Does anyone have any experience with buying older vs new home? (Howe: apartments, rental)

[texas7]

I've found some homes I like built in the 1989-1992 timeframe. I know for a couple I would need new ac systems. But I am a bit undecided as the new homes have much more energy efficient standards. However does anyone have recent experience with both and can comment? Is it worth it to go new; are the energy efficiencies that significant from older? In new build, I am referring to your standard Tract home builders and not anything custom.

[johnsmith]

with 1995 home vs 2012 home of 3500 sf ft, $600 vs $200 during summer time. Window is an issue.

Remember AC is more high eff. now, unless you get bigger lot, I would buy a new house

[texas7]

Wow - $400/mo is a significant amount. Sq. footage I am looking at is 2300-2600. If we do, would probably replace a/c and put in replacement windows down the road. But for the same price, I can get new in a different area but still within 10 miles.

[Cabot]

We have a south facing 3300 sq ft 1979 house with pool. Last year our highest bill was $276 but it is not an all electric house. We don't use the upstairs much so kept that about 78-80 for the most part. Downstairs usually about 75 during the day, 70 at night with ceiling fans going all the time. Can't complain at all!

[predatorprey]

It is not $400 difference. Depends on many factors though.

I have a 1992 2 story 2500 sq foot home. Highest usage was just under 2100 KWH aprox $200 (1 month). 2nd highest aprox $150 (2 months) 2 ac units one new and 6 years old. Some energy efficiency upgrades most notably radiant barrier. We had people home all day due to new addition to family.

Year before tech-shield and new ac unit. Highest use was 3 months of 2200 KWH usage. But energy use during day was lower with no one home.

[crone]

We've bought new twice. The best house was 60 years old. Second best was built in 1916. The way they wee sited on the lots filled them with sun in the winter. They had large over hanging roofs that kept out the direct sun in the summer. One also had 2 screened in porches so you could have the house open with fans running and no HVAC.

The newer houses are built with new technology regarding energy. But the reason it is needed is because no thought is given to keeping it efficient to start with.

Most older homes can be retrofitted to save energy. We did it. Cut electric use in half.

[tstone]

I've lived in homes and apartments from the 70s, 80s and 90s and every time the newer, the more efficient. Right now our peak electric bills run about $170 for 5 months, mid-90s, 2200 sq ft. The AC runs non-stop from about 11a-9p and cycles at night. I replaced the AC system with a 14 SEER, added a digital thermostat, 2 storm doors, solar screens on the south/east/west, and white cellular shades throughout. That saves about $50/mo every summer. I know of folks with similar size homes but built in the last few years and their peak bills are more like $130. You can only retrofit so much.

[EasilyAmused]

I agree with crone. i've lived in both. The retro fitted older home has been to easiest to deal with. Talking pre- 1970s. Mature trees to keep it cool, operable, cross-ventalation windows when hurricanes hit, better material and original construction for ventilation.

Same size houses: new rental and personal house. The old one is actually cheaper to cool in the summer months. but each house and it's construction and condition are distinctly different. I've had one insane bill and that was a June bill two years ago.but my guess is that everyone's was horrific.