the $100.00 rebate from Cascade Water.

12-28-2011, 02:52 PM
Any opinions on the TOTO Clayton CST784SF?

After the problems I had with the side mounted lever on the Kholer I'm replacing I don't want another toilet with a side mount lever.

12-28-2011, 03:04 PM
The TOTO Clayton works like the TOTO Drake.
They have been very good.

Handles on tanks are somewhat generic. Sometimes they need replacing, regardless of the brand.
The Clayton handle is pretty solid though.

12-28-2011, 03:16 PM
Thanks. If I can find the Clayton in my area for a decent price I'll buy it. The style is a good match for the tub in that bathroom.

12-29-2011, 06:58 PM
As luck would have it I had to drive past the area plumbing supply that carries TOTO toilets to drive my mother to the hospital for a blood test and appointment with the hematologist.

They had four in another of their stores and will have it there some time tomorrow. I'll also pick up the SS154 traditional style soft close seat to go with it. When I first walked in I asked to confirm that they are the TOTO distributor. He immediately asked me if I was looking for the Drake. I said I like the style of the Clayton better with the front mount handle. I spent several minutes discussing different models, gpf, map ratings, pressure assist and life expectancy in hard water areas, etc. I also told him I didn't want another Kohler with it's six month flush lever and lousy flush and that I came close to buying a AS C4. I could literally see he was surprised (taken aback?) when I discussed all this.

Ironically I saw that the next door neighbor was having one of his toilets replaced today. I saw the installer unload the Glacier Bay toilet from his truck. It looked like it was the Model # 303-635. I'm willing to bet the install cost much more than the toilet. I guess some people have more money than sense.

Thanks to this forum I have no doubt I'll be installing an excellent toilet.

12-30-2011, 09:07 AM
I pulled out a Glacier Bay with the flapperless tank in my GF's home. It was a pitiful rinse.
She now has a TOTO Drake II. Huge difference!

12-31-2011, 09:19 PM
For $120 I might have taken a chance...

The TOTO Clayton is installed at a good discount - $43.xx more than an AS C4. The retail jumped right after I agreed to buy. The price on the TOTO site jumped from $559 to $612. In the process of installing it I learned a few things. It's in, level, and working good but I'm not satisfied. There were two old mounting bolts from some old fixture cut off just above tile level in just the wrong spot. With tile wear (the house was built in the '30s) and other factors I had to shim more than I'd like. The water is about 1/16 low in front but I'll deal wit that tomorrow. It's in, steady, stable, level, and doesn't leak .Time to enjoy this Spaten Optimator. Happy New Year!

Some older 1920's homes used a four bolt installation. Only the back two were needed.