Downfiring PB 63-04 to 63-04L

Dan_NJ

I've found that the Peerless 63-04 I have is more oversized than I originally thought. I miscalculated EDR the first time around as approx. 500. After revisiting this and correcting for the tube type radiators I have, actual EDR is more like 318. If this 63-04 with output of 458 sq ft could be modified to be a 63-04L with 383 sq ft I would be alot closer to actual EDR.

Can anyone comment on what's involved to do this? The manual shows the same burner part number for a range of models - 63-03 through 64-12, but all with a different number of tubes (2 - 21 tubes). Does that mean the existing burner can be modified to 4 tubes instead of 5 or would the whole burner be replaced to do this?

EBEBRATT-Ed

They show 5 burners for the 04 & 4 for the 04L. Also show the rear burner support would have to be changed.

They also show a different part # for the O4 block than the 04L block. Not sure why.

I would call a supply house that sells Peerless or call Peerless direct and have them track down the answer.

Someone else may respond with a better answer

Dave0176

I think on the Peerless all you need is the manifold and rear burner support. Draft hood is the same.

nicholas bonham-carter

Chrisj here has done this, and may respond.—NBC

Dave0176

nicholas bonham-carter said:

Chrisj here has done this, and may respond.—NBC

Chris did this to a Weil-McLain EG45

Dan_NJ

Thanks for the replies, I'll be looking into it further

Erin Holohan Haskell

Dave0176 said:

nicholas bonham-carter said:

Chrisj here has done this, and may respond.—NBC

Chris did this to a Weil-McLain EG45

@ChrisJ

ChrisJ

Hi all,

The WM EG-40 and EG-45 are identical aside from a few parts. From what I recall, the burner tray that holds the ends of the tubes, the burner manifold and the drafthood were different. So, I bought the correct parts for the EG-40 and changed them which eliminated 1 burner tube. It also changed the burner tube spacing and the drafthood was completely different. An EG-45 hood will NOT work on an EG-40.

There's a good chance the Peerless is similar, but I don't have any experience with it.

Dan_NJ

Thanks again, I am able to go one cycle without cycling on pressure assuming no setback/recovery, and/or outside temp stays maybe above 25 degrees give or take.

ChrisJ

Dan_NJ said:

Thanks again, I am able to go one cycle without cycling on pressure assuming no setback/recovery, and/or outside temp stays maybe above 25 degrees give or take.

If you're able to actually convert it to the smaller model, I say go for it.

Dan_NJ

I think this would be good bang for the buck. It's not piped correctly and I think it would be too costly to repipe it. We'll see what's possible thx

ChrisJ

Dan_NJ said:

I think this would be good bang for the buck. It's not piped correctly and I think it would be too costly to repipe it. We'll see what's possible thx

Wait...
How is reducing it's output going to help or fix improper piping?!?

Fred

I was thinking the same thing @ChrisJ

Dan_NJ

> @ChrisJ said:
> Wait...
> How is reducing it's output going to help or fix improper piping?!?

It's not. I'm just considering how to improve things without going bankrupt

ChrisJ

Dan_NJ said:

> @ChrisJ said:

> Wait...

> How is reducing it's output going to help or fix improper piping?!?



It's not. I'm just considering how to improve things without going bankrupt

Chances are money you could spend on tightening your house up or insulating it would be far more useful as far as the building's efficiency.

EBEBRATT-Ed

Why wouldn't reducing the output help with crappy piping? Of course it will, your reducing the steam velocity which will make any piping steam piping system work better.

How many boilers have we seen with crappy piping jobs that shouldn't work but do. To me its is likely that an oversized boiler with crappy piping works (sometimes) because the load is smaller than the boiler...reduced velocity