|
Posted by Howard Beale on December 18, 2007, 2:46 pm
Shantanu Sen wrote:
> Are there any opinions on which option is 'better' so to speak? About 50% of
> the contractors I have spoken to recommend Option 2 and the rest Option 1. I
> am currently unable to decide and can definitely use some sort of guidance.
> Note that I am not considering the price factor here - the cost of both the
> options are comparable.
In-frame replacements look bad. Go with 2. Given the quality of sealants
and adhesives and how stringent building codes are about window/door
leakage and sealing, as long as the installer and product are reputable the
odds of significant infiltration are pretty low.
> Note that I am not going for new installation that will need the stucco to
> be removed at least 9" and re-stucco it and paint it etc.
We went round-and-round with something similar with Window replacements; a
contractor we'd used quoted us a price 50% more than Pella & Andersen to
replace our windows with Andersen new-construction windows. Some of the
price difference (15%) was framing to fit standard size windows to
non-standard openings, but most was the cost of ripping off siding to apply
membrane to the sheathing and all the other code-requirements for Window
installs.
The contractor couldn't understand how Pella & Andersen could both do
replacement installs without this work and still meet code, yet both Pella
& Andersen have extremely long warranties on products and installation, so
I can only assume that materials and installation techniques are good
enough that moisture infiltration isn't an issue.
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap