Posted by Harry Muscle on January 12, 2006, 2:00 pm
I'm in the process of deciding which furnace to get to replace my
existing furnace which is ready to die. I've been told that high
efficiency furnaces are not really worth it since they cost more up
front and they cost more in repair costs in the long run so in the end
high efficiency vs normal efficiency will have cost about the same, but
the high efficiency will have broken down more often due to it's
complexity. This makes sense ... but I have one more quick question.
Are dual stage furnaces quite complex and prone to break down also?
I've thinking of maybe getting a 80% dual stage furnance which would be
a bit more efficient than a single stage 80% furnance. But I'm
wondering if it's worth it. Would a dual stage 80% furnace be as
complicated as a 90%+ furnace? Are the parts just as expensive to
replace/repair as a high efficiency furnace? Or in other words should
I stay away from dual stage furnaces for the same reason I would stay
away from a high efficiency furnace (high repair costs, higher chance
of break down).
Thanks,
Harry
Posted by Phil Scott on January 12, 2006, 2:40 pm
> I'm in the process of deciding which furnace to get to
> replace my
> existing furnace which is ready to die. I've been told that
> high
> efficiency furnaces are not really worth it since they cost
> more up
> front and they cost more in repair costs in the long run so
> in the end
> high efficiency vs normal efficiency will have cost about
> the same, but
> the high efficiency will have broken down more often due to
> it's
> complexity. This makes sense ... but I have one more quick
> question.
> Are dual stage furnaces quite complex and prone to break
> down also?
> I've thinking of maybe getting a 80% dual stage furnance
> which would be
> a bit more efficient than a single stage 80% furnance. But
> I'm
> wondering if it's worth it. Would a dual stage 80% furnace
> be as
> complicated as a 90%+ furnace? Are the parts just as
> expensive to
> replace/repair as a high efficiency furnace? Or in other
> words should
> I stay away from dual stage furnaces for the same reason I
> would stay
> away from a high efficiency furnace (high repair costs,
> higher chance
> of break down).
> Thanks,
> Harry
Id go with a single stage 80% furnace myself.
If you really want to save money install two systems...one for
the night time sleeping areas, and for the day time living
areas... install set back thermostats on each system so the
HVAC gets set high in bedrooms during the day, and the living
areas get set low at night (these settings can be easily
overridden when needed)
If you want to save more money, fit matress warmers to your
beds, and you can set the temp to 50F at night no problem.
Be sure to undersize both systems slightly..they operate more
efficiently when maxed out.
Install the furnaces in places where they can be yanked out
with great ease so maintenance is not a problem. Insulate
the ducts well, tape all the seams and flanges well, use duct
seal in a caulking tube.
Rheem makes a pretty good unit these days. but brand is not
as critical with furnaces as with some other items.
Phil Scott
HVAC contractor/ mech engineer since 1911
>
Posted by trader4 on January 12, 2006, 2:46 pm
"If you really want to save money install two systems...one for
the night time sleeping areas, and for the day time living
areas... install set back thermostats on each system so the
HVAC gets set high in bedrooms during the day, and the living
areas get set low at night (these settings can be easily
overridden when needed) "
How exactly does this save him money? I would think the initial outlay
for two seperate systems in a house that typically would have only one
would be impossible to recover in reduced operating costs. Where is
this savings supposed to come from? And in my house here in NJ, if I
set the temp to 50 at night, the house would never get there, because a
house with decent insulation won't cool off that fast.
Posted by Todd H. on January 12, 2006, 3:15 pm
[lots of great stuff]
> HVAC contractor/ mech engineer since 1911
Whoa. Now, born in 1911 I can buy (and gospeed to ya as you approach
the centruy mark), but being a degreed engineer since 1911...I'm
having a tougher time with comprehending since that'd put you in the
ballpark of being 2006-1911+21= 116 years old?
If so, you need to tell this young pup that he's no longer famous!
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordidH371
Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/
Posted by Phil Scott on January 12, 2006, 3:24 pm
> [lots of great stuff]
>>
>> HVAC contractor/ mech engineer since 1911
> Whoa. Now, born in 1911 I can buy (and gospeed to ya as you
> approach
> the centruy mark), but being a degreed engineer since
> 1911...I'm
> having a tougher time with comprehending since that'd put
> you in the
> ballpark of being 2006-1911+21= 116 years old?
Yes, I am very old... and still flat tracking too.
> If so, you need to tell this young pup that he's no longer
> famous!
My goal in life is to be the worlds oldest flat tracker....
lately Ive been working out at Golds Gym and have stopped
lying, now I have to beat the young women off with a
stick...its a magical combination.
Phil Scott
> http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordidH371
> Best Regards,
> --
> Todd H.
> http://www.toddh.net/
> replace my
> existing furnace which is ready to die. I've been told that
> high
> efficiency furnaces are not really worth it since they cost
> more up
> front and they cost more in repair costs in the long run so
> in the end
> high efficiency vs normal efficiency will have cost about
> the same, but
> the high efficiency will have broken down more often due to
> it's
> complexity. This makes sense ... but I have one more quick
> question.
> Are dual stage furnaces quite complex and prone to break
> down also?
> I've thinking of maybe getting a 80% dual stage furnance
> which would be
> a bit more efficient than a single stage 80% furnance. But
> I'm
> wondering if it's worth it. Would a dual stage 80% furnace
> be as
> complicated as a 90%+ furnace? Are the parts just as
> expensive to
> replace/repair as a high efficiency furnace? Or in other
> words should
> I stay away from dual stage furnaces for the same reason I
> would stay
> away from a high efficiency furnace (high repair costs,
> higher chance
> of break down).
> Thanks,
> Harry