Most Reliable, Durable, *Longest Lasting* Forced Air Gas Furnace
rrw...@aol.com
I believe that furnaces should last at least 50% the life of the
dwelling that they're installed in.
It is my understanding that the lifespan of modern forced-air gas
furaces is 12-15 years(!)
I am in the market for the above captioned item (Most Reliable,
Durable, *Longest Lasting* Forced Air Gas Furnace). I am less concerned
with efficiency than I am with those three factors (durability,
reliability, longetivity).
I am getting close to retirement and don't want to purchase > 1 more
furnace.
Suggestions? (Switch to coal?)
Thanks in Advance,
Richard
dpb
First suggestion is to invest in a different belief system. Since
there are inhabitated dwellings approximately 300 years old in the US
and much, much older than that elsewhere, expecting a furnace to
function half that time is simply unrealistic.
As for the direct question, I don't have any data available to say
which might be reasonably expected to be the most long-lasting, but
certainly I would expect the "name" manufacturers to be better in that
regard than the known "low-cost" makers (altho, of course, all have a
range of units) and that a realistic cost analysis would probably show
the lowest overall longterm cost is a combination of higher efficiency
_and_ longevity, not simply a single installation cost evaluation.
For longevity of service irrespective of fuel cost, you might consider
all-electric baseboard first, forced air or radiant afterwards. The
primary limiting factor in combustion forced air units that actually
requires a replacement is the erosion/corrosion of the combustion
chamber resulting in air leak which can lead to CO emissions. Avoiding
direct combustion is probably, in my just general guessing, the best
way to extend unit lifetime.
hal...@aol.com
old.... 40 ) years
buy a name brand with extended warranty, and if your really concerned
get a annual maintence agreement.
if your exisyting furnace still works fine then delay replacement as
long as possiblen to put the second replacement as far out as
possible.
but look at cost of replacement vehicle, 15 grand and up, just ONE car
purchase would likely get you 3 new furnaces..
rrw...@aol.com
dpb wrote:
<snipped for brevity>
> rrw...@aol.com wrote:
> > I believe that furnaces should last at least 50% the life of the
> > dwelling that they're installed in.
> >
> > It is my understanding that the lifespan of modern forced-air gas
> > furaces is 12-15 years(!)
> First suggestion is to invest in a different belief system. Since
> there are inhabitated dwellings approximately 300 years old in the US
> and much, much older than that elsewhere, expecting a furnace to
> function half that time is simply unrealistic.
Oops! I should have mentioned the context in which I spake. I live in
America, where the taxpayer funds the demolition of and re-building of
30 year-old sports arenas, and where we do "tear-downs" of perfectly
habitable, modest homes built in the fifties and sixties (and later!)
to build mcmansions and now, "monster homes".
But I guess I answered my own (implied) question: Why modern,
higher-tech furnaces only last 12-15 years.
<sigh>
Richard
big...@backpacker.com
and poorly designed) home from those architecturally dead eras and then
tear it down to build a modern properly designed home I'll do it. To
be on topic I believe a furnace should last 20-30 years with regualr
maintenace. My steam boiler is now 20+ years old and works fine.
+
tra...@optonline.net
I don't know on what basis you've concluded that furnaces typically
last only 12-15 years. My Ruud, which ain't anything special, is still
going fine at 22 years. I'd say somewhere around 20 is more typical.
It's also curious that you only care about lifespan, not energy
efficiency. In the end, they both equate mostly to $$$ out of your
pocket, don't they?
I also agree that it's unrealistic to expect any furnace to last 1/2
the lifespan of a home.
rrw...@aol.com
Thx. hallerb. Had planned on doing much of what you suggest.
Actually, my Carrier 58SXA (installed Oct. 1990) has been a real pain,
just limping along the past 5 years w. lockout problems even the
Carrier tech can't (or won't?) diagnose.
(These furnaces have known design flaws. Known now.)
Cars? Should all be built like the old Chrysler Slant Sixes.
Cheers,
Richard
rrw...@aol.com
rrw...@aol.com
big...@backpacker.com wrote:
> To be on topic I believe a furnace should last 20-30 years with regualr
> maintenace. My steam boiler is now 20+ years old and works fine.
> +
I agree. My point exactly.
> Hey, it's America. If I can afford to buy a "modest" (meaning small
> and poorly designed) home from those architecturally dead eras and then
> tear it down to build a modern properly designed home I'll do it.
Careful! In 40 or 50 years those mcmansions (w. the brick on one side,
siding the other three sides) and the umpteen eves may look as
preposterous as running shoe envy in the ghetto.
Happy New Year,
Richard
rrw...@aol.com
tra...@optonline.net wrote:
> <snipped for brevity>
> I don't know on what basis you've concluded that furnaces typically
> last only 12-15 years.
Several techs & an HVAC bb.
> It's also curious that you only care about lifespan, not energy
> efficiency. In the end, they both equate mostly to $$$ out of your
> pocket, don't they?
2 Reasons:
1.) Technical: The more complicated things are, the more that can go
wrong. High-Efficiency furnaces have more complicated designs, more
solid-state electronics that can go bad.
2.) Economical: Persons living at subsistence levels find it easier to
pay as they go, than ante - up front. That's why a the low-income
person will buy toilet tissue at convenience-store prices (when they
need to) rather than stock-up at Costco. Same reason a poor person pays
more for (overall) for gasoline (they drive an older car). When I
retire I realistically don't expect my income to keep up w. inflation
enough to buy a new furnace when I'm 80 (God-willing.) Just a fact of
life, my friend.
b.t.w. - I have a "high efficiency" (90+) furnace now. It's a Carrier
(piece 'o crap).
New Year's Cheer,
Richard
big...@backpacker.com
are practical and large, closet space is adequate, and there are master
bathrooms. At least in NJ most are bought by transplanted new yorkers
who have no taste or style so they are often not gorgeous homes. I
agree that brick should be on all sides but how good is it when done by
the typical illegal day laborers who build build most tract homes in
NJ?
tra...@optonline.net
rrw...@aol.com wrote:
> tra...@optonline.net wrote:
> > <snipped for brevity>
> > I don't know on what basis you've concluded that furnaces typically
> > last only 12-15 years.
>
> Several techs & an HVAC bb.
>
> > It's also curious that you only care about lifespan, not energy
> > efficiency. In the end, they both equate mostly to $$$ out of your
> > pocket, don't they?
>
> 2 Reasons:
>
> 1.) Technical: The more complicated things are, the more that can go
> wrong. High-Efficiency furnaces have more complicated designs, more
> solid-state electronics that can go bad.
> 2.) Economical: Persons living at subsistence levels find it easier to
> pay as they go, than ante - up front. That's why a the low-income
> person will buy toilet tissue at convenience-store prices (when they
> need to) rather than stock-up at Costco.
With thinking like that, it;s no wonder they are living at subsistence
levels. Any dummy knows you can buy a decent size pack of toilet
paper on sale at the local grocery store for $6, which is a fraction of
what it would cost at the convenience store and even less than Costco.
Doug Miller
>
>tra...@optonline.net wrote:
> > <snipped for brevity>
>> I don't know on what basis you've concluded that furnaces typically
>> last only 12-15 years.
>
>Several techs & an HVAC bb.
Had it occurred to you that people in the HVAC trade have a financial interest
in convincing you that your furnace is worn out before its time?
>
>> It's also curious that you only care about lifespan, not energy
>> efficiency. In the end, they both equate mostly to $$$ out of your
>> pocket, don't they?
>
>2 Reasons:
>
>1.) Technical: The more complicated things are, the more that can go
>wrong. High-Efficiency furnaces have more complicated designs, more
>solid-state electronics that can go bad.
This reflects an outdated view of the reliability of electronic controls, that
no longer corresponds to reality.
>2.) Economical: Persons living at subsistence levels find it easier to
>pay as they go, than ante - up front. That's why a the low-income
>person will buy toilet tissue at convenience-store prices (when they
>need to) rather than stock-up at Costco. Same reason a poor person pays
>more for (overall) for gasoline (they drive an older car).
Had it occurred to you that such behavior contributes to their *staying* poor?
>When I
>retire I realistically don't expect my income to keep up w. inflation
>enough to buy a new furnace when I'm 80 (God-willing.) Just a fact of
>life, my friend.
So put money aside while you have it.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
mgke...@yahoo.com
The failure mode of most gas furnaces is a cracked heat exchanger and
they probably last at least 20 years. Most other components can
probably be fixed. However, I have a friend who lives in a trailer who
had an old Coleman furnace that had a broken gas valve and a
replacement valve cost so much it made more sense to replace the entire
furnace.
The best furnaces are probably:
1. American Standard
2. Rheem
3. Trane
And the worst ones are:
1. Goodman
2. Tempstar
3. Lennox
4. Amana
rrw...@aol.com
> >tra...@optonline.net wrote:
> >> I don't know on what basis you've concluded that furnaces typically
> >> last only 12-15 years.
> >
> >Several techs & an HVAC bb.
>
> Had it occurred to you that people in the HVAC trade have a financial interest
> in convincing you that your furnace is worn out before its time?
Of course.
> >> It's also curious that you only care about lifespan, not energy
> >> efficiency. In the end, they both equate mostly to $$$ out of your
> >> pocket, don't they?
> >
> >2 Reasons:
> >
> >1.) Technical: The more complicated things are, the more that can go
> >wrong. High-Efficiency furnaces have more complicated designs, more
> >solid-state electronics that can go bad.
>
> This reflects an outdated view of the reliability of electronic controls, that
> no longer corresponds to reality.
>
> >2.) Economical: Persons living at subsistence levels find it easier to
> >pay as they go, than ante - up front. That's why a the low-income
> >person will buy toilet tissue at convenience-store prices (when they
> >need to) rather than stock-up at Costco. Same reason a poor person pays
> >more for (overall) for gasoline (they drive an older car).
>
> Had it occurred to you that such behavior contributes to their *staying* poor?
Perhaps it has occured to *you* that for pesrons in such circumstances
it may not be possible to "set-aside" money? But (perhaps) I am
assuming that I'm corresponding with someone who has been fortunate
enough to not know hardship or the the perspective that such brings.
> >When I
> >retire I realistically don't expect my income to keep up w. inflation
> >enough to buy a new furnace when I'm 80 (God-willing.) Just a fact of
> >life, my friend.
>
> So put money aside while you have it.
Vide supra.
Off the thread.
Richard.
hal...@aol.com
expiration time of any product. Sorry that boards no longer available
you need a new furnace car or whatever........ Or make the part so
expensive no one will buy the part
Now Goodman furnaces reportedly use off the shelf components with
p[robably a better chance of availablity many years down the road.
Of course lots of stuff is functionally obslete long before its not
repairable.
Like a really poor mileage car, at 10 MPG when new cars are getting 100
MPG
EXT
going strong. I had only one service call in its life to replace the
extractor fan which was corroding.
<big...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:1167666845....@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
rrw...@aol.com
Thank you, mgkelson. (And once more, hallerb).
Wishing You a Happy and Prosperous New Year,
Richard
rrw...@aol.com
Make?
Thanks in Advance,
Richard
rrw...@aol.com
Many (mcmansions) even have "Studies".
Ironic....
We agree (again). If we would creatively re-use existing structures,
rather than abandonment or tear-down, we would not have urban
"doughnut-holes" of erstwhile great cities bleeding population
surrounded by the sprawl of uninspired monotonous architecture.
Richard
big...@backpacker.com
areas with the crime and crowding and other ills that drove people to
the suburbs in the first place. Maybe putting poor people in
rehabiliated space is wise but no one else wants to live near them
big...@backpacker.com
Moe
Brent Bolin
Interesting... Isn't Trane basically American Standard ?
Todd H.
dpb
Todd H. wrote:
> mgke...@yahoo.com writes:
>
> > rrw...@aol.com wrote:
...
> > The best furnaces are probably:
> >
> > 1. American Standard
> > 2. Rheem
> > 3. Trane
> >
> > And the worst ones are:
> >
> > 1. Goodman
> > 2. Tempstar
> > 3. Lennox
> > 4. Amana
>
> Some survey data to reinforce that:
>
> http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/home-garden/heating-cooling-air/furnaces-repair-history-205/overview/index.htm
But the accompanying note indicates that only the difference from the
highest to the lowest two is statistically significant and the
next-to-last exceeds that threshold by at best one or two points. So
in reality, the chart says it is essentially a toss-up between
everybody else and Goodman.
Of course, there's insufficient information published on the
free-access page to allow one to determine whether the normalizations
and sample sizes/relative populations, etc., are such as to make the
data have any meaning whatsover (as is usually the case w/ CR imo :( ).
I think it does demonstrate one basic fact as others have mentioned --
buy cheap, get less.
rrw...@aol.com
dpb wrote:
<snip>
> ...statistically significant...
> ...threshold ...
> ...insufficient information... .
> ...normalizations...
> ... sample sizes/relative populations...
> ...data ...
;-)
Richard
dpb
<VGB>
Yep, and to boot, the graph scales and axis labeling are so imprecise
you can't reliably pick out the numerical values to compute actual
differences between computed means. It would have been much more
meaningful if presented as a bar chart w/ estimate and high/low
confidence limits to show the amount of overlap (and thereby also
reflecting the relative precision of estimates for the various brands
owing to sample size). But, that would give away too much as CR is,
above all, mostly about selling CR.
It only makes sense, however, that the low-price-spread has to give up
something for that position in the market so that one conclusion as
noted previously I would venture is probably valid.
dpb
...
> Yep, and to boot, the graph scales and axis labeling are so imprecise
> you can't reliably pick out the numerical values to compute actual
> differences between computed means. It would have been much more
> meaningful if presented as a bar chart w/ estimate and high/low
> confidence limits to show the amount of overlap (and thereby also
> reflecting the relative precision of estimates for the various brands
> owing to sample size). But, that would give away too much as CR is,
> above all, mostly about selling CR.
But, in all fairness, I do have to give CR credit for at least putting
in the footnote about the size of the overall confidence interval
between estimates -- while most folks who look at it will either ignore
it entirely (as several earlier posters apparently did) or fail to
understand what it means in drawing a conclusion from the data, at
least it was given...