Furnace change on Escape 21 a shocker

[Jill]

Originally Posted by rbryan4

For anyone concerned about the aesthetics of the new furnace cover, you could also have a custom one made. This company makes some beautiful registers and vent covers to any size you specify and any design you like - from plain to ornate:

Custom Order Custom Grills Custom Registers Custom Vent Covers made to order

I have no idea about the price though.

Thank you Bryan. I believe Reace said he would try to find a paint that would work to help it blend in. That with the additional cabinet modifications should end up with a result that really is the best of the old layout and the new. However if no luck on the paint I will definitely investigate this link. Thank you!

[FMLNM]

Originally Posted by Vermilye

By the way, I ran my furnace (the older Atwood) for a Casita owner at a rally, and they noted that it was much quieter than their Suburban.

When we went from our 2005 19' Scamp 5er to our 2008 Escape 5.0 we noticed a significant improvement in noise level from the furnace. The distance form the furnace to the bed is about the same in both trailers but the noise is less and doesn't bother us anymore.

[cpaharley2008]

The new furnace has less BTU output than the older one? It appears to be 9000BTU vs 12,000 BTU. But there is an option for a different model with a side and front discharge, perhaps allowing it to be located under sink and get a side vent towards the bathroom?

[thoer]

As I read these (now 11) pages, I am trying to imagine any other manufacturer I have dealings with responding in such a proactive and listening manner as Reace and Tammy do. All I have to do is remember back to my contacts with "another fiberglas trailer manufacturer" ( there, I won't make Donna mad at me again ) and it is night and day different.

[rbryan4]

Originally Posted by cpaharley2008

The new furnace has less BTU output than the older one? It appears to be 9000BTU vs 12,000 BTU. But there is an option for a different model with a side and front discharge, perhaps allowing it to be located under sink and get a side vent towards the bathroom?

The difference is input vs output. The input BTUs are 12000, same as the old Atwood. The output will never be 12000 BTU because some of the heat generated by the furnace escapes by other means, and is not actually heating the trailer. When a manufacturer says their furnace is "12000 BTU", that's typically an input BTU.

[steve dunham]

Originally Posted by cpaharley2008

The new furnace has less BTU output than the older one? It appears to be 9000BTU vs 12,000 BTU. But there is an option for a different model with a side and front discharge, perhaps allowing it to be located under sink and get a side vent towards the bathroom?

I ran a heat loss calculation on a 21 ft Escape the other day. I assumed R values for the walls floor & windows based on the trailer having all of the insulation upgrades . Since we live in a cold climate and often travel in cold weather I assumed a design interior temp of 68 deg F and assumed a outside temp of -10 deg F with a wind factor of 5 MPH ( Infiltration). . My calculations showed a heat loss / hr of 12070 BTUs. Since I do not know the design temp that ETI uses for their trailer the 9000 BTU furnace may be adequate but in our climate I believe it may come up a little short . I AM IN NO WAY TRYING TO SLANDER ETI just pointing out something to consider if you camp in "COLD" weather.

[thoer]

Originally Posted by rbryan4

The difference is input vs output. The input BTUs are 12000, same as the old Atwood. The output will never be 12000 BTU because some of the heat generated by the furnace escapes by other means, and is not actually heating the trailer.

Exactly. If the new model is more efficient it should be able to produce that same output heat with less input. I think of how hot that outside vent gets with my old Atwood, whereas my 97% efficient home furnace vents out thru a piece of plastic pipe and is only warm.

[dave macrae]

Originally Posted by steve dunham

I ran a heat loss calculation on a 21 ft Escape the other day. I assumed R values for the walls floor & windows based on the trailer having all of the insulation upgrades . Since we live in a cold climate and often travel in cold weather I assumed a design interior temp of 68 deg F and assumed a outside temp of 0 deg F with a wind factor of 5 MPH ( Infiltration). . My calculations showed a heat loss / hr of 12070 BTUs. Since I do not know the design temp that ETI uses for their trailer the 9000 BTU furnace may be adequate but in our climate I believe it may come up a little short . I AM IN NO WAY TRYING TO SLANDER ETI just pointing out something to consider if you camp in "COLD" weather.

Most people ( my self included) who camp is colder areas supplement there heat with another source, I really like taking a small electric space heater. Produces less condesation, saves propane and is quieter. Of course this only works if you have access to power. I will either make sure I have power or use the generator when its really cold. Going to Jasper next weekend and hopefully there will be room in the powered sites.

[Dave Walter]

Originally Posted by dave macrae

...Going to Jasper next weekend and hopefully there will be room in the powered sites.

Dave, make sure that you bring your spare water pump.

We were in Jasper a week ago (didn't bring the Escape though). Malign canyon was fun, not as much ice as previous winters, and skiing at Marmot was ok (snow was also about average or slightly below). But I really like Jasper, it is much nicer than Banff.

[Jim Bennett]

Originally Posted by steve dunham

I ran a heat loss calculation on a 21 ft Escape the other day. I assumed R values for the walls floor & windows based on the trailer having all of the insulation upgrades . Since we live in a cold climate and often travel in cold weather I assumed a design interior temp of 68 deg F and assumed a outside temp of -10 deg F with a wind factor of 5 MPH ( Infiltration). . My calculations showed a heat loss / hr of 12070 BTUs. Since I do not know the design temp that ETI uses for their trailer the 9000 BTU furnace may be adequate but in our climate I believe it may come up a little short . I AM IN NO WAY TRYING TO SLANDER ETI just pointing out something to consider if you camp in "COLD" weather.

I have stayed in our trailer well below freezing, and the furnace had no troubles at all keeping up to the temps desired. We too use a small electric heater if 120V is available, but that is not too often.

Originally Posted by ice-breaker

We were in Jasper a week ago (didn't bring the Escape though). Malign canyon was fun, not as much ice as previous winters, and skiing at Marmot was ok (snow was also about average or slightly below). But I really like Jasper, it is much nicer than Banff.

I have never skied at Marmot, but have always planned to. I have heard it is a good hill, with lots of snow. Maybe nearing spring this year, once the big snowfalls start. I too like Jasper better than Banff, especially when comparing the townsites, and the numbers of visitors.

[steve dunham]

Originally Posted by Jim Bennett

I have stayed in our trailer well below freezing, and the furnace had no troubles at all keeping up to the temps desired. We too use a small electric heater if 120V is available, but that is not too often.

I have never skied at Marmot, but have always planned to. I have heard it is a good hill, with lots of snow. Maybe nearing spring this year, once the big snowfalls start. I too like Jasper better than Banff, especially when comparing the townsites, and the numbers of visitors.

Jim ,heat loss calculations assume that the structure is at the interior design temp and all the heat source is designed to do is supply enough BTUs to maintain the existing temp. When we left home last year it was 18 deg F below zero and when we arrived at our first campsite it was still 8 to 10 deg F below zero . Everything in the trailer was at 8 to 10 below .( Same problem on our trip home ) Our heater was sufficient to overcome the heat loss but had little left over to warm up the trailer's contents .When we went to bed several hours later you could still see your breath in the trailer.
I believe that the Escapes furnace is adequate for its' design temp .
I was seriously looking at asking Reece if the furnace could be upgraded to the 16,000 BTU model .We have a memory foam mattress in our trailer and its like sleeping on a rock when the mattress is cold.
Again I believe what your experience is with the present furnace but there is a big difference between "Below Freezing " and 18 below zero . For most of the forum members this is not an issue but I would rather have a furnace that is more than adequate than one that is barely adequate . AGAIN I AM NOT TRYING TO ARGUE WITH YOU

[rbryan4]

Found it. Just as I mentioned earlier, the new Atwood and the old one have basically the same BTUs - 12000 Input, 9120 Output. Compare this graphic to the one for the new furnace.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by rbryan4

...Maybe when they claim it uses "less power"...

The new AF Series furnace (specifically the AFSAD12 for the front-discharge ductless version in an Escape) does use more electrical power (2.4 amps) than the old Everest Star (specifically the 8012 ductless model which has been used in Escapes - 1.8 amps).

Where is this claim that it uses less power? With no mention of the AF Series on the Atwood Mobile site, and no comparison with previous models in the technical manual provided by Atwood, this is sounding like rumour. Maybe we could make more sense of it with a pointer to the actual document or discussion making this claim.

Added on Edit:
Ignoring the unducted versions, the new ducted AFSD12 and AFSD16 models use the same current (3.4 amps) as the old ducted 7912 and 7916; it's not increased, but it's still not less power.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by cpaharley2008

But there is an option for a different model with a side and front discharge, perhaps allowing it to be located under sink and get a side vent towards the bathroom?

There are versions of this furnace intended for use with ducts, but that was true of the old one as well. One reason that the electrical power consumption of the 8012 is low is that it does not need to push hard on the air to make it move through ducts. The ducted version (the 7912) has a stronger blower motor, and so it uses twice as much power. The ducted version of the new AF series furnace would be the AFSD12, instead of the AFSAD12 now being used by Escape. Again, in the AF Series the ducted version uses more power: 3.4 amps ducted, versus 2.4 amps not ducted.

If one is willing to run ducts and use more power, then a ducted installation is a viable option to get better heat distribution. ETI has not done this with the previous series of furnace; I don't know if it was considered with this new series.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by cpaharley2008

The new furnace has less BTU output than the older one? It appears to be 9000BTU vs 12,000 BTU.

Originally Posted by rbryan4

Found it. Just as I mentioned earlier, the new Atwood and the old one have basically the same BTUs - 12000 Input, 9120 Output.

That's it all right - in both old and new furnace cases, the roughly 9,0000 BTU/hour number is the heat output into the trailer; the 12,000 BTU/hour number is the heat input to the furnace by the burning propane. The "12" in the model name indicates the heat input rate in thousands of BTU per hour.

This tells you the efficiency: the output is 76% of the input, because the furnace extracts 76% of the burner's heat, with the rest going out the exhaust.

Originally Posted by thoer

If the new model is more efficient it should be able to produce that same output heat with less input. I think of how hot that outside vent gets with my old Atwood, whereas my 97% efficient home furnace vents out thru a piece of plastic pipe and is only warm.

I agree... but the new furnace has exactly the same efficiency as the old one.

I'm not sure where the claims of "high efficiency" are coming from, since it is unchanged from the previous model and it is 76%; that's poor by even mid-efficiency standards for residential furnaces, and far from what is currently known as "high efficiency" (which is at least 90% and typically 95% efficient). It has not been legal to sell a less than high-efficiency furnace for a house in Canada since five years ago. I didn't really expect a high efficiency furnace, which would need to be a condensing design (exhaust below boiling temperature, so the water condenses), but at least 80% would have been nice.

[reace]

Hello Everyone,

After two days of extensive research, trial and error, and several attempts at installing the furnace under the bench in it's standard location. We have resigned ourselves to accept the fact that the furnace simply will not fit under the dinette.

We have reworked the 3 - drawer cabinet located on the driver's side at the foot of the bed so that it will become a 2 - drawer cabinet. - Please see photo....

....As you can see from the photo. The cabinet will have two drawers, the new furnace, and a cabinet below the furnace. We have raised this cabinet 3" to accommodate the request for keeping two drawers.

We are still working on painting the grill for the furnace however, plastic paints tend to have a temperature limit and we are concerned about flaking when heated.

Thank you for your patience,

Reace and Tammy

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by steve dunham

I was seriously looking at asking Reece if the furnace could be upgraded to the 16,000 BTU model.

The "16" model is the same physical size - it is mostly made of the same parts, but with a higher-flow burner and a more powerful blower motor. The only challenge that I see is that it is not offered for front-discharge operation: it only exists in ducted form (AFSD16), so it needs a couple of large discharge ducts attached to it. The ducts give you the ability to distribute the heat output (and keep the discharges away from the cold air return), but you do have a packaging challenge for those ducts. It would normally also mount against the outside wall, with an access door required in the trailer shell (a challenge in a body with non-vertical outside walls).

Perhaps it would work with short ducts to just direct air flow toward the right areas, as Jim suggested:

Originally Posted by cpaharley2008

But there is an option for a different model with a side and front discharge, perhaps allowing it to be located under sink and get a side vent towards the bathroom?

[jamie beers]

Thanks for working so hard on this issue Reace - and I don't even have a 21'!

[Ron in BC]

Originally Posted by reace

....As you can see from the photo. The cabinet will have two drawers, the new furnace, and a cabinet below the furnace. We have raised this cabinet 3-1/4" to accommodate the request for keeping two drawers. We have also widened the drawers and the furnace opening so they are all aligned.

Reace and Tammy

Looks great, a real improvement over version 1

Just think, some companies have to hire focus groups to get feed back; you have a free built in focus group

Ron

[cpaharley2008]

So who's 21' is in the picture? Can anyone tell by the countertop color combo? Looks good to me.....