Performance Ratings vs "Features"

Ask replacement window questions & get answers!
Post Reply
Message
Author
next365
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2023 10:03 pm

Performance Ratings vs "Features"

#1 Post by next365 »

I'm looking for replacement windows in the Dallas area and I have been doing some research. I have found good info on this forum, but I am a little confused on what is most important. For example, one window model has more features like foam in the frame, a fiberglass sash reinforcement rather than metal, and 3 points of weather-stripping instead of 2 points. Are those upgraded features basically meaningless if the performance rating numbers are almost identical?

I am looking at Anlin windows, and the features I described are the difference between Anlin's highest model and their basic/mid-grade model. The only difference in performance rating is a U-Factor of .26 vs .27 and a CRF of 56 vs 58 (which I guess is better on the lower model).

Is there a reason I should consider paying more for the extra features on the high-end model?

User avatar
toddinmn
Posts: 1089
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:02 pm

Re: Performance Ratings vs "Features"

#2 Post by toddinmn »

You could look at the DP and air infiltration numbers as well, this could be more telling. I think this sash reinforcement would be a worthwhile, this could increase the DP rating and Eliminate future sagging issues. The solar numbers should be compared.
To answer your question more simply, it depends and I am not familiar enough with Analin to say.

Ricknez
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 9:18 am
Location: southern PA, north east MD

Re: Performance Ratings vs "Features"

#3 Post by Ricknez »

“ For example, one window model has more features like foam in the frame, a fiberglass sash reinforcement rather than metal, and 3 points of weather-stripping instead of 2 points. Are those upgraded features basically meaningless if the performance rating numbers are almost identical?”

Those features are Definitely worth while and I strongly advise getting them. They add structural integrity to the window as well as reduce air infiltration.

User avatar
HomeSealed
Posts: 3043
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 3:46 pm
Location: Milwaukee, Madison, SE Wisconsin

Re: Performance Ratings vs "Features"

#4 Post by HomeSealed »

Great questions!
I think that you are on the right track in looking to the performance data to see if the upgraded features make measurable improvements. One point in U value (lower is better), a couple points in CR (higher is better) and then a difference in DP and AI can indicate a larger step up(or down) in quality, certainly more than one might think.

With that said, it all needs to be considered in context and within a larger picture. I would DEFINITELY want fiberglass or composite sash reinforcement as opposed to metal even if the ratings don't change, whereas something like foam I could take or leave depending on the price if it's the same. When foam brings the U factor down a point or two that is bringing more value. As I alluded to, the price is definitely a factor in this as well. Something that adds a few bucks doesn't need to show the same level of improvement as a feature that increase the cost by 15% or something like that.

All in all, you are wise to look at the performance data when considering the upgrades, but stating that the upgrades are "meaningless" if the performance rating doesn't change is an oversimplification.

next365
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2023 10:03 pm

Re: Performance Ratings vs "Features"

#5 Post by next365 »

Thanks all for the feedback. What I am getting out of this conversation is that maybe the higher end frame could be stronger due to the foam and fiberglass sash reinforcement. That's what I was wondering, but I don't see the company making that point. I assumed the fiberglass over metal was to conduct less heat/cold - not extra strength. Also, for the foam, it is mentioned as extra insulation rather than extra strength.

As I mentioned in my post, the only differences were the .01 on the U-Factor and 2 points on CR, where the lower end model has the better rating for some reason. The AI numbers were also the same at .03 for a single-hung. I guess I didn't look at DP, but I couldn't find those numbers. Thay do list both models as LC30 if that is comparable to DP.

The higher-end model is coming out around 26% more expensive including the sound suppression package which is standard. Initially looking at both window's features, I was convinced the high-end model was superior. That is why I had to come here, because the numbers weren't adding up! :)

User avatar
Windows on Washington
Posts: 5382
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:23 am
Location: DC Metropolitan Area-Maryland/Virginia/DC

Re: Performance Ratings vs "Features"

#6 Post by Windows on Washington »

I would imagine that the STC upgrade in the glass is a big chunk of that differential. Offset glazing isn't cheap.

User avatar
toddinmn
Posts: 1089
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:02 pm

Re: Performance Ratings vs "Features"

#7 Post by toddinmn »

Yes, the fiberglass and foam enhance the thermal numbers.
The LC designation is old and not really used anymore but seem low.
Have you gave them eye test?
It is hard to argue with your reasoning without knowing more.
What are the 2 lines of windows you comparing?

next365
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2023 10:03 pm

Re: Performance Ratings vs "Features"

#8 Post by next365 »

FYI, the Anlin performance data for different models is here: https://anlin.com/performance-data/ .

I am comparing the Del Mar higher end model vs the Catalina.

You could get a quick look at the features here if you are interested.
https://anlin.com/replacement-windows/

User avatar
toddinmn
Posts: 1089
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:02 pm

Re: Performance Ratings vs "Features"

#9 Post by toddinmn »

After looking at the numbers and a little reading they appear to be same window. The Delmar is the only one that can have foam but the gains are very little, the extra weatherstripping and differences in sash reinforcement almost add nothing as well.
The biggest difference I see that comes standard is the offset glass with helps the STC rating a bit but the lower end model can be upgraded to this. In this case I’d say they are the same window with small gains to be had. If you priced out the the. Catalina with offset glass which is the biggest expense the pricing may be more close. The other items are not worth much more due to very ,very small numbers in performance. You would think a dealer could walk you through this in about 1 minute.

User avatar
toddinmn
Posts: 1089
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:02 pm

Re: Performance Ratings vs "Features"

#10 Post by toddinmn »

Forgot to mention, the Delmar comes with an extruded screen vs roll form which is nice but not deal breaking. To save time , I made all my comments based off the single hung model. The Delmar is also dealer exclusive which means a scrub like me could go and buy the Catalina vs a dealer that is more invested in their product and name brand which has some value.

next365
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2023 10:03 pm

Re: Performance Ratings vs "Features"

#11 Post by next365 »

I really appreciate the input. It looks like we are basically seeing the same thing. It's difficult to get a good comparison from the dealers, because the dealers who sell Del Mar only sell Del Mar so, of course, you know their opinion.

Post Reply