Eyes into the world

Replacement windows, will not only save you money on energy, but they will add value to your home.

No, they won't. Replacing all the windows on a two-story house won't pay you back in energy savings until long after you've moved out. Old windows, made with old-growth lumber that is no longer available, properly maintained and covered with good storms, are about as energy efficient as new double-glazed windows, and obviously last much longer. Reconditioning old windows is much cheaper than replacing them, and New England has a bounty of companies that specialize in it. You can replace sash cords with chains, add metal flashing--pretty much whatever you need. All the rest is an expensive PR campaign from replacement window manufacturers.

Marcus - Good points but there is more to the storey. New windows require little if any paint or cauking, with the one piece outside flashing - this is money savings right there, vs having older windows scraped and painted every 3-5 years. Additionally, and more importantly, with the Low-E coatings, heat transfer into the house is greatly reduced which cuts AC costs. The air leakage is a big thing in winter months, and like you say storm windows help, but darn they sure are ugly as sin. Reality is, high quality new windows are simply far better than 100 year old windows. Technology has come a long way. While I doubt new windows will pay for themselves in a hurry, they look bettter, are easier to operate, and will save plenty of money in the short run.

Old windows are often a lead paint danger, as the movement of the window up and down can release lead paint dust into the air. If you have small children, or are ever planning to rent your house, I think you should consider replacing old windows, or at least testing them for lead paint.

I agree with MARCUS, and would add that if jam liners are added and the sash pockets insulated ,the old windows are as efficient as replacement windows . The replacement windows have a high rate of failure of the thermal glass ,and are becoming a maintenance nightmare. Also, these windows do not add value to a property.
Mary -The theory that you present has been proven to be an " old wives tales ". The movement of the window up and down does not release enough dust to be danger.

Middle, unfortunately pretty much everything you say has been disproven in study after study.

Replacing old single-pane windows with new double-pane low-e units certainly saves energy. But the cost is so high — and the amount of energy saved is so low — that window replacement is almost never cost-effective. Depending on the climate and the window cost, the payback period for replacement windows can be as long as 20 or 30 years.

According to calculations posted on an Energy Star program Web site, installing new double-pane low-e windows in a typical 2,000-square-foot single-story house that previously had single-pane units will result in annual energy savings of $125 (in a mild climate like California's) to $340 (in a severe climate like New England's). If the old windows had storms, the savings drop to $20 to $70 per year. Exact mileage may vary, but anyone who expects that window replacement will have an energy payback needs to be prepared for a very long wait.

The most cost-effective window retrofit measure is the installation of low-e storm windows. Although many storm-window suppliers are unfamiliar with the product, low-e storms can be ordered. Suitable glass with a pyrolitic (hard-coat) low-e coating is available from most glass distributors. According to a recent study, the payback period for installing low-e storm windows on older houses in Chicago averaged just 4.3 years.

http://tinyurl.com/ns7mfl

A study by the state of Vermont, funded by the National Park Service, found that you could achieve the same energy savings by fixing and adding storms to old windows as replacing them--except fixing old windows is seven times cheaper.

If you've got to repaint your windows every 3 years, fire your painter. And storm windows aren't ugly; just the old trashy aluminum ones are. Storms available today are basically invisible, as are the old-fashioned wooden ones.

New windows are not easier to operate than old windows. An old window on weights can be raised or lowered to any height with a single finger. Friction strips wear out fairly quickly, and are harder to operate. Spring-loaded sashes cannot be "cracked" open; they naturally gravitate to the middle of the window, and are hard to move to any other position. Until the springs wear out, of course, which they do.

Sorry, I've had old, and I've had new, and I would never swallow the replacement spin again. I've had to replace double pane windows multiple times, after the seals broke and the interiors fogged up. Their lifespan doesn't come close to that of old windows.

Just one more example of how, in America, what "everybody knows" to be true usually originated in the office of a well-heeled corporate public relations firm.

Middle -- I totally disagree with the statement that new windows look better and that storm windows are ugly as sin. A window should blend seemlessly into the facade, but more often than not, a new window stands out. When one looks at an older house and the windows jump out at you, it totally kills aesthetic.

Ellen said - "A window should blend seemlessly into the facade, but more often than not, a new window stands out. " Ellen, the window usually blends in just fine (based on correct choice of grille, etc). What stands out is poor carpentry and mismatched trim.

Replacement screw-in windows typically are poor quality. I would suggest whole window replacement, and use Andersen 400 series or Eagle. And yes, they DO add value if installed properly by a capenter who knows what he is doing. Unfortunately, there is even a lot of new construction where the new windows are not even installed properly.

You guys really should do your research before making these claims. Good quality new windows have no "high failure rate" as mentioned by REmaven. It all goes back to getting a good product, and installing it right. But that costs money, and these days nobody wants to spend a dime (that is another way of saying cheap).

Middle - The average life of thermal glass seems to be about 10 years .The warranties are about that time length. On South and West facing windows the life is often shorter . We purchased a 12 year old building with 250 windows this winter, and nearly all the thermal glass seals had failed .The windows were clouded due to the seal eailures. The only options were to replace the glass panels or the entire windows both at a significant cost. The life span of thermal windows in NE is short .

You guys really should do your research before making these claims.

I posted something like three or four paragraphs of research debunking this nonsense, but the moderators didn't get around to publishing it. So now, do your own research.

Marcus,
You should know by now that anything with a URL will get junked by our filters. I just found your earlier post and posted it,
Computers do what we tell them to do, not what we want them to do!

"The average life of thermal glass seems to be about 10 years ." It depends on the quality of the manufacture. If you buy cheap windows, they wont last. And, comparing the lifespan of windows 10-20 years ago, with windows manufactured today, doesnt make a lot of sense. You might as well say that new Toyotas are unreliable because GM made a diesel Buick back in the early 1980s.

Guys, I have worked as a contractor. I love houses, and have deep respect for the beautiful historic buildings in New England. I dont know why you are all so angry at the thought that new windows, from a good company, properly installed, beat old windows. No doubt the old growth wood is superior, but there is a lot more to it than just that. This isnt Koolaid from the advertisements. Go to a JLC show and you can see the demonstrations for yourself. Between the new coatings, argon gas, and sealants, there is simply no comparison. For your 100 year antique, keep the originals, but for your 1950s era home (far more common in this area), by all means upgrade with WHOLE window replacements, and have a qualified person install them.

My personal pet peeve is people who buy replacement windows with white vinyl frames and then paint the trim around the frame a different color. It makes the replacement window stand out like a sore thumb. If you are going to buy vinyl windows, you should commit to having the trim the same color, namely white.

Can I agree with both Marcus and middle?

Problem is, new/replacement windows are rarely properly installed in my experience. And the average homeowner doesn't know what is a piece of junk and what is a decent window. I've seen a lot of vinyl trash replacing what were very good windows.

Pella and Andersen make some good ones. Windows that is - I'd never install a "replacement" window, as that seems like a guarantee of a poor installation. Thing is, a proper install probably runs around a $1000 a window (400 window, 600 labor and materials, assuming trim), so most people do the junk install which is a waste of money

A high quality full window replacement is at least $1000 per window, probably more like $1500 including trim and paint. That is for a standard window. It is very expensive. You also might need to replace siding, even repair the wall if the window was leaking. It is not cheap. Many houses have failed windows with rot around them, and its too bad these homes are not priced to reflect all the work that needs to be done to them. It should take at least 1 day, maybe even 2, to do a full window replacement properly. That includes replacing all trim, adding proper underlayment, flashing, PVC trim, matching interior casement, prepriming the edges of all siding, trim fill and caulk and paint, etc etc etc.

Charles is right - most people install the junk, and want the benefit of the work being done right. That makes me sick to my stomach.

All replacement windows in MA must meet the same performance standards so there is no significant energy savings between windows. . Why would anybody spend $1000 to 1500 for a replacement window when the market for installed replacement windows is $ 200 - 250 each? This just doesn't make any economic sense either for energy saving or resale value.

REm,
First, I agree with the balance of your posts, but . . .

saying the "All replacement windows in MA must meet the same performance standards so there is no significant energy savings between windows" is like saying all cars must meet the same safety standards so no car is significantly safer than another."

The first house I owned was 1928 stucco over brick tudor gambrel with original windows. . . that I replaced. I will never, ever make that mistake again. It cost a ton of money (I spent the coin!). They never looked right and there was no appreciable difference in my heating/cooling bill.