Why A Macerator Toilet Versus Regular

[FULLTIMEWANABE]

With what I've been reading there are more cons than pros for macerator toilets, so I'm confused why so many newer coaches with bath and half have one of each?

Basically the cons from googling many "pros and cons of" have generally come up saying: Uses more water typically; pumps fail often; more to go wrong; blockages more common place. Typically all of them had about 4 pros to 3 times that of cons???

I'd value your candid thoughts, as on some FT Rver websites/blogs/channels, those that have changed out a regular toilet to them have said "uses less water" hence better for boondocking, needs emptying less often. Yet generalized searching kind of contradicts this.

Looking forwards to your thoughts/experiences having used both over time hopefully.

[FULLTIMEWANABE]

Thanks to those that have contributed useful feedback thus far, to enhance my knowledge. Those that have been using macerators that can share the pros and cons very much appreciated.

Look forward to getting back on topic as well!

[dedmiston]

This thread got weird.

Let's please get back on topic and skip the talk about peeing outdoors.

[JRscooby]

hypoxia wrote:


Near as I can tell those "couple thousand years" were generally in the great outdoors unless urban.

Think might depend on your definition of "urban". Waste pits witch grew into outhouses have been around throughout history, and even pre-history. OTOH bet any place you set up your camper somebody else has been there before, and somebody else will be there after you leave. But as normal in this country ME! Me! it is all about ME! I bought a camper that won't work for what I want so I will take a chance spreading disease.

[hypoxia]

JRscooby wrote:

hypoxia wrote:
Fairly easy to solve that, guys go #1 outside.

I would think it would be better to just use the other toilet when water is limited. After all, man has known for couple thousand years it is better to keep waste together, and away from people.

Reading my post thoroughly will show I have two macerating toilets and no "other" toilet.

Near as I can tell those "couple thousand years" were generally in the great outdoors unless urban.

[JRscooby]

hypoxia wrote:
Fairly easy to solve that, guys go #1 outside.

I would think it would be better to just use the other toilet when water is limited. After all, man has known for couple thousand years it is better to keep waste together, and away from people.

[wa8yxm]

FULLTIMEWANABE wrote:
With what I've been reading there are more cons than pros for macerator toilets, so I'm confused why so many newer coaches with bath and half have one of each?

In the case of a bath and a half rig (Like mine) tis a long way from The Full bath to the place of the black tank, so gravity drop won't work. Thus they put in a macerator to pump it to the black tank a good 12 feet away.

ALso the macerator unit is easier to use (push a button to flush) and there are the many threads about Toilet paper breakdown rated. Well chopped all to bits it breaks down right fast.

[hypoxia]

As navigator2346 says, location of the tank dictates macerator. Downside for dry camping is water usage, push the button and it's going to use a specific amount of water. Fairly easy to solve that, guys go #1 outside.

In nearly 40 years of camping I've repaired many regular flush toilets. I'm in my 5th year of having two macerating toilets and had one problem, an intermittent controller. I think they are reliable and see very few problems posted on the forums.

[navigator2346]

Probably due to the location of the second toilet. One is probably located over the black tank so it is a straight drop of "stuff" to the tank. The second toilet cannot be located over the black tank so it will take more water to move the "stuff" to the tank. Macerating it makes it easier to move "stuff" down the pipe