Lennox G61MPV -36B 070 vs 071 Is it worth moving up to??
FYI....my system to be installed in March.... G61V-36B-07? | XC21-024-230 | Harmony III 4 Zones | Aprilaire 8870 thermostats | Aprilaire 600 humifier | PureAir |
I will be getting my new Lennox solution installed in the near future. Since first receiving the first quote from him, I was told that the furnance had gone from 94.1% efficiency to 95%. I thought....great!!! Now I will qualify for the $150 federal tax credit.
Then I did some research.
The 94.1% efficiency model is the G61MPV-36B-070 and the 95% efficiency model is the G61MPV-36B-071.
The GAMA EAE energy efficiency on the blower motor went from 301 to 582 kWh/yr???
The CEE air performance level which is an electricity use rating went from 1.51% (under their guideline of 2%) to 2.94%.
Looking at day one costs I gain the $150 tax credit but lose a $50 local rebate which is for efficiency 350 and under. So I'm plus $100.
But what am I looking at long term? Is it smart to go up to the 95% furnace despite the fact that the more the blower motor runs, the more electricity costs I'll have?
Is there any other drawbacks to the new model I should be aware of?
Thanks for any assistance you can provide,
we have stuck with the 94% models, believe in the long run it will be better to have better electical efficiency.
also since you are getting the pure air you will probably run the blower more than normal, makes electrical efficiency more important.
That was kinda my thinking too. Was this the only way for Lennox to get 95% out of their furnace...the blower motor inefficiency?
If that is the case, it's just a little disappointing. I've seen other's 95%+ efficiencies with a lot more efficient motor then Lennox's 94%.
Oh well, guess you can't have everything.
Thanks again for taking the time to reply
i think they made the secondary hx fin spacing closer to get higher gas efficiency, this hurt blower efficiency.
My contractor said he had brought up the terrible blower eff #s to his Lennox rep(?) when it first came out and his response was that unlike on the 91 where they actually put in a larger blower to achieve the 95 number, that they actually had to run the blower at a very high level to achieve the 95 number on the test, so they record the blower draw at the same time that the gas eff rating is achieved.
Originally Posted by t527ed
The short of the story was he was lead to believe that the real world affects of the of blower motor and it's efficiency should be almost identical.
It's not like he cares which one I buy except that I think he'd rather sell me the best unit for me. I doubt the 071 costs them less then the 070, but who knows.
Do you think there is truth in what he was told? Based on his story, I'm leaning back towards the 071.
not sure what the real story is , for less than 1% difference in the afue i have been sticking with the original models for now.
yeah, me either.
Do you happen to know where a more recent copy of this PDF can be found. It has draw information on the blower on the 070 and just curious how the 071 compares.
Last edited by 7474; 02-16-2007 at 12:04 AM.
Anyone ever find out the real story between the 070 and 071. Is the blower motor really that much less eff?
I went with the 071 about 8 months ago, just curious about the TRUE story as I do run it on FAN mode constantly.
Could the blower motor be replaced with the more energy eff one in the future, and if so, what's the approx parts cost of that (assuming that wouldn't violate the terms of the board).
What area of country do you live?
What is your electric rate?
Any thought of changing XC to XP heat pump and having a dual fuel system?
What size is your home? This is a new home?
Load calculation performed?
As far as the furnace models, what is the price difference?
Just a few thoughts.
I don't see how the blower on this can be any more Eff.
Originally Posted by jaj1701
Both units are variable speed drive blowers.
The only thing to use less energy is someone waving their hand in the air with a paddle.
I would bet both units will achieve the same real time results in the field.
1 unit being "rated 94.1%" the other "rated "95%"
These are lab testing figures.
I show them being the same price, anyway
If you try to fail, and succeed.
Which have you done ?