Milgard Ultra (fiberglass) vs Pella Impervia Windows

Ask replacement window questions & get answers!
Post Reply
Message
Author
agates
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 4:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Milgard Ultra (fiberglass) vs Pella Impervia Windows

#1 Post by agates »

I'm trying to decide between the two as whole-house replacement (20 windows). Installation costs for the PELLA seem exhorbitantly high at 580/window which in some cases it more than twice the cost of the window itself. I've read on this and other forums about fiberglass 'flaking' or color 'fading', but many of those posts seemed dated. Also read that Milgard had performance problems with its fiberglass (dh) a couple years ago.

Any links to 'unbiased' discussion/reviews of the two? Product costs are close to the same so it's seeming to me like the deciding factor may be 'installation' quality where 'installation' INCLUDES interior finish work. And there, I might get any of several installation crews who do the work .... some likely better than others. Any advice? Thanks

JScott
Posts: 508
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 5:06 pm
Location: Kentucky

#2 Post by JScott »

I would think the impervia only to be half of the ultra cost as the ultra is twice the window.

agates
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 4:01 pm
Location: Seattle

#3 Post by agates »

really ... Milguard is 2x the window. By what measure do you believe that? Not debating the point with you, just looking for factual/testable data. Thank you.

JScott
Posts: 508
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 5:06 pm
Location: Kentucky

#4 Post by JScott »

The pella double hung- does it still not tilt- do you have to still remove the sashes? The ultra - does it still have the light commercial or commercial rating? The pella has a 2 year labor warranty. Does milgards labor cover for 4 years. I have had my hands on both products but not sure if pella is in 3rd or 4th redesign, you can feel the difference holding each sash. Milgard is in 2nd design for double hungs. I have handled some of the new product but only at shows. It seems the complete ultra line from the past is 15 years ahead of pella as they actually began producing ultra in 85 or 86 while pella is 3-4 years old, sorry, thats about 18 years ahead in engineering. From what I can tell pella is making a price point milgard and trying to get near the same amount. The fiberglass formula is much different. Milgard uses a polyurethane resin which is tops. While Marvin Infinity beats milgard in asethics, 100% color coverage, and customer service, milgard has the performance in air/water and overall design pressure ratings. Pella in the current arena is a chevrolet, not a hummer (milgard) or not a 300zx(Infinity). Hope this helps- my opinion.

RC
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 5:28 pm

#5 Post by RC »

JScott wrote:The pella double hung- does it still not tilt- do you have to still remove the sashes? The ultra - does it still have the light commercial or commercial rating? The pella has a 2 year labor warranty. Does milgards labor cover for 4 years. I have had my hands on both products but not sure if pella is in 3rd or 4th redesign, you can feel the difference holding each sash. Milgard is in 2nd design for double hungs. I have handled some of the new product but only at shows. It seems the complete ultra line from the past is 15 years ahead of pella as they actually began producing ultra in 85 or 86 while pella is 3-4 years old, sorry, thats about 18 years ahead in engineering. From what I can tell pella is making a price point milgard and trying to get near the same amount. The fiberglass formula is much different. Milgard uses a polyurethane resin which is tops. While Marvin Infinity beats milgard in asethics, 100% color coverage, and customer service, milgard has the performance in air/water and overall design pressure ratings. Pella in the current arena is a chevrolet, not a hummer (milgard) or not a 300zx(Infinity). Hope this helps- my opinion.
I still don't see the 2x.

JScott
Posts: 508
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 5:06 pm
Location: Kentucky

#6 Post by JScott »

-warranty coverage
-air, water and design pressure performance ratings
I also believe milgard uses double strength glass and not sure if pella does - that would also be twice as good.

User avatar
Randy
Posts: 1209
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 7:26 am
Location: Houston, TX

#7 Post by Randy »

So, based on that criteria, isn't the Milgard Ultra line 2x the window that the Marvin Infinity is too?

RC
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 5:28 pm

#8 Post by RC »

Please understand that I am not a professional in this, and searching the NFRC is kind of hard/confusing:

Milgard Fiberglass double hung: DP=39-47, u=.49 to .53 depending on what you order.

Marvin Integrity double hung: DP=50-55, u=.32-.39

Pella Impervia double hung: DP=52, u=.33

I assume all of these vendors let you order tempered glass.

buddy
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 6:54 pm

#9 Post by buddy »

I have Marvin Integrity in my home. they are a very good window. I'd take em over Pella in a heart beat.

tru_blue
Posts: 223
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:02 am

2x?

#10 Post by tru_blue »

I don't see the "2x" either. I think Pella, Milgard, and Infinity are all better than a lot of windows out there, but the "2x" claim doesn't appear to be factual. (Integrity, by the way, isn't a fiberglass window like the others mentioned, although it does have a fiberglass exterior cladding). I'm much more familiar with the Marvin and Pella lines, so I attempted to look up the claims made about Milgard.

The comparison made between Milgard, Infinity, and Pella was pretty weak, both in its lack of statistics and inaccurate information.

RC posted that Milgard's DP ratings were the lowest of three windows that were compared. JScott sees it differently. I went to Milgard's website to see for myself - their performance stats are from 2004, but the DP was indeed somewhat low by comparison. The other ratings (U Value, STC, SHGC, etc.) seemed good but not any better than the other competing products. I know Marvin Infinity claims their fiberglass composite is 8x stronger than vinyl, and Pella claims theirs is 9x stronger than vinyl. So does that make Milgard's 16x to 18x stronger since they're supposedly 2x better? I'm not convinced that Milgard is any better, since they don't seem to explain anywhere how it is better than Infinity's & Pella's composites. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, perhaps they don't want to "slam" their own vinyl products.

One thing I did see at Milgard's site is that they seemed to have introduced their Ultra fiberglass window in 2002. Not quite 1985. Maybe I'm wrong; they're wording is very vague at their site. Not that it matters.

For some reason JScott mentioned that the Pella fiberglass double hung didn't tilt. The double hung sashes do tilt - I'm not sure what he's thinking - maybe he is thinking of a single hung?

As for warranties, four years labor is definitely better than two years. Both Infinity and Pella have a transferrable warranty that includes 20 years on glass; Milgard's appears to stop at 10 years if it's not the original owner. Marvin Infinity does not include labor, Pella's is 2 years, and JScott mentioned Milgard's labor is for 4 years. I see advantages to both camps. What's perhaps more important regarding service is who will service the product after the 0, 2, or 4 year labor part of the warranty expires.

I could not care less if one company has been engineering their product for 18 years and another for 5 years. How do they compare now? Will they be around in the future? Fortunately all three I believe will be around a long time (but never say never . . can you say "Schuco?"). One advantage that Milgard has over the others is more options (colors, SDL's, woodgrain interiors, etc.), and that I would say is a result, at least in part, of them having been around longer in the fiberglass market than some of the others. But if one is not interested in those options, then Milgard loses its advantages. No need to slam the others though - all of the brands mentioned above are respectable companies with respectable fiberglass products. I guess competitive people can sometimes come on a little strong with their passion for their products.

As for the original question posted at the start of this thread - $580/per for installation seems pretty high. As you compare installation prices you may want to ask what is included in that installation price and why is it higher that the other quote(s) you have received.

windowmann2000
Posts: 345
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 4:16 pm

#11 Post by windowmann2000 »

Milgard actually had a better warranty five years ago which extended a longer period to the second and sucessive owners. Their new warranty is really only a deal if your going to stay in your home which represents a small portion of the market. We advocate fiberglass and when the prices get a little more competitive it should become a much bigger player. Currently IMO Marvin has the edge in cosmetic's and I don't know who is second. We carry Milgard, but it's such a tank contrary to the notion that fiberglass frames because of there strength can be much narrower. What puzzles me about Marvin is their pricing, it's all over the board. BTW Milgard had fiberglass prior to the dates mentioned but it came from Comfortline. I think the companies to watch are Inline and Milgard because both have much stronger fiberglass windows on the drawing board which will cost less to make and incorporate a much thinner frame. At this time no one is 2x better and of the bunch Pella is IMO last. Another current problem only addressed by Inline is a higher DP and none of them have anything other than ordinary U's.

Post Reply