Hi. We have a dilemma and seek your careful opinions.
Our home has a 25-year-old steam boiler. It's working fine; our house has been very comfortable all winter. However, recently a pipe running to one of our radiators sprung a leak, and when we had someone from a reputable heating company out to take a look, we were advised that we should really really get a new boiler, as a "preemptive strike."
If we get the boiler, the company will throw in repair of the pipe (a job otherwise in the $300-400 range), AND they will tackle one other plumbing issue in the house, a leaking lavatory sink drain pipe (another $300+ repair). Cost for the boiler and the "extras" would be $3,100.
If we were flush, we'd probably go for it, no question. However, we just signed a contract for a total roof tear-off/replacement (egads) and money is very tight.
Our options: spend $600 (or more?) on the two repairs, which must happen immediately -- and wait on the boiler.
OR -- dig deep into our pockets (possibly to the point of discomfort) and spend $3,100, to get the new boiler and handle these emergency repairs.
Thoughts? We're concerned that if we wait on the boiler, it'll die anyway ... and we'll waste $600+ dollars. Is the boiler likely to last indefinitely? (maintenance on it by previous owners seems to be pretty poor, if that matters, and when we bought the home our inspector did indicate the boiler was "aged")
Get Help from Bob Vila
- Give-Aways & Offers
- Monthly Must Do's
- DIY Project Ideas
- Step-by-Step Guides
- Inspirational Photo Galleries