On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 22:07:17 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 12/3/2013 7:17 PM, wrote:


Right, that is why the OP has to run the numbers for his situation. Few
houses in the north can be heated for $500 a year.
In the last 20 years I have never spent $700 for natural gas here in
Ontario Canada. That is heat and hot water.


I know people that will spend that much in January. You save $116 in a
year, they save $116 in a single month. But we still cannot draw any
conclusions for the op
Figuring in the hot water usage, the savings would work out to about
$90 a year if I had put in a 96% over an 80%. What I put in is a
"high efficiency non condensing" 2 stage furnace - supposed to be
86-90% efficient. Most of the time it is running on low output, which
is supposed to make the 90%.

When I had it installed, putting in the high efficiency condensing
furnace would have cost me over $800 more - for an extra 6%. - to save
about $30- $35 a year.. Even if I saved #40 a year, it would take 20
years to pay for it, and I DOUBT this furnace will last more than 20
years. The original was about 30 years old. So 10 years ago I didn't
put in a condensing furnace. My brother did - and it's been replaced
already. If I was replacing it today, it would be a high efficiency
condensing furnace because that's all I can buy now here in Ontario.

On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 8:41:26 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 14:23:10 -0800, Oren wrote:



On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 15:27:31 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:



Few houses in the north can be heated for $500 a year.



..and mostly very damn few



There's a good reason I don't live in the ****-hole Northeast,

anymore.


And I'm sure there are plenty of us here that are very happy with
your decision to leave.

On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 3:36:09 PM UTC-5, Big Giant Head wrote:
Also, what else is on the chimney for the existing

furnace? If there is a water heater sharing the same chimney, you'll

likely need to install a chimney liner for that.



The WH shares the same pipe. The proposal for the super high efficiency

furnace calls for a new PVC tube through the roof, some sort of coaxial

thing that also brings down combustion air. It's a ranch with the roof

only maybe 6 feet or so above the ceiling level at that point.



BTW, the old unit is 90,000 BTH/H input. The proposals match that for

regular furnaces including two stage burner/fan but 80,000 BTU/H for the

super HE.

As others have pointed out it's really pretty simple. Try to make an estimate of your annual heating costs. Since you have a gas hw heater and probably some other gas appliances to do that you will need to calculate your average monthly summer gas cost and subtract that from your average monthly winter gas costs. Then multiple the results by the typical number of months you heat and again by 16%. That will be your estimated annual savings. Divide that into the cost difference between replacing with another 80% unit verses the 96% unit. That will give you the recovery years to break even.

The complexity is another issue that's completely unpredictable. Millions of people have many years of uninterrupted service from a high efficiency unit. But occasionally they have problems. And they do tend to be more expensive to fix.

On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 01:19:43 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 8:41:26 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 14:23:10 -0800, Oren wrote:



On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 15:27:31 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:



Few houses in the north can be heated for $500 a year.



..and mostly very damn few



There's a good reason I don't live in the ****-hole Northeast,

anymore.


And I'm sure there are plenty of us here that are very happy with
your decision to leave.

Perhaps Malformed is one of your sockpuppets, Trader? The two of you
are sounding more and more alike.

On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 1:19:40 PM UTC-8, VinnyB wrote:
On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 09:44:39 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote

in Re Choosing

Furnace Efficiency:



On 12/3/2013 9:07 AM, VinnyB wrote:



OTOH, my next door neighbor had a high-efficiency model installed in

her home way back when they were fairly new on the market (80s? early

90s?). So far, only one service call. In fact, she's dead, but the

furnace has kept on through two additional owners.



How do you know that? Do they report to you when they make a service

call, or do you sit at your window all day watching for service

trucks?





Don't be silly, of course he's not sitting and watching for service

trucks. That's his wife's job.



Ok, that makes sense now.

Because he has hired a cleaner, cook, nanny, etc. to do what the wife would be doing if not stationed at the window watching for service trucks. I hope he lets her at least listen to radio or do puzzles during the long truck-free intervals.

HB

"morty" wrote in message
...
On 12/03/2013 01:27 AM, Big Giant Head wrote:
I know the pros of the super efficient furnaces. What are the cons? The
ones being considered are Carrier Performance Series. What are HVAC
techs
putting in their own homes?

High efficiency furnaces are trouble-free for the first 7 years or so but
then furnace hell begins.

I paid $420 to have the draft inducer replaced on a 9 year old furnace.

One of the vacuum safety switches also failed but that repair was only
$140.

So any fuel savings is easily offset by higher initial cost and huge
repair bills.

You can usually get a Service Contract-mine is through the Gas Co--and it
covers all the components that you mentioned. My only problem with a 6 yr
92% was the flame sensor. Other than the contract cost my out pocket $$$$
was Zero. Actually, you saved money if these were the first costs you've had
in 9 yrs vs paying for a contract over that time frame.
Gas company periodically sends a flyer on how you're doing relative to the
average users and to neighbors. My fuel costs are only 4% higher than the
most efficient and way better (lower) than all the others. So fuel cost
savings is a major factor.
MLD

BTW, should I even ask about replacing the HX or is that completely
ridiculous on a 26 year old unit? Actually, over the years I replaced a
gas valve, inducer motor, and inducer control board (new one has the time
delay) myself. So aside from the blower and a small circuit board, it's
just a box to hold these components, right?

I'm hoping someone is offering one with spark ignition. The more I learn
about hot surface ignitors the less I want one since I know it's going to
fail.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 08:45:21 -0500, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 12/3/2013 8:40 AM, Moe DeLoughan wrote:

OTOH, my next door neighbor had a high-efficiency model installed in
her
home way back when they were fairly new on the market (80s? early
90s?).
So far, only one service call. In fact, she's dead, but the furnace has
kept on through two additional owners.

Gee, that's encouraging. Furnace save her five bucks,
and kills her to boot. Not me, thanks. I don't want
a furnace to kill me.
I've seen too many high eff furnaces fail eithin 5 years. My
brother's had a circuit board replaced at $400+ a shot 3 times? bedore
the furnace contractor offered him a real deal on a different
manufacturer's replacement - and after it was replaced he found there
was an $80 generic replacement board that would have fixed it - and
didn't suffer from premature death syndrome

Your brother doesn't appear to be too bright. And to think, he's the smart
one of you two.

On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 20:54:40 -0500, "Jimbo" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 08:45:21 -0500, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 12/3/2013 8:40 AM, Moe DeLoughan wrote:

OTOH, my next door neighbor had a high-efficiency model installed in
her
home way back when they were fairly new on the market (80s? early
90s?).
So far, only one service call. In fact, she's dead, but the furnace has
kept on through two additional owners.

Gee, that's encouraging. Furnace save her five bucks,
and kills her to boot. Not me, thanks. I don't want
a furnace to kill me.
I've seen too many high eff furnaces fail eithin 5 years. My
brother's had a circuit board replaced at $400+ a shot 3 times? bedore
the furnace contractor offered him a real deal on a different
manufacturer's replacement - and after it was replaced he found there
was an $80 generic replacement board that would have fixed it - and
didn't suffer from premature death syndrome

Your brother doesn't appear to be too bright. And to think, he's the smart
one of you two.


You've met him, have you?? A genius at his feild of expertise -
setting up condominium plans. Not terribly bright about a lot of other
things.

And I bet in comparison to either of us you are dumber than a sack of
rocks.

On Wed, 04 Dec 2013 18:26:45 -0600, Big Giant Head
wrote:

BTW, should I even ask about replacing the HX or is that completely
ridiculous on a 26 year old unit? Actually, over the years I replaced a
gas valve, inducer motor, and inducer control board (new one has the time
delay) myself. So aside from the blower and a small circuit board, it's
just a box to hold these components, right?

I'm hoping someone is offering one with spark ignition. The more I learn
about hot surface ignitors the less I want one since I know it's going to
fail.
2 different kinds of hot plate ignitors. One is pure trouble - the
other almost trouble free. The old silicon carbide are the crappy
ones. Silicon Nitride is the good stuff.

On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 7:26:45 PM UTC-5, Big Giant Head wrote:
BTW, should I even ask about replacing the HX or is that completely

ridiculous on a 26 year old unit?

I would say it's ridiculous, if one is even still available.
Have you looked at tax credits, utility rebates, etc available
that reduce the cost of a new high-eff system? Those can make
a high eff one cost the same or less than a 80% efficient one.
Calculated how much a year you will save in gas and electric?
AC involved too? How much you will save per year with a 14 SEER
instead of a 26 year old that may be running at 8?

wrote:

On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 7:26:45 PM UTC-5, Big Giant Head wrote:
BTW, should I even ask about replacing the HX or is that completely

ridiculous on a 26 year old unit?

I would say it's ridiculous, if one is even still available.
Have you looked at tax credits, utility rebates, etc available
that reduce the cost of a new high-eff system? Those can make
a high eff one cost the same or less than a 80% efficient one.
Calculated how much a year you will save in gas and electric?
AC involved too? How much you will save per year with a 14 SEER
instead of a 26 year old that may be running at 8?


Hey, I had a Lennox dealer out last night and he strongly discouraged a HE
because the machine is going in an interior closet and the PVC pipe(s)
would have to pass through about 3-4 ft of unheated attic crawl space.
Said the condensation could freeze up. He was pushing an 80% but with
variable valve and DC variable blower. The Carrier / Payne dealer did not
have any issue with with the piping situation.

I may just say screw it and get a simple 80% and call it a day. Not doing
new air at this time.

On Thursday, December 5, 2013 12:30:02 PM UTC-5, Big Giant Head wrote:
wrote:



On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 7:26:45 PM UTC-5, Big Giant Head wrote:

BTW, should I even ask about replacing the HX or is that completely



ridiculous on a 26 year old unit?



I would say it's ridiculous, if one is even still available.

Have you looked at tax credits, utility rebates, etc available

that reduce the cost of a new high-eff system? Those can make

a high eff one cost the same or less than a 80% efficient one.

Calculated how much a year you will save in gas and electric?

AC involved too? How much you will save per year with a 14 SEER

instead of a 26 year old that may be running at 8?





Hey, I had a Lennox dealer out last night and he strongly discouraged a HE

because the machine is going in an interior closet and the PVC pipe(s)

would have to pass through about 3-4 ft of unheated attic crawl space.

Said the condensation could freeze up. He was pushing an 80% but with

variable valve and DC variable blower. The Carrier / Payne dealer did not

have any issue with with the piping situation.



I'd say the Lennox guy is BS. I just checked a Rheem installation
manual and it says that the pipe needs to be covered in 1" of
insulation if it's run through unheated spaces where below
freezing temps are expected. And that if water could collect,
it should have heat tape applied. I don't know how the latter
could occur, given that the pipe has to slope downward, back
to the furnace. Given that the colder it gets, the more the
furnace runs, it's hard to see how it's going to freeze up
and block the vent pipes if you put some decent insulation
on them.

Around here, nyc area huge numbers of houses have furnaces
in the attic with 4 ft+ pipe runs and I haven't heard
of any problems. Of course if your attic gets down to 0,
that might present a problem. But if it is a problem in
your area, you would think all the installers would be telling
you about it. The alternative is you might have a contractor
that would rather do a quick switch install, instead of having
to run the vent pipes.



I may just say screw it and get a simple 80% and call it a day.

What price differences are you seeing between 80 and 93%?
Factor in any tax credits, rebates from utilities, etc?


Not doing

new air at this time.

I guess that's an option if they can do the job without
removing the existing evaporator. If they can't and have to
evacuate, open, purge, recharge, etc then given all that cost,
with a 25 year old AC, going to new AC at the same time would
seem a more sensible path to me.

I'd say the Lennox guy is BS.

Maybe it's a case of CYA. They're offering 10 years parts + 10 years
labor on the simple furnace. 15 / 15 on the fancy 80% variable speed.
HX is 20 on both. They promise 2 hr response time day or night and if
they can't fix it in 24 hrs they pay the hotel. A+ on BBB & Angie's list
award winning so they probably do have good service (not that I verified
these assertions but I'll take their word).

Carrier / Payne dealer offers only 5 years parts + 1 year labor. 20
years HX.

I don't know what part of that stems from the mfg and what part is from
the dealer. Does Lennox have better warranty?

Wish I could get the long warranty on the fancy machine; it would make me
feel better but I presume if I insisted on it with Lennox he'd probably
say you're on your own after a minimal warranty. Or at the very least
exclude ice buildup! I would, if I had his concerns.

What price differences are you seeing between 80 and 93%?
Factor in any tax credits, rebates from utilities, etc?

Carrier guy:

80% Conventional 90,000 BTU/H Carrier $2450.
Likewise but branded Payne $2250.

80% 2-stage 90,000 BTU/H Carrier $2850.

95% 80,000 BTU/H Carrier $3250.
Payne $3050.

Lennox Guy:

80% 70,000 Conventional $2400.
80% 70.000 Variable $3715.

The latter is a lot for non high efficiency (which he didn't offer).

I could not actually accept the Lennox bids as is since it says 70,000
but maybe that's just an writing error. If we stay at 80% and assume the
90,000 is fine and decent duty cycles even in below zero weather, then we
need the same size. Dropping a notch if we go higher efficency of
course.

I guess that's an option if they can do the job without
removing the existing evaporator. If they can't and have to
evacuate, open, purge, recharge, etc then given all that cost,
with a 25 year old AC, going to new AC at the same time would
seem a more sensible path to me.

It's under the furnace so it can stay put. It should probably get a
little cleaning. It would still be logical to replace the whole thing I
know. It's really mostly about not having to think about that. I can
barely decide on a furnace.

Big Giant Head wrote:
I'd say the Lennox guy is BS.

Maybe it's a case of CYA. They're offering 10 years parts + 10 years
labor on the simple furnace. 15 / 15 on the fancy 80% variable speed.
HX is 20 on both. They promise 2 hr response time day or night and if
they can't fix it in 24 hrs they pay the hotel. A+ on BBB & Angie's list
award winning so they probably do have good service (not that I verified
these assertions but I'll take their word).

Carrier / Payne dealer offers only 5 years parts + 1 year labor. 20
years HX.

I don't know what part of that stems from the mfg and what part is from
the dealer. Does Lennox have better warranty?

Wish I could get the long warranty on the fancy machine; it would make me
feel better but I presume if I insisted on it with Lennox he'd probably
say you're on your own after a minimal warranty. Or at the very least
exclude ice buildup! I would, if I had his concerns.

What price differences are you seeing between 80 and 93%?
Factor in any tax credits, rebates from utilities, etc?

Carrier guy:

80% Conventional 90,000 BTU/H Carrier $2450.
Likewise but branded Payne $2250.

80% 2-stage 90,000 BTU/H Carrier $2850.

95% 80,000 BTU/H Carrier $3250.
Payne $3050.

Lennox Guy:

80% 70,000 Conventional $2400.
80% 70.000 Variable $3715.

The latter is a lot for non high efficiency (which he didn't offer).

I could not actually accept the Lennox bids as is since it says 70,000
but maybe that's just an writing error. If we stay at 80% and assume the
90,000 is fine and decent duty cycles even in below zero weather, then we
need the same size. Dropping a notch if we go higher efficency of
course.

I guess that's an option if they can do the job without
removing the existing evaporator. If they can't and have to
evacuate, open, purge, recharge, etc then given all that cost,
with a 25 year old AC, going to new AC at the same time would
seem a more sensible path to me.

It's under the furnace so it can stay put. It should probably get a
little cleaning. It would still be logical to replace the whole thing I
know. It's really mostly about not having to think about that. I can
barely decide on a furnace.


Hi,
What is your requirement for furnace size? It has to be properly sized.
Over or undersized furnace is not a good thing. Proper, right sized
one gives highest efficiency. What is the size of old one? I am good
with Carrier always because Carrier parts are very easy to get.
They can't fix it in 24 hours mean lack of needed parts not serious
break down. Furnace is not really complex electric/electronic/mechanical
device.

What is your requirement for furnace size? It has to be properly
sized. Over or undersized furnace is not a good thing.

The current 80% Bryant is 90,000 BTU/H input. I'm going to presume that's
the right size unless someone tells me otherwise. Obviously, it could
absolutely be wrong all these years but I've never noticed it not keeping
up on the coldest days nor during normally cold winter days does it have
extremely short cycles. Lennox guy did walk around and see the place,
count vents, and so forth but never said oh, you should be at 70K so I'm
guessing that was a write-o. I didn't notice it until after he'd left. If
I do talk to him again that will be the first question.

Carrier - Payne guy just went with the 90K but then again I was asking
about replacing what was there. Alas, his paper work doesn't mention model
numbers.

They can't fix it in 24 hours mean lack of needed parts not serious
break down. Furnace is not really complex
electric/electronic/mechanical device.

I've repaired the current unit over the years. Inducer board, gas valve,
inducer motor. But aren't new ones more complex with expensive
microprocessor boards, and trouble codes, especially the HE ones?

Seriously thinking of pulling off those parts on the old one when it goes.
Either to eBay them or just to keep for sentimental value since I put them
in.

On 12/5/2013 9:28 PM, Big Giant Head wrote:

Carrier guy:

80% Conventional 90,000 BTU/H Carrier $2450.
Likewise but branded Payne $2250.

80% 2-stage 90,000 BTU/H Carrier $2850.

95% 80,000 BTU/H Carrier $3250.
Payne $3050.

Lennox Guy:

80% 70,000 Conventional $2400.
80% 70.000 Variable $3715.

The latter is a lot for non high efficiency (which he didn't offer).

I could not actually accept the Lennox bids as is since it says 70,000
but maybe that's just an writing error. If we stay at 80% and assume the
90,000 is fine and decent duty cycles even in below zero weather, then we
need the same size. Dropping a notch if we go higher efficiency of
course.

Assuming you are 80% that makes sense, but are you? I'd ask the guy why
he is quoting a smaller unit. It does seem odd that he would quote that
much smaller.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 12/5/2013 9:28 PM, Big Giant Head wrote:

Carrier guy:

80% Conventional 90,000 BTU/H Carrier $2450.
Likewise but branded Payne $2250.

80% 2-stage 90,000 BTU/H Carrier $2850.

95% 80,000 BTU/H Carrier $3250.
Payne $3050.

Lennox Guy:

80% 70,000 Conventional $2400.
80% 70.000 Variable $3715.

The latter is a lot for non high efficiency (which he didn't offer).

I could not actually accept the Lennox bids as is since it says 70,000
but maybe that's just an writing error. If we stay at 80% and assume the
90,000 is fine and decent duty cycles even in below zero weather, then we
need the same size. Dropping a notch if we go higher efficiency of
course.

Assuming you are 80% that makes sense, but are you? I'd ask the guy why
he is quoting a smaller unit. It does seem odd that he would quote that
much smaller.
Hmmm,
I had my old 80% efficiency Carrier(130K BTU) to 96% 100K BTU 2 stage
one for 4 grand minus wiring and thermostat. I hooked it up and
installed wireless thermostat, CO detector myself.
Installer did all the rest to my 100% satisfaction. Passed inspection.
Actually it is season for demand so price seems steep.

On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 20:28:20 -0600, Big Giant Head
wrote:

I'd say the Lennox guy is BS.

Maybe it's a case of CYA. They're offering 10 years parts + 10 years
labor on the simple furnace. 15 / 15 on the fancy 80% variable speed.
HX is 20 on both. They promise 2 hr response time day or night and if
they can't fix it in 24 hrs they pay the hotel. A+ on BBB & Angie's list
award winning so they probably do have good service (not that I verified
these assertions but I'll take their word).

Carrier / Payne dealer offers only 5 years parts + 1 year labor. 20
years HX.

I don't know what part of that stems from the mfg and what part is from
the dealer. Does Lennox have better warranty?

Wish I could get the long warranty on the fancy machine; it would make me
feel better but I presume if I insisted on it with Lennox he'd probably
say you're on your own after a minimal warranty. Or at the very least
exclude ice buildup! I would, if I had his concerns.

What price differences are you seeing between 80 and 93%?
Factor in any tax credits, rebates from utilities, etc?

Carrier guy:

80% Conventional 90,000 BTU/H Carrier $2450.
Likewise but branded Payne $2250.

80% 2-stage 90,000 BTU/H Carrier $2850.

95% 80,000 BTU/H Carrier $3250.
Payne $3050.

Lennox Guy:

80% 70,000 Conventional $2400.
80% 70.000 Variable $3715.

The latter is a lot for non high efficiency (which he didn't offer).

I could not actually accept the Lennox bids as is since it says 70,000
but maybe that's just an writing error. If we stay at 80% and assume the
90,000 is fine and decent duty cycles even in below zero weather, then we
need the same size. Dropping a notch if we go higher efficency of
course.

I guess that's an option if they can do the job without
removing the existing evaporator. If they can't and have to
evacuate, open, purge, recharge, etc then given all that cost,
with a 25 year old AC, going to new AC at the same time would
seem a more sensible path to me.

It's under the furnace so it can stay put. It should probably get a
little cleaning. It would still be logical to replace the whole thing I
know. It's really mostly about not having to think about that. I can
barely decide on a furnace.

The dealer that sold me my furnace offered a fantastic warrantee on
the system and installation - then promptly went T.U. less than a year
later. The warranty from the manufacturer, without the dealer to back
me up, ended up being far less valuable. "pay for the repairs at the
going rate, submit for warranty consideration, and we may or may not
pay all or a fraction of the repair cost" that was Tempstar.

On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 19:58:47 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Big Giant Head wrote:
I'd say the Lennox guy is BS.

Maybe it's a case of CYA. They're offering 10 years parts + 10 years
labor on the simple furnace. 15 / 15 on the fancy 80% variable speed.
HX is 20 on both. They promise 2 hr response time day or night and if
they can't fix it in 24 hrs they pay the hotel. A+ on BBB & Angie's list
award winning so they probably do have good service (not that I verified
these assertions but I'll take their word).

Carrier / Payne dealer offers only 5 years parts + 1 year labor. 20
years HX.

I don't know what part of that stems from the mfg and what part is from
the dealer. Does Lennox have better warranty?

Wish I could get the long warranty on the fancy machine; it would make me
feel better but I presume if I insisted on it with Lennox he'd probably
say you're on your own after a minimal warranty. Or at the very least
exclude ice buildup! I would, if I had his concerns.

What price differences are you seeing between 80 and 93%?
Factor in any tax credits, rebates from utilities, etc?

Carrier guy:

80% Conventional 90,000 BTU/H Carrier $2450.
Likewise but branded Payne $2250.

80% 2-stage 90,000 BTU/H Carrier $2850.

95% 80,000 BTU/H Carrier $3250.
Payne $3050.

Lennox Guy:

80% 70,000 Conventional $2400.
80% 70.000 Variable $3715.

The latter is a lot for non high efficiency (which he didn't offer).

I could not actually accept the Lennox bids as is since it says 70,000
but maybe that's just an writing error. If we stay at 80% and assume the
90,000 is fine and decent duty cycles even in below zero weather, then we
need the same size. Dropping a notch if we go higher efficency of
course.

I guess that's an option if they can do the job without
removing the existing evaporator. If they can't and have to
evacuate, open, purge, recharge, etc then given all that cost,
with a 25 year old AC, going to new AC at the same time would
seem a more sensible path to me.

It's under the furnace so it can stay put. It should probably get a
little cleaning. It would still be logical to replace the whole thing I
know. It's really mostly about not having to think about that. I can
barely decide on a furnace.


Hi,
What is your requirement for furnace size? It has to be properly sized.
Over or undersized furnace is not a good thing. Proper, right sized
one gives highest efficiency. What is the size of old one? I am good
with Carrier always because Carrier parts are very easy to get.
They can't fix it in 24 hours mean lack of needed parts not serious
break down. Furnace is not really complex electric/electronic/mechanical
device.
Nobody offered a single stage residential furnace with a low enough
BTU rating to be optimal for our house - the low flame output of the
dual stage I ended up buying is pretty close to "right-sized" - the
smallest I could buy other than an R/V furnace.

On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 09:03:51 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 12/5/2013 9:28 PM, Big Giant Head wrote:

Carrier guy:

80% Conventional 90,000 BTU/H Carrier $2450.
Likewise but branded Payne $2250.

80% 2-stage 90,000 BTU/H Carrier $2850.

95% 80,000 BTU/H Carrier $3250.
Payne $3050.

Lennox Guy:

80% 70,000 Conventional $2400.
80% 70.000 Variable $3715.

The latter is a lot for non high efficiency (which he didn't offer).

I could not actually accept the Lennox bids as is since it says 70,000
but maybe that's just an writing error. If we stay at 80% and assume the
90,000 is fine and decent duty cycles even in below zero weather, then we
need the same size. Dropping a notch if we go higher efficiency of
course.

Assuming you are 80% that makes sense, but are you? I'd ask the guy why
he is quoting a smaller unit. It does seem odd that he would quote that
much smaller.
Over half the installed furnaces around here are at least 50%
oversized - 30 to 40 year old houses.. What I installed is a
35/50kbtu, replacing a 75kbtu originally installed. Just about every
house on the street had the same original furnace, wheather 2 storey,
bungalow, or split level from 2000 to 4500 sq ft.

On Friday, December 6, 2013 3:29:06 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 09:03:51 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 12/5/2013 9:28 PM, Big Giant Head wrote: Carrier guy: 80% Conventional 90,000 BTU/H Carrier $2450. Likewise but branded Payne $2250. 80% 2-stage 90,000 BTU/H Carrier $2850. 95% 80,000 BTU/H Carrier $3250. Payne $3050. Lennox Guy: 80% 70,000 Conventional $2400. 80% 70.000 Variable $3715. The latter is a lot for non high efficiency (which he didn't offer). I could not actually accept the Lennox bids as is since it says 70,000 but maybe that's just an writing error. If we stay at 80% and assume the 90,000 is fine and decent duty cycles even in below zero weather, then we need the same size. Dropping a notch if we go higher efficiency of course. Assuming you are 80% that makes sense, but are you? I'd ask the guy why he is quoting a smaller unit. It does seem odd that he would quote that much smaller. Over half the installed furnaces around here are at least 50% oversized - 30 to 40 year old houses.. What I installed is a 35/50kbtu, replacing a 75kbtu originally installed. Just about every house on the street had the same original furnace, wheather 2 storey, bungalow, or split level from 2000 to 4500 sq ft.

One advantage to having it somewhat oversized is that you can get
fast recovery from setback. If you're away for a few days, have it
set low, when you get home you can have the house warmed up in less time.
You obviously don't want it way oversized, so that it's short cycling,
but I'd rather err on the side of a bit too big than the other way around.
I replaced a 25 year old 150K btu with 120K 93%. In retrospect, based
on the run times, I could easily have used a 90K too, but I'm happy
with the faster heat up times.

wrote:
On Friday, December 6, 2013 3:29:06 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 09:03:51 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 12/5/2013 9:28 PM, Big Giant Head wrote: Carrier guy: 80% Conventional 90,000 BTU/H Carrier $2450. Likewise but branded Payne $2250. 80% 2-stage 90,000 BTU/H Carrier $2850. 95% 80,000 BTU/H Carrier $3250. Payne $3050. Lennox Guy: 80% 70,000 Conventional $2400. 80% 70.000 Variable $3715. The latter is a lot for non high efficiency (which he didn't offer). I could not actually accept the Lennox bids as is since it says 70,000 but maybe that's just an writing error. If we stay at 80% and assume the 90,000 is fine and decent duty cycles even in below zero weather, then we need the same size. Dropping a notch if we go higher efficiency of course. Assuming you are 80% that makes sense, but are you? I'd ask the guy why he is quoting a smaller unit. It does seem odd that he would quote that much smaller. Over half the installed furnaces aroun
d here are at least 50% oversized - 30 to 40 year old houses.. What I installed is a 35/50kbtu, replacing a 75kbtu originally installed. Just about every house on the street had the same original furnace, wheather 2 storey, bungalow, or split level from 2000 to 4500 sq ft.

One advantage to having it somewhat oversized is that you can get
fast recovery from setback. If you're away for a few days, have it
set low, when you get home you can have the house warmed up in less time.
You obviously don't want it way oversized, so that it's short cycling,
but I'd rather err on the side of a bit too big than the other way around.
I replaced a 25 year old 150K btu with 120K 93%. In retrospect, based
on the run times, I could easily have used a 90K too, but I'm happy
with the faster heat up times.

HI,
It better be 2 stage one, ours mostly run on 1st stage, this morning it
is -31C outside with ice crystals in the air, furnace is going full
blast coming back up from set back during the night.

On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 07:55:31 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

wrote:
On Friday, December 6, 2013 3:29:06 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 09:03:51 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 12/5/2013 9:28 PM, Big Giant Head wrote: Carrier guy: 80% Conventional 90,000 BTU/H Carrier $2450. Likewise but branded Payne $2250. 80% 2-stage 90,000 BTU/H Carrier $2850. 95% 80,000 BTU/H Carrier $3250. Payne $3050. Lennox Guy: 80% 70,000 Conventional $2400. 80% 70.000 Variable $3715. The latter is a lot for non high efficiency (which he didn't offer). I could not actually accept the Lennox bids as is since it says 70,000 but maybe that's just an writing error. If we stay at 80% and assume the 90,000 is fine and decent duty cycles even in below zero weather, then we need the same size. Dropping a notch if we go higher efficiency of course. Assuming you are 80% that makes sense, but are you? I'd ask the guy why he is quoting a smaller unit. It does seem odd that he would quote that much smaller. Over half the installed furnaces aroun
d here are at least 50% oversized - 30 to 40 year old houses.. What I installed is a 35/50kbtu, replacing a 75kbtu originally installed. Just about every house on the street had the same original furnace, wheather 2 storey, bungalow, or split level from 2000 to 4500 sq ft.

One advantage to having it somewhat oversized is that you can get
fast recovery from setback. If you're away for a few days, have it
set low, when you get home you can have the house warmed up in less time.
You obviously don't want it way oversized, so that it's short cycling,
but I'd rather err on the side of a bit too big than the other way around.
I replaced a 25 year old 150K btu with 120K 93%. In retrospect, based
on the run times, I could easily have used a 90K too, but I'm happy
with the faster heat up times.

HI,
It better be 2 stage one, ours mostly run on 1st stage, this morning it
is -31C outside with ice crystals in the air, furnace is going full
blast coming back up from set back during the night.
Oversized furnaces suffer in the efficiency department. Undersized
furnaces just take a little longer to warm up a house, unless the wind
blows straight through like Stormy's trailer. Furnace efficiency
doesn't mean anything at all in a situation like that anyway.

On 12/7/2013 10:55 AM, wrote:
Oversized furnaces suffer in the efficiency department. Undersized
furnaces just take a little longer to warm up a house, unless the wind
blows straight through like Stormy's trailer. Furnace efficiency
doesn't mean anything at all in a situation like that anyway.

I think a bit over sized isn't good. In the case
of my drafty trailer, I can always light a couple
stove burners if the furnace isn't keeping up.

Works out, OK. I went from 80k to 70k when I replaced,
and the 70k does fine. Of course, some cellulose in the
ceiling helps, a lot.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Big Giant Head" wrote in message
m...

Before worrying about a more efficient furnace have you done
everything else to make your home more efficient? Do you have double
windows, and a thick, even insulation in your attic and crawl space
under the house? Did you check all your ducting to make sure there
arent any leaks and that it is well insulated? Are all your outside
walls insulated? If you do all of these you probably wont even need a
more efficient furnace, and you wont need an expert to insulate.

Excellent points but I'm pretty sure the existing furnace has a cracked
heat exchanger and replacement is mandatory immediately. (See seperate
thread about that.)


To check for cracks in the heat exchanger , close off all heat registers.
Run furnace and when blower starts watch the burner flame. If there is a
crack the air pressure will blow against the flame and you can see that
movement. That is how the gas utility checks it. WW






But since you asked, no the house is terribly inefficient. Built in 1957
with metal window frames, no insulation in the walls, concrete slab floor.
It does seem laughable to have a super efficient furnace in combination
with those things and if one were choosing what to put money into, it would
be these other things first.

On the other hand, all of those things mean more heat is required and a
super efficent furnace is going to make more heat with less money. If
rebate and tax credit pay for most of the difference then maybe this is the
way to go.

On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 11:22:07 -0500, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 12/7/2013 10:55 AM, wrote:
Oversized furnaces suffer in the efficiency department. Undersized
furnaces just take a little longer to warm up a house, unless the wind
blows straight through like Stormy's trailer. Furnace efficiency
doesn't mean anything at all in a situation like that anyway.

I think a bit over sized isn't good. In the case
of my drafty trailer, I can always light a couple
stove burners if the furnace isn't keeping up.

Works out, OK. I went from 80k to 70k when I replaced,
and the 70k does fine. Of course, some cellulose in the
ceiling helps, a lot.
That's still almost TWICE the size of the furnace in my 2 stoey
house in Ontario.

On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 13:28:05 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 11:22:07 -0500, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 12/7/2013 10:55 AM, wrote:
Oversized furnaces suffer in the efficiency department. Undersized
furnaces just take a little longer to warm up a house, unless the wind
blows straight through like Stormy's trailer. Furnace efficiency
doesn't mean anything at all in a situation like that anyway.

I think a bit over sized isn't good. In the case
of my drafty trailer, I can always light a couple
stove burners if the furnace isn't keeping up.

Works out, OK. I went from 80k to 70k when I replaced,
and the 70k does fine. Of course, some cellulose in the
ceiling helps, a lot.
That's still almost TWICE the size of the furnace in my 2 stoey
house in Ontario.

Your house is a *tiny* two-story (very little ceiling square footage).
It's more like a small townhouse. Of course it has an apartment-sized
furnace.

wrote:
On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 13:28:05 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 11:22:07 -0500, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 12/7/2013 10:55 AM, wrote:
Oversized furnaces suffer in the efficiency department. Undersized
furnaces just take a little longer to warm up a house, unless the wind
blows straight through like Stormy's trailer. Furnace efficiency
doesn't mean anything at all in a situation like that anyway.

I think a bit over sized isn't good. In the case
of my drafty trailer, I can always light a couple
stove burners if the furnace isn't keeping up.

Works out, OK. I went from 80k to 70k when I replaced,
and the 70k does fine. Of course, some cellulose in the
ceiling helps, a lot.
That's still almost TWICE the size of the furnace in my 2 stoey
house in Ontario.

Your house is a *tiny* two-story (very little ceiling square footage).
It's more like a small townhouse. Of course it has an apartment-sized
furnace.

Hmmm,
I don't believe what he's saying. I used to live in Toronto(Scarboro)
unless his house is match box sized house. LOL!

On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 12:00:46 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 13:28:05 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 11:22:07 -0500, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 12/7/2013 10:55 AM, wrote:
Oversized furnaces suffer in the efficiency department. Undersized
furnaces just take a little longer to warm up a house, unless the wind
blows straight through like Stormy's trailer. Furnace efficiency
doesn't mean anything at all in a situation like that anyway.

I think a bit over sized isn't good. In the case
of my drafty trailer, I can always light a couple
stove burners if the furnace isn't keeping up.

Works out, OK. I went from 80k to 70k when I replaced,
and the 70k does fine. Of course, some cellulose in the
ceiling helps, a lot.
That's still almost TWICE the size of the furnace in my 2 stoey
house in Ontario.

Your house is a *tiny* two-story (very little ceiling square footage).
It's more like a small townhouse. Of course it has an apartment-sized
furnace.

Hmmm,
I don't believe what he's saying. I used to live in Toronto(Scarboro)
unless his house is match box sized house. LOL!

He said recently. IIRC it's around 1200ft^2, two story. Yes, pretty
small. I lived in Burlington VT (somewhat North of ON, where he
lives), in a ~1700ft^2 Cape Cod (a pretty efficient design). The
furnace was 150KBTU and in the coldest weather it was constantly
running.

If you voted for a mormon those credits aren't allowed. ****ing hypocrite.

On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 12:41:17 -0800 (PST), "Daring Dufas : Hypocrite
TeaBillie on welfare" wrote:

If you voted for a mormon those credits aren't allowed. ****ing hypocrite.

WTF are you talking about? You *must* be a lefty.

On 12/7/2013 2:41 PM, Daring Dufas : A Sock Of Killer Loon wrote:

If you voted for a mormon those credits aren't allowed. ****ing
hypocrite.


Killer Loon, living proof that human women should never have sex with
farm animals. ^_^

TDD

On 12/7/2013 3:41 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 12:41:17 -0800 (PST), "Daring Dufas : Hypocrite
TeaBillie on welfare" wrote:

If you voted for a mormon those credits aren't allowed. ****ing
hypocrite.

WTF are you talking about? You *must* be a lefty.


That's Killer Loon my fanboy, it's using part of my nym because it hates
the disabled who've paid into the system longer than Killer Loon
has bee alive. ^_^

TDD

On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 17:48:21 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/7/2013 3:41 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 12:41:17 -0800 (PST), "Daring Dufas : Hypocrite
TeaBillie on welfare" wrote:

If you voted for a mormon those credits aren't allowed. ****ing
hypocrite.

WTF are you talking about? You *must* be a lefty.


That's Killer Loon my fanboy, it's using part of my nym because it hates
the disabled who've paid into the system longer than Killer Loon
has bee alive. ^_^

Give it up. No one is listening to him.

On 12/7/2013 6:32 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 17:48:21 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/7/2013 3:41 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 12:41:17 -0800 (PST), "Daring Dufas : Hypocrite
TeaBillie on welfare" wrote:

If you voted for a mormon those credits aren't allowed. ****ing
hypocrite.

WTF are you talking about? You *must* be a lefty.


That's Killer Loon my fanboy, it's using part of my nym because it hates
the disabled who've paid into the system longer than Killer Loon
has bee alive. ^_^

Give it up. No one is listening to him.


I have to mess with it in order to see how upset I can make the little
P.L.L.C.F. operative. Its desperation is already starting to show. ^_^

TDD

On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 12:00:46 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 13:28:05 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 11:22:07 -0500, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 12/7/2013 10:55 AM, wrote:
Oversized furnaces suffer in the efficiency department. Undersized
furnaces just take a little longer to warm up a house, unless the wind
blows straight through like Stormy's trailer. Furnace efficiency
doesn't mean anything at all in a situation like that anyway.

I think a bit over sized isn't good. In the case
of my drafty trailer, I can always light a couple
stove burners if the furnace isn't keeping up.

Works out, OK. I went from 80k to 70k when I replaced,
and the 70k does fine. Of course, some cellulose in the
ceiling helps, a lot.
That's still almost TWICE the size of the furnace in my 2 stoey
house in Ontario.

Your house is a *tiny* two-story (very little ceiling square footage).
It's more like a small townhouse. Of course it has an apartment-sized
furnace.

Hmmm,
I don't believe what he's saying. I used to live in Toronto(Scarboro)
unless his house is match box sized house. LOL!
20X30 two storey brick and aluminum siding with fully finished
basement. Forty years old - updated windows and insulation.