Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Eight months ago we purchased a lovely home built in 1989. It has original single pane windows, which are, I think, typical for the time period. Before this house, we had a new build that had dual pane windows. Overall, the single panes aren't bad. So far they're not leaking and not overly drafty. They do get condensation during cold days but I had the same experience in my former home with dual panes. Is it truly necessary to replace the windows? (I ask because I've never replaced windows before. Then again, this is our first time buying an "older" home).
Depending on where you live, and how the sun hits them, you probably will not get back the cost of a full window replacement until you sell it. I got a quote for such a replacement for a previous abode, and I didn't see myself saving $6000+ over the remainder of my ownership, but I can acknowledge that it might have helped us ask a better price when we sold it.
I'd say try it out for a full year to determine if what your energy bills will be and the comfort level of living with single pane windows. As long as you have proper weatherstripping, air leaks addressed, and window treatments, you might be fine. It wouldn't be a bad idea to use a non-contact temperature gun or thermal leak detector to test each glass pane and sill. New windows and doors can be pretty pricy and will have to open a bit of the walls to install. I suggest upping your insulation and using insulating foam while you're at it.
While I do think that dual panes are better, ours have leaked after a certain time and then they fogged up . This is especially true of the patio doors which are expensive to replace. Our house came with storm windows on the other smaller windows which I think are a big help. I probably should do more caulking though.
Necessary? No, it's not necessary or required. If the windows are working great, leave them alone. If they start leaking air or the house settles and the windows no longer work, then consider dual pane with Low E glass. The Low E glass can save you some bucks in our Texas heat. Checking the caulk around the windows on the age of the house would be a good idea. A handy man or painter can take care of that for you.
I'm on my 4th home, this one was built in 1930 and has the original windows (thankfully). In the 3 prior homes I have 2 with double-pane and one with triple. I could tell ZERO difference between double and triple (WY and CO), and only a tiny difference between single and double here in GA (.5 mile apart), with that difference growing incredibly small as I put on storm windows and rebuild the panes (sash cords broken, glazing gone, painted shut but with inch wide gaps).
According to the available information, single pane windows can last 300+ years. Double-panes are more in the 30~40 year range (not sure if there's a difference between the multi-thousand dollar all wood units vs the typical vinyl stuff).
I poured over the information trying to make the best decision regardless of cost. Everything I can find from Any and ALL credible sources indicate that there is roughly a 10% lower total efficiency with single-pane. But when you consider the total life of the windows, the small loss is MUCH preferred than the constant cycle of remove, "trash" and replace.
You'll have to make your own decision, but the information is out there.
According to the available information, single pane windows can last 300+ years. Double-panes are more in the 30~40 year range (not sure if there's a difference between the multi-thousand dollar all wood units vs the typical vinyl stuff).
Probably no difference, the glass pack is the same regardless of the window structure.
Quote:
I poured over the information trying to make the best decision regardless of cost. Everything I can find from Any and ALL credible sources indicate that there is roughly a 10% lower total efficiency with single-pane.
Er, I goofed and left off "...with storm window" for the single pane efficiency. Beyond that, I'm not going to argue, it does nothing. Those are interested can look it up themselves.
If you live in an area with harsh winters including strong windows, original single-pane windows are extremely lossy, though adding a good storm window makes a significant difference.
Er, I goofed and left off "...with storm window" for the single pane efficiency. Beyond that, I'm not going to argue, it does nothing. Those are interested can look it up themselves.
Adding a storm window does about the same thing as having double pane glass. It will be less efficient of course, but the whole point is to have a buffer between the panes to hold in heat.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
