On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:11:54 -0700, Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator
wrote:
$608 SG40T12AVH/182-755 72galFHR 0.59EF ??KBTU 40gal 6-yr(drain 2x/year)
$658 SG50T12AVH/183-717 80galFHR 0.58EF ??KBTU 50gal 6-yr(drain 2x/year)
$677 SG40T12AVH/182-786 72galFHR 0.59EF ??KBTU 40gal 9-yr(self cleaning)
$718 SG50T12AVH/184-076 80galFHR 0.58EF ??KBTU 50gal 9-yr(self cleaning)
$728 SG40T12AVH/182-953 68galFHR 0.59EF ??KBTU 40gal 12-yr(self cleaning)
$783 SG50T12AVH/185-191 83galFHR 0.58EF ??KBTU 50gal 12-yr(self cleaning)

For the record, this reference, pointed to me by someone on this thread, is
FANTASTIC for helping a consumer figure out which gas water heater to buy!

http://www.gamanet.org/gama/inforeso...s?OpenDocument

The actual document for a gas water heater is
http://www.gamanet.org/gama/inforesources.nsf/vAttachmentLaunch/C2AAFB8D41D003F485256E9000607F66/$FILE/12-07-gas-rwh.pdf

I'm reading it now to learn more.
A lot of what people said is right but a lot is wrong.
It's so hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.

But I'm trying!
Donna

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:10:33 -0700, Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator
wrote:
A lot of what people said is right but a lot is wrong.
It's so hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Nobody mentioned the payback calculation yet.
I'm trying to run the calculations in the invaluable Dec. 2007 document
http://www.gamanet.org/gama/inforesources.nsf/vAttachmentLaunch/C2AAFB8D41D003F485256E9000607F66/$FILE/12-07-gas-rwh.pdf

Given current PG&E cost per therm in my area
http://www.pge.com/tariffs/GRS.SHTML#GRS
of between $1.21 to $1.44 per therm
http://www.pge.com/tariffs/pdf/G-1.pdf

For those calculations, does an average cost per therm in my area of $1.33
seem reasonable to you?

Donna

For those calculations, does an average cost per therm in my area of $1.33
seem reasonable to you?



Look at your utility bill, it should say exactly what the cost per therm is,
they may call it CCF. That number sounds a little high, but then it varies
by area and the cost has multiplied by several times in the last 10-15
years. I pay around $1.15 per therm, I still remember when it was closer to
33 cents.

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 07:24:20 GMT, James Sweet wrote:

I pay around $1.15 per therm,
I still remember when it was ... 33 cents.

I pay around $1.33 per therm.
I'm going to do the calculations today.

I just called Sears Kenmore (actually AO SMith State Industries makes all
the Kenmore brands) asking for their highest-efficiency consumer hot water
heater models.
- Sears Kenmore Home Water Heater Department: 1-800-877-6420

Here's the summary from Sears for the 40-gallon 12/1 year water heater:
- $420/$853 #33144 FHR 81 gallons, EF 0.63, BTU 40K,
- 58" tall, 20.5" diameter, 63.5" tall with diverter

Here's the summary from Sears for the 50-gallon 12/1 year water heater:
- $450/$885 #33154 FHR 97 gallons, EF 0.63, BTU 40K,
- 59.5" tall, 22" diameter, 65" tall with diverter

The installation fee includes a bunch of possibly mandatory extras.
- Mandatory Installation Fee $300
- Mandatory Disposal Fee $10
- Mandatory Plumbing Permit $77
- Mandatory Flex Pipe Replacement $46
- Mandatory Sales Tax on the water heater ~8.75%
- Possible Earthquake Straps $68
- Possible pipe retrofit fees ~100
- Possible trip charge of $35 to $80 if any service is refused

I still have to do the calculations to see if the EF makes any real
difference at a cost per therm of $1.33 particularly since the "average"
water heater at HD was 0.58 or 0.59 EF, but I could special order a HD one
with 0.62 EF but I could get from Sears one with an EF of 0.63.

I wonder how much exactly it all matters ... for that ... I need to build
the calculations.

I think I have enough now - certainly more than I ever thought I needed to
know - to make a reasonable not-dumb decision on replacing my home water
heater that started leaking yesterday morning.

Please let me know if you have any calculators on the web which can COMPARE
two home water heaters given the specs we have posted in this thread!

Thanks,
Donna

"Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" wrote in
message

The installation fee includes a bunch of possibly mandatory extras.
- Mandatory Installation Fee $300
- Mandatory Disposal Fee $10
- Mandatory Plumbing Permit $77
- Mandatory Flex Pipe Replacement $46
- Mandatory Sales Tax on the water heater ~8.75%
- Possible Earthquake Straps $68
- Possible pipe retrofit fees ~100
- Possible trip charge of $35 to $80 if any service is refused

Do you get a choice of KY or Vaseline too?

Call al local plumber and save a bundle of money. The flex pipe should be
replaced with every installation though.

Look in the classifieds in your newspaper.You will find ads there of
licensed/bonded people who do plumbing work/repair, if you don't want to
install the water heater yourself.Any good handyman can do the job.I
can't figure why the city (or any city) needs to know when a home owner
buys a water heater.
cuhulin

wrote in message news:6fc777ee-3fad-467f-b11c-


The installation fee includes a bunch of possibly mandatory extras.
- Mandatory Installation Fee $300
- Mandatory Disposal Fee $10
- Mandatory Plumbing Permit $77
- Mandatory Flex Pipe Replacement $46
- Mandatory Sales Tax on the water heater ~8.75%
- Possible Earthquake Straps $68
- Possible pipe retrofit fees ~100
- Possible trip charge of $35 to $80 if any service is refused


What on that list is so excessive or wouldn't incur a similar charge
from a local plumber? They all seem within reason, depending of
course on the area.


The total is in the $680 range for most options. Start with he basic $300
charge. Double what a local guy may charge. Permits can very , but probably
closer to $25 if you actually get one. I'd not get one. What about that $80
trip charge? Sears will hose you no matter what. Last place I'd go.

wrote:
Look in the classifieds in your newspaper.You will find ads there of
licensed/bonded people who do plumbing work/repair, if you don't want to
install the water heater yourself.Any good handyman can do the job.I
can't figure why the city (or any city) needs to know when a home owner
buys a water heater.
cuhulin

So they can tax you by forcing you to get a permit, why else?

Jerry

You might be interested in buying a tankless water heater.Look on the
web for,
How do Tankless Water Heaters Work?
cuhulin
.................................................
Permits? What permits? We don't have any pemits.We don't need any
stinkin permits!
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
.................................................

wrote in message
...
You might be interested in buying a tankless water heater.Look on the
web for,
How do Tankless Water Heaters Work?



The OP already said the cost is prohibitive. Tankless water heaters require
a larger gas line and much larger flue vent than conventional tanks because
the burner is usually around 150K BTU rather than 30-40K BTUof a
conventional tank. I plan to install one in my place because I have a large
flue that originally served a gas furnace but I replaced that with a
condensing furnace that uses a PVC flue, but had I needed to install a new
vent for a tankless heater it would be too complex and expensive to bother.

wrote in message
...
On Feb 11, 10:53 pm, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
"Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" wrote
in
message



The installation fee includes a bunch of possibly mandatory extras.
- Mandatory Installation Fee $300
- Mandatory Disposal Fee $10
- Mandatory Plumbing Permit $77
- Mandatory Flex Pipe Replacement $46
- Mandatory Sales Tax on the water heater ~8.75%
- Possible Earthquake Straps $68
- Possible pipe retrofit fees ~100
- Possible trip charge of $35 to $80 if any service is refused

Do you get a choice of KY or Vaseline too?

Call al local plumber and save a bundle of money. The flex pipe should be
replaced with every installation though.

What on that list is so excessive or wouldn't incur a similar charge
from a local plumber? They all seem within reason, depending of
course on the area.

It's been better than a couple of decades since I bought a new water heater,
and that one was electric, but...

the installation fee seems high - enough to double the cost of the
appliance.
sales tax on the heater? - I seem to remember that something that becomes
part of real property is sales tax exempt, if you file the proper
certificate, in NJ anyway
earthquake straps?

The one time I had to replace the water heater, I bought it from Sears - the
installed price was better than an independent plumber, the service was fast
(called in the morning, heater was in that afternoon) and the installer was
pleasant and informative. A lot can change in 20+ years, but if/when I
again need a new heater, I'll at least see what they have to say.

Also, all the back and forth about the relative cost of operating a smaller
heater compared to a larger one seems to me to be fairly easily resolved -
take a look at the energy guide label. When I pick a 30 gallon heater and a
50 gallon heater at random and compare the estimated annual operating cost,
the difference is $7.00 a year in favor of the smaller heater. Your actual
operating costs will depend on the cost of fuel in your area and your actual
usage, but while I don't advocate getting a larger heater than you need, the
annual operating cost difference doesn't seem like a reason to get something
smaller than you could use.

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:02:20 GMT, Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
Permits can very , but probably closer to $25 if you actually get one.

You must get a plumbing permit in my town:
Home Depot charges $77
Lowes charges almost $90
Sears charges $95 for that same permit.

The overall installation fee (includes all sans tax & straps) is:
$400 Home Depot 877-467-0542
$410 Lowes 877-465-6937
$433 Sears 800-877-6420

What would a typical plumber have charged for the permit and installation?

Donna

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:12:51 -0500, Lou wrote:
Also, all the back and forth about the relative cost of operating a smaller
heater compared to a larger one seems to me to be fairly easily resolved -
take a look at the energy guide

It turns out a lot of people were dead wrong on efficiency, including me.
According to the www.gamanet.org web site, operating a 40-gallon hot-water
heater is no more or less efficient than operating a 50-gallon hot-water
heater.

The only thing that matters for efficiency is the Energy Factor (EF) which
takes into account the tank size, insulation, and burner BTU.
Reference site: http://www.gamanet.org/gama/inforesources.nsf

So, if a 40 gallon hot-water heater has an EF of, say, 0.63 while a
50-gallon hot-water heater has an equal EF of 0.63, then the costs are
EXACTLY the same to operate the two heaters!

The math is all spelled out for us in the PDF at:
http://tinyurl.com/38eh4d
http://www.gamanet.org/gama/inforesources.nsf/vAttachmentLaunch/C2AAFB8D41D003F485256E9000607F66/$FILE/12-07-gas-rwh.pdf

Since almost all of us were dead wrong on this one, it would be nice if
someone can read that reference document and let me know if my new
conclusions that size doesn't matter has any flaws in it as I publically
state that all that matters is the EF (based on my reading ten times of
that document).

Donna

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 06:16:38 GMT, Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator
wrote:
The math is all spelled out for us in the PDF at:
http://tinyurl.com/38eh4d
http://www.gamanet.org/gama/inforesources.nsf/vAttachmentLaunch/C2AAFB8D41D003F485256E9000607F66/$FILE/12-07-gas-rwh.pdf

Since almost all of us were dead wrong on this one, it would be nice if
someone can read that reference document and check my calculations

PLEASE DOUBLECHECK THESE HOT-WATER-HEATER CALCULATIONS!

Here are the necessary calculations I believe we need to make in order to
compare two gas-fired water heaters. All calculations are courtesy of the
referenced PDF and charts at www.gamanet.org except the energy costs which
are courtesy of PG&E at http://www.pge.com/tariffs/pdf/G-1.pdf

In reality, these calculations would need to be done for at least a
half-dozen different water heaters (two each from Lowes, Sears, and Home
Depot, for example) in order to properly choose an available water heater
intelligently.

For simplicity, I'll use the values I plugged into the calculations for my
home; yours may differ but the mathematical approach is exactly the same.
0. Calculate minimum legal efficiency (EF)
1. Calculate maximum peak-hour requirements (FHR)
2. Calculate total installed price ($/installation)
3. Calculate yearly operating costs ($/year)
4. Calculate payback period (months/installation)

Here are my calculations.
PLEASE CHECK FOR ERRORS OR OMISSIONS AS WE ALL ARE LEARNING FROM THIS!

0. Calculate the minimum energy factor required by federal & local law:
(based on October 1990 Dept. of Energy Test Procedure for Water Heaters as
published in the May 11, 1998 Federal Register.)

For gas-fired residential water heaters, the minimum energy factor is:
Minimum EF for 40-gallon water heaters = 0.67 - 0.0019 * 40 = 0.58
Minimum EF for 50-gallon water heaters = 0.67 - 0.0019 * 50 = 0.59

Note: Southern California uses different legal minimum numbers than
northern California so be advised to modify the calculation for your area!

1. Determine your peak requirements:
20 gallons per shower x 2 showers in one hour = 40 gallons per hour
20 gallons per bath x 0 baths in one hour = 0 gallons per hour
2 gallons per shave x 0 shaves in that hour = 0 additional gallons
4 gallons per personal wash x 0 = 0 additional gallons
4 gallons per shampoo x 0 = 0 additional gallons (do it in the shower)
4 gallons per hand dishwashing x 0 dishes = 0 gallons
14 gallons per dishwasher load x 1 load = 14 additional peak gallons
5 gallons per food preparation x 1 meal = 5 additional gallons
26 gallons per wringer wash x 1 load = 26 additional peak gallons
32 gallons per automatic wash x 0 loads = 0 additional peak gallons
-----
TOTAL PEAK GALLONS = 40 + 14 + 5 + 26 = 85 gallons First Hour Rating

2. Determine price installed (inclusive):
Sears 33154 is $882 ($449 for the heater + $433 for full installation)
HD 183-717 is $747 ($349 for the heater + $398 for full installation)

3. Determine yearly operating costs given your basal energy unit, FHR, EF,
and average-use assumption.

For simplification, I'll only compare two heaters but the calculator we
create needs to cover at least a few at a time. I did this in Excel for
current northern California baseline (Schedule G-1 Residential Service)
energy rates.

CHOICE A:
Sears 33154 (marketed as Kenmore but made by AO Smith) FHR=97 EF=0.63
(41,045 btu/0.63)($1.21106/therm * 1 therm/100,000 btu) x 365 = $288/year

CHOICE B:
Home Depot 183-717 (marketed as GE but made by Rheem) FHR=80 EF=0.58
(41,045 btu/0.58)($1.21106/therm * 1 therm/100,000 btu) x 365 = $313/year

Note: Irrelevant specs would have been tank size, burner BTUs, gallons to
recovery to 90 degrees in one hour, etc. as the only figures that matter
for the calculations are the EF and the FHR since they take into account
all other design-size specifications such as those you quoted.)

4. Determine payback period:
a. Additional cost of more efficient model = $882 - $747 = $135
b. Annual savings of more efficient model = $313 - $288 = $25 per year
c. Payback period = $135 / $25 * 365 / 30 = 65 months (5.4 years)

5. Determine overall savings:
The two water heaters compared in this simplified calcuation would be
equivalent in overall costs at approximately 5 and a half years.

Considering the average water heater lasts 13 years, total savings for the
more expensive yet more economical heater would be:

(13 years - 5.4 years) * $25/year = $190 savings overall

6. Choose the correct water heater:

Based on the math everyone should perform when selecting the proper water
heater, I would buy the Sears 33154, which will save me almost 200 dollars
over its lifetime over the Home Depot 183-717 assuming current energy
prices and average usage.

Note: In reality, one needs to compare at least a half-dozen water heaters;
here I only compared two for simplicity. I knew none of these calculations
just two days ago, so, PLEASE CHECK MY NUMBERS after reading the reference
document I refer to.

If the numbers hold water, then this should go into the alt.home.repair FAQ
for everyone to benefit from all our efforts to understand how to properly
size & select a home water heater replacement (yes, I know there are
physical size issues also but this tutorial is already too long to go into
those details).

Donna

"Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" wrote in
message ...
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:02:20 GMT, Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
Permits can very , but probably closer to $25 if you actually get one.

You must get a plumbing permit in my town:
Home Depot charges $77
Lowes charges almost $90
Sears charges $95 for that same permit.

The overall installation fee (includes all sans tax & straps) is:
$400 Home Depot 877-467-0542
$410 Lowes 877-465-6937
$433 Sears 800-877-6420

What would a typical plumber have charged for the permit and installation?

Donna

Jeez.

I'd feel like I was ripping someone off if I charged more than 100 bucks to
install a water heater, but then I'm not licensed or bonded so I don't do
this for random people, but still, last one I did took less than an hour,
it's literally 3 threaded pipes and a flue vent.

Best way to find out what a plumber charges is to call one.

"Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" wrote in
message ...
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 06:16:38 GMT, Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator
wrote:
The math is all spelled out for us in the PDF at:
http://tinyurl.com/38eh4d
http://www.gamanet.org/gama/inforesources.nsf/vAttachmentLaunch/C2AAFB8D41D003F485256E9000607F66/$FILE/12-07-gas-rwh.pdf

Since almost all of us were dead wrong on this one, it would be nice if
someone can read that reference document and check my calculations

PLEASE DOUBLECHECK THESE HOT-WATER-HEATER CALCULATIONS!

Here are the necessary calculations I believe we need to make in order to
compare two gas-fired water heaters. All calculations are courtesy of the
referenced PDF and charts at www.gamanet.org except the energy costs which
are courtesy of PG&E at http://www.pge.com/tariffs/pdf/G-1.pdf

In reality, these calculations would need to be done for at least a
half-dozen different water heaters (two each from Lowes, Sears, and Home
Depot, for example) in order to properly choose an available water heater
intelligently.

For simplicity, I'll use the values I plugged into the calculations for my
home; yours may differ but the mathematical approach is exactly the same.
0. Calculate minimum legal efficiency (EF)
1. Calculate maximum peak-hour requirements (FHR)
2. Calculate total installed price ($/installation)
3. Calculate yearly operating costs ($/year)
4. Calculate payback period (months/installation)

Here are my calculations.
PLEASE CHECK FOR ERRORS OR OMISSIONS AS WE ALL ARE LEARNING FROM THIS!

0. Calculate the minimum energy factor required by federal & local law:
(based on October 1990 Dept. of Energy Test Procedure for Water Heaters as
published in the May 11, 1998 Federal Register.)

For gas-fired residential water heaters, the minimum energy factor is:
Minimum EF for 40-gallon water heaters = 0.67 - 0.0019 * 40 = 0.58
Minimum EF for 50-gallon water heaters = 0.67 - 0.0019 * 50 = 0.59

Note: Southern California uses different legal minimum numbers than
northern California so be advised to modify the calculation for your area!

1. Determine your peak requirements:
20 gallons per shower x 2 showers in one hour = 40 gallons per hour
20 gallons per bath x 0 baths in one hour = 0 gallons per hour
2 gallons per shave x 0 shaves in that hour = 0 additional gallons
4 gallons per personal wash x 0 = 0 additional gallons
4 gallons per shampoo x 0 = 0 additional gallons (do it in the shower)
4 gallons per hand dishwashing x 0 dishes = 0 gallons
14 gallons per dishwasher load x 1 load = 14 additional peak gallons
5 gallons per food preparation x 1 meal = 5 additional gallons
26 gallons per wringer wash x 1 load = 26 additional peak gallons
32 gallons per automatic wash x 0 loads = 0 additional peak gallons
-----
TOTAL PEAK GALLONS = 40 + 14 + 5 + 26 = 85 gallons First Hour Rating

2. Determine price installed (inclusive):
Sears 33154 is $882 ($449 for the heater + $433 for full installation)
HD 183-717 is $747 ($349 for the heater + $398 for full installation)

3. Determine yearly operating costs given your basal energy unit, FHR, EF,
and average-use assumption.

For simplification, I'll only compare two heaters but the calculator we
create needs to cover at least a few at a time. I did this in Excel for
current northern California baseline (Schedule G-1 Residential Service)
energy rates.

CHOICE A:
Sears 33154 (marketed as Kenmore but made by AO Smith) FHR=97 EF=0.63
(41,045 btu/0.63)($1.21106/therm * 1 therm/100,000 btu) x 365 = $288/year

CHOICE B:
Home Depot 183-717 (marketed as GE but made by Rheem) FHR=80 EF=0.58
(41,045 btu/0.58)($1.21106/therm * 1 therm/100,000 btu) x 365 = $313/year

Note: Irrelevant specs would have been tank size, burner BTUs, gallons to
recovery to 90 degrees in one hour, etc. as the only figures that matter
for the calculations are the EF and the FHR since they take into account
all other design-size specifications such as those you quoted.)

4. Determine payback period:
a. Additional cost of more efficient model = $882 - $747 = $135
b. Annual savings of more efficient model = $313 - $288 = $25 per year
c. Payback period = $135 / $25 * 365 / 30 = 65 months (5.4 years)

5. Determine overall savings:
The two water heaters compared in this simplified calcuation would be
equivalent in overall costs at approximately 5 and a half years.

Considering the average water heater lasts 13 years, total savings for the
more expensive yet more economical heater would be:

(13 years - 5.4 years) * $25/year = $190 savings overall

6. Choose the correct water heater:

Based on the math everyone should perform when selecting the proper water
heater, I would buy the Sears 33154, which will save me almost 200 dollars
over its lifetime over the Home Depot 183-717 assuming current energy
prices and average usage.

Note: In reality, one needs to compare at least a half-dozen water
heaters;
here I only compared two for simplicity. I knew none of these calculations
just two days ago, so, PLEASE CHECK MY NUMBERS after reading the reference
document I refer to.

If the numbers hold water, then this should go into the alt.home.repair
FAQ
for everyone to benefit from all our efforts to understand how to properly
size & select a home water heater replacement (yes, I know there are
physical size issues also but this tutorial is already too long to go into
those details).

Donna

This is all very good but can you trust the figures given by the
manufacturers as these are often derived by engineer calculations and
marketing guru's and are manipulated to suit their agenda.
an example of this is how many people ever get the rated fuel consumption as
stated by any vehicle manufacturers, also appliance manufactures have
devised ways of confusing the figures to get a better rating that it
actually uses. The best way to purchase the water system is to get one that
suits your requirements as in size and water capacity.
Justy.

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:14:39 +1100, Only Just wrote:
This is all very good but can you trust the figures given by the
manufacturers as these are often derived by engineer calculations and
marketing guru's and are manipulated to suit their agenda.

Hi Only Just,

I *think* you *can* trust these numbers (FHR & ER) ... but I'm just going
by the written facts. You have the experience I don't have.

The facts are that there are *independent* labs paid to *verify* that these
FHR and ER numbers are accurate, for example, OSHA recognizes ITSNA whose
numbers I quoted throughout the latter half of this thread.

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owad...RAL_R EGISTER

Gama says, as of December 12, 2007, "Intertek Testing Services of Cortland,
New York (http://www.intertek.com/) has been retained as the program
administrator and *independent* testing laboratory responsible for
conducting efficiency *verification* tests on water heaters" (emphasis
mine).

If Intertek is truly "independent", and if they do randomly select units as
their product literature says, then I think you *can* trust these numbers.

Donna

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 05:34:49 -0800 (PST), wrote:
bottom line provided you buy a large enough heater the other
differences are minor,

Hi Hallerb,

I agree the whole point is to buy a "large enough heater"; the only thing
I'm saying about that is "large enough" has almost nothing directly to do
with tank size. Certainly it has nothing to do with warranty.

My personal experience after spending frustrating hours on the
hot-water-heater specialists lines at Home Depot (877-467-0542), Lowes
(877-465-6937), and Sears (800-877-6420) is that these chains try very hard
to force me to buy by tank size and warranty. Extremely hard. That tells me
a lot.

You and I know very well that most water heaters are made by about 4
different companies and they are largely similar (given any class of EF and
FHR ratings).

Even knowing that, I can't tell you how many times I told the box stores I
didn't care one bit about the tank size nor the warranty ... only to have
them go right back to comparing all their heaters by tank size and
warranty, trying to sell me on the little widget that stirs up the sediment
at the bottom of the tank or the "lifetime" warranty that's really a 1-year
labor warranty and a one-shot on lifetime.

Even after I told them comparing water heaters by tank size (instead of
performance) and meaningless warranties (they're all one-year labor) was
like comparing all automobiles by engine size (instead of performance) and
the meaningless color of paint, they *still* insisted on describing their
home water heaters by tank size and warranty! That says a lot in and of
itself!

I was shocked Lowe's so-called hot water heater specialists didn't even
have the FHR for their offering (I had to call the store and have a guy
read it off the stickers!).

When someone who is selling you something is trying so very hard to make
you look elsewhere from the actual facts, that tells us a lot. Basically,
once you have sized by FHR and priced by total costs (taking into account
EF and your local cost/therm) ... the rest is irrelevant!

Thanks for helping enlighten me and put meat into this thread!
Donna

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 06:16:37 -0800 (PST), wrote:
the tests are done per EPA rules and specs by an independent
testing lab.

I agree. Intertek Testing Services is supposedly independent. If anyone has
information otherwise, please post.

In other words, over analyzing this whole thing is likely a waste of
time. Even the above payback analysis is flawed, because it ignores
the time value of money.

Very good point.

Here are the original calculations I posted for inspection:
a. Additional cost of more efficient model = $882 - $747 = $135
b. Annual savings of more efficient model = $313 - $288 = $25 per year
c. Payback period = $135 / $25 * 365 / 30 = 65 months (5.4 years)
e. Overall savings = (13 years - 5.4 years) * $25/year = $190

How would we change these to take into account the time value of money?
As always, I'll hazard my math to see if it stands up to scrutiny.

Using the compound interest calculator here ...
http://www.moneychimp.com/calculator...calculator.htm
that $135 at 5% compounded monthly over the 5.4 years payback period
actually costs $176.75 at the 65-month point.

You're right. That's a big difference! (I don't use credit cards so I won't
factor in the additional, but huge, credit-card costs if paid on
installment!)

Conversly, the annual savings over that same 65-month period is also
increased, from $25/year to $26.28 per year using the same 5% interest rate
compounded monthly.

This more accurate payback-period calculation then becomes $177 / $26 * 365
/ 30 = 83 months (6.9 years).

The overall savings now shrinks a whopping 16% from $190 when not taking
into account the time value of money, to (13 years - 6.9 years) * $26/year
= $159

Thanks for testing the math. Please let me know what you think of the new,
more realistic calculations which take into account the time value of
money.

Donna
PS Can someone in the field write a calculator to do all this math for us?

Every day/night, all over America, there are people going to the stores
to buy a new water heater to replace their old one.Most of those people
don't check with city govt about getting a permit.Most of those people
go ahead and install the water heater themselves.It is similar to buying
and installing a new washing machine, refrigerator, stove, window unit
airconditioner etc.There is no way I ever would pay for a permit to
install any home appliances I buy.If you are scared to install the water
heater yourself, buy a book on Plumbing and read up.
cuhulin

"Meat Plow" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:09:01 +0000, James Sweet wrote:


"Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" wrote
in
message ...
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:02:20 GMT, Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
Permits can very , but probably closer to $25 if you actually get one.

You must get a plumbing permit in my town:
Home Depot charges $77
Lowes charges almost $90
Sears charges $95 for that same permit.

The overall installation fee (includes all sans tax & straps) is:
$400 Home Depot 877-467-0542
$410 Lowes 877-465-6937
$433 Sears 800-877-6420

What would a typical plumber have charged for the permit and
installation?

Donna

Jeez.

I'd feel like I was ripping someone off if I charged more than 100 bucks
to
install a water heater, but then I'm not licensed or bonded so I don't do
this for random people, but still, last one I did took less than an hour,
it's literally 3 threaded pipes and a flue vent.

Best way to find out what a plumber charges is to call one.

Most plumber wont even park in your driveway for less than 80 bucks.


That's one reason I've never called a plumber. I know most of them aren't
getting rich, but still. I've been doing everything myself for so long that
I forget sometimes just how much it saves.

Tank size is very important and cannot be completely disregarded since it
provides the reserve capacity. It is this the tank's storage capacity, in
conjunction with the burner size and the EF factor that determines the FHR
rating, which determines how much "hot" water you will get before it is
considered simply "warm" water. The storage capacity is also very important
in regards to determining the physical dimensions of the tank. (I has to
fit in the space allowed and the height and spacing of the exhaust flue,
water inlet, water outlet and gas inlet will be dependent on the tank's
size.)

I already posted my thoughts on warranty as well in a previous reply. The
bottom line here is you certainly know more than enough to make an informed
choice.

Bob



"Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" wrote in
message ...
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 05:34:49 -0800 (PST), wrote:
bottom line provided you buy a large enough heater the other
differences are minor,

Hi Hallerb,

I agree the whole point is to buy a "large enough heater"; the only thing
I'm saying about that is "large enough" has almost nothing directly to do
with tank size. Certainly it has nothing to do with warranty.
Donna

"Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" wrote in
message ...
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:14:39 +1100, Only Just wrote:
This is all very good but can you trust the figures given by the
manufacturers as these are often derived by engineer calculations and
marketing guru's and are manipulated to suit their agenda.

Hi Only Just,

I *think* you *can* trust these numbers (FHR & ER) ... but I'm just going
by the written facts. You have the experience I don't have.

The facts are that there are *independent* labs paid to *verify* that
these
FHR and ER numbers are accurate, for example, OSHA recognizes ITSNA whose
numbers I quoted throughout the latter half of this thread.

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owad...RAL_R EGISTER

Gama says, as of December 12, 2007, "Intertek Testing Services of
Cortland,
New York (http://www.intertek.com/) has been retained as the program
administrator and *independent* testing laboratory responsible for
conducting efficiency *verification* tests on water heaters" (emphasis
mine).

If Intertek is truly "independent", and if they do randomly select units
as
their product literature says, then I think you *can* trust these numbers.

Donna

The reason I brought up about the tests is that I have been informed that
the manufactures of refrigerators here in Aus have been using "Energy Star"
ratings for quite a while, The way they now measure these results is also
based on "Peak" start-up current so now the manufactures stagger the start
of all the motors in a refrig, eg, compressor starts then after a set period
the inner fan will start then the outside fan will start thus reducing that
start-up peak so it "Reduces" the energy rating so making it a more
desirable unit for the "Greenies" and the power saving conscious people but
only hiding the true power consumed, Also there has been numerous letters
written into the newspaper tech here about people not getting the same fuel
economy in their new vehicle that they bought and the result that they were
replied to was that they are only figures supplied by the manufacturer that
some test results came up with so they can compare different vehicles as set
by an industry standard. Remember that these tests are designed by the
industry and no matter who carries out the same tests providing that they
are using the same standards and criteria they will also receive the same
results to match.
Justy.

"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:[email protected]

"Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" wrote
in
message ...
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:02:20 GMT, Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
Permits can very , but probably closer to $25 if you actually get one.

You must get a plumbing permit in my town:
Home Depot charges $77
Lowes charges almost $90
Sears charges $95 for that same permit.

The overall installation fee (includes all sans tax & straps) is:
$400 Home Depot 877-467-0542
$410 Lowes 877-465-6937
$433 Sears 800-877-6420

What would a typical plumber have charged for the permit and
installation?

Donna

Jeez.

I'd feel like I was ripping someone off if I charged more than 100 bucks
to
install a water heater, but then I'm not licensed or bonded so I don't do
this for random people, but still, last one I did took less than an hour,
it's literally 3 threaded pipes and a flue vent.

So, how are you counting your time? The work itself may take an hour or so,
but the plumber also has to drive to and from the installation site, and
that takes time. Sometimes the plumber will also have to drive to the store
or warehouse and pick up the heater.

And let's not forget that in order to drive, s/he needs a vehicle, one that
is probably more or less dedicated to the business, and that has to be paid
for also.

According to http://www.careeroverview.com/plumbing-careers.html the median
wage for a plumber in 2002 was $19.30/hour. Assuming a 40 hour work week
for 50 weeks a year, that comes to $38,600/year. Doesn't sound like a way
to get rich quick.

A question on the cost of the permit - how much would it cost if you went to
the town office and got the permit yourself?

"Only Just" [email protected](dot)com wrote in message
...
((snip))


This is all very good but can you trust the figures given by the
manufacturers as these are often derived by engineer calculations and
marketing guru's and are manipulated to suit their agenda.
an example of this is how many people ever get the rated fuel consumption
as
stated by any vehicle manufacturers, also appliance manufactures have
devised ways of confusing the figures to get a better rating that it
actually uses. The best way to purchase the water system is to get one
that
suits your requirements as in size and water capacity.

Vehicle mileage estimates, or for that matter any estimates, are based on a
load of assumptions. Your actual experience will vary according to how
closely your situation matches the assumptions. By the way, vehicle
manufacturers follow a standard test procedure specified by federal law, and
the EPA confirms 10%-15% of the results by conducting its own tests.

I agree that the rated fuel consumption for motor vehicles is off - I
haven't averaged that low for at least 15 years. For instance, my car is
rated 20/29 for city/highway - last week I averaged 33.2 mpg in about 440
miles of mixed driving according to the car's odometer and the reading on
the pump when I gassed up on Friday evening. According the average mileage
display on the dashboard of the car, I got 34.1 mpg, and I suppose the
difference could be due to the attendant (no self service gas in NJ) filling
the tank right up to the gas cap and/or inaccuracies in the pump or
odometer, or even simply to the fact that I fill up the tank at the end of
the day (when the car and the gas is at its warmest) but do about half my
driving in the morning (when the gas is the coolest). Which means simply
that a full measured gallon on a Friday afternoon is probably less than a
gallon on Monday morning simply due to the expansion and contraction that go
with changes in temperature.

I agree that the rated fuel consumption for motor vehicles is off - I
haven't averaged that low for at least 15 years. For instance, my car is
rated 20/29 for city/highway - last week I averaged 33.2 mpg in about 440
miles of mixed driving according to the car's odometer and the reading on
the pump when I gassed up on Friday evening. According the average
mileage
display on the dashboard of the car, I got 34.1 mpg, and I suppose the
difference could be due to the attendant (no self service gas in NJ)
filling
the tank right up to the gas cap and/or inaccuracies in the pump or
odometer, or even simply to the fact that I fill up the tank at the end of
the day (when the car and the gas is at its warmest) but do about half my
driving in the morning (when the gas is the coolest). Which means simply
that a full measured gallon on a Friday afternoon is probably less than a
gallon on Monday morning simply due to the expansion and contraction that
go
with changes in temperature.



The expansion and contraction based on temperature for a volume as small as
a tank of fuel in a car are so tiny that you'd never be able to measure them
with anything around the house, and certainly not the odometer in your car.
The fuel temperature varies over a range of perhaps 60F max, usually much
less.

On Feb 13, 10:21*pm, "James Sweet" wrote:
I agree that the rated fuel consumption for motor vehicles is off - I
haven't averaged that low for at least 15 years. *For instance, my car is
rated 20/29 for city/highway - last week I averaged 33.2 mpg in about 440
miles of mixed driving according to the car's odometer and the reading on
the pump when I gassed up on Friday evening. *According the average
mileage
display on the dashboard of the car, I got 34.1 mpg, and I suppose the
difference could be due to the attendant (no self service gas in NJ)
filling
the tank right up to the gas cap and/or inaccuracies in the pump or
odometer, or even simply to the fact that I fill up the tank at the end of
the day (when the car and the gas is at its warmest) but do about half my
driving in the morning (when the gas is the coolest). *Which means simply
that a full measured gallon on a Friday afternoon is probably less than a
gallon on Monday morning simply due to the expansion and contraction that
go
with changes in temperature.

The expansion and contraction based on temperature for a volume as small as
a tank of fuel in a car are so tiny that you'd never be able to measure them
with anything around the house, and certainly not the odometer in your car..
The fuel temperature varies over a range of perhaps 60F max, usually much
less

Just to be devil's advocate, I used to have a Rabbit GTI that I got
with a bad gas cap; the first time I parked it in the sun with a full
tank of gas, the fuel started pouring out around the gas cap and down
the quarter panel

nate

the energy guide labels on appliances arent really to determine exact
operating costs/

their real value is in comparing efficenies in a general way.

obviously a home with 8 kids will use a lot more hot water than a
single guy living alone.

with so many variables, incoming water temp, desired water temp,
amount of water used, cost of gas, etc etc,.

everything is a estimate

One time when I was driving a company van (Pony Express) I stopped at
the end of my route to fill up the gas tank.It was pouring down rain
real hard.I put the gas nozzle in the tank and I jumped back into the
van, waiting for the nozzle to cut off.It didn't automatically cut off,
gas was pouring out and down the side of that van.It was at an Exxon gas
station.
cuhulin

"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:[email protected]

I agree that the rated fuel consumption for motor vehicles is off - I
haven't averaged that low for at least 15 years. For instance, my car
is
rated 20/29 for city/highway - last week I averaged 33.2 mpg in about
440
miles of mixed driving according to the car's odometer and the reading
on
the pump when I gassed up on Friday evening. According the average
mileage
display on the dashboard of the car, I got 34.1 mpg, and I suppose the
difference could be due to the attendant (no self service gas in NJ)
filling
the tank right up to the gas cap and/or inaccuracies in the pump or
odometer, or even simply to the fact that I fill up the tank at the end
of
the day (when the car and the gas is at its warmest) but do about half
my
driving in the morning (when the gas is the coolest). Which means
simply
that a full measured gallon on a Friday afternoon is probably less than
a
gallon on Monday morning simply due to the expansion and contraction
that
go
with changes in temperature.



The expansion and contraction based on temperature for a volume as small
as
a tank of fuel in a car are so tiny that you'd never be able to measure
them
with anything around the house, and certainly not the odometer in your
car.
The fuel temperature varies over a range of perhaps 60F max, usually much
less.

Well, maybe I'm calculating wrong. There's an approximately 3% difference
between what I calculate as my miles per gallon for last week and what the
car calculated. The coefficient of expansion of gasoline is 0.069% per
Fahrenheit degree. Coincidentally, over a 30 degree temperature difference,
that's between a 2% and a 3% change in volume. For 15 gallons of gas, that
comes somewhere between 3 and 4 ounces of gas.

The meter on the pump reads out several digits to the right of the decimal
point - it appears that this level of accuracy is available at the gas
station. The odometer reads out only to the tenth of a mile, which means
that I don't have the accuracy at my end to calculate this by hand. I don't
know what the internal accuracy is when the car computes average miles per
gallon - I presume the fuel pump knows pretty precisely how much gas it's
pumped, and the odometer measures distance covered by counting revolutions
of something (one of the wheels?), and it seems reasonable that the internal
accuracy of the car's computation is more than adequate to notice a
difference of this magnitude.

I guess the other consideration is that the car is likely computing average
mpg using the gas burned (or at least, pumped to the engine) while any by
hand calculation is basing it on gas bought, and any difference the fill
level will throw the result off. Last week, the attendant took great pains
to fill the tank right up to the brim (he was evidently trying to get the
total to come out to a whole dollar amount), something that usually doesn't
happen. So I have no problem believing that I bought slightly more gas than
I burned.

Whichever figure is right and whatever the explanation, it still seems to me
that the mileage estimates published by the EPA are too low, and it's seemed
that way ever since I started paying attention (way too many years ago).

Lou wrote:
"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:[email protected]

I agree that the rated fuel consumption for motor vehicles is off - I
haven't averaged that low for at least 15 years. For instance, my car

is

rated 20/29 for city/highway - last week I averaged 33.2 mpg in about

440

miles of mixed driving according to the car's odometer and the reading

on

the pump when I gassed up on Friday evening. According the average
mileage
display on the dashboard of the car, I got 34.1 mpg, and I suppose the
difference could be due to the attendant (no self service gas in NJ)
filling
the tank right up to the gas cap and/or inaccuracies in the pump or
odometer, or even simply to the fact that I fill up the tank at the end

of

the day (when the car and the gas is at its warmest) but do about half

my

driving in the morning (when the gas is the coolest). Which means

simply

that a full measured gallon on a Friday afternoon is probably less than

a

gallon on Monday morning simply due to the expansion and contraction

that

go
with changes in temperature.



The expansion and contraction based on temperature for a volume as small

as

a tank of fuel in a car are so tiny that you'd never be able to measure

them

with anything around the house, and certainly not the odometer in your

car.

The fuel temperature varies over a range of perhaps 60F max, usually much
less.


Well, maybe I'm calculating wrong. There's an approximately 3% difference
between what I calculate as my miles per gallon for last week and what the
car calculated. The coefficient of expansion of gasoline is 0.069% per
Fahrenheit degree. Coincidentally, over a 30 degree temperature difference,
that's between a 2% and a 3% change in volume. For 15 gallons of gas, that
comes somewhere between 3 and 4 ounces of gas.

The meter on the pump reads out several digits to the right of the decimal
point - it appears that this level of accuracy is available at the gas
station. The odometer reads out only to the tenth of a mile, which means
that I don't have the accuracy at my end to calculate this by hand. I don't
know what the internal accuracy is when the car computes average miles per
gallon - I presume the fuel pump knows pretty precisely how much gas it's
pumped, and the odometer measures distance covered by counting revolutions
of something (one of the wheels?), and it seems reasonable that the internal
accuracy of the car's computation is more than adequate to notice a
difference of this magnitude.

I guess the other consideration is that the car is likely computing average
mpg using the gas burned (or at least, pumped to the engine) while any by
hand calculation is basing it on gas bought, and any difference the fill
level will throw the result off. Last week, the attendant took great pains
to fill the tank right up to the brim (he was evidently trying to get the
total to come out to a whole dollar amount), something that usually doesn't
happen. So I have no problem believing that I bought slightly more gas than
I burned.

Whichever figure is right and whatever the explanation, it still seems to me
that the mileage estimates published by the EPA are too low, and it's seemed
that way ever since I started paying attention (way too many years ago).


Hi,
EPA figure is based on sea level wht IDEAL driving condition, weather,
road, wind, temp., etc.

EPA figure is based on sea level wht IDEAL driving condition, weather,
road, wind, temp., etc.

EPA numbers are bogus the worst were on vehicles like PRIUS.

tests always favor the manufacturer..........

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:53:12 -0500, "Lou"
wrote:



Whichever figure is right and whatever the explanation, it still seems to me
that the mileage estimates published by the EPA are too low, and it's seemed
that way ever since I started paying attention (way too many years ago).

Might be they don't account for your driving style. Might be
something else - not interested enough to look into it, but I'm
sure they lab test versus "real world."
Think you said you had an Impala, and the 3.1 engine coupled with the
GM lockup trans is an efficient combo. I consistently get 30-31 mpg
highway with mine ('97 Lumina) over a long stretch of varied terrain.
Measured by actual gas pumped into the tank over many thousands of
miles. My '88 Celebrity with the 2.8 did about 28 mpg, but always had
a heavier passenger load.

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message

Whichever figure is right and whatever the explanation, it still seems to
me
that the mileage estimates published by the EPA are too low, and it's
seemed
that way ever since I started paying attention (way too many years ago).

Might be they don't account for your driving style. Might be
something else - not interested enough to look into it, but I'm
sure they lab test versus "real world."


The news 2008 figures take real life into consideration and are much closer
to reality. Previous figures were ideal lab conditions.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
t...

"Vic Smith" wrote in message

Whichever figure is right and whatever the explanation, it still seems to
me
that the mileage estimates published by the EPA are too low, and it's
seemed
that way ever since I started paying attention (way too many years ago).

Might be they don't account for your driving style. Might be
something else - not interested enough to look into it, but I'm
sure they lab test versus "real world."


The news 2008 figures take real life into consideration and are much
closer to reality. Previous figures were ideal lab conditions.


It all points down to the fact that average Joe citizen can't tell the
difference unless he can find out exactly how they take all these
measurements (The method used and exactly what figures) that each company
used and how (If they did) manipulated those figures to get the result as
they publish. The main thing that the Government is interested in is a
standard across the relevant industry so everyone can make a comparison.
Justy.

On Feb 15, 6:12*am, "Only Just" [email protected](dot)com wrote:
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message

t...







"Vic Smith" wrote in message

Whichever figure is right and whatever the explanation, it still seems to
me
that the mileage estimates published by the EPA are too low, and it's
seemed
that way ever since I started paying attention (way too many years ago)..

Might be they don't account for your driving style. *Might be
something else - not interested enough to look into it, but I'm
sure they lab test versus "real world."

The news 2008 figures take real life into consideration and are much
closer to reality. *Previous figures were ideal lab conditions.

It all points down to the fact that average Joe citizen can't tell the
difference unless he can find out exactly how they take all these
measurements (The method used and exactly what figures) that each company
used and how (If they did) manipulated those figures to get the result as
they publish. The main thing that the Government is interested in is a
standard across the relevant industry so everyone can make a comparison.
Justy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The tests are performed by independent labs to the EPA test procedures
and standards. It's not up to the maufacturers to decide how to
test, nor can they manipulate the results for the cars. Same thing
for the water heaters.

-

The tests are performed by independent labs to the EPA test procedures
and standards. � It's not up to the maufacturers to decide how to
test, nor can they manipulate the results for the cars. � Same thing
for the water heaters.- Hide quoted text -


no the manufactuers knowing the test procedures tweak the product to
look as good as possible

On Feb 14, 11:16*pm, Vic Smith
wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:53:12 -0500, "Lou"

wrote:

Whichever figure is right and whatever the explanation, it still seems to me
that the mileage estimates published by the EPA are too low, and it's seemed
that way ever since I started paying attention (way too many years ago).

Might be they don't account for your driving style. *Might be
something else - not interested enough to look into it, but I'm
sure they lab test versus "real world."
Think you said you had an Impala, and the 3.1 engine coupled with the
GM lockup trans is an efficient combo. *I consistently get 30-31 mpg
highway with mine ('97 Lumina) over a long stretch of varied terrain.
Measured by actual gas pumped into the tank over many thousands of
miles. *My '88 Celebrity with the 2.8 did about 28 mpg, but always had
a heavier passenger load.

--Vic

It is HEAVILY dependent on driving style. In daily commuting (DC
traffic, lots of accelerating/slowing down) I get horrible mileage but
I too was getting about 30 MPG over the holidays, driving back and
forth to visit my parents (90% highway) same drivetrain as you, '05
Impala, 3.1/auto.

nate

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 05:45:10 -0800 (PST), N8N
wrote:

On Feb 14, 11:16*pm, Vic Smith
wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:53:12 -0500, "Lou"

wrote:

Whichever figure is right and whatever the explanation, it still seems to me
that the mileage estimates published by the EPA are too low, and it's seemed
that way ever since I started paying attention (way too many years ago).

Might be they don't account for your driving style. *Might be
something else - not interested enough to look into it, but I'm
sure they lab test versus "real world."
Think you said you had an Impala, and the 3.1 engine coupled with the
GM lockup trans is an efficient combo. *I consistently get 30-31 mpg
highway with mine ('97 Lumina) over a long stretch of varied terrain.
Measured by actual gas pumped into the tank over many thousands of
miles. *My '88 Celebrity with the 2.8 did about 28 mpg, but always had
a heavier passenger load.

--Vic

It is HEAVILY dependent on driving style. In daily commuting (DC
traffic, lots of accelerating/slowing down) I get horrible mileage but
I too was getting about 30 MPG over the holidays, driving back and
forth to visit my parents (90% highway) same drivetrain as you, '05
Impala, 3.1/auto.

nate

Think you're the Nate from long ago r.a.d. days. As I recall you were
a Chrysler fan. What caused you to go to the dark side? (-:

--Vic

On Feb 15, 9:02*am, Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 05:45:10 -0800 (PST), N8N
wrote:





On Feb 14, 11:16*pm, Vic Smith
wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:53:12 -0500, "Lou"

wrote:

Whichever figure is right and whatever the explanation, it still seems to me
that the mileage estimates published by the EPA are too low, and it's seemed
that way ever since I started paying attention (way too many years ago).

Might be they don't account for your driving style. *Might be
something else - not interested enough to look into it, but I'm
sure they lab test versus "real world."
Think you said you had an Impala, and the 3.1 engine coupled with the
GM lockup trans is an efficient combo. *I consistently get 30-31 mpg
highway with mine ('97 Lumina) over a long stretch of varied terrain.
Measured by actual gas pumped into the tank over many thousands of
miles. *My '88 Celebrity with the 2.8 did about 28 mpg, but always had
a heavier passenger load.

--Vic

It is HEAVILY dependent on driving style. *In daily commuting (DC
traffic, lots of accelerating/slowing down) I get horrible mileage but
I too was getting about 30 MPG over the holidays, driving back and
forth to visit my parents (90% highway) same drivetrain as you, '05
Impala, 3.1/auto.

nate

Think you're the Nate from long ago r.a.d. days. *As I recall you were
a Chrysler fan. *What caused you to go to the dark side? *(-:

--Vic

I still post there occasionally, but a lot of the intelligent regulars
have left and a lot of idiots and trolls have moved in The Impala
is a company provided vehicle, I don't have any MoPars at the moment
as my old Dart was a complete beater and not worth restoring, and
prices of good ones are rising. I do have a Porsche 944 that I bought
as a daily beater before I got a job with a company car, and my "real"
car is a '55 Studebaker - just as bulletproof as a MoPar, but
apparently not as collectible yet, so prices are still reasonable. Of
course, it's still somewhat apart after I lost my mind after a simple
gasket replacement turned into a drivetrain replacement...

nate