We have a 3350 sq foot home that is pretty well insulated near Philadelphia in New Jersey. A Heat Loss analysis estimates our house to be roughly 80,000 BTU's. This will be confirmed shortly by a professional energy audit as well. Currently we have an oil fired 150,000 BTU boiler providing hot water and services roughly 230 linear feet of baseboard. This boiler was sufficient for the house in its previous state, but the house is a much different house now. It is fully insulated, has triple glass R5.5 windows and is pretty well sealed up compared to years past. There are six loops controlled by four thermostats. Our unit currently appears way over the needed size for the home since it only runs in brief and short intervals to heat even on the coldest days in peak demand. We came across the CC-125 Combo boiler from Triangle Tube and it appears that it may suffice for us. The price is right too. As we are new to all of this, would this just be a direct replacement for what we have and only the heater, expansion tank, temperature mixing valve and piping needed? No chimney liner nor indirect water heater needed at all? We are a family of four and want to be able to fill a single person whirlpool tub on occasion. Else run two showers at the same time during peak hot water demand. In my head I am thinking that we could get away with this unit for $2900, plus roughly $500 in installation materials, a $200 expansion tank and a qualified installer for about $1000 (2 guys at $60 an hour for a day). And reuse the existing zone control valves and recirculating pumps. Does this sound right? Opinions?
Otherwise, we were getting quoted around $5,000 to do 83% boiler replacements in the 130,000 BTU range with the chimney liner and $50 gallon hot water heater. This seams too good to be true. Do you think we could utilize the 96% efficient option instead from Triangle Tube?
Otherwise, we were getting quoted around $5,000 to do 83% boiler replacements in the 130,000 BTU range with the chimney liner and $50 gallon hot water heater. This seams too good to be true. Do you think we could utilize the 96% efficient option instead from Triangle Tube?