A quick comment on warranty period and the AVERAGE home gas water heater
life.

The AVERAGE is exactly that: an average or mean calculation of the life for
all units shipped/sold. The real life span is affected by many things,
including the water quality/hardness (it consumes the anode quicker), the
temperature setting you select (hotter means it builds more internal
pressure and you get a shorter life) and the amount of hot water that you
use (more cycles of the burner mean a shorter life).

I am on my third gas HWH and purchased the house new in 1991. The first
heater lasted about 7 years and the second 6.5 years. I had a 7-year
warranty on the tank from Sears and they gave me a replacement free of
charge which has been in now for over 5 years. I believe that I will get a
longer life this time around since two of my children are no longer living
at home.

The bottom line here is that the warranty period may be important depending
on your circumstances. It is basically a cheap insurance policy that covers
only the cost of a replacement heater. For me, that was important since I
do the installation myself, but for someone hiring a plumber, the material
cost could easily be less than the labor and associated miscellaneous
expenses (permits).

Good luck in whatever you choose.

Bob

"Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" wrote in
message . net...
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:20:35 -0700, Rick Blaine wrote:
Heating less water costs less, even with equally efficient heaters.
Sigh. Absolutely true and totally meaningless within the context of this
discussion.
Hint: Direct energy cost is based on _use_ and efficiency, not _capacity_
and
efficiency.

It turns out Rick is right.

The size of the home water heater (e.g., 40 gallons, 50 gallons, etc.) is
nearly meaningless, as is the warranty period.

The only way the tank size plays any role in the selection process for
purely physical reasons. Why? Because both the EF and the FHR already take
into account the size of the holding tank so there is no need to even
bother to look at tank size (other than for purely physical reasons).

Likewise, the warranty is always less than the average lifetime of a home
water heater, which, at 13 years, is vastly greater than the 1-year labor
warrantees all the heaters I looked at (from Sears, Lowes, and Home Depot)
provided. (Note: The 12yr/9yr/6yr/etc. warranty figures often quoted by
Sears/Lowes/HomeDepot are for PARTS! Not labor).

Thanks everyone for enlightening me ... If I didn't know better, I'd buy
by
the size of the tank and the warranty but now I know they are meaningless
figures. The manufacturer WANTS you to look there but in reality, the
truthy lies in the FHV, EF, and cost/therm.

I didn't realize you guys knew so much about home water heaters ... but
I'm
glad you do. In only two days, I was able to take my knowledge level, with
your help, from absolutely nothing to being able make basic lifetime cost
comparisons given any two home heaters.

Thanks!

Donna

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:44:15 -0500, ng_reader wrote:
I did want to read more, and not sure if I saw it or not,
but why the quick Nay to the tankless design?
Did anyone provide a credible counter-argument?

You can decide if it's credible but a counter argument to tankless home
water heater selection is here

http://www.waterheaterrescue.com/pag...er-heater.html

That web site also provides nice selection and installation advice (with
pictures!) for all hot water heaters, including those with tanks and
tankless.

Donna

FOR ME I bought a 50 gallon tank since it was the largest that would
fit, with a high output burner to minimize running out of hot water,
the warranty is on high output tanks is 7 years. could of got a 12
year tank but I prefered more hot water over longer warranty which is
generally pro rated anyway and replacement usually based on list price
rather than sale price.


sometimes a tank on sale is cheaper than the same tank warranty
replaced.

minor $$$ savings are just that minor, like some fret buying a new
tank, to me its a low enough cost, like one candy bar a week who
cares,

bottom line i just want lots of nice hot water. costs are way below in
priority

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:34:00 -0800 (PST), wrote:
the warranty on high output tanks is 7 years. could of got a 12
year tank but I prefered more hot water over longer warranty which is
generally pro rated anyway and replacement usually based on list price
rather than sale price.

Just to be clear, my research indicates ALL warranties (at least all those
from Sears, Home Depot, and Lowes) are really only 1 year labor.

I don't know about you, but, it's not likely I'll be disconnecting my water
heater and bringing it to the manufacturer after that one year is up.

May I ask a "real" question?

Given installation is about the same price as the home water heater itself,
what do you get for that vaunted 12 year warranty after the first year?

Sure, they'll replace it for free ... but it costs as much to replace as it
did to buy so ... tell me please (I'm not being fascesious) ...

WHAT does the warranty *really* buy you after the first year is up?

Donna

"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.

"Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" wrote in
message news
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:34:00 -0800 (PST), wrote:
the warranty on high output tanks is 7 years. could of got a 12
year tank but I prefered more hot water over longer warranty which is
generally pro rated anyway and replacement usually based on list price
rather than sale price.

Just to be clear, my research indicates ALL warranties (at least all those
from Sears, Home Depot, and Lowes) are really only 1 year labor.

I don't know about you, but, it's not likely I'll be disconnecting my
water
heater and bringing it to the manufacturer after that one year is up.

May I ask a "real" question?

Given installation is about the same price as the home water heater
itself,
what do you get for that vaunted 12 year warranty after the first year?

Sure, they'll replace it for free ... but it costs as much to replace as
it
did to buy so ... tell me please (I'm not being fascesious) ...

WHAT does the warranty *really* buy you after the first year is up?

Donna



Well if I understand this right, when you buy the heater you pay for the
heater, plus you pay for the installation. For a warranty replacement you
pay for the installation, does that not save you the cost of the heater?

My line of thought is that a unit with a longer warranty is likely built
better, with better quality components, and thus likely to last longer.
Whether this is universally true I can't say, however last time I looked at
them, the 12 year warranty heaters did have a nicer fit & finish than the 6
year models, and the price difference was very small. I'll replace it myself
if it ever fails, and I'm sure it will outlast the warranty with the soft
water we have here, but if it's a higher quality unit I'm willing to pay for
that.

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

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

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

I read the article you referenced at
http://www.waterheaterrescue.com/pag...intenance.html

It doesn't say WHERE the 41,045 BTU number cames from.

What is this "magic" number of 41,045 BTU?

On Feb 13, 12:46 am, "Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator"
wrote:
Does this calculation look right to you?
240 therms/year * 1 year/41,045,000 btu * 100,000 btu/1 therm = .58

The part of the math that escapes me is why this calculation uses 1,000
times the BTUs per year than the previous calculations. Any idea?

Why do you use 41,045 BTU in one calculation when you have the EF in
hand and 41,045,000 BTU in the reverse calculation when you're trying
to determine the EF?

What is this "magic" number 41.045 anyway?

If you do self installation, like most of the audience on your target
newsgroups, then the warranty means a big deal. If you pay someone to
install, then it may not be as important, especially if the design,
materials, and construction quality is identical.

Bob

"Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" wrote in
message news
Just to be clear, my research indicates ALL warranties (at least all those
from Sears, Home Depot, and Lowes) are really only 1 year labor.

I don't know about you, but, it's not likely I'll be disconnecting my
water
heater and bringing it to the manufacturer after that one year is up.

May I ask a "real" question?

Given installation is about the same price as the home water heater
itself,
what do you get for that vaunted 12 year warranty after the first year?

Sure, they'll replace it for free ... but it costs as much to replace as
it
did to buy so ... tell me please (I'm not being fascesious) ...

WHAT does the warranty *really* buy you after the first year is up?

Donna

I read the article you referenced athttp://www.waterheaterrescue.com/pages/WHRpages/English/Longevity/wat...

It doesn't say WHERE the 41,045 BTU number cames from.

What is this "magic" number of 41,045 BTU?

Wrong reference.
http://www.waterheaterrescue.com/ima...yAndNight3.jpg

The right reference is
http://www.gamanet.org/gama/inforeso...s?OpenDocument

The document that has that calculation is
http://www.gamanet.org/gama/inforesources.nsf/vAttachmentLaunch/C2AAFB8D41D003F485256E9000607F66/$FILE/12-07-gas-rwh.pdf

But it still doesn't say where the "magic" 41,045 BTU comes from.

having only 1 heater leak before the warranty ran out, and as far as i
know its still a pro rata warranty....

number of installed months, vs number of warranteed months, gives a
percentage, thats then applied to a brand new similiar heater at full
list price

on that one heater the sale price was less than the pro rata price,
kinda mad i bought my new one somewhere else........

warrantys are sales tools, they rarely help the purchaser much. wheres
your original invoice? company like sears might no longer be in
business in 8 years.........

just look at all the retailers who have goine out of business over the
years.....

a warranty from builders square or hechinger isnt worth the paper its
written on........

the BTU # is from the manufacturer, they vary from under 30,000 BTU to
75,000 BTU on my current tank.

higher btus cost more to build, better stronger burner and heavier
tank to take the added heat.

On Feb 13, 11:54 am, " wrote:
the BTU # is from the manufacturer, they vary from under 30,000 BTU to
75,000 BTU on my current tank.

I can't say that I know what the 41,045 BTU is in the calculation but
it can't be different for different gas burners because it's the same
number no matter what gas heater you use.

So it must be some kind of other "magic" number.

On Feb 10, 7:53 am, "Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator"
wrote:
Can I get some quick trusty advice on a dripping gas 40 gallon hot-water
heater?

Next time, do these 10 steps twice a year & your heater will last 20
years!
1. Shut the electricity/gas to your water heater
2. Close the cold water intake at the top of the water heater
3. Open a hot water faucet on any level above the water heater
4. Open the drain valve at the bottom of your water heater
5. Shut the drain valve when that water runs clear (approx 10 gallons)
6. Inspect the sacrificial anode (replace rod only if corroded badly)
7. Shut the water faucet that you had opened in the house
8. Reopen the cold water valve intake to the water heater
9. Run all faucets in the house for at least 10 second (or sputtering
stops)
10. Turn electricity/gas back on

On Feb 13, 5:12�pm, wrote:
On Feb 10, 7:53 am, "Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator"

wrote:
Can I get some quick trusty advice on a dripping gas 40 gallon hot-water
heater?

Next time, do these 10 steps twice a year & your heater will last 20
years!
1. Shut the electricity/gas to your water heater
2. Close the cold water intake at the top of the water heater
3. Open a hot water faucet on any level above the water heater
4. Open the drain valve at the bottom of your water heater
5. Shut the drain valve when that water runs clear (approx 10 gallons)
6. Inspect the sacrificial anode (replace rod only if corroded badly)
7. Shut the water faucet that you had opened in the house
8. Reopen the cold water valve intake to the water heater
9. Run all faucets in the house for at least 10 second (or sputtering
stops)
10. Turn electricity/gas back on

add be prepared to replace drain valve, which may not shut or drip
when closed, espically the plastic ones. some valves will clog replace
tank drain valve with a ball valve at new tank install time

cycle the T&P valve yearly knowing it may not shut properly or drip.
good chance in 20 years it will likely need replaced at least once

add the anode may not come loose easily, and you need enough head room
to get the new anode in. might generate new troubles

in some areas draing may not remove much of anything.....

think of this if the tank does last 20 years you will miss
improvements of new tanks like better insulation.

be cautious of tanks that if they leak can damage finished spaces,
contents and carpeting.......

"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.

On Feb 13, 6:34*pm, "Only Just" ifixit2@hotmail(dot)com wrote:
"Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" wrote in
...





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..._id=16637&p_ta....

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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't believe it's accurate to say these tests were designed by the
industry. The manufacturers of water heaters certainly gave there
opinions and suggestions, but the actual test standards were arrived
at by the EPA. And different manufacturers have different opinions
of how the various water heaters should be tested. They were not even
close to being all in agreement.

However, I do agree with most of what you posted. Tests have to
assume some type of typical usage to come up with a way to do the
tests. And just like with cars, your mileage may vary, especially
if your usage is substantially different than the tests. And once
the tests are set in place, manufacturers will start to tweak there
designs to play the spec game. That's why I wouldn't go crazy trying
to figure this out to the last decimal place.

When I needed a new water heater, I went with another 50 gal unit,
which was what I already had. I did look at the energy efficieny
ratings and concluded that for my usage an average unit would be
fine. I went down to HD, bought it and installed it in one day. It
has a eff rating of .56, and cost me I think about $300 7 years ago.
I wasn't gonna lose sleep worrying over whether a .58 or .61 was gonna
make enough difference to be worth it.

I did get a 10 year warranty, which came in handy about 2 years ago.
The thermocouple went and State, who was the manufacturer, had a new
one here in 2 days for free.

"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:xAxsj.159$sh.74@trnddc07...

"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" ifixit2@hotmail(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.

"Bob Shuman" wrote in message
...
A quick comment on warranty period and the AVERAGE home gas water heater
life.

The AVERAGE is exactly that: an average or mean calculation of the life
for
all units shipped/sold. The real life span is affected by many things,
including the water quality/hardness (it consumes the anode quicker), the
temperature setting you select (hotter means it builds more internal
pressure and you get a shorter life) and the amount of hot water that you
use (more cycles of the burner mean a shorter life).

I am on my third gas HWH and purchased the house new in 1991. The first
heater lasted about 7 years and the second 6.5 years. I had a 7-year
warranty on the tank from Sears and they gave me a replacement free of
charge which has been in now for over 5 years. I believe that I will get
a
longer life this time around since two of my children are no longer living
at home.

The bottom line here is that the warranty period may be important
depending
on your circumstances. It is basically a cheap insurance policy that
covers
only the cost of a replacement heater. For me, that was important since I
do the installation myself, but for someone hiring a plumber, the material
cost could easily be less than the labor and associated miscellaneous
expenses (permits).

I think it matters no matter who does the installation - either way, you
didn't have pay for a new heater.

wrote in message
...

warrantys are sales tools, they rarely help the purchaser much. wheres
your original invoice?

You keep all of that stuff, and not just in case you ever need to invoke the
warranty - you keep it for tax or insurance purposes.

You keep this stuff in a file folder in a drawer - it takes a few second to
put it there when you buy something new. Or in the case of something like a
water heater, you put it in a plastic bag and tape it to the appliance.

"Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" wrote in
message t...
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:49:53 -0700, Rick Blaine wrote:
What's the easiest way to compare heat leakage between two water
heaters?

Look at the yellow energy label on the heaters. The annual cost to
operate
printed there can be compared on different models.

Actually, since my cost per therm is far from the average used for those
stickers, the sticker numbers are innacurate in my situation.

The labels show the estimated annual energy usage AND the estimated annual
cost, based on an average cost of fuel. Take the energy usage and multiply
by your own fuel cost assumptions.

The sticker numbers might work to roughly compare two models in
performance
but they don't work to calculate the true payback period for two models.

For that, the math I've posted today should be sufficient (assuming the
calculations hold water under scrutiny of this esteemed group).

I doubt that your calculations are "true" - in the way that you initially
didn't account for the time value of money, I didn't see that you took into
account the changing cost of fuel. What is today a $25.00 annual saving
could be a $50.00, $75.00, $100.00 (make your own assumptions) annual saving
a year or three down the line. Nor did you account for general inflation,
or even the normal tendency for people's income to rise over time - today's
annual payback might mean an hour or two of work a year, but assuming
constant fuel costs, it'll probably be less work time a year or two down the
line.

You can estimate payback periods only by making a cat's cradle of
assumptions.

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.

Bob Shuman wrote:
A quick comment on warranty period and the AVERAGE home gas water heater
life.

The AVERAGE is exactly that: an average or mean calculation of the life for
all units shipped/sold. The real life span is affected by many things,
including the water quality/hardness (it consumes the anode quicker), the
temperature setting you select (hotter means it builds more internal
pressure and you get a shorter life) and the amount of hot water that you
use (more cycles of the burner mean a shorter life).

I am on my third gas HWH and purchased the house new in 1991. The first
heater lasted about 7 years and the second 6.5 years. I had a 7-year
warranty on the tank from Sears and they gave me a replacement free of
charge which has been in now for over 5 years. I believe that I will get a
longer life this time around since two of my children are no longer living
at home.


The gas water heater in my house was old when I bought the place in
1998...and it is still running fine. I think it is about twenty years
old - no leaks so far! And I had three teenagers living here for a
number of years...

John :-#)#

The bottom line here is that the warranty period may be important depending
on your circumstances. It is basically a cheap insurance policy that covers
only the cost of a replacement heater. For me, that was important since I
do the installation myself, but for someone hiring a plumber, the material
cost could easily be less than the labor and associated miscellaneous
expenses (permits).

Good luck in whatever you choose.

Bob

"Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" wrote in
message . net...
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:20:35 -0700, Rick Blaine wrote:
Heating less water costs less, even with equally efficient heaters.
Sigh. Absolutely true and totally meaningless within the context of this
discussion.
Hint: Direct energy cost is based on _use_ and efficiency, not _capacity_
and
efficiency.
It turns out Rick is right.

The size of the home water heater (e.g., 40 gallons, 50 gallons, etc.) is
nearly meaningless, as is the warranty period.

The only way the tank size plays any role in the selection process for
purely physical reasons. Why? Because both the EF and the FHR already take
into account the size of the holding tank so there is no need to even
bother to look at tank size (other than for purely physical reasons).

Likewise, the warranty is always less than the average lifetime of a home
water heater, which, at 13 years, is vastly greater than the 1-year labor
warrantees all the heaters I looked at (from Sears, Lowes, and Home Depot)
provided. (Note: The 12yr/9yr/6yr/etc. warranty figures often quoted by
Sears/Lowes/HomeDepot are for PARTS! Not labor).

Thanks everyone for enlightening me ... If I didn't know better, I'd buy
by
the size of the tank and the warranty but now I know they are meaningless
figures. The manufacturer WANTS you to look there but in reality, the
truthy lies in the FHV, EF, and cost/therm.

I didn't realize you guys knew so much about home water heaters ... but
I'm
glad you do. In only two days, I was able to take my knowledge level, with
your help, from absolutely nothing to being able make basic lifetime cost
comparisons given any two home heaters.

Thanks!

Donna




--
(Please post followups or tech inquiries to the newsgroup)
John's Jukes Ltd. 2343 Main St., Vancouver, BC, Canada V5T 3C9
Call (604)872-5757 or Fax 872-2010 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games)
www.flippers.com
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."

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

In my case, it was not pro-rated. I was given a new gas HWH by Sears to
replace the one that developed the small leak within the 7-year tank rust
out warranty period. I did need to bring them the old tank though, which
was not an issue.

Bob

wrote in message
...
having only 1 heater leak before the warranty ran out, and as far as i
know its still a pro rata warranty....

number of installed months, vs number of warranteed months, gives a
percentage, thats then applied to a brand new similiar heater at full
list price

on that one heater the sale price was less than the pro rata price,
kinda mad i bought my new one somewhere else........

warrantys are sales tools, they rarely help the purchaser much. wheres
your original invoice? company like sears might no longer be in
business in 8 years.........

just look at all the retailers who have goine out of business over the
years.....

a warranty from builders square or hechinger isnt worth the paper its
written on........

the BTU # is from the manufacturer, they vary from under 30,000 BTU to
75,000 BTU on my current tank.

higher btus cost more to build, better stronger burner and heavier
tank to take the added heat.

"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:OsOsj.375$ph.210@trnddc06...

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:OsOsj.375$ph.210@trnddc06...

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" ifixit2@hotmail(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

On Feb 15, 8:43Â*am, " wrote:
-



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

Yes, some of that can certainly be going on. But trying to change
the design of the product slightly to come out better in the standard
EPA test is a lot different than claiming the tests themselves are not
uniform because the manufacturer gets to decide the test method, how
the test is done, etc, and then manipulates the results they publish.

On Feb 15, 10:33Â*am, wrote:
On Feb 15, 8:43Â*am, " wrote:

-

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

Yes, some of that can certainly be going on. Â* But trying to change
the design of the product slightly to come out better in the standard
EPA test is a lot different than claiming the tests themselves are not
uniform because the manufacturer gets to decide the test method, how
the test is done, etc, and then manipulates the results they publish.

well everyone knew the old tests werent valid yet it took many years
to get them changed