Weil-McLain EG-35 vs Peerless 63-03

AdmiralYoda

Almost getting time to replace my 40 year old oversized Peerless. Was originally thinking another Peerless just because mine lasted so long but the contractor wants to put in a Weil-McLain EG-35. They use them regularly and have them available, which may be important in today's "part shortage crisis".

The well known company in RI measured a total EDR of 260 on my single pipe counter-flow system. My existing boiler has a capacity of 383 square feet.

The Weil-McLain EG-35 has a capacity of 258 sqft which would size it about perfectly for my EDR. A Peerless 63-03L has a capacity of 233 making it about 10% undersized and the Peerless 63-03 has a capacity of 308 making it 18% oversized.

Obviously the EG-35 is the best matched... but I have no experience with Weil-McLain, any thoughts? Any reason to stay with Peerless over the EG-35?

And yes, it will be installed with dual risers and a drop header with equalizer...exceeding manufacturer's recommendations per the manual. The near boiler piping will also be insulated as well.

STEAM DOCTOR

Parts are virtually the same and all readily available. 

clammy

Personally I would go w the peerless push nipples over o rings is the main attraction for my self . I know the sizing is a bit off but even w a 03 it has to be closer to the edr then the previous boiler being it’s been stated it’s oversized . The most import issue is boiler piping I usually will do 03 w a single 3 inch riser 2 inch equilizer w a full 21/2 out of the return . Aside from all the rest the installer is the most important and that it properly cleaned after install . Remember steam is forgiving so even a slightly mis piped boiler will work but when properly installed w slow exiting velocities every steam boiler can be made to operate fantastically . Also look into using an de mineralized filter ( caleffi NA 573 ) on make up water keep those tds as lower as possible for longer life and replace main and rad vents while changing the boiler by doing this your giving your boiler and system the chance to work properly . A rad vents that 10 years old as well as you might think has done it time and most likely cycled at least 10,000 times it’s due and should be replaced it basically common sense and roi nothing last forever including radiator vents and us .
Peace and good luck clammy

clammy

Just a note even though every body loves a drop header if you have enough room for a 24 to 30 inch riser there’s no need for a drop header or dual riser this is a small boiler . I never had a issue using a single 3 inch riser on an 63/03 ,f that’s the case do 2 2 inch riser into a 3 inch header doing two 3 inch is way over kill and that money could be spent installing all new radiator and main vents aside from checking radiator pitch and hand valves for leakage and all the small items which are usually over looked . Peace and good luck clammy

AdmiralYoda

@clammy Thank you for the advice! The contractor quoted on the EG-35 a dual 2" riser into a 2" header (I forget if it was a drop header or not, I'll have to check the quote). Even though it is overkill I'd like a 3" header to reduce the steam velocities. Each main is 2" and has roughly a 50/50 split on EDR.

I will look into that filter, good insurance!

**EDIT... I have plenty of clearance above the water line, I'd have to guess at least 36". (and yes I was quoted a drop header)

BobC

Installers don't always have the gear to thread 2-1/2 or 3" pipe so they like sticking to 2" pipe. Two 2" risers has about 12% less area than a single 3" riser. With a little planing you can get the larger pipe cut and threaded at the supply house.

Bob

SteamingatMohawk

For the EG35 boiler steam velocity in a single 2” pipe is about 24.5fps, just under Dan’s suggested velocity discussed in Lost Art. If you use two risers, it’s half or about 12.3fps in each riser.

Sending steam through 2 risers into a same size header speeds up the steam, but that is of no consequence because the velocity in 2” is OK.

With the available headroom, going single 2” makes sense and lowers total cost.

AdmiralYoda

Thanks @BobC I've sent the contractor a question to see if they would be okay with a 3" drop header. I suspect they have the tooling as steam is all they do but I'll let them decide.

@SteamingatMohawk That's great info! I had always assumed that lower velocity is better just to provide dry steam...but it sounds like there is actually a sweet spot, is that true? So lower velocity is good...but below a certain point it just doesn't matter? Or could it actually be bad?

ethicalpaul

No, the low velocity isn't bad. It will get back to its correct flow/velocity in the main anyway...the slowness near the boiler just helps water not get carried.

For the Peerless 63, I am convinced that you don't need to pipe it beyond the manufacturer's recommendations. I'm sure you saw my video so I won't bother posting it again here, but in summary, I watched the steam rise directly out of my boiler already nice and dry rendering the drop header downright useless

AdmiralYoda

@ethicalpaul I've got to stop being Captain Overkill. I'm sure the manufacturer's did their due diligence to make sure the boiler runs just fine with the minimum required piping as per their installation manual.

It wouldn't be in anyone's best interest to specify larger or more risers than necessary to get the job done. It would just increase the cost of install with very little benefit to the customer.

I'll just leave it in the contractors hands as they are already providing one more riser than is required. The EG-35 requires one single 2" riser to supply the mains. The contractor wants to use two 2" risers into a 2" drop header. Already overkill most likely, me making it a 3" header would probably provide no real value.

The Steam Whisperer

For the 63-03 just a single 2 1/2 inch riser/header would be fine . Numbers show velocity is under the max velocity for water to fall back against steam. For the tiny extra bit of cost, do a 24inch piece of 3inch out of the tapping and then reduce down...either 2 1/2 or 2. This will kill the velocity in the riser, but still keeping the rest of the piping cheaper. We do this whenever we run smaller than 3 inch piping for near boiler piping.
Clammy's got the right idea..... overkill is of no real value.

Jamie Hall

The one thing not mentioned above is perhaps the most important: the familiarity of the installer with the equipment. Both boilers are very good boilers. Both are reasonably sized. Both have parts.

But... if the installer is familiar with one, likes working with it, understands it, and will maintain it -- that's the one you want.

ethicalpaul

I'm struggling to think of a difference between these two boilers that would make any installer with a brain struggle

STEAM DOCTOR

The Peerless typically comes with jacket and controls  installed. Installer may need to remove jacket to get boiler down the stairs. Not difficult but possibly involves bit of learning curve. Wiring is slightly different. Peerless has 120v lwco. 

AdmiralYoda

Thank you guys for the great advice! Sounds like either boiler will work just fine. For NG the contractor mostly installs Weil-McLain's EG's, for oil it is the Burnham Megasteam. They know what they are doing and do great work. Sounds like I am in good hands.

ethicalpaul

Yep for sure. But insist on Peerless

JUGHNE

The PB's I installed last summer came with "Cyclegards".
Just so you know cycles will be different.
Most do not like them some do.

SteamingatMohawk

Advantage of Cyclegard is the intermittent level check to make sure the water level is proper and a secondary "benefit" of sorts in that the level check has a tendency to keep the boiler pressure a bit lower. Depending on the system and temperature, it may swap intentional pauses for short cycling.

Disadvantage is the additional cycles on the gas valve and automatic damper.

It's a tossup.

AdmiralYoda

Well my Peerless is currently roughly something like 50% too big and cycles on pressure quite frequently.

I'm sure whatever cycling from a properly sized boiler will be almost zero compared to now.

The Steam Whisperer

Just keep in mind that the CycleGard on the peerless reduces the capacity of the boiler about 7%. Theloss in capacity depends upon the timing of the control and the boiler's recycle time, so it varies by boiler. Also, I would suspect it also increases corrosion in the system due to introducing air into the system midcycle, reduces efficiency and increases wear and tear on the controls ( Peerless keeps the damper open during the cyclegard check, so at least you don't have that extra wear).

ChrisJ

AdmiralYoda said:

Well my Peerless is currently roughly something like 50% too big and cycles on pressure quite frequently.

I'm sure whatever cycling from a properly sized boiler will be almost zero compared to now.

Have you ever done a heatloss, out of curiosity?
If it was me, I'd go with the Peerless.

That has a DOE (actual output) of 74,000 and your radiators can condense roughly 63,000.

Is your piping insulated? Will it be?
How much actual piping losses does the system have and is it within the heated space?

AdmiralYoda

@ChrisJ I probably have more radiation than I need.  The existing radiators heated the house just fine before I insulated and tightened up the house.....and that was when there was NO pipe insulation.

I do have a Slant-Fin heatloss program and I can figure it out.

All pipes are now insulated with half inch fiberglass, and I may upgrade that to 1" at some point.

The near boiler piping is a mess.  Each main is connected to its own riser out of the boiler.  No header or equalizer.  Somehow it actually doesnt surge or make noticeably wet steam.

ChrisJ

AdmiralYoda said:

@ChrisJ I probably have more radiation than I need.  The existing radiators heated the house just fine before I insulated and tightened up the house.....and that was when there was NO pipe insulation.

I do have a Slant-Fin heatloss program and I can figure it out.

All pipes are now insulated with half inch fiberglass, and I may upgrade that to 1" at some point.

The near boiler piping is a mess.  Each main is connected to its own riser out of the boiler.  No header or equalizer.  Somehow it actually doesnt surge or make noticeably wet steam.

I think the Peerless will be an excellent match, just make sure you pipe it well.

Honestly, I'd bet a WM EG-30 would work too and in theory would be a perfect match to the radiation, you would just need to vent your radiators slowly most likely to keep them from fighting.

I'd take an EG-30 on that system over many I see here on the wall without a doubt. But the Peerless gives you a little extra, if you want it.

AdmiralYoda

@ChrisJ I'm not an expert in this at all...but my effective EDR is probably a little lower than what it is rated for. I recently installed two TRV's on the biggest radiators as those two rooms get a little too warm now that the rooms are insulated.

The Peerless 63-03L at 233 square feet is tempting me. Even if my real EDR is 245ish because of the TRV's (maybe not), that would put me at 5% undersized but with a 33% pickup factor.

Or, to put it another way I'd be perfectly matched to the 63-03L but with a 26% pickup factor.

ChrisJ

AdmiralYoda said:

@ChrisJ I'm not an expert in this at all...but my effective EDR is probably a little lower than what it is rated for. I recently installed two TRV's on the biggest radiators as those two rooms get a little too warm now that the rooms are insulated.

The Peerless 63-03L at 233 square feet is tempting me. Even if my real EDR is 245ish because of the TRV's (maybe not), that would put me at 5% undersized but with a 33% pickup factor.

Or, to put it another way I'd be perfectly matched to the 63-03L but with a 26% pickup factor.

I have 392 sqft with a WM EG-40 which is rated for 325sqft.
I originally had it setup as an EG-45 and didn't like it because it would build pressure if I wanted to do a large recovery. It also seemed too sensitive to overshoot etc and by reducing the boiler size it made it easier to control, at least to me.


I find it easier to use the DOE output rating and compare it to the btu/h the system needs. For example, your 245sqft in theory wants 245 x 240 = 58,800 btu/h plus any loss from the piping. In my case, it's 104,000 btu/h output and the radiation can use 94,080 btu/h.

That means, at least in a 70-72F room those radiators will be at full capacity if you're feeding them 58,000 btu/h worth of steam. They cannot produce more output than that contentiously. The reason to slightly oversize a boiler is so it can produce enough steam to fill the radiators fairly fast during a recovery, like in a school after a night time setback. The irony on this forum is the fact guys tell everyone to do this, but then at the same time tell them to never use setbacks because the system will build pressure.

All of that aside, I think you have 3 options.

The Peerless, which rumor is it's a better boiler. I don't know if it is or not, but that's what I hear.


A WM EG-35 which I say is too big.

Or a WM EG-30. Now with the EG-30 and EG-35, I'm pretty sure both of those are the same boiler except the drafthood and burner support bracket and burner manifold is different. So, similar to what I did, if you buy an EG-30 and install it and no matter what you do you can't get things to work the way you want you could buy the different drafthood and burner tray and turn it into an EG-35. But I'd bet with fast main vents and slow radiators vents, or reasonable ones, you could make that system sing. Silently.

You have TRVs on some radiators, like I do so that sways it even more towards an EG-30 in my opinion.
The EG-30 is rated to do 62,000 btu/h output DOE.

@KC_Jones Thoughts?

KC_Jones

The peerless is still going to have ~18% pickup factor and if all your pipes are insulated that would definitely be my choice.  Even if the pipes aren’t insulated it would work, the insulation just makes it an easy decision for me.

JUGHNE

My experiences with the Cyclegard:

It's clock is constantly running....even with no call for heat.
The control will test cycle all the time.

So when there is a call for heat it could be anywhere in that cycle...might run 5 minutes, then cycle for testing and then restart.

So if steaming, the test will cut the power to the 24 VAC transformer.
That stops everything, the flue damper is left open and the tstat loses its power.

After the test power is restored to the 24 volt system.
The flue damper cycles to close.
The tstat has a "wait" cycle.
The flue damper cycles open.
Unit fires again until the next test cycle.

So depending upon the length of the requested call for heat, all of this time to restart might result in the main air vents opening for air to re-enter and you start from scratch.

This 1 pipe steam main is 150' long, 4" from boiler to 2 1/2" EOM with air vents, so having to vent air again in the middle of a cycle made for bad operation.

The Cyclegard was replaced with a non cycling type and performance has greatly improved.

ChrisJ

I have absolutely no doubt, I would not tolerate a Cycleguard on my system.

I've read the other opinions on it and I have not changed my mind. I keep my boiler water extremely clean and I keep my system well maintained. I don't need extra interruptions for literally no reason during a cycle not to mention it would completely mess up what the Ecosteam does.

ethicalpaul

You can wire the Cyclegard to synchronize its timing to the call for heat, minimizing interruptions. But I haven't even bothered. Honestly it is such a non-issue. But yes if it freaks you out, replace it with a safgard. I appreciate the very safe operation of it.

It's very nice to have this safety since as we all know, the Hartford Loop doesn't actually provide any.

ChrisJ

ethicalpaul said:

You can wire the Cyclegard to synchronize its timing to the call for heat, minimizing interruptions. But I haven't even bothered. Honestly it is such a non-issue. But yes if it freaks you out, replace it with a safgard. I appreciate the very safe operation of it.

It's very nice to have this safety since as we all know, the Hartford Loop doesn't actually provide any.

Neither does the Cyclegard, it just provides unnecessary wear on items.

JUGHNE

I will just add that the unit I referred has a lower secondary manual reset LWCO.

AdmiralYoda

Got in touch with the contractor. I did not insist, but when I asked "My existing Peerless lasted 40 years, what are your thoughts on a Peerless 63-03L"...the response was polite and I'm paraphrasing...

Peerless makes a good boiler but they don't make them like exactly like they did 40 years ago. They prefer to install WM EG series for natural gas. They have the supply chain in place and can get WM's and I get the impression that Peerless is harder to come by. The EG-35 is perfectly sized to my home and will work great. They have alot of experience with that boiler.

I'm not going to split hairs. They like this boiler, are familiar with it and install it most often.