OK. There is the Toto Ultramax, Ultramax II and the Eco UltraMax.
I can't really get a handle on the difference in performance between them. The UltraMax is 1.6 gal, while the UltraMax II and the Eco UltraMax is 1.28 gal. Should we expect a significant difference in overall performance? What aspects of performance are compromised the more?
What about the differences between the UltraMax II and the Eco UltraMax? Both are 1.28 gal, but Eco Ultramax appears to use the E-max flush and the other the "Double Cyclone" system. Does one work better? Do both use a 3 inch flush valve, or just the E-max and does that matter much? Finally, why does Toto feel they need to have 2 different versions of the same toilet with the same flush volume, with just a differences in the flush technique?
How do they compare to the Aquia?
One more question. Does SanaGloss work, and is it worth the cost? I noticed that the Aquia model is one of the few Toto models that is not available in a version with SanaGloss. If there a good reason for this?
Thanks for the help!
Double cyclone is Toto's latest invention...it does work by giving better bowl wash. Not to say that the old ones are bad, just that the newest version is better. They got the extra water savings by more accurately timing the water refill. All toilets somewhat overfill the bowl...the new ones do it less. The initial volume to flush remains the same, so minimal if any difference. Comparing my old toilets with the new ones that have Sanagloss, yes, it is worth it. I have IRB, and it takes weeks longer to build up and is much easier to clean on the toilets with Sanagloss than the old ones without. Essentially just a quick brush removes the ring, whereas in the old ones without Sanagloss, it came back quicker, and was harder to scrub clean.
Important note - I'm not a pro
Retired Defense Industry Engineer; Schluter 2.5-day Workshop Completed 2013