feasibility of using close coupled cistern body in low level setup

[SusageFingers]

Hello,

I've accidentally purchased an Armitage Shanks S392001 universal close coupled cistern when I should have bought something like the S390001 low level cistern, which is what I need.

Irritatingly, I opened all the packaging before I realized so I won't be able to return it :bigcry:

Given the obvious similarity between the close coupled and the low level variants, I was wondering if it would be possible to salvage the situation by at least using the porcelain, if not the internal components.

Clearly I would need to get L brackets to assist with mounting it on the wall and I already have the flush pipe and associated connectors, although I notice the flush mechanism would expose a smaller diameter threaded pipe out the bottom if I were to attempt to use the supplied parts. In terms of the porcelain, from my, admittedly inexperienced, perspective is it only the hole in the porcelain that might be different?

Or perhaps I should cut my losses and abandon the S392001.

Any advice would be appreciated.

 

[Riley]

Welcome to the forum. I'd be gobsmacked if you can A. make it work without leaking and it not being a bodge and B. Make it not look dog rough. I'd get the right cistern

 

[ShaunCorbs]

Depends does it have holes through to mount it to the pan if yes then as above if no you can make it work

 

[Best]

I agree. - the close coupled cisterns used to be the same as the low level cisterns.
But you might find yours has 2 small bolt holes, as they rarely come for a close coupled kit (a metal plate & bolts for underside of syphon).
If it has these holes I guess you could still put the bolts in to seal the holes and get a couple of brackets to hold the weight of the cistern, if you could be bothered.
Or else just give the cistern to someone who can use it and take the loss

 

[SusageFingers]

Thanks for the replies

S392001 (close coupled):



S390001 (low level):



As you can see, there are no holes for attaching to the base. In the close coupled case, this is achieved with a plate that fits on underneath.

The other obvious differences are...
1) S390 is deeper (230 compared to 200)
2) S390 screw fixing centers are closer together (290 compared to 305)
3) S390 screw fixing centers are further down the body of the cistern (265 from base, compared to 285)
4) S390 flush hole (for want of the correct terminology) is positioned further away from the wall (125 compared to 90)
5) S390 inlet pipe is 5mm further forward

The spec doesn't state the size of the hole in the base of either.

The two look very similar, so I'm not concerned that it would look odd, and my inlet pipe is flexible, so the 5mm offset would not be an issue.

Problems I can see are:
a) If a regular flush mechanism would fit and not leak
b) The flushpipe would have additional travel to reach the pan (215 compared to 180 in the S390). I can work out if that's a problem when I get home.

If a and b are not issues, then I cannot see there being a problem. If I've got to modify things to make it work then, as Riley says, it would be a bodge and, therefore not worth pursuing.

 

[ShaunCorbs]

S392001 (close coupled):

View attachment 26808

S390001 (low level):

View attachment 26809

As you can see, there are no holes for attaching to the base. In the close coupled case, this is achieved with a plate that fits on underneath.

The other obvious differences are...
1) S390 is deeper (230 compared to 200)
2) S390 screw fixing centers are closer together (290 compared to 305)
3) S390 screw fixing centers are further down the body of the cistern (265 from base, compared to 285)
4) S390 flush hole (for want of the correct terminology) is positioned further away from the wall (125 compared to 90)
5) S390 inlet pipe is 5mm further forward

The spec doesn't state the size of the hole in the base of either.

The two look very similar, so I'm not concerned that it would look odd, and my inlet pipe is flexible, so the 5mm offset would not be an issue.

Problems I can see are:
a) If a regular flush mechanism would fit and not leak
b) The flushpipe would have additional travel to reach the pan (215 compared to 180 in the S390). I can work out if that's a problem when I get home.

If a and b are not issues, then I cannot see there being a problem. If I've got to modify things to make it work then, as Riley says, it would be a bodge and, therefore not worth pursuing.

A aslong as its not push button (2") you will be fine

You can get longer flush pipes and cut down to suit/fit

 

[thereisawizza]

Buy the L brackets, flush pipe with nut and seal already supplied & a flush cone. Sorted.

"Blue Book" shows all the details

 

[SusageFingers]

Ok, so this all sounds promising.

As I mentioned earlier, the supplied siphon exposes a threaded pipe out the bottom with a diameter that is smaller than the nut the came with the flush pipe kit, so I guess I'd need to obtain a flush mechanism intended for a low-level cistern in addition to the L brackets (ordered) and the flush pipe kit (already got that) mentioned by thereisawizza.

Also, what is the "Blue Book"?