On Dec 22, 3:07*pm, Some Guy wrote:
Full-Quoter wrote:
The HVAC industry is, and has been, working toward a goal of
making sure that just as each owner of a given house will
probably have to replace the roof once during the ownership
of the house, he will also have to replace the furnace too.

Now that I'd like to see proof of.

You've admitted that furnace life-spans are getting shorter today vs
years ago.

Isin't that proof? *Isin't that an example of how they are coming down
to match (but never fall below) the average length of home ownership?

In a word, no. That's like saying because the average power tool one
buys today lasts
for a shorter time, the goal of all the power tool manufacturer's is
to reduce the lifetime
of their power tool products to two weeks worth of use.

In other words, yes, I agree a furnace doesn't last as long today.
But that is a reaction
to market forces, ie what customers want and what they are willing to
pay, just as it
has always been. There is no master plan to reduce furnace life to 7
years.




I'd like to see proof that the goal is to get lifespan down to 7
years.

If in 5 years we observe that the lifespan of the average new furnace
is 7 years, does it matter if we call that a "goal" ?

Yes, it does. Because you claimed it was an intentional plan by all
HVAC companies
to do exactly that and I see no proof of it.



And you choose to totally ignore the energy usage that a 45 year
old furnace will waste compared to a new one?

Any old furnace that's 25+ years old can have it's efficiency raised
easily by 10 to 20% simply by turning down the burners. *The design
goal for those old furnaces was to blast out the heat in those
un-insulated homes. *They had no concept of constant heat. *They had
crappy mechanical thermostats and couldn't achieve constant
(comfortable) heat output.

Now those homes have added insulation, and if you turn down the
burners so the furnace runs longer (but cooler) you've just raised
their efficiency and probably increased their lifespan too. *Adjust
the burner primary air baffles too so that you're not blasting the
flames straight through to the flue (ie - increase flame residency
time within the heat exchanger to extract more heat from the flames -
slow the flames down).

And I think it's a crock that your only choice is to replace a
45-year-old furnace with one with an expected lifespan of 20 years. *I
don't give a damn about how much fuel savings there will be. *There is
no logical reason why lifespan needs to go down when efficiency goes
up.


I'd like to see you take any old 45+ year old furnace and make it 95%
efficient.





And how many customers are going to be willing to pay
significantly more for a furnace

Back in 1955, what was the inflation-adusted price of a furnace?

Were people paying a fortune back then for furnaces?

Are furnaces today less expensive (in real dollars) compared to 10,
20, 30, 40 years ago?

I would wager that just like most other things, the answer to your
question is yes.
I'll bet if you look at what a furnace 40 years ago cost and adjusted
for inflation,
you're getting a new far more efficient, lighter, easier to install
furnace today for
a whole lot less.





What good is it if you pay less for a furnace today vs 30 years ago,
but you have to buy it twice as often?

Well for starters, if it cost about 1/2 as much you'd be way ahead.
And that's because
you wouldn't have to shell out the extra money decades ago for a
product that cost more
so that it would last 40 years. Plus, it's obvious today's furnaces
are far more efficient
so you're going to save on fuel. Plus, they have new convenience
features, like a variable
speed motor. Didn't this thread start because the OP wanted to save
energy by trying
to retrofit an ECM motor into an old furnace? If he paid a
reasonable price for the furnace
and it's near the end of it's life, then he can buy a whole new more
efficient furnace that
includes that feature. He could even consider switching fuels, maybe
going to a heat pump,
etc, depending on his location.

That's what customers want. Say a new HVAC system costs $6K and lasts
20 years.
That works out to a whopping $300 a year. Consumers are spending way
more than that
for energy. Way more than that for all kinds of entertainment
items. So, spending that
per year for a HVAC system, seems very reasonable to me. And of
course if you limit
it to only a furnace, it's even less.

That's what manufacturers are reacting to and building for.





You're telling me it's a good thing for the environment to have to buy
a furnace every 20 years vs every 40 years? *Do you know how many more
households there are now, compared to 40 years ago?

Yes, I think it is and as I pointed out, environmentalists, govts, and
utilities agree.
Which is why they offer rebates to encourage people to replace old
inefficient
furnaces with new ones.

Again, you focus on the energy used to make the furnace, but
completely ignore
the bigger amount of energy used to run an old inefficient one.

I'd like to see one credible referrence to anyone that agrees it's
better for the envrionment
to continue to use a 40 year old furnace or HVAC system instead of a
new one.




We have 95% efficient furnaces today. *You're saying it's a bad thing
if they last 45 years - because we want people to replace them more
often. *

No, I'm saying if a manufacturer built such an HVAC system today, it
would cost
so much that few customers would want to buy it. Manufacturer's for
the
most part, aren't stupid. If they saw a market segment opportunity
for such
a product, they would offer it.


So I suppose we want them to last only 20 years - because 20
years from now we'll have a 98% efficiency? *So for the sake of a few
extra percent we want people to buy new furnaces? *What the hell kind
of logic is that?

I'm saying if you look at the cost/benefit and value proposition,
around 20-25 years
is the sweet spot. It means customers don't have to shell out extra
money upfront
and that in 20 years, the furnace is depreciated and they can look at
whatever energy
alternatives are available then. Are you clairvoyant enough to know
that in 20 years
the same fuel will be the best choice? By then, the energy
situation could be entirely
different and then maybe a different system would be better instead of
being locked into
a more expensive system that lasts 40 years.




And for me, 20-25 years is the sweet spot for an HVAC system.

Who are you?

A home owner?

A homeowner. A homeowner with a 23 year old HVAC system that is
nearing the end of
it's life. It doesn't owe me a thing. And I'll be happy replacing
it with a new, more efficient
system that lasts about as long.



Or an HVAC reseller/installer?

If the energy-saving argument is correct, reliable, proven or
garanteed, then I don't have to wait for my 45 or 30 or 20 year old
furnace to break down. *I can choose to replace my furnace at my
conveinence. *Or not.

Saying that it's a good thing that furnaces last only 20 or 25 years
is a crock. *If that's what you rely on to make the case to buy a new
furnace, then that's a bull**** argument.

That ignores the fact that it's going to cost significantly more for a
40 year
old system upfront. Factor in paying more upfront and the time
factor
of money over 20 years, ie interest that could be earned, and the 40
year
furnace is what's a crock.




As for things like fixtures, I'd submit that few people today
expect any of them to last for 50+ years. *

Do you know how many old fixtures, tiles, railings, etc, are being
torn out of old homes to be installed in new or renovated homes?

Do you know how many HVAC systems are being torn out of old homes
and being installed in new ones? Zero.

Do they take some special old fixtures out of some old homes for
resale?
Sure. What percent of times does this happen? So small it's not
worth
talking about as applied to the broad market.


Don't confuse style with function. *Those old fixtures went out of
style 30 years ago, but they still function, and now they're back in
style.

I've been through dozens of new construction homes in the last year.
I've
yet to see one with a 40 year old toilet, rail, or anything else.
Sure it
happens in some cases, but it's a niche market. In fact, if you want
to talk
style, most people looking for that old look style typically buy a new
version of that
product, ie they go down to the plumbing supply and buy a new claw
foot tub.


I wouldn't want the same style sink or faucet I had 50 years ago.

Many people do.

There's very little new in furnace design that wasn't known
50 years ago.

So, they had 95% efficient furnaces 50 years ago?

I've got a news bulletin for you.

You don't need a furnace full of electronics, sensors and computers to
get 95% efficiency. *We have 95% efficiency because we have more heat
exchangers, essentially more "plumbing" inside furnaces. *Closed
combustion, intake air pre-heating, etc. *Not even electronic ignition
is needed (that is another gimic that saves very little energy, and
certainly saves no energy when the burners are running).

That doesn;t answer the simple question of whether 95% efficient
furnaces
were available 50 years ago. And you missed the elephant in the room.
For whatever reason, that 50 year old furnace is no where near the
efficiency
of one you can buy today. So, what;s your point?



Of course they knew what it took 50 years ago to build a 95% efficient
furnace. *There just was no demand for it.

Plus in many cases, people are using AC systems today as
opposed to 1957, aren't they? *

We're not talking about AC. *That's another matter.

No, it isn;t. Because today most people have both as part of one
system.
Are you telling us that it's also economically sound to run a 30 year
old
AC system that was bolted onto a 50 year old furnace instead of simply
getting a new system? Or that one should just replace a failed 30
year
old AC system on an even older furnace? LOL

But again it shows why 20-25 years is the sweet spot in terms of
system life.





And if you want to know how "plumbing" can help even more - I'll tell
you.

Ductwork should be gated such that in the winter, air can flow around
the A-frame instead of being forced through it. *And in the summer,
air should be ducted so it doesn't have to flow through the furnace
heat exchanger.

Take those resistances out of the picture and you've just raised the
efficiency of the system. *No fancy electronics required.

And you've got no comment about this eh?


Yes, I do. If you're so smart and know the technology and market
environment
so well, why don't you go get venture capital, start a company and
build HVAC
products designed to last 50 years. I'll bet the system will look a
lot like the car Homer Simpson
designed for his brother's car company and have similar success.