I'm in the process of deciding which furnace to get to replace my
existing furnace which is ready to die. I've been told that high
efficiency furnaces are not really worth it since they cost more up
front and they cost more in repair costs in the long run so in the end
high efficiency vs normal efficiency will have cost about the same, but
the high efficiency will have broken down more often due to it's
complexity. This makes sense ... but I have one more quick question.
Are dual stage furnaces quite complex and prone to break down also?

I've thinking of maybe getting a 80% dual stage furnance which would be
a bit more efficient than a single stage 80% furnance. But I'm
wondering if it's worth it. Would a dual stage 80% furnace be as
complicated as a 90%+ furnace? Are the parts just as expensive to
replace/repair as a high efficiency furnace? Or in other words should
I stay away from dual stage furnaces for the same reason I would stay
away from a high efficiency furnace (high repair costs, higher chance
of break down).

Thanks,
Harry

"Harry Muscle" wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm in the process of deciding which furnace to get to
replace my
existing furnace which is ready to die. I've been told that
high
efficiency furnaces are not really worth it since they cost
more up
front and they cost more in repair costs in the long run so
in the end
high efficiency vs normal efficiency will have cost about
the same, but
the high efficiency will have broken down more often due to
it's
complexity. This makes sense ... but I have one more quick
question.
Are dual stage furnaces quite complex and prone to break
down also?

I've thinking of maybe getting a 80% dual stage furnance
which would be
a bit more efficient than a single stage 80% furnance. But
I'm
wondering if it's worth it. Would a dual stage 80% furnace
be as
complicated as a 90%+ furnace? Are the parts just as
expensive to
replace/repair as a high efficiency furnace? Or in other
words should
I stay away from dual stage furnaces for the same reason I
would stay
away from a high efficiency furnace (high repair costs,
higher chance
of break down).

Thanks,
Harry


Id go with a single stage 80% furnace myself.

If you really want to save money install two systems...one for
the night time sleeping areas, and for the day time living
areas... install set back thermostats on each system so the
HVAC gets set high in bedrooms during the day, and the living
areas get set low at night (these settings can be easily
overridden when needed)

If you want to save more money, fit matress warmers to your
beds, and you can set the temp to 50F at night no problem.

Be sure to undersize both systems slightly..they operate more
efficiently when maxed out.

Install the furnaces in places where they can be yanked out
with great ease so maintenance is not a problem. Insulate
the ducts well, tape all the seams and flanges well, use duct
seal in a caulking tube.

Rheem makes a pretty good unit these days. but brand is not
as critical with furnaces as with some other items.







Phil Scott
HVAC contractor/ mech engineer since 1911

"If you really want to save money install two systems...one for
the night time sleeping areas, and for the day time living
areas... install set back thermostats on each system so the
HVAC gets set high in bedrooms during the day, and the living
areas get set low at night (these settings can be easily
overridden when needed) "

How exactly does this save him money? I would think the initial outlay
for two seperate systems in a house that typically would have only one
would be impossible to recover in reduced operating costs. Where is
this savings supposed to come from? And in my house here in NJ, if I
set the temp to 50 at night, the house would never get there, because a
house with decent insulation won't cool off that fast.

"Phil Scott" writes:

[lots of great stuff]

HVAC contractor/ mech engineer since 1911

Whoa. Now, born in 1911 I can buy (and gospeed to ya as you approach
the centruy mark), but being a degreed engineer since 1911...I'm
having a tougher time with comprehending since that'd put you in the
ballpark of being 2006-1911+21= 116 years old?

If so, you need to tell this young pup that he's no longer famous!

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/...recordid=48371

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

"Todd H." wrote in message
...
"Phil Scott" writes:

[lots of great stuff]

HVAC contractor/ mech engineer since 1911

Whoa. Now, born in 1911 I can buy (and gospeed to ya as you
approach
the centruy mark), but being a degreed engineer since
1911...I'm
having a tougher time with comprehending since that'd put
you in the
ballpark of being 2006-1911+21= 116 years old?


Yes, I am very old... and still flat tracking too.



If so, you need to tell this young pup that he's no longer
famous!


My goal in life is to be the worlds oldest flat tracker....

lately Ive been working out at Golds Gym and have stopped
lying, now I have to beat the young women off with a
stick...its a magical combination.




Phil Scott

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/...recordid=48371

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

"Harry Muscle" wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm in the process of deciding which furnace to get to replace my
existing furnace which is ready to die. I've been told that high
efficiency furnaces are not really worth it since they cost more up
front and they cost more in repair costs in the long run so in the end
high efficiency vs normal efficiency will have cost about the same, but
the high efficiency will have broken down more often due to it's
complexity. This makes sense ... but I have one more quick question.
Are dual stage furnaces quite complex and prone to break down also?

I've thinking of maybe getting a 80% dual stage furnance which would be
a bit more efficient than a single stage 80% furnance. But I'm
wondering if it's worth it. Would a dual stage 80% furnace be as
complicated as a 90%+ furnace? Are the parts just as expensive to
replace/repair as a high efficiency furnace? Or in other words should
I stay away from dual stage furnaces for the same reason I would stay
away from a high efficiency furnace (high repair costs, higher chance
of break down).

Thanks,
Harry

A friend just installed a new gas dual stage furnace to replace his oil
fired unit. I looked it over before installation and the the dual stage as I
saw it was confined to the heat exchanger. There was a large pipe unfinned
section and a second section that look like hydronic baseboard. I fail to
see how this adds complexity, but readily see how it adds efficiency. The
furnace cost $1076, how much money can be saved on a furnace that is at
least 10% less efficient?

Chas Hurst

Your goal in life should be to go back to school and learn why removing one
entire system and installing two heaters and duct work systems is not cost
effective. Either that, or go back to school and learn how not to be a
troll.

"Phil Scott" wrote in message
...

"Todd H." wrote in message
...
"Phil Scott" writes:

[lots of great stuff]

HVAC contractor/ mech engineer since 1911

Whoa. Now, born in 1911 I can buy (and gospeed to ya as you
approach
the centruy mark), but being a degreed engineer since
1911...I'm
having a tougher time with comprehending since that'd put
you in the
ballpark of being 2006-1911+21= 116 years old?


Yes, I am very old... and still flat tracking too.



If so, you need to tell this young pup that he's no longer
famous!


My goal in life is to be the worlds oldest flat tracker....

lately Ive been working out at Golds Gym and have stopped
lying, now I have to beat the young women off with a
stick...its a magical combination.




Phil Scott


http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/...recordid=48371

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

"Bob" wrote in message
. ..
Your goal in life should be to go back to school and learn
why removing one
entire system and installing two heaters and duct work
systems is not cost
effective. Either that, or go back to school and learn how
not to be a
troll.

no need to be a vicious jerk in your remarks.... I was clearly
defining a range of options.. good ones a that.

On the cost effective issue you would be entirely correct in a
temperate climate...and entirely incorrect in a cold climate.

Thats thing with being vicious...it blinds such people to the
broader range of life.


Phil Scott



"Phil Scott" wrote in message
...

"Todd H." wrote in message
...
"Phil Scott" writes:

[lots of great stuff]

HVAC contractor/ mech engineer since 1911

Whoa. Now, born in 1911 I can buy (and gospeed to ya as
you
approach
the centruy mark), but being a degreed engineer since
1911...I'm
having a tougher time with comprehending since that'd put
you in the
ballpark of being 2006-1911+21= 116 years old?


Yes, I am very old... and still flat tracking too.



If so, you need to tell this young pup that he's no
longer
famous!


My goal in life is to be the worlds oldest flat tracker....

lately Ive been working out at Golds Gym and have stopped
lying, now I have to beat the young women off with a
stick...its a magical combination.




Phil Scott


http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/...recordid=48371

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

"Chas Hurst" wrote in message
...

"Harry Muscle" wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm in the process of deciding which furnace to get to
replace my
existing furnace which is ready to die. I've been told
that high
efficiency furnaces are not really worth it since they cost
more up
front and they cost more in repair costs in the long run so
in the end
high efficiency vs normal efficiency will have cost about
the same, but
the high efficiency will have broken down more often due to
it's
complexity. This makes sense ... but I have one more quick
question.
Are dual stage furnaces quite complex and prone to break
down also?

I've thinking of maybe getting a 80% dual stage furnance
which would be
a bit more efficient than a single stage 80% furnance. But
I'm
wondering if it's worth it. Would a dual stage 80% furnace
be as
complicated as a 90%+ furnace? Are the parts just as
expensive to
replace/repair as a high efficiency furnace? Or in other
words should
I stay away from dual stage furnaces for the same reason I
would stay
away from a high efficiency furnace (high repair costs,
higher chance
of break down).

Thanks,
Harry

A friend just installed a new gas dual stage furnace to
replace his oil
fired unit. I looked it over before installation and the the
dual stage as I
saw it was confined to the heat exchanger. There was a large
pipe unfinned
section and a second section that look like hydronic
baseboard. I fail to
see how this adds complexity, but readily see how it adds
efficiency. The
furnace cost $1076, how much money can be saved on a furnace
that is at
least 10% less efficient?


The gas valve and burner assembly would also have to be
staged.. that would add some complexity.

Cost effectiveness would vary...in a very cold climate with
the furnace running a lot it would probably be cost
effective...in the southern states, near the coasts it
probably wouldnt be.

These days, we are running short of technical talent... my
view is that the simpler it is the easier you can find someone
to work on it... exceptions of course.


Phil Scott



Chas Hurst

Telling you to go back to school is not vicious. If you truly believe what
you said about changing to 2 heaters, then you need more education. What you
said was ludicrous. I don't care if someone lives in Alaska, the payback on
something like that would probably take at least 100 years. The cost of
removing one entire system, including drywall, ducts, heater, etc. and
replacing it with two complete systems it astronomical (not to mention the
mess). The heat loss of the building will remain the same, so the payback
would be very small.

"Phil Scott" wrote in message
...

"Bob" wrote in message
. ..
Your goal in life should be to go back to school and learn
why removing one
entire system and installing two heaters and duct work
systems is not cost
effective. Either that, or go back to school and learn how
not to be a
troll.

no need to be a vicious jerk in your remarks.... I was clearly
defining a range of options.. good ones a that.

On the cost effective issue you would be entirely correct in a
temperate climate...and entirely incorrect in a cold climate.

Thats thing with being vicious...it blinds such people to the
broader range of life.


Phil Scott



"Phil Scott" wrote in message
...

"Todd H." wrote in message
...
"Phil Scott" writes:

[lots of great stuff]

HVAC contractor/ mech engineer since 1911

Whoa. Now, born in 1911 I can buy (and gospeed to ya as
you
approach
the centruy mark), but being a degreed engineer since
1911...I'm
having a tougher time with comprehending since that'd put
you in the
ballpark of being 2006-1911+21= 116 years old?


Yes, I am very old... and still flat tracking too.



If so, you need to tell this young pup that he's no
longer
famous!


My goal in life is to be the worlds oldest flat tracker....

lately Ive been working out at Golds Gym and have stopped
lying, now I have to beat the young women off with a
stick...its a magical combination.




Phil Scott



http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/...recordid=48371

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

On 12 Jan 2006 11:00:08 -0800, "Harry Muscle"
wrote:

I'm in the process of deciding which furnace to get to replace my
existing furnace which is ready to die. I've been told that high
efficiency furnaces are not really worth it since they cost more up
front and they cost more in repair costs in the long run so in the end
high efficiency vs normal efficiency will have cost about the same, but
the high efficiency will have broken down more often due to it's
complexity. This makes sense ... but I have one more quick question.
Are dual stage furnaces quite complex and prone to break down also?

I've thinking of maybe getting a 80% dual stage furnance which would be
a bit more efficient than a single stage 80% furnance. But I'm
wondering if it's worth it. Would a dual stage 80% furnace be as
complicated as a 90%+ furnace? Are the parts just as expensive to
replace/repair as a high efficiency furnace? Or in other words should
I stay away from dual stage furnaces for the same reason I would stay
away from a high efficiency furnace (high repair costs, higher chance
of break down).

My experience with furnaces of this decade is that they're quite
dependable. I'm running a two-stage 94% efficient York (Diamond 95, I
think) furnace, installed in April 2003 that has saved us quite a bit
of money on the gas bill. Just from memory, my monthly budget outlay
for both gas and electric now is $210, and this includes running the
central AC installed at the same time as the furnace, whereas the old
1963 Williamson behemoth that preceded these two units (no central AC
with this), ran the monthly budget to about $265 (and remember again,
no AC), and that was in 2002, before the natural gas price hike. So,
I'm very pleased with the cost savings and the efficient heating of
this furnace, and I'm in western New York, the same climate as you.

I really would recommend you consider a two-stage high efficiency
furnace. I did NOT get the variable speed fan because of my concern
about these breaking down, however. That saved me a little $$ on the
initial outlay.

On 12 Jan 2006 11:00:08 -0800, "Harry Muscle"
wrote:

I'm in the process of deciding which furnace to get to replace my
existing furnace which is ready to die. I've been told that high
efficiency furnaces are not really worth it since they cost more up
front and they cost more in repair costs in the long run so in the end
high efficiency vs normal efficiency will have cost about the same,

Where'd you learn all that nonsense? I've had a 92% efficient york
furnace for nine years that has given me no problems. I believe the
first high efficiency units had problems; they've had nearly 20 years
to work them out and I suspect they've done it by now.

'nuther net-nazi.

Encourage diversity of views.

J