I had an estimate today from a local hvac company, and they figured
that a 60,000 btu furnace should replace my 105,000 btu furnace. it
is in a double family, brick constructed home that was built in 1949.
The furnace is working fine, I just thought i might get a replacement
estimate before it breaks down.

Does this sound reasonable? he took measurements of all the windows,
and walls, and got a reading for what walls/ceilings were insulated
and came up with this estimate. it does seem like he did a good job,
but i am wondering if i am being bamboozled, or if long ago they just
slammed too many btu's into housing units.

Thanks for the comments. Let me know if you need more information for
this to make sense.

Fish

fish wrote:
I had an estimate today from a local hvac company, and they figured
that a 60,000 btu furnace should replace my 105,000 btu furnace. it
is in a double family, brick constructed home that was built in 1949.
The furnace is working fine, I just thought i might get a replacement
estimate before it breaks down.

Does this sound reasonable? he took measurements of all the windows,
and walls, and got a reading for what walls/ceilings were insulated
and came up with this estimate. it does seem like he did a good job,
but i am wondering if i am being bamboozled, or if long ago they just
slammed too many btu's into housing units.

Thanks for the comments. Let me know if you need more information for
this to make sense.

Fish

It sounds like he did a Manual J which is what he should have done.
Sounds good. You should find the new solution both more comfortable and
more efficient.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

I come up with numbers like that all the time, especially when new windows
and insulation was added since the old furnace was installed. With a smaller
furnace, your heat is going to be more even as long as there's enough CFM,
but newer blowers are usually more powerful. Consumers almost always think
"bigger is better". I just tell the people that if it isn't big enough, I'll
pull it out and put in a bigger one at no charge. Haven't had to do that
yet.

"fish" wrote in message
...
I had an estimate today from a local hvac company, and they figured
that a 60,000 btu furnace should replace my 105,000 btu furnace. it
is in a double family, brick constructed home that was built in 1949.
The furnace is working fine, I just thought i might get a replacement
estimate before it breaks down.

Does this sound reasonable? he took measurements of all the windows,
and walls, and got a reading for what walls/ceilings were insulated
and came up with this estimate. it does seem like he did a good job,
but i am wondering if i am being bamboozled, or if long ago they just
slammed too many btu's into housing units.

Thanks for the comments. Let me know if you need more information for
this to make sense.

Fish

Yes, i think he did the J. He quoted a good price too, it included
a/c and the estimate was under 4k. Its something to think about.


On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 02:17:17 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:
It sounds like he did a Manual J which is what he should have done.
Sounds good. You should find the new solution both more comfortable and
more efficient.

Ask the guy if he'll replace it if it isn't big enough. If he says yes,
that's good enough. If he has a good reputation, he'll stand behind his
word. Remember, the next 6 contractors you get to look at it will tell you
to get a 105MBH heater because most consumers are scared of going lower.

"fish" wrote in message
...
Yes, i think he did the J. He quoted a good price too, it included
a/c and the estimate was under 4k. Its something to think about.


On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 02:17:17 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:
It sounds like he did a Manual J which is what he should have done.
Sounds good. You should find the new solution both more comfortable and
more efficient.

Very good point, yes he gave a 100% warranty/guarantee. If i dont
like it for any reason he said he would replace it or give the money
back. You are right about the cfm, but funny thing is the fan looks
just about identical to the fan i have in my primary residence, and
that furnace was installed in 1981.

Thanks...
Fish


On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:23:49 -0500, "Bob" wrote:

I come up with numbers like that all the time, especially when new windows
and insulation was added since the old furnace was installed. With a smaller
furnace, your heat is going to be more even as long as there's enough CFM,
but newer blowers are usually more powerful. Consumers almost always think
"bigger is better". I just tell the people that if it isn't big enough, I'll
pull it out and put in a bigger one at no charge. Haven't had to do that
yet.

"fish" wrote in message
...
I had an estimate today from a local hvac company, and they figured
that a 60,000 btu furnace should replace my 105,000 btu furnace. it
is in a double family, brick constructed home that was built in 1949.
The furnace is working fine, I just thought i might get a replacement
estimate before it breaks down.

Does this sound reasonable? he took measurements of all the windows,
and walls, and got a reading for what walls/ceilings were insulated
and came up with this estimate. it does seem like he did a good job,
but i am wondering if i am being bamboozled, or if long ago they just
slammed too many btu's into housing units.

Thanks for the comments. Let me know if you need more information for
this to make sense.

Well, part of it is that the BTU is input. If you are using a higher
efficiency unit (and I assume you are) the BTU capacity should be lower.
Should it be 1/3 lower? Probably not, but it is possible that the builder
just put the same unit in every house and yours was smaller than most.

Or maybe you insulated or improved the windows since 1949?

"fish" wrote in message
...
I had an estimate today from a local hvac company, and they figured
that a 60,000 btu furnace should replace my 105,000 btu furnace.

but i am wondering if i am being bamboozled, or if long ago they just
slammed too many btu's into housing units.

Since 1949 there probably had been added insulation, new windows, storm
doors, etc.; and new more efficient furnace designs. Yes, it was quite
common to go bigger as it was cheap back then. If your furnace cycles
frequently, that is a sign of over capacity.

You are lucky , it looks like you got someone honest that knows his
trade the first time, 99% of what I see here is no load calc questions.
I had 110000 btu and super insulated on 1800 sq ft in zone 5, to -15f,
and my last load calc was 50000 btu. Insulate to optimal, not just code
and you will require even less. With your smaller unit you will now heat
more evenly and short cycle less.

Everyone here is wrong, dead wrong so far. Make sure you get a dual stage
furnace which measures 80% of the existing BTU output.
Most of the hvacs are crooks and will promiss the sun and stars and leave
you stranded. It is far better to overproportion the heater than under.
Conventional furnaces deliver a burst of cold rushing air when they turn on,
a dual stage applies even, consistant heat. The house will be warmer,
tennants content and the fuel bill will be far lower due to the absense of
cold rushes.
"fish" wrote in message
...
I had an estimate today from a local hvac company, and they figured
that a 60,000 btu furnace should replace my 105,000 btu furnace. it
is in a double family, brick constructed home that was built in 1949.
The furnace is working fine, I just thought i might get a replacement
estimate before it breaks down.

Does this sound reasonable? he took measurements of all the windows,
and walls, and got a reading for what walls/ceilings were insulated
and came up with this estimate. it does seem like he did a good job,
but i am wondering if i am being bamboozled, or if long ago they just
slammed too many btu's into housing units.

Thanks for the comments. Let me know if you need more information for
this to make sense.

Fish

"Slim *******" wrote in message
The house will be warmer, tennants content and the fuel bill will be far
lower due to the absense of cold rushes.

I agree on the increased comfort, but how does the asbense of a cold rush
lower the fuel bill?

You have actually found a well qualified, honest HVAC guy. Tie him up and
don't let him out of your house.

"fish" wrote in message
...
Very good point, yes he gave a 100% warranty/guarantee. If i dont
like it for any reason he said he would replace it or give the money
back. You are right about the cfm, but funny thing is the fan looks
just about identical to the fan i have in my primary residence, and
that furnace was installed in 1981.

Thanks...
Fish


On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:23:49 -0500, "Bob" wrote:

I come up with numbers like that all the time, especially when new
windows
and insulation was added since the old furnace was installed. With a
smaller
furnace, your heat is going to be more even as long as there's enough
CFM,
but newer blowers are usually more powerful. Consumers almost always
think
"bigger is better". I just tell the people that if it isn't big enough,
I'll
pull it out and put in a bigger one at no charge. Haven't had to do that
yet.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"Slim *******" wrote in message
The house will be warmer, tennants content and the fuel bill will
be far lower due to the absense of cold rushes.

I agree on the increased comfort, but how does the asbense of a cold
rush lower the fuel bill?

I am guessing he is assuming that the owners will lower the temperature
setting since they are not cooled by the "cold rush"

As for:

Everyone here is wrong, dead wrong so far. Make sure you get a dual stage
furnace which measures 80% of the existing BTU output.

It appears to make no sense at all. although I do like the "dual stage"
part, everyone else are right. Also the suggestion to use 80% of existing
BTU it totally insane.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

Slim ******* wrote:
Everyone here is wrong, dead wrong so far. Make sure you get a dual stage
furnace which measures 80% of the existing BTU output.
Most of the hvacs are crooks and will promiss the sun and stars and leave
you stranded. It is far better to overproportion the heater than under.
Conventional furnaces deliver a burst of cold rushing air when they turn on,
a dual stage applies even, consistant heat. The house will be warmer,
tennants content and the fuel bill will be far lower due to the absense of
cold rushes.
"fish" wrote in message
...
I had an estimate today from a local hvac company, and they figured
that a 60,000 btu furnace should replace my 105,000 btu furnace. it
is in a double family, brick constructed home that was built in 1949.
The furnace is working fine, I just thought i might get a replacement
estimate before it breaks down.

Does this sound reasonable? he took measurements of all the windows,
and walls, and got a reading for what walls/ceilings were insulated
and came up with this estimate. it does seem like he did a good job,
but i am wondering if i am being bamboozled, or if long ago they just
slammed too many btu's into housing units.

Thanks for the comments. Let me know if you need more information for
this to make sense.

Fish




A dual capacity unit is a good idea, but will still not compensate for
oversizing . Have the contractor do the job. It was not uncommon in
1949 to oversize by a factor of 2 or 3.
Fish, it sounds like you found a gem of a contractor. Don't let him
get away.

Stretch

Slim ******* is wrong, I never could get the house within 5 degrees in
several rooms with a 110000 btu unit , going to a 47000 low fire on a 2
stage got me temps to within 2 degrees. I atribute this to longer
running. Also Slimy, It is even heat, no hot blasts and less short
cycling. Short cycling doesnt allow rated efficiency to be realised
since warm up periods dont give full efficiency, it is also harder on
the equipment. This of course is for a furnace, Boilers are another
story, slimmy.

Fish,

how long does the furnace you have now run on the coldest days to wamr
the house...

if it has to run only about 50% of the time on the coldest days then
you are probably ok getting a smaller one...

if your present furnace has to run 100% of the time on the coldest days
to keep the house warm, then a smaller unit may not deliver enough heat
on the coldest days...

just figure a furnace with 1/2 the output will run about twice as long
as your present unit...

Mark

Alright, i will find this out. i dont know how long it runs during
the day.
Fish


On 1 Feb 2006 07:27:14 -0800, "Mark" wrote:

Fish,

how long does the furnace you have now run on the coldest days to wamr
the house...

if it has to run only about 50% of the time on the coldest days then
you are probably ok getting a smaller one...

if your present furnace has to run 100% of the time on the coldest days
to keep the house warm, then a smaller unit may not deliver enough heat
on the coldest days...

just figure a furnace with 1/2 the output will run about twice as long
as your present unit...

Mark

You can figure it out, but you'd be wasting your time. Just go with the
furnace the HVAC guy recommended.

"fish" wrote in message
...
Alright, i will find this out. i dont know how long it runs during
the day.
Fish


On 1 Feb 2006 07:27:14 -0800, "Mark" wrote:

Fish,

how long does the furnace you have now run on the coldest days to wamr
the house...

if it has to run only about 50% of the time on the coldest days then
you are probably ok getting a smaller one...

if your present furnace has to run 100% of the time on the coldest days
to keep the house warm, then a smaller unit may not deliver enough heat
on the coldest days...

just figure a furnace with 1/2 the output will run about twice as long
as your present unit...

Mark

I read you. and agree.

Fish


On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 16:56:33 -0500, "Bob" wrote:

You can figure it out, but you'd be wasting your time. Just go with the
furnace the HVAC guy recommended.