Shucco Corona 4000's

For all those Replacement Window decisions - just read, review or post a question. You will be helped!
Message
Author
alum_frame
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 1:31 pm

Shucco Corona 4000's

#1 Post by alum_frame »

Does $435 per window, installed, sound like a fair price for this window?
The windows would be double pane. I don't think I need triple in Southern Virginia.

Does anyone feel that this would be a better move than Aslide Excalibur's for $300 per window?

I also have a quote for $320.00 per window, for window that are built on the Chelsea Patent. I am not familiar with the Chelsea design, and nobody responded to my previous post.

Any thoughts would be great.

User avatar
Window4U (IL)
Posts: 1374
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:58 pm
Location: Sales and Installation in Chicagoland and Central Illinois

#2 Post by Window4U (IL) »

That is a very low price for Schuco 4000's. Your dealer must be hungry for work to cut his margins that close.

Paneless

Holy Cow...

#3 Post by Paneless »

That's is way too low....

I'd check to see if you are if fact getting the 4000, also there is a slight upcharge for triple and it's well worth it.

alum_frame
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 1:31 pm

#4 Post by alum_frame »

Price and model have been verified. The double pane Corona 4000 is installed for $435.00. The charge for the triple is $535.00 per window. My climate in Southern Virginia is not that harsh. I think the double pane will suite me just fine.

Paneless

I'd still go for the triple...

#5 Post by Paneless »

I'd would still go for the triple, the fact that your climate isn't as cold as up north is only one element, what about your cooling bills in the summer, triple has a much lower U value which will drasticly cut energy 12 months out of the year.

Also, make sure the windows are not drop-ins. Are they capping the outside trim in PVC Aluminum, and what grade caluk is being used?

alum_frame
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 1:31 pm

#6 Post by alum_frame »

Yes, the outside will be trimmed with PVC alum. A 50 year caulk will be used. You will have to educate me on a drop-in. To my knowledge my window spaces will be measured, and the windows built for the opening.

I will keep in mind the upgrade to the triple. It just seems like you lose a little viewing area with the triple. I am almost certain I will see a 25% increase in energy saving, compared to the windows I have now, even with double pane. My windows now are just contruction grade alum. windows, that are about 16 years old.

Thanks for your help!

Paneless

Drop Ins

#7 Post by Paneless »

A Drop-In is what we refer to when a window is just being replaced without the use of capping or caulk. This is usually done when siding is being done wherein the siding applicators will trim the windows.

Believe it or not there are some company’s that sell windows WITHOUT capping and caulking. They usually advertise a low price and once in your home explain that the capping and caulking will be extra.

Unless siding is being done along with replacing windows Drop-Ins are NEVER a good idea.

Finally, at that bargain price you’re getting the upgrade to triple makes it a no-brainer. For the extra investment you’ll end with a higher return, upwards of a 50% total energy reduction. Think of it this way, you are doubling your return with only a 22% up charge. I don’t need to be a mathematician or have a degree in economics to see the value in that.

JScott
Posts: 323
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 8:48 pm

#8 Post by JScott »

Don't jump on the triple pane just yet. Compare your solar heat gain. You may save more in one area and loose in the other. Natural sun light in the winter can also help warm the home. For your area LowE may be fine. Triple in our area saves an extra $50 to 100 per year at most over LowE. At $100 each then your savings is 1 upgraded window per year. How many windows? How many years?
In some areas I strongly advocate triple pane and they actually make a quad pane for really wicked winters in parts of the world.

InfoSponge
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 2:25 am

#9 Post by InfoSponge »

Paneless, I think it is a little misleading to post energy savings numbers that imply moving from double to triple pane will cut your energy bills in half. If you are comparing to very leaky 1970 aluminum single pane windows, that savings number might be possible, but it isn't a reasonable number if double pane is the starting point for comparison. Going from double to triple should reduce the heat conduction through the windows by about 33% (u-factor goes from approximately .3 to .2), but remember that only a fraction of the total home heat loss/gain is due to windows (usually 15-45%). For someone with modern double pane argon windows, the heat loss/gain through the windows will generally be on the low end of that scale. Air infiltration won't change going form double to triple, and SHGC will change, but that can be either good or bad, as JScott said. If you are going to compare "return on investment" for the extra $ moving from double to triple, you also need to make the energy comparison reflect that the starting point of double as the reference point, and an added 50% savings is simply not possible with that comparison.

The energy savings (in dollars) moving from double to triple should be roughly correlated to the size of the house (and thus roughly the number of windows and total window area, on average), so you can state an average savings as a number of dollars, but that will be for a fixed size house with say 14 windows. Houses with more windows will cost more to move to triple, but the dollar savings will also be greater, so it gets difficult to say you "earn back" one window per year. It might be better to state you earn back X% of the initial investment per year, for a given climate and pricing structure, but this would be only an average, of course. I'm sure most people know this but it is useful to state for people reading along, so nobody assumes the savings in dollars for a particular climate is fixed, since it varies significantly based on home construction/size.

windowrep
Posts: 135
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 12:57 am
Location: ne ohio

#10 Post by windowrep »

infosponge, going from a u-factor of .3 to .2 is not even close to a 33% savings. you know better than that. i will caulk that quote up as a type o or not enough coffee. with all these percentages of savings i think the gas company owes me money. lets make this simple, when i let the dog out in the morning i have let in more cold in my house then the difference between triple and double pane.

InfoSponge
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 2:25 am

#11 Post by InfoSponge »

I probably wasn't clear enough. I said "Going from double to triple should reduce the heat conduction through the windows by about 33% (u-factor goes from approximately .3 to .2)" One can tweak the figures to reflect various window lines, but the basic point stands. I didn't intend to imply that a homeowner would save 33% on their energy bills, since as you said, that is not true, and instead I stated savings would be much less than that because "only a fraction of the total home heat loss/gain is due to windows (usually 15-45%)". If your windows are only responsible for say 20% of your energy problem, no window in the world could save you even 20%, even if you stuff the hole with 40 foot thick R-500 insulation and concrete!

As an example, if a energy audit/simulation determines some double pane windows are responsible for 15% of your home heat loss due to conduction through the window, and you move to the same window in triple pane, about 1/3 of that previous window conduction heat loss, or about 5% of the total heat loss of the home could be saved. There might be additional heat gain/loss advantages due to the lower SHGC of triple pane windows, but any savings would differ based on climate/shading, etc, so we can't estimate that as well in general.

Anyway, we've recently been over this topic in some detail, so I'll point to this older thread instead of boring people with the same old punchlines:
viewtopic.php?p=4471

windowrep
Posts: 135
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 12:57 am
Location: ne ohio

#12 Post by windowrep »

double pane to triple pane will not reduce heat conduction by 33% either. just so people reading this thread are clear that triple pane windows are not a 33% improvement in energy savings or conduction or whatever over double pane.

researcher
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 9:11 am

#13 Post by researcher »

Another point of view that I have never see mentioned here, as far as return on investment gos, is,...If it were to cost me $1800 more to go with triple pain instead of the double pain, and by doing so, it is saving me 5% on my fuel bill, I would save $75 a year on a $1500 annual fuel bill. This would take 24 years to recoup the $1800. But if I instead but the $1800 in a place where I could get 5% interest on that $1800, I would not be gaining financially at all going with the triple pain.

I do realize I am not going into compound interest or what fuel prices my be in the future.

User avatar
Window4U (IL)
Posts: 1374
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:58 pm
Location: Sales and Installation in Chicagoland and Central Illinois

#14 Post by Window4U (IL) »

Gee whiz guys, with all this great logic I see no reason to even have low-e/argon. It's only a difference from U .49 to U .35, which is near the same increment as going from double pane to triple pane. ( .35 to .21 )
You are right....that's insignificant. Why even bother putting low-e in a window?
After all, with the R-40 you just increased your attic insulation to, and the R-19 you have in your walls, R-2 should be more than good enough to insulate the #1 heat loss source in the home, your windows. And, with all that savings, you can afford to buy 30 years worth of paper towels to wipe the condensation off the windows.

Maybe we should look at everything the way you guys are disecting this. Why have that expensive carpet in your home? You'll never save enough money for it to pay for itself, and painted floors would be so much cheaper. Think of how much that money savings would make you if you invested it instead.
The same goes for the solid surface countertops you have, the nice car you drive, the snazzy clothes you wear. Any of these items are a waste of money if you want to look at it as purely a money savings investment. You'd be much better off investing that money in the stock market and going with items that are much cheaper.

Or....like you do with almost every other purchase in your life, you can analize the many benefits, both financial and not. You may decide it is worth it to you to buy something that will increase your overall comfort, allow you to sit next to the windows on cold days without getting cold, that will save you some extra on heat and cooling bills, give you greater pride in your home, and that will reduce the chance you will ever have condensation on your windows.....because we all know that you salesmen selling only double pane low-e/argon windows have a whole drawer of literature absolving you of blame and fully explaining the root cause of condensation on windows for when those calls come in during cold weather.
If you as a homeowner get condensation all over your new windows, you need to realize that is your problem, and your problem alone. There's not a company or manufacturer on earth that will take responsibility for it being there.

All I am saying is that the choice of whether to go with triple or double is not as simple as punching numbers into a calculator. To simplify it into those terms is doing a diservice to those who are shopping for windows as there are many benefits other than energy savings.

FenEx
Posts: 353
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:43 pm
Location: Illinois

Reply

#15 Post by FenEx »

Windowrep

Actually... going from a U-0.3 to a U-0.2 will reduce heat transmittance by about 33%... of those products. That's why U-factors are used... it's an actual measure. I don't see where infosponge was stating that it would reduce utility bills by that amount.

As for percentages of overall utility bill savings... there are many other factors that we have discussed many times. Through a professional audit/analysis, we actually can project a percentage of $ savings, whether it be 10, 20 or even up to 60%, but the higher percentages are never achieved by simply replacing windows. I would say that about 20-25% savings would be about the high-mark for windows alone, and that's only if many other variables fall into place. That's why I detest 40-50% energy savings pledges by window companies... it just ain't gonna happen by only changing windows. Now... replace old single panes with HP trips and some stategically placed low cost air-sealing and insulation... and you absolutely can hit the 40%+ range pretty quickly. To get higher than that, you typically start getting into changing out HVAC systems.

Researcher
Where do you live where it costs you $1,500 a year for gas and electric? Most of the heating and cooling states are 3-4 times this amount. Try using a number that makes sense for the majority of readers and include the additional benefits as well. Your guestimate of $75 is just as bad as those claiming ten times that amount... INNACCURATE. Why not share facts... or nothing at all.
Last edited by FenEx on Tue Aug 15, 2006 12:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Post Reply