Its time to put AC into the old house. Several people have quoted on American Standard as the best on the market. I am looking at a midrange 10-12 seer unit. Anyone with experiance with this brand and if so how do you feel about them?
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
By considering things like energy-efficient mechanicals, window orientation, and renewable energy sources, homes can be evaluated to meet the energy codes. Here's what the IRC has to say.
Highlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Replies
American Standard has a very good reputation. I would not hesitate to use them in my own house.
10 SEER is on the low side. I think that next year the minimum required standard for new construction will be 12. If you live in the warmer half of the country I would go for 13 or 14 SEER.
For the cheapest increase in SEER, go with a system that has an expansion valve for the evaporator coil.
"For the cheapest increase in SEER, go with a system that has an expansion valve for the evaporator coil."
So how much does one of these valves cost and what does it do? Where can you get one? Do you put it on the coil inside or the one outside?
exp valve improves moisture removalsome Yorks are VERY loud
Edited 4/15/2005 5:28 pm ET by wain
Is the volume (noise) of the York driven by the use of the reciprocating (in the 10 SEER models) versus the scroll type compressor (in the 12 and 13 SEER) in the York?
NotAClue
"exp valve improves moisture removal"
How so? Please explain how a thermostatic expansion valve improve moisture removal.
There are two methods of controlling how much freon goes into the evaporator coil. The cheap way is the capillary tube, which lets the freon through at a rate dependent only on the pressure in the system, regardless of what the temperature of the coil is. This results in a coil temperature that isn't always the best answer for dehumidification.
The better method is the expansion valve which controls the flow of freon based on the temperature of the coil. If the coil is at the right temperature, you get the best dehumidification that your system can provide.
#1. Go with a scroll compressor (pref copeland) regardless of AC or HP manufacturer.
Disregard the SEER ratings if you want the best performance for both HP and AC. One installation in Seattle area (95% HP, 5% or less AC) showed by running a spreadsheet on daily weather records and mfg data by 5 degree temp increments on performance that a 10 SEER Rheem 4T unit outperformed and ran at a lower cost than a 12 SEER Rheem 4T unit! You wont have a choice next year, think 13 SEER ARI ratings and above will all allowed to be mfg.
As to Goodmans, installed 2 13 SEER Goodmans last year, no problems - 1990s versions did have some problems I've heard. In Seattle area, mostly heat pump usage, installed $15 TXV (ebay price) in HP direction on that Goodman. Left orifice on the HP/AC installed in central IL. Bought both off the internet, lower price even with shipping than local distributor.
Both installations were for under $1400 total!, 4 ton. On the IL installation, the owner (my mom) gets $420 back from the power company off her power bill this year, so that install was under $1000 for a total install of a 4 ton unit (less labor). Price quoted at cost (no markup, std labor rate) for AS was 3X that. On yeah, the frieght company damaged the case in shipping and got $126 back after even deducting the shipping, luckily no coil damage.
BTW, yes, I do have an EPA license.
IMHO have not believed any rating from consumer reports for years - very biased on the safety factor and protecting dummies from themselves, sent in ratings seem to be biased by 'activists'.
"...the coil is at the right temperature, you get the best dehumidification that your system can provide."
That raises the question: At what temperature does the evaporator coil dehumidify most effectively?
If the coil is at say 42 degrees as opposed to 45 degrees, you're saying that it dehumidifies in a less effective way? Does the expansion valve do this based on air temperature of the discharge of the coil, the surface temperature of the coile or the suction temperature of the refrigerant leaving the coil?
I THINK TXVs have a bulb on the coil that senses the temperature and causes the valve to open and close.
The other type is just a orifice that is the same size all the time and at all temperatures.so get a unit with a txv if water removal is important (ie you live in a high humidity area)
My question is still, why or how would a TXV improve the moisture removal/dehumidification of my central air conditioner system? How a TXV controls the temp of the coil may or may not affect the dehumidification of the system.
it keeps the coil colder and closer to the coldest tem without icing up - coldcoil = more water removal much much more.do a web search
lots of info on txv sthe orifice type is "dumb" in comparison
It seems to me that a colder coil would mean shorter run times and less moisture removal.
A TXV controls the flow of refrigerant to maintain, indirectly, a warmer coil. As the space temperature cools, and the entering air becomes cooler, and the suction temperature of the refrigerant coming out of the coil also drops. The TXV controls based on suction temperature, which is why the "bulb" is on the suction line (i.e. the big one) downstream of the evaporator. The controlling benefit of the TXV is that it keeps the flow of refrigerant more closely matched to the load. Reduced refrigerant flow = reduced work for the compressor when there is a lighter load, and an increase in the overall (as computed to determine the Seasonal Energy Efficiency Rating) efficiency. It also tends to reduce short cycling and unwarranted wear and tear on the compressor. What a TXV does NOT do is increase the moisture removal capacity (other than the slight increase due to an increased run time at a higher coil temperature) of the evaporator coil. Nor does it "keep the coil full" of semi-liquid/boiling refrigerant. If anything, especially during low load conditions, the TXV keeps more of the coil "empty" of liquid (more vapor) by restricting the flow. The cooler air has less capacity to boil the freon, so the TXV allows less to pass.
Edited 4/19/2005 8:40 am ET by Timbo
Tim,
You're to be commended for sharing your knowledge here.
Could you please give your opinion on choosing between r22 and r410a systems?
I have that decision to make.The guys I talk to in the field seem to dislike r410a systems but I can't tell if it's resistance to change,or a legitimate concern that higher temperatures and pressures make for more problems.
Barry
Barry,
My thoughts on R-22 vs R-134a, 410a and/or R407a (there are some 20 different alternatives to replace R-11, R-12, R-22 & R-502) are multi-faceted.
One undisputable fact is that R-22 is being phased out and in the not so distant future will be unobtainable. January 1, 2010, no R-22 can be manufactured for new equipment or imported into the US or Canada. January 1, 2020, no R-22 can be manufactured or imported into the US or Canada.
I buy and sell the stuff, and from 2004 to 2005 my costs (and we have a national wholesale agreement with DuPont) increased on the order of 40%. This is not a temporary trend. If I had the warehouse space and free cash, I'd stockpile it.
I am buying a new AC system for an addition, this spring, and I will be buying equipment that uses R-22.
The change is inevitable. I would prefer to wait for the bugs to surface and get worked out prior to becoming and industry guinea pig.
The reluctance in field personnel, that I have had any feedback from (we are a NATE certifiying location and I deal with contractors and technicians daily), seems mostly based on unfamiliarity rather than real problematic issues. But if you had a new type of equipment that did needed service or repairs, do you want to be the first one? I don't.
Given all this, my preference today for new residential or light commercial air conditioning equipment would be to purchase middle efficiency (like 12 or 13 SEER) R-22 based equipment.
Dont make 410 out as "new"
how long has it been out - 5 or 10 years?Carrier has been into it heavy for a while.
A TXV vs an orifice constricts or opens the flow of liquid refrigerant to the evaporator (if you are a novice, the evaporator is the coil that transfers heat from air to the refrigerant to boil it) to assure all of the the evaporator is full of boiling fluid (the most efficient way to operate).
For moisture removal (during AC operation vs HP operation) this means the most coil area is condensing moisture out of hot air in the AC mode.
In the HP mode, it means fewer frostups.
I agree with the last post. My friend is an HVAC installer and has always said very positive things about AS.
With the SEER's, I would go with a 12 even up north. The 12 will be quieter and also run more efficiently. Also the price differences will not be much. If you live in the south, go with a higher SEER but if your in NJ or high north don't both with the 13 or 14, etc because they will cost a lot more and the efficiency gains will not add up to enough to make it worth the extra $$
the bids are mostly in and two brand s have specified. The American Standard and a York Champion plus series. 2.5-3 ton 12 seer models.
the York came in 300 cheaper at this point. Which way do we go on this. Any brand should work well the first few years and while under warrenty. Its the long haul that concerns me. These are all roof mounted all in one units. Your input is appreciated.
Installation is critical - more important than the brand. Try to pick the company that will do the best job installing the equipment. A cheap brand installed well will outlive a great product installed poorly.
If you can find out anything about the repair history of Yorks recently, I suggest you do so. For awhile at least, they had somewhat of a bad reputation for needing repairs, though I don't recall the details of what.
They (York) were ranked about last in 1991 and near last in 2004 in Consumer reports survey of readers who owned central (whole house) air conditioners and had had to have them repaired.
Last, meaning more repairs.Don't know why on the noise. people on another street have two and my wife and I walk and you can hear them 200ft away.My guess is that York is primarily a commercial company - noise is not on their list of good things.
Looks like we will be getting the American Standard, 10 Seer with about a 1/2 ton greater capacity than what the book says we need. The house is small just over 1,000 sq feet. While we are in So Calif. we are in the foothills of Inland mountains about 2700 feet. We do get warm in the summer into the 90's with occasional 100+ day but our nights cool off
ok.
BTW, American Standard was the highest rated by Consumer Reports for reliability---although, with a margin of error of 5%, their number of 14% or so breakdown is not statistically significantly better than York's 18%.
Goodman, on the other hand, with a 24% breakdown rate, is clearly worse than everything else in the stack.(order after reviewing 36,000 reports over the past 8 years, was:
American Standard, Rheem, Trane, Ruud, Bryant, Carrier, Heil, York, Amana, Lennox, Tempstar, Goodman....)NotaClue
OK, I will play along. You said you don't where the data is and then a few minutes later you quote it.But in any case here is the link.http://www.consumerreports.org/main/content/display_gateway.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=444687&ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=333143&CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=54773&bmUID=1113679500334BTW, how meaningfull those numbers are. First I wonder if they age adjust them. For example is 8 years ago York has 20% of the market the a competitor 5% and then over the last two years the ratio has reversed then of course the old units are going to hve a higher failure rate.And you don't need to be a factory qualified dealer to buy Goodman. In fact you can buy them online. So the question is how many of the Goodman failures are due to unqualified installers?The other thing is that there is a range of models with different designs such as the scroll vs recp compressors.
Edited 4/16/2005 3:34 pm ET by Bill Hartmann
Wait, I'm not trying to play anyone; the ratings for reliability were for furnaces, not the air conditioning section; I was looking for data for the air conditioning reliability (central) and couldn't find it in the on-line references.
If it's in the 2001 issues, I would hope it would be in the on-line database, but perhaps not.
Argh.
NotAClue
What does that 7/03 artical have in it.And I don't have a clue what the 7/04 one is, but there is a 3rd one for room ac.
I do not think its online. Maybe too old.
Amer std / trane were on top as were rheem/ ruud for A/C whole house size-
ask about the next model up which has a scroll compressor i thinkcr does age adjust the results from people. when you fill out the survey they ask you
year
did it break
did you have a warranty
Edited 4/16/2005 3:35 pm ET by wain
If it's that warm where you are, I would go with the 12 SEER. The 12 will be a little more but it will be more effiecient (pay for itself) and quieter.
and I think the 12 has a scroll compressor vice a recip
Agreed...The payoff is really a function of what the local rates are, what your risk-free interest rate is, and what the marginal cost is of going with more efficienct equipment (the labor will remain largely the same). I could be wrong, but for the Boston environment, I calculated a NPV delta between a 10 SEER and a 19 SEER unit of about $5800 over the typical 15-year life of the unit. You can buy a lot of AC for that... I have enclosed a spreadsheet that you can feel free to use. Plug the requisite values into the white cells and let the spreadsheet do the rest. If you find any errors, omissions, etc., please let me know. Cheers!
Hmmm... the spreadsheet didn't attach... try number 2...
There is over a $900 difference between the cost of the 10 seer and the 12 seer. Using the charts supplied by the manufacturer the time required to make up the difference in price with the energy savings will be considerable.
I guess it all depends how customizable these charts are. In my mind, there are far more factors than most charts can accomodate when it comes to calculating payback. Hence the spreadsheet. If the NPV exceeds the marginal cost of going with a higher-SEER unit, then the extra investment makes sense.This way, you can accomodate the gamut of options, such as rising energy prices, the risk-free interest rate, actual SEER, climate, heat gain differences, etc. For me, examining the issue with just a simple chart is like using a rule of thumb to size an AC system for a structure: You might get away with it, but it's doubtful to be accurate.PS: In my area, the NPV for a 12 SEER over a 10 SEER unit is $2000 over its 15-year lifetime, all other things (like maintenance) being equal. So, for a $900 investment today, you'll get the equivalent of $2,000 (in todays dollars) back in small increments. Not a bad investment...
Edited 4/18/2005 10:34 am ET by Constantin
Do you know how accurate that SEER is in "real world" conditions?From what I understand that it is based on a single point test condition. And operating conditions vary from warm, slighlty humid, to hot and humid, or very hot and dry around the country and also during the season.
Agreed, like all standards, SEER cannot take all factors into account - just some. I am not aware of what the testing conditions are, but assume they're centered somewhere in the middle of the US, weighed for population densities, AC installs, climate, etc.For specific's you have to dig deeper into the design specs for the equipment, i.e. the tech. specs. that manufacturers provide for their split combos. In our case, the expected humidity is much lower (5-10%) than the average design condition calls for (30%). Thus, we had to be careful to maximize the sensible heat that the unit could output. We achieved this by oversizing the interior coil by 1 ton over the condenser. It also stands to reason that while the absolute numbers that SEER/SEER comparisons produce may not be accurate, that the relative differences should hold up.
"It also stands to reason that while the absolute numbers that SEER/SEER comparisons produce may not be accurate, that the relative differences should hold up."I don't buy that at face value.You example of latent heat vs sensible heat is a good example. At whatever the test conditions are two different units could have used completely different designs such that they have the same SEER. But one could handle latent heat much differently than the other so that at other operating conditions their effiecency is much different.Now it has been 50 years since I studied thermo-dynamics and I know absolutely nothing about what changes are made in the units to get different SEER's. But I have seen it in too many different cases, from auto MPG to processor speed tests that testing under standard condition does not always relate well to real world. Specially at the high end where equipment can be designed to the test, not to the job.And what about 2 stage systems. They will only run at one stage during testing. Where in real life it will use both stages.I did a google on - air condition efficiency seer different operating conditions - and found.http://www.leeric.lsu.edu/bgbb/7/ecep/hvac/a/a.htm whihc has a lot of good info and the different terms.http://www.pge.com/docs/pdfs/res/rebates/central_air/03eer_tech_v3.pdf&e=10141And they show an example of at 95 F the 14 SEER unit is only 28% more eff and than a 10 SEER unit.Now for ME that is very interesting. My AC does not come on until the OT is well into the 90's and the humidity levels go up. Usually the last week of June. And until I turn it off in early Sept then well only be 1-2 weeks where the temp is not above 90.
Some of the research the company I worked for did in the late 1990's for the Energy Efficiency Program at the DoE did show some interesting discrepancies of EER vs. SEER. In particular, you could get some very nice SEER boosts from multi-speed compressors vs. the single-speed variety while dropping in EER. See page 56 in the following engineering analysis.
While you're at it, why not also have alook at the whole standards-setting analysis before debunking it using a two-page promotional brochure from an utility. Naturally, PG&E is more interested in reducing the afternoon and morning peaking of its grid than saving consumers energy/$$$. That is not to say that the EER test doesn't have merit - it certainly does - but one ought to apply a grain of salt to everybody that has something to lose or to sell in this debate.
As for your point of units operating at 95degrees F, I fully agree that units can and will change in efficiency as environmental conditions change and that units can be built to test well vs. performing well in real life. However, I would also consider how often these (for my climate design-day) conditions are met. Very often, for example, evening conditions temper outdoor conditions a great deal. Lastly, consider the following letter from the EPA that claims that EER and SEER are correlated to 95% below 13 SEER. Thus, for the majority of the people/utilities affected by the minimum efficiency change coming next year, both EER and SEER will be rising appreciably.
It's not that much around here. Get some numbers on Concord, Carrier and others. I could see that much of a difference if you went from a 10 to a 14 but a 12 shouldn't be that much more.
I'm confused; I subscribe to Consumer Reports on line and I can't find any reference to any rating of Central air conditioners in their records. Windows air conditioners: Yes. Furnaces: yes. Central Air conditioners? No.
Can you help me with a reference?
Thanks!
NotAClue
the2003 buying guide index lists whole house air conditioners as being in the may 01 issue .A local library's reference section will have that issue.the results were about the same (per my memory) as 10 years earlier