Page 3 of 4

Re: Sharp Dressed Highboy

Posted: Tue. Dec. 27, 2011 2:06 pm
by CapeCoaler
The Hi-Boy makes a nice lookin' boiler...
Now I'm torn, Hi-Boy or AA-130...

80's Mustang and drag racin' just don't seem right...
The time frame; not the car...
Have a customer who did the pics '67-'72...
For the 'real' drag racin' cars... ;)
Some pretty wild pics...

Re: Sharp Dressed Highboy

Posted: Tue. Dec. 27, 2011 5:11 pm
by 009to090
CapeCoaler wrote:The Hi-Boy makes a nice lookin' boiler...
Now I'm torn, Hi-Boy or AA-130...
My vote would be for the Highboy. 54 gals of water, 7gpm coil. :up: Mine will also be "fully dressed" when I set it up.
I believe Scrapper has one for sale right now.

Re: Sharp Dressed Highboy

Posted: Tue. Dec. 27, 2011 6:12 pm
by Rob R.
CapeCoaler wrote:Have a customer who did the pics '67-'72...
For the 'real' drag racin' cars... ;)
Some pretty wild pics...
As much as I enjoy the classic muscle cars, it's a drag race, not a car show. It is very tough to beat the price and weight/weight transfer of a Fox body Mustang.

Back to the boilers...everyone's situation is different, so I can't say if an EFM or AA is right for you. An EFM Highboy is considerably more of a powerplant than an AA130, but you may not require the extra capacity.

Re: Sharp Dressed Highboy

Posted: Tue. Dec. 27, 2011 8:47 pm
by CapeCoaler
The AA-130 would work at the current diggs...
1700 sq/ft and DHW...
The home situation may be changing, as in much larger...
4200 sq/ft, DHW and 3 more bodies...
So how would the Hi-Boy handle a 250k btu/hr load...

The pics were taken during '67-'72 of the actual races...
They were not yet 'classic'... ;)

Re: Sharp Dressed Highboy

Posted: Tue. Dec. 27, 2011 8:56 pm
by Rob R.
How did you arrive at that BTU figure?

Re: Sharp Dressed Highboy

Posted: Tue. Dec. 27, 2011 10:51 pm
by CapeCoaler
Just based on the two oil boilers and 4-275 gal tanks...
Both boilers have 1.1 gal/hr burners in them...
3000+ sq feet is on one level so lots of ceiling...
Then there is a large shop space 28x32...
Then there may be a small hot tub/lap pool added... ;)

Re: Sharp Dressed Highboy

Posted: Tue. Dec. 27, 2011 11:14 pm
by 009to090
CapeCoaler wrote:Just based on the two oil boilers and 4-275 gal tanks...
Both boilers have 1.1 gal/hr burners in them...
3000+ sq feet is on one level so lots of ceiling...
Then there is a large shop space 28x32...
Then there may be a small hot tub/lap pool added... ;)
Mine is about the same, athough I live further south and my BTU requirements are different: 3100 sqft house, 2500sqft shop. I also plan on building a 2400 sqft garage, but heat not required on a fulltime basis.
Anything more than 200k BTU load may require a EFM 700 or 900.

Re: Sharp Dressed Highboy

Posted: Wed. Dec. 28, 2011 6:03 am
by Rob R.
CapeCoaler wrote:Just based on the two oil boilers and 4-275 gal tanks...
Both boilers have 1.1 gal/hr burners in them...
3000+ sq feet is on one level so lots of ceiling...
Then there is a large shop space 28x32...
Then there may be a small hot tub/lap pool added... ;)
My house has a 250,000 btu/hr oil boiler installed...I have an hour meter on it and the most I ever saw it run on a below zero day was 10 hours. If I had based my coal boiler just on the size of the oil boiler, I would have probably ended up with an EFM 700. Once I took the time to see what the actual load was I was very comfortable installing a 520. It has been a year since I installed it, and the only time it ran almost nonstop was a -22 degree day, and that was on 5 teeth (50% output).

Forum member cArNaGe also thought he needed a 700 for his 4600 sq. ft Victorian; last I heard his 520 was on 6 teeth and doing the job just fine. The point is that you need to do your homework and get a better idea of what the heat load is...I wouldn't be surprised if they used one oil boiler most of the time. I don't think an AA130 is large enough, but you may find that a 520 will do the job.

Re: Sharp Dressed Highboy

Posted: Wed. Dec. 28, 2011 1:45 pm
by CapeCoaler
Yep, need to do a heat loss calc but don't have the access I need to do one yet...
So the 520 has more output than the 130?...
And the extra boiler water in the Highboy helps reduce the shock on a larger home heating zone or is that more for the internal DHW coil...

Re: Sharp Dressed Highboy

Posted: Wed. Dec. 28, 2011 1:50 pm
by Rob R.
CapeCoaler wrote:So the 520 has more output than the 130?...
Yes, nearly double.
CapeCoaler wrote:And the extra boiler water in the Highboy helps reduce the shock on a larger home heating zone or is that more for the internal DHW coil...
Yes to both, but more so for the tankless coil...with proper near boiler piping and controls you shouldn't have problems with thermal shock from a high-mass zone.

Re: Sharp Dressed Highboy

Posted: Wed. Dec. 28, 2011 2:53 pm
by lsayre
To get that high an output you would need the AA-260 or an AHS S260. Twice the BTU's of the AA-130 or AHS S130.

Re: Sharp Dressed Highboy

Posted: Sat. Feb. 18, 2017 3:54 pm
by Rob R.
Found some pictures from the install of Dad's 520 in 2010. Still running as good as it did on day 1.

Re: Sharp Dressed Highboy

Posted: Sat. Feb. 18, 2017 4:45 pm
by Sunny Boy
Nice, neat install, Rob.

Does the coal unit have it's own baro, or is it able to share the one on the oil burner stack ?

Paul

Re: Sharp Dressed Highboy

Posted: Sun. Feb. 19, 2017 2:18 pm
by Rob R.
We tried it both ways. The draft is perfect with it hooked up as shown in the picture, so we left it like that. No sense swapping flue pipes twice per year if it is not needed.

My idea for hooking the boiler up with no bypass and no flow check in the piping has worked out very well. Both boilers stay at a very stable temperature.

Re: Sharp Dressed Highboy

Posted: Sun. Feb. 19, 2017 3:05 pm
by Sunny Boy
Yup, I can understand that.

The old timers had no problem plumbing multiple stoves into the same chimney. My kitchen range chimney had a bucket a day hot water heater in the basement using the same chimney.

I almost bought a house that had 4 von Rumford fireplaces, two on the first and two on the second floor directly above the first floor ones. Each pair used a common flue chimney since they were built back the 1800's. The owner used them all and said there was no problems with starting, or with draft when running.

Paul