Stanley range vs condensing boiler

trixyben

I have a Stanley De Luxe 90 oil burning range and am thinking of maybe replacing it with a new condensing oil boiler, question is how much more efficient would the condenser boiler be over the range?

shane0007

On average a Stanley oil cooker would be in the realms of 65 - 70% efficient whereas a Grant Vortex would be 95 - 97%. I am referring to boiler efficiency rather than combustion efficiency. Combustion efficiency for Stanley would be approx 75 - 80% and Grant would be approx 99% efficient.

trixyben

shane0007 wrote: »

On average a Stanley oil cooker would be in the realms of 65 - 70% efficient whereas a Grant Vortex would be 95 - 97%. I am referring to boiler efficiency rather than combustion efficiency. Combustion efficiency for Stanley would be approx 75 - 80% and Grant would be approx 99% efficient.

Thanks for the figures here at least it makes a case for changing them over, out of interest where would i get those official figures and do you think it would make sense to go to the expense of changing giving the difference in efficiencies?

Another option I am thinking is fitting a stove with a back boiler as the main heating source as I read these are very efficent is this something many of you have done with the price of oil these days?

shane0007

www.boilers.org.uk & www.hetas.co.uk

Should you change or not would really depend on how much oil you use each year. It is always better to be more efficient but economics must also play a part.

Solid fuel is the most inefficient form of heating on the market. It has improved I. Recent years but generally still very inefficient in comparison to the other technologies.

You could also throw LPG into the equation also as then you are introducing modulation and therefore certainly only using the amount of energy that you actually require.

trixyben

shane0007 wrote: »

www.boilers.org.uk & www.hetas.co.uk

Should you change or not would really depend on how much oil you use each year. It is always better to be more efficient but economics must also play a part.

Solid fuel is the most inefficient form of heating on the market. It has improved I. Recent years but generally still very inefficient in comparison to the other technologies.

You could also throw LPG into the equation also as then you are introducing modulation and therefore certainly only using the amount of energy that you actually require.

Currently I spend close to 2k per year on oil and it is burned using the Stanley range in the kitchen which in turn heats the tank and radiators were i have the option to heat one or the other, also spend about 500 on coal, logs etc

I have an open fire in the living room were the fire is everyday and it dosent have a back boiler which is something i also looked into but the stove back boiler system seems a far better choice, so what im thinking is cut way down on lighting the open fire, use the oil in the mornings then in the evenings light up the stove were it will heat the house/water/rads etc.

If i could install the stove with the back boiler and use it mainly I was hoping to cut the heating costs in half tbh, would you say that would be possible with that type of set up?

Thanks for the advise so far

shane0007

Difficult to give you advice on that one as I would need to see the parameters to,see if it was possible to install that so,that it would work in conjunction with the other. They should be able to be turned on at the same time. Most you will find cannot be and have installation issues.
If it can be done, then yes it is a viable and popular option.