Bungalow vs. 2 storey heat

**peanut** · 11-07-2007, 11:16 PM

I've been quizzing up the neighbours about heating costs. I've been surprised their smaller bungalows cost more than our bigger two storey home to heat. One lady told me that bungalows aren't as efficient and use more heat in general. Anyone know if this is true and why? We keep our thermostat pretty low. I was thinking that was the difference. But maybe if we lived in a bungalow, our heat would be just as high?

Jean

**banana** · 11-08-2007, 07:42 AM

Maybe they dont have insulation? Maybe they were built as summer homes?

**mikandmari** · 11-08-2007, 08:07 AM

Newer homes are better insulated. Many bungalows were built in the 1920-1930s before good insulation products were available. Also, since heat rises, a 2nd floor is easier to heat than additional square footage on a 1st floor.

I wonder if they also have older heaters, or less efficient heaters?

We have an old house. My dh has added insulation to any spots he can get to, and a couple of rooms we've gutted for remodeling so he's insulated those exterior walls. Even though the house is masonry (stone & stucco) my heating bill still seems really high. But our heater is old. Although it's been well maintained, it's not efficient, so we're getting a new one (done by a friend for cheap

) later this month. I have my fingers crossed that the cost improves.

**peanut** · 11-08-2007, 10:55 AM

They are older homes built in the 20's/30's. I have no idea about insulation and furnaces, but both have undergone extensive renovation.

Our own home is a two storey with terrible insulation and the original 1928 windows! Our sunroom has no attic access and, as far as we can tell, is insulated with sawdust or woodchips...or nothing. We get frost on the inside corner of our sunroom if we block air flow in winter. And we supposedly had insulation blown in in the '70s.

So I'm just not sure how to compare our drafty old house with theirs. I can't imagine ours being any cheaper to heat. That just floored me. We only average $100/mth. on heat on a house with 300-500 more square feet. They were both over $100/mth.

Just wondering if that is typical of bungalows, or just them keeping heat high. I guess I'll have to ask them a few more questions.

Jean

**Libby** · 11-08-2007, 08:07 PM

I think it depends on how well insulated the house is or if its been retrofitted to be more efficient. Also its how the habitants are with their temps. Do they crank the heat vs putting on an extra layer? Maybe you're more frugal with your heating? Theres still a few variances to look at when you're comparing.

**Edna_E** · 11-12-2007, 01:20 PM

Hmmm, I'd think it is at least partially a function of external square footage - so now I'll have to go look at the math for surface space and figure out whether you lose or gain surface space by "stacking up" rooms.... Ok, I'm a nerd ;-)

**peanut** · 11-12-2007, 06:33 PM

You go do that Edna.

I'd love to see the results...seriously! But I know I couldn't do the math for it. Math is not my strong suit.

Jean

**kabin63** · 11-12-2007, 11:24 PM

Well, my grandma had a bungelow which my dad later ended up living in and it was pretty cheap to heat. I know they added insulation in the 70's, but I don't think his hgihest bill ever matched some of the bills we had in this house. We just remodeled and made it bigger and it seems to actually be costing less this year. Of course you must take into account that we've had a very unusually warm year too.