Thorn M54 boiler - any good?
AL_n
The house I recently acquired has a Thorn M54 boiler which I want to move
to a more out-of-the-way location in the same room. It's a floor-standing
boiler and I'll have to butcher my kitchen units in order to reloacate the
boiler. I realise this would be the perfect opportunity to buy a modern
wall mounted boiler, but frankly, I don't have the spare cash. So my
question, really, is: how many more years of life will I be likely to get
out of this Thorn M54 boiler? I gather spares are getting more difficult to
obtain as it's about 30 years old...
Thank you,
Al
Bob Minchin
from town gas to natural gas as the town gas parts were stacked up
beside the gas meter. I don't know how that old makes it but it is still
going strong 28 years later. Our gas bill is still not excessive so I
can't see me replacing for some time to come.
I've taken the casing off and built it into a kitchen based unit with a
suitable thermal lining and ventilation.
I've had no problem with spares but it has hardly needed any.
Universal thermocouples fit it and I made an electronic igniter out of a
motorbike coil for it when the naff piezo pilot lighter failed 25 odd
years back. The pilot jet clogs up now and then but soaking it it in
acid soon clears it and I have a spare one that I keep clean ready.
To be honest it is so simple that it would easy to repair with
improvised parts.
I service it each year but if I were to get BG or similar in they would
possibly find some reason to condemn it.
Bob
Nick
"AL_n" <fgdf...@fghfghfg.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9E02DCD3...@130.133.4.11...
How long is a piece of string?
I would go with Bob - it's a good, well made boiler.
Move it and see how it goes.
Little to lose except time and some inconvenience in the worst of cases.
Nick.
Michael Chare
It has got a seasonal efficiency of 55%. A modern replacement could be more
that 91% efficient.
--
Michael Chare
AL_n
news:JCOoo.9147$rE4....@newsfe18.ams2:
Thanks for the input on that. Looks like I should keep the boiler,
although the efficiency rating that John Rumm kindly mentioned concerns
me a bit.
Al
AL_n
news:meWdnetfQsvZTD7R...@brightview.co.uk:
> It has got a seasonal efficiency of 55%. A modern replacement could
> be more that 91% efficient.
Hi Michael,
That sounds poor. Does that 55% mean it will cost almost twice as much to
run as a modern boiler?
Al
AL_n
130.133.4.11:
> Thanks for the input on that. Looks like I should keep the boiler,
> although the efficiency rating that John Rumm kindly mentioned concerns
> me a bit.
>
Sorry, my mistake; it was Michael C who mentioned the seasonal efficiency
rating.
Al
TMC
"Michael Chare" <Munders...@chareDOTorg.uk> wrote in message
news:meWdnetfQsvZTD7R...@brightview.co.uk...
where do yuo get the seasonal efficiency figures?
I would like to check the figures my old and much loved Vaillant Combi
vcw-sine 18 T3 w
> regards
>
>
> --
> Michael Chare
>
>
>
Luke
> > It has got a seasonal efficiency of 55%. A modern replacement could be
> > more that 91% efficient.
>
> where do yuo get the seasonal efficiency figures?
>
> I would like to check the figures my old and much loved Vaillant Combi
> vcw-sine 18 T3 w
>
Try this:
http://www.homeheatingguide.co.uk/efficiency-tables.php?model=000773
65% it reckons!
Luke
dennis@home
"TMC" <an...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote in message
news:q42dneMtWuptyjnR...@bt.com...
The trouble with the official list is that if the boiler hasn't been tested
they assign it a value of 55%. It doesn't necessarily mean it is 55%.
The manufacturers data for mine states 82% but the official figure is 55%
because its too old to have been tested.
What it means is i could potentially save about 10% of my gas bill, That
would be about £40 a year and it would take an awful long time to repay the
cost of an expensive, probably unreliable condensing boiler. Even if it
saved the full amount its would still take years. It just isn't worth
replacing it with a potentially unreliable boiler, and they are far more
complex and do fail more often. I have had one fault in about 30 years with
the Thorn one I have.
Ronald Raygun
> "Michael Chare" <Munders...@chareDOTorg.uk> wrote in
> news:meWdnetfQsvZTD7R...@brightview.co.uk:
>
>> It has got a seasonal efficiency of 55%. A modern replacement could
>> be more that 91% efficient.
>
> That sounds poor. Does that 55% mean it will cost almost twice as much to
> run as a modern boiler?
Sort of, but it's easy to be blinded by such exaggerations. "Twice as much"
would be 100% more, but in fact 91 is only 65% more than 55. So it should
reduce your annual fuel bill by only about 40% (as opposed to 50%) if you
switched to a modern boiler. Against that you have to set the cost of
acquiring and installing the new boiler.
Let's pluck some figures out of the air. If your gas bill is £1200 a year,
the modern boiler would save you some £475 a year in fuel. If the boiler
costs £2000 to put in, that means it would take more than 4 years to pay
for itself.
These modern things are more complicated than the nice simple old ones which
"last forever", and this means three things: (1) More goes wrong with them,
(2) You can't fix'em yourself when they go wrong, (3) They're not designed
to last very long.
(1) and (2) probably mean you'd have to budget for a maintenance/service
contract where you needn't have bothered before. That might set you back
£250 per year, which brings your annual savings down to £225 a year, and
increases your break even time to nearly 9 years.
(3) might mean the damn thing's expected life is only 10 years.
So until your existing one starts showing signs of giving up the ghost,
don't even think of replacing it.
Bob Minchin
standards but even knocking 40% off by gas bill is unlikely to make it
worthwhile changing until it is impossible to repair it.
Given the typical life and high maintenance/ cost of spares of modern
boilers. I suggest you hang on to it.
Bob
AL_n
news:CrZoo.11222$ee....@newsfe23.ams2:
>> That sounds poor. Does that 55% mean it will cost almost twice as
>> much to run as a modern boiler?
>
> Sort of, but it's easy to be blinded by such exaggerations. "Twice as
> much" would be 100% more, but in fact 91 is only 65% more than 55. So
> it should reduce your annual fuel bill by only about 40% (as opposed
> to 50%) if you switched to a modern boiler. Against that you have to
> set the cost of acquiring and installing the new boiler.
>
> Let's pluck some figures out of the air. If your gas bill is ś1200 a
> year, the modern boiler would save you some ś475 a year in fuel. If
> the boiler costs ś2000 to put in, that means it would take more than 4
> years to pay for itself.
>
> These modern things are more complicated than the nice simple old ones
> which "last forever", and this means three things: (1) More goes
> wrong with them, (2) You can't fix'em yourself when they go wrong, (3)
> They're not designed to last very long.
>
> (1) and (2) probably mean you'd have to budget for a
> maintenance/service contract where you needn't have bothered before.
> That might set you back ś250 per year, which brings your annual
> savings down to ś225 a year, and increases your break even time to
> nearly 9 years.
>
> (3) might mean the damn thing's expected life is only 10 years.
>
> So until your existing one starts showing signs of giving up the
> ghost, don't even think of replacing it.
That's very helpful - thank you. Thanks in particular, for elucidating
the real implications of that percentage figure. I have to say, this was
the advice I was hoping to hear. I installed a combi boiler in my last
house and it was constantly giving problems requiring expensive
maintenance. Meanwhile, the old 1970s system boiler in my parents' house
kept purring away, decade after decade, never needing the slightest
attention. They had a contract with British Gas to send an engineer
around once a year to check the system. Needless to say, he always tried
his utmost to get them to scrap that excellent boiler and buy a new one!
Al
TMC
"dennis@home" <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message
news:i81n6r$gqu$1...@news.datemas.de...
The 65% figure refers to old light weight boilers where mine was a top of
the range new fangled combi one at the time so likely more efficient
If I divide the nominal heating capacity by the nominal heating input I get
a figure of 75% but not sure if this is a valid way to get an efficiency
figure
Against my current gas usage it would take many years to recover the cost of
a new boiler, I estimate around 15 years and as modern boilers appear to
have only a 10 year life then I would be even less like to recover the cost
I bought the boiler in 1986. I think it cost around £400 to buy and I fitted
it myself with a qualified central heating engineer to check my work so it
really owes me nothing
All that I have had to since is replace the automatic air bleed which cost
£19.00 and pump up the expansion vessel and that only last week
Regards
dennis@home
"TMC" <an...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0ZmdnXa8DuWg8znR...@bt.com...
Almost anyone would save more cash by adding insulation before a new boiler
(especially as it subsidised).
I cut my heating bill to about £25 pm so there is no way I would ever get
the cash back on a modern boiler replacement.
I am thinking about ASHP as a replacement as I can cool in the summer then.
The odd few days a year where it below freezing outside i can get around
with a hosepipe as I don't have a water meter. ;-)
Of course adding insulation is the best option as it covers global warming
and global cooling and staying the same. You can't really lose by it at
current prices. Shame it wasn't so cheap when I did mine 30 years ago,
however it has paid for itself many times and is still earning now.
Terry Fields
AL_n wrote:
I used to have a Glowworm Galaxie back boiler and gas fire, installed
in 1979 and only recently left behind in a house move. About 10 years
after installation the BG tales of woe started: 'can't get spares',
then 'flue has no plate', then 'the ventilation is insufficient'. I
ignored it all. Apart from cleaning out the jockey tank once a year
and adding new inhibitor, it never went wrong. It kept our modest semi
warm even without the gas fire on - we could get the open-plan lounge
to 23 degC while it was -5 outside. The last 12 months running costs
(including the coldest winter since the boiler was installed) for CH
and DWH were just £500. One of the chaps who came to service it said
his dad had one and it was 43 years old and had never gone wrong.
Much is claimed for the efficiency of modern boilers, and I'm sure
that the boiler part is very efficient. However, boilers are used in
systems, and the real question is the efficiency of the system.
My airing cupboard was warm, from the lagged tank, CH piping, and
chimney breast. All the 'wasted' heat was going somewhere useful, and
when snow covered the roofs, there wasn't a large clear patch round
the chimney.
My view on your question is to keep your old boiler, find out what
spare parts are available for it, and in the fullness of time decide
what you want to do about it. You might be surprised by overall
running costs being pleasantly low, and the possibility of servicing
it yourself.
TF
Michael Chare
> news:meWdnetfQsvZTD7R...@brightview.co.uk...
>> "AL_n" <fgdf...@fghfghfg.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9E02DCD3...@130.133.4.11...
>>>
>>> The house I recently acquired has a Thorn M54 boiler which I want to
>>> move
>>> to a more out-of-the-way location in the same room. It's a
>>> floor-standing
>>> boiler and I'll have to butcher my kitchen units in order to reloacate
>>> the
>>> boiler. I realise this would be the perfect opportunity to buy a modern
>>> wall mounted boiler, but frankly, I don't have the spare cash. So my
>>> question, really, is: how many more years of life will I be likely to
>>> get
>>> out of this Thorn M54 boiler? I gather spares are getting more difficult
>>> to
>>> obtain as it's about 30 years old...
>>>
>>
>> It has got a seasonal efficiency of 55%. A modern replacement could be
>> more that 91% efficient.
>
> where do yuo get the seasonal efficiency figures?
>
--
Michael Chare
Dave
Get rid and try and find a modern, more efficient boiler.
Dave
Andrew Gabriel
"dennis@home" <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> writes:
>
> Almost anyone would save more cash by adding insulation before a new boiler
> (especially as it subsidised).
> I cut my heating bill to about £25 pm so there is no way I would ever get
> the cash back on a modern boiler replacement.
> I am thinking about ASHP as a replacement as I can cool in the summer then.
I fitted one 4 years ago, and I'm very pleased with it.
It gets used for heating and cooling when I'm working at
home and just need to heat the one room where I'm working
(probably 95% heating, 5% cooling).
It's on a power meter which has been running for 3/4 of
a year now. It's used 103kWh in that period.
> The odd few days a year where it below freezing outside i can get around
> with a hosepipe as I don't have a water meter. ;-)
Actually, it works fine below freezing. It's when it's
between 0 and about 6 outside that it struggles, because
thats where ice forms on it, and it has to run defrost
cycles, and it's probably no better than an electric
heater when doing that. (Good fun for generating big
clouds in the garden though.)
You really need to DIY it though. The cost of a
professional install will more than wipe out any savings
you'll ever make, just as with most green initiatives.
> Of course adding insulation is the best option as it covers global warming
> and global cooling and staying the same. You can't really lose by it at
> current prices. Shame it wasn't so cheap when I did mine 30 years ago,
> however it has paid for itself many times and is still earning now.
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
Doctor Drivel
"Nick" <nick.s...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:8gi0d1...@mid.individual.net...
> How long is a piece of string?
> I would go with Bob - it's a good, well made boiler.
> Move it and see how it goes.
This boiler is an antiquated, expensive to run, crock. It should replaced
with a modern real boiler.
Doctor Drivel
Doctor Drivel
"Ronald Raygun" <no....@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:CrZoo.11222$ee....@newsfe23.ams2...
> These modern things are more complicated than the nice simple old ones
> which
> "last forever", and this means three things: (1) More goes wrong with
> them,
Which is tripe when buying a quality model. Look at an ATAG or ATmos.
> (3) They're not designed
> to last very long.
Total bollox!
> (3) might mean the damn thing's expected life is only 10 years.
Total bollox!
Doctor Drivel
"Bob Minchin" <bob.minc...@YOURHATntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:CRZoo.1782$Fk6....@newsfe13.ams2...
> I agree the official efficiency figure is not brilliant by modern
> standards but even knocking 40% off by gas bill is unlikely to make it
> worthwhile changing until it is impossible to repair it.
> Given the typical life and high maintenance/ cost of spares of modern
> boilers. I suggest you hang on to it.
Bollox!! Modern quality boilers will go and go.
Doctor Drivel
"Terry Fields" <no.spa...@thanks.invalid> wrote in message
news:99b9a6dintmsj73vj...@4ax.com...
> My view on your question is to keep your old boiler,
My God!!!!
Doctor Drivel
> Ronald Raygun <no....@localhost.localdomain> wrote in
> news:CrZoo.11222$ee....@newsfe23.ams2:
>
>>> That sounds poor. Does that 55% mean it will cost almost twice as
>>> much to run as a modern boiler?
>>
>> Sort of, but it's easy to be blinded by such exaggerations. "Twice as
>> much" would be 100% more, but in fact 91 is only 65% more than 55. So
>> it should reduce your annual fuel bill by only about 40% (as opposed
>> to 50%) if you switched to a modern boiler. Against that you have to
>> set the cost of acquiring and installing the new boiler.
>>
>> year, the modern boiler would save you some o475 a year in fuel. If
>> the boiler costs o2000 to put in, that means it would take more than 4
>> years to pay for itself.
>>
>> These modern things are more complicated than the nice simple old ones
>> which "last forever", and this means three things: (1) More goes
>> wrong with them, (2) You can't fix'em yourself when they go wrong, (3)
>> They're not designed to last very long.
>>
>> (1) and (2) probably mean you'd have to budget for a
>> maintenance/service contract where you needn't have bothered before.
>> savings down to o225 a year, and increases your break even time to
>> nearly 9 years.
>>
>> (3) might mean the damn thing's expected life is only 10 years.
>>
>> So until your existing one starts showing signs of giving up the
>> ghost, don't even think of replacing it.
>
>
> That's very helpful - thank you.
It isn't it is bollox.
Ronald Raygun
> "Ronald Raygun" <no....@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> news:CrZoo.11222$ee....@newsfe23.ams2...
>
>> These modern things are more complicated than the nice simple old ones
>> which
>> "last forever", and this means three things: (1) More goes wrong with
>> them,
>
> Which is tripe when buying a quality model. Look at an ATAG or ATmos.
All models are "quality". It's just than some qualities are higher than
others.
>> (3) They're not designed
>> to last very long.
>
> Total bollox!
Of course it isn't. If they were built to last, then once everyone has
one, the manufacturers would go out of business because then nobody would
need to buy any more of them!
>> (3) might mean the damn thing's expected life is only 10 years.
>
> Total bollox!
You wish.
Roger Chapman
I see Dribble is still clueless about figures and, it seems, the meaning
of common words such as 'almost'.
Roger Chapman
>> I am thinking about ASHP as a replacement as I can cool in the summer then.
> I fitted one 4 years ago, and I'm very pleased with it.
> It gets used for heating and cooling when I'm working at
> home and just need to heat the one room where I'm working
> (probably 95% heating, 5% cooling).
>
> It's on a power meter which has been running for 3/4 of
> a year now. It's used 103kWh in that period.
>
>> > The odd few days a year where it below freezing outside i can get around
>> > with a hosepipe as I don't have a water meter.;-)
> Actually, it works fine below freezing. It's when it's
> between 0 and about 6 outside that it struggles, because
> thats where ice forms on it, and it has to run defrost
> cycles, and it's probably no better than an electric
> heater when doing that. (Good fun for generating big
> clouds in the garden though.)
>
> You really need to DIY it though. The cost of a
> professional install will more than wipe out any savings
> you'll ever make, just as with most green initiatives.
>
How does ASHP compare with GSHP? (Which I presume would be a much harder
DIY install).
Doctor Drivel
"Roger Chapman" <ro...@nospam.zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:obydnaCmN_MKKDTR...@bt.com...
> On 03/10/2010 23:59, Doctor Drivel wrote:
>>
>> "AL_n" <fgdf...@fghfghfg.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9E03457...@130.133.4.11...
>>> "Michael Chare" <Munders...@chareDOTorg.uk> wrote in
>>> news:meWdnetfQsvZTD7R...@brightview.co.uk:
>>>
>>>> It has got a seasonal efficiency of 55%. A modern replacement could
>>>> be more that 91% efficient.
>>>
>>> Hi Michael,
>>>
>>> That sounds poor. Does that 55% mean it will cost almost twice as much
>>> to
>>> run as a modern boiler?
>>
>> YES!!!!
>
> I see
This f***ing idiot again.
Doctor Drivel
"Ronald Raygun" <no....@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>>> (3) They're not designed
>>> to last very long.
>>
>> Total bollox!
>
> Of course it isn't. If they were built to last, then once everyone has
> one, the manufacturers would go out of business because then nobody would
> need to buy any more of them!
The OP is on about 5 to 10 years life. An ATAG or Atmos will last 25 years
if serviced properly with a clean system.
>>> (3) might mean the damn thing's expected life is only 10 years.
>>
>> Total bollox!
>
> You wish.
I know.
Doctor Drivel
> How does ASHP compare with GSHP? (Which I presume would be a much harder
> DIY install).
GSHPs are far cheaper to run. The best ASHP around is the new Sanyo, which
now outperforms oil in running costs.
Roger Chapman
(SILENT SNIP reinstated)
> This f***ing idiot again.
>
You are indeed a fucking idiot.
"almost - ... little short of being; very nearly" (Collins)
"almost - ... all but; very nearly." (Concise Oxford)
Since when has marginally less than two thirds (65.45%)been 'almost' to
anyone of normal intelligence?
Dave
We got rid of ours just before we would have been forced to install a
condensing type. It's main failing was having to renew the rubber seals
between the access panel to the heat exchanger. If the rear one had
gone, it became a major job to stop it leaking. The front one drips onto
the pilot light and puts it out. The timer was a problem as well, I
wired ours up for a Set5 digital timer made by Danfoss Randall. I also
ended up changing the gas control valve, thanks to some friendly
plumbers at the merchants telling what to ask for.
As you don't have the cash for a new one, I would keep an eye on it and
start saving for a replacement. I was glad to see the back of ours. It
was installed about 1977 or 1978 and like you say the spares are
becoming a bit scarce.
Moving the M54 might/will give you problems with the flue.
Dave
Doctor Drivel
This f***ing idiot again.
Roger Chapman
I didn't write that at all. I just reminded the world at large (not that
they really needed any reminder) that the fucking idiot in this case was
yourself:
Doctor Drivel
> On 04/10/2010 23:28, Doctor Drivel wrote:
>>
>> "Roger Chapman" <ro...@nospam.zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:QZ6dnZLzUsgBeDTR...@bt.com...
>>
>> This f***ing idiot again.
>
> I didn't
You are indeed a fucking idiot.
geoff
<kill...@invalid.invalid> writes
>Bollox!! Modern quality boilers will go wrong and go wrong again.
--
geoff
geoff
<no....@localhost.localdomain> writes
>AL_n wrote:
>
>> "Michael Chare" <Munders...@chareDOTorg.uk> wrote in
>> news:meWdnetfQsvZTD7R...@brightview.co.uk:
>>
>>> It has got a seasonal efficiency of 55%. A modern replacement could
>>> be more that 91% efficient.
>>
>> run as a modern boiler?
>
>would be 100% more, but in fact 91 is only 65% more than 55. So it should
>reduce your annual fuel bill by only about 40% (as opposed to 50%) if you
>switched to a modern boiler. Against that you have to set the cost of
>acquiring and installing the new boiler.
>
>the modern boiler would save you some £475 a year in fuel. If the boiler
>costs £2000 to put in, that means it would take more than 4 years to pay
>for itself.
>
>These modern things are more complicated than the nice simple old ones which
>"last forever", and this means three things: (1) More goes wrong with them,
>to last very long.
>
>(1) and (2) probably mean you'd have to budget for a maintenance/service
>contract where you needn't have bothered before. That might set you back
>increases your break even time to nearly 9 years.
>
Life expectancy of a current boiler is quoted at being between 5 and 7
years
>
>So until your existing one starts showing signs of giving up the ghost,
>don't even think of replacing it.
>
Wise words grasshopper
--
geoff
geoff
<kill...@invalid.invalid> writes
>
NURSE
He's been hiding his medication under his tongue again
--
geoff
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember geoff <tr...@uk-diy.org> saying
something like:
>He's been hiding his medication under his tongue again
He just likes the taste of used suppositories.
Doctor Drivel
"geoff" <tr...@uk-diy.org> wrote in message
news:pP0vH2XS...@demon.co.uk...
Maxie, was that you who wrote that? You have never come across Atmos or
ATAG I see. tsk, tsk.
How is the Paddy band going? Have you had your donkey jacket cleaned yet>?
Doctor Drivel
Maxie! It is bollox indeed. Now keep away from the Guinness.
Doctor Drivel
"Grimly Curmudgeon" <grimly...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in message
news:1du9b695tbvgsla3o...@4ax.com...
How do yours taste?
Doctor Drivel
Maxie, why have you relapsed into total bollox mode? After we all thought
you were improving as well being in a Paddy band and all that.
Your problem was identified Maxie. It is your ways. Definitely your ways
without a doubt. You must change your ways. Then all will be better and
improving. Then you will be a proper person after that.