sham58107 wrote: » Folks any ideas on good oil boiler, have been recommended Saturn any thoughts ??
Tom44 wrote: » Importer "Pulsar" gone bust years ago and I wish you the best getting parts from Romania. No compatible parts easily available :mad:
Water John wrote: » Firebird, excellent and reliable, Irish as is Grant.
Dtp1979 wrote: » Firebird will break your heart. Stick to grant op. There's a reason every decent installer fits them
John T Carroll wrote: » Sad to hear that, the Firebird SE (kero fired) Boilers certainly seemed to be pretty good, I have one fitted since May 2005, not even one trip/flame out in nearly 11 years but I suppose thats no big deal with any Kero fired boiler, previously had a 1993 Grant with a Minor One S burner which, while pretty reliable, would trip out a few times/year but in fairness I dont think that this was a Kero fired burner. Anyway, all history now but I wont be throwing out my SE Boiler anytime soon as I value reliability very highly.
SuperVegan wrote: » Firebird Popular 120 Its a non condensing boiler but its built like a tank and never stops working.
Dtp1979 wrote: » Grant have stopped making non condensing. Not sure about firebird
John T Carroll wrote: » Just a few practical queries.... has any one of you had any problem anywhere after changing out a SE Boiler for a HE Boiler with the radiater outputs due to the lower water to air temperatures? ie the SE Boiler might result in an average water to air temperature of 55C and the HE might be 40C which off the top of my head might result in 30%? less radiator output, hence my question. The other query is that on my SE Firebird the Boiler thermostat setting range is 65C to 85C, what is it on its HE counterpart and ditto on a HE gas fired boiler, Thanks.
Dtp1979 wrote: » The outputs on the grant aren't numbered but they go to 80 I'm nearly sure. On gas it's around the same. Not sure what you mean about air to water temp
Wearb wrote: » Usually by the time an old boiler has run it's course, there will have been insulation improvements in the house. Double glazing installed, walls pumped, attic insulation etc.. That along with the propensity in the past to over size, usually means that by the time a HE boiler is installed the rads are near enough correctly (or over) sized. Even when the the above is not the case, a HE boiler can be run without condensing (except for part if the time) and still give large efficiencies over a SE one. This can be witnessed by the much lower flue temp due to the extra heat exchanger. I usually contend that unless a boiler is really old and has been badly maintained and has a HARP rating below 80% efficiency, The cost effectiveness of changing is difficult to justify. I do attend boiler that have this min HARP rating, but have been let go. Those I would re commend changing. Now if oil goes to over €1 euro (maybe more) I might need to have a rethink.
Wearb wrote: » There are weather compensators available, which I think should be fitted to HE boilers. Then again it comes down to cost v savings. Something that I have not been able to do satisfactorily is to calculate the losses due to boiler cycling (oil). A boiler correctly sized will run most of the time at its extreme demand. This will change with rising temperature and zones being shut off. An oversized boiler will do likewise. Have you any thoughts on this issue?
John T Carroll wrote: » Radiator sizing output is based on a temp difference of 50C based on the mean radiator temperature minus the room air temperature so on a SE boiler you could have a rad flow and return temp of 80C & 70C and a on a HE boiler you might have 65C & 55C, assuming a room temperature in both cases of 20C, then the calculations becomes 55C for the SE boiler and 40C for the HE boiler which would result in a substantial reduction in the radiator output and especially in the morning might result in a slow house heat up. I was just wondering if anyone had/has complained about this after a boiler upgrade/replacement. You would possibly install bigger rads on a new build knowing that the temperatures might be lower because a HE Boiler will (have to) be installed.
Wearb wrote: » Well JTC, I have been reading information from that link you posted and there is some fascinating information there. At least the parts that I understand. It has to be said that these tests were done on gas boilers, but some of it will hold true on oil boilers. It also gives an insight into usage patterns and DHW heating costs and losses. Interesting to see that on a 3 min cycle the losses are about 2%. I am not sure if that figure includes flue losses during off periods. It only mentions purge and case losses. It also acknowledges that case losses may be excluded where the loss is in an area requiring that heat. I think that we all understood that SEBUCK would have been on the high side. It is nice to have a figure on it.. about 5% too high when compared to field trials. Cylinder losses for different cylinder laggings and pipework are also surprising. As are the figures when calculating the energy delivered to the hot taps. Another interesting finding was that over-sizing had a relatively small effect, but I suspect that that was due to modulation? Thanks for posting the link.
