| Author | Message | ||
| Debo Cox (Debo)
Registered Member Username: Debo Post Number: 1 Registered: 1-2009 Posted From: 76.0.172.15  Rating: N/A |
Besides the obvious aesthetic benefit of the low-profile unit, does anyone know of any reason to choose one over the other of the Carrier rooftop A/C units? Any mechanical bugs with the newer low-pro units? Thanks in advance for your thoughts. | ||
| marvin pack (Gomer)
Registered Member Username: Gomer Post Number: 554 Registered: 3-2007 Posted From: 71.53.155.14  Rating: N/A |
Debo, welcome aboard to the wild world of BUS NUTS. When choosing an a/c unit a low profile is better for height reasons. Mechanical bug always will occur. The more electronics, the more bugs. I like things simple and operative when I want it to work. You can relocate the t-stat from a fixed roof model if need to and the electronic units have a wiring harness to locate wherever you want also.. You have to check prices also,consider basement air and btu's. My story is keep it simple and efficient. Gomer | ||
| John MC9 (John_mc9)
Registered Member Username: John_mc9 Post Number: 950 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 74.162.76.142  Rating: N/A |
The only thing I didn't care for with the Carrier low profile model (aside from the price), was the way they designed the fan to face upwards. We park our RVs under trees, etc, not always having the best place to park... anything dropping off an overhead item can drop directly into the fan opening. If you live, or plan to be up north, ice and snow can build up inside the housing easier with that fan opening facing upwards. Carrier is a good name brand, but a home A/C unit can be placed out of harms way, where an RV'r can't always be so fortunate. I might consider a Carrier for the house, but I think I'd stay with an RV based manufacturer for something I'm going to use on an RV. And..... I think a side-venting roof unit would be better suited for RV use. | ||
| Debo Cox (Debo)
Registered Member Username: Debo Post Number: 2 Registered: 1-2009 Posted From: 76.0.172.15 Rating: N/A |
Hey thanks Gomer. Yeah, I'm like you. More moving parts or bells and whistles usually means at least double the problems and repair bill. For the past 4 years I've been building an airplane, where my mantra was "keep it simple - less to go wrong." I'm sticking with that on this project. I really like the low profile A/C units, but they sure stick it to ya price wise for the benefits. The low profile units are at least $200 more. I'm just trying to find out if there's any real difference or hidden problems with one or the other I need to know about. From what I've read, roof-mounted units are hard to beat as far as serviceability, ease of installation, and space-savings, but then you have the whole "roof wart" thing. Everything's a trade-off I guess. I'm still on the fence about which type (regular, low-pro) I'll end up with. | ||
| Jim Wallin (Powderseeker01)
Registered Member Username: Powderseeker01 Post Number: 28 Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 208.68.48.77  Rating: N/A |
I have the standard height Carrier and it works great. They actually have a simplified design being self contained and utilize only one fan motor. | ||
| Luvrbus (Luvrbus)
Registered Member Username: Luvrbus Post Number: 739 Registered: 8-2006 Posted From: 74.33.54.207 Rating: N/A |
The new Colemans have the fan facing upwards now and use 1 motor I just installed 2 last week good luck | ||
| Rob Norgren (Robsedona)
Registered Member Username: Robsedona Post Number: 46 Registered: 11-2007 Posted From: 75.211.88.155  Rating: N/A |
I have a Dometic (20 years old) in the middle front of the bus it cools the whole bus in 112F on low fan and middle cool with the bus parked in full sun. I have a Colman in the bedroom (also 20 years old) and does not work (Fan went out years ago) and only got less then half the work load as in only at night and as low as she would go. Rob | ||
| john w. roan (Chessie4905)
Registered Member Username: Chessie4905 Post Number: 1563 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 24.74.18.236  Rating: N/A |
Give them time; someone will make an "umbrella" to keep debris off the fan unit and it will...who didn't know this?.....be the same height of the regular ones.  | ||
| Sean Welsh (Sean)
Registered Member Username: Sean Post Number: 940 Registered: 1-2003 Posted From: 67.142.130.39  Rating: N/A |
If I had the room, I would go with the standard-height Carrier (we're already 13'0" with Penguin low-profiles, and I don't want to go any taller than that). A feature that the standard-height Carrier units have that the low-profile ones do not is a pump which takes the unit's condensate and atomizes it in front of the condensers. This does two things: it gets rid of that pesky condensate, which otherwise runs down your roof, and it improves the thermal efficiency of the condensers as the water vaporizes on the fins. This feature is unique to Carrier and is one of the things that makes their units more attractive to me than the competition. In regards to the top fan, the fact is that updraft condenser fans are more efficient. Also, by orienting the fan this way, they can use larger fan blades, which are also more efficient. Yes, there is a chance that small bits of vegetation can fall into the fan enclosure (larger bits will not get past the grille), but the fan will simply blow most of that right back out again when it starts up. -Sean http://OurOdyssey.BlogSpot.com | ||
| Debo Cox (Debo)
Registered Member Username: Debo Post Number: 3 Registered: 1-2009 Posted From: 76.0.172.15 Rating: N/A |
Hey thanks guys. All very good points and information. I think after reading through these posts I'm leaning towards two of the standard height models. Thanks to the board I'm already aware of the power and wiring issues and will consider those accordingly when it comes time. I've been lurking here for a while and finally bought my bus ('81 MC9) 2 weeks ago. Just got finished today tearing out the washroom. Time for a nap. |