Page 1 of 13 1234567811 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 160
  1. #1

    Trane vs. York centrifugal

    Our plant is planning to retire our 1951 York 600 ton R11 electric centrifugal and replace it with either a low-pressure Trane using Suva-123 or a high-pressure York using 134A refrigerant (also 600 ton).
    I would be interested in hearing opinions about the reliability and efficiency of the two units. The Trane design is very simple (sealed motor, no gearing), but uses an ozone-depleting gas, although they guarantee a very minute leakage rate. On the other hand, we have a 57 year-old York that still runs, so I would be tempted to stay with them.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    177
    If it were me ,I would stay with the York 134A Chiller, with a VSD Why would you want to replace a chiller with a refrigerant that is a CFC and is going to be phased out in the near future. The 134A machine is a lot less labor intensive,and is proven to be a safe refrigerant for the enviroment and the technician. Iwould look at the energy savings with a York VSD Machine and the kw per ton vs the Trane machine.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Cleveland,TN.
    Posts
    143
    Quote Originally Posted by facilitiesguy View Post
    Our plant is planning to retire our 1951 York 600 ton R11 electric centrifugal and replace it with either a low-pressure Trane using Suva-123 or a high-pressure York using 134A refrigerant (also 600 ton).
    I would be interested in hearing opinions about the reliability and efficiency of the two units. The Trane design is very simple (sealed motor, no gearing), but uses an ozone-depleting gas, although they guarantee a very minute leakage rate. On the other hand, we have a 57 year-old York that still runs, so I would be tempted to stay with them.
    You have a chiller that is 57 years running and you want to get another brand.Now that poor old chilled has made millions of gallons of cold water for you loyally and you are even thinking of changing brands now were is your loyalty at

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Great country of Texas
    Posts
    429
    I would also go with the York YK machine with the "P" syle compressor on a VSD. We have installed several of these machines and they work great. Just make sure you have good tower water control. You want cooooooooooold condenser water. I was a great fan of Trane CHVE/F units until the YK came out. Go with York on R-134a since R-123 is on the hit list along with R-22.
    "I'm from Texas, what country are you from?"

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    In the house normally
    Posts
    219
    I have heard that Trane that is going to be at a standstill with their centrifugal chillers that run on 123.

    Dont remember the details but in 2010 I think they would not be able to produce.
    What we have here, is a failure to communicate........

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    ottawa canada
    Posts
    2,063
    What about efficiency. No one can come close to a Trane CVHE . As for the 123 Phase out . Why would you phase out a zero ODP and GWP refrigerant.??? R123 phase out will be pushed back just like the R22 phase out date and R123 is used to manufacture other refrigerants. Low pressure is the way to go on large tonnage. low pressure ,chiller leaks- sucks air. High pressure- chiller leaks big mess oil lost refrigerant etc etc lots of $$$$$$ to fix.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    68
    I would go with a Trane CVH model. 600 tons, that is a ton of refrigerant. High pressure just don't cut it on effiecency. Trane is coming out with a new CH530 platform called the Adapt-A-View. All I can say is look out York.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Cleveland,TN.
    Posts
    143
    Quote Originally Posted by graham View Post
    What about efficiency. No one can come close to a Trane CVHE . As for the 123 Phase out . Why would you phase out a zero ODP and GWP refrigerant.??? R123 phase out will be pushed back just like the R22 phase out date and R123 is used to manufacture other refrigerants. Low pressure is the way to go on large tonnage. low pressure ,chiller leaks- sucks air. High pressure- chiller leaks big mess oil lost refrigerant etc etc lots of $$$$$$ to fix.
    man how can you make statements like that,is 123 cheap,I know high pressure machines leak but damn man if you keep up maintenance on them,they perk like their supposed to.Hmm low pressure machines need purge units I guess they don't leak ay expain I need help with this

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Greeneville, Tennessee
    Posts
    344

    Jci

    Remember JCI controls York!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Shreveport, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,329
    Quote Originally Posted by dgruber View Post
    Remember JCI controls York!
    WHat does this have to do with anything?????

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    ottawa canada
    Posts
    2,063
    Frick . No R123 is not cheap but why would I need it the chiller didnt loose its load like a high pressure machine it now just has air and refrigerant in it .Also you forgot to mention my main point so I'll make it again
    EFFICIENCY EFFICIENCY EFFICIENCY EFFICIENCY. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,990
    Either brand is fine by me. They will both need maintanance and service at some point. JMHO
    Your poor planning does not constitute an emergency on my part!!!!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    45th Parallel
    Posts
    954
    Quote Originally Posted by slb8101 View Post
    If it were me ,I would stay with the York 134A Chiller, with a VSD Why would you want to replace a chiller with a refrigerant that is a CFC and is going to be phased out in the near future. The 134A machine is a lot less labor intensive,and is proven to be a safe refrigerant for the enviroment and the technician. Iwould look at the energy savings with a York VSD Machine and the kw per ton vs the Trane machine.

    1. I heard that R-123 used to make R-134a, if so what is going to happen to R-134a if 123 is out of production?

    2.How can you say a R-134a machine is a lot less labor intensive???
    You are always fixing leaks, they are great for the service mechanic.
    3. Ya definitely look at the energy use of both machines, but, look at the usage of the whole plant, not just the chiller. Remember the meter is on the bldg , not the chiller. What does it take to make that Coooooooollllldddddd water that Stickerhead says Yorks like, and makes them efficient?
    4. How is R-123 not safe to work with? Do you use it to wash your parts?
    Proper handling and recovery techniques do not endanger the mechanic or the enviroment.

    I have a site with 2- 900 ton CVHF's that are ten years old, each has over 50,000 hours run time. In ten years there has been ZERO # of refrig added to these chillers. All we have done is change the oil once and normal maint.
    How many YK's can say they have never had any refrig added in ten years, hell, even 1 year.

Page 1 of 13 1234567811 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event