Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
DRH1175

Celulose vs Blown in fiberglass

8 posts in this topic

I need to insulate my garage attic. Which one do I go with. Celulose is $5.80 a bag the Fiberglass is $38 a bag?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cellulose will settle a lot and fiberglass will settle very little. As insulation settles, you lose R value. At the current cost of energy, a little extra for the fiberglass now might mean bigger savings for years to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cellulose also weights more.

I put that in the garage in our first house and you could see that the sheet rock was bowing from the weight. Especially if it gets wet from snow blowing in or condensate it will hold the moisture.

I put 15" of fiberglass up in my Main garage and also in the shop as well on the new house. Much better R value and easier to install as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Along with what is mentioned above the $5 -vs- the $38 is not for like coverage. Fiberglass is more expensive but not that much. I can't remember what the cellulose bag covers -vs- the fiberglass but it is not the same. The biggest thing for me is the clean up, cellulose blows dust EVERYWHERE including where you are spraying it and where you are loading it. The fiberglass is much much easier to clean up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i work with a guy that has been blowing insulation in houses for the a quite a few years now and he told me a while back he would never put fiberglass in an attic. heres what he told me.

you are right that cellulose packs more. but insulation works with on how air moves, or doesnt move through it. the less the air moves through it the better the insulation value is. one thing is you will probably need to go twice as deep with the fiberglass as opposed to the cellulose. we put 14 to inches of insulation for a i think an R 50. from what i know about chopped fiberglass you would need more.

ever thought about just rolling out some fiberglass in the rolls between the trusses, then rolling out more at 90 degrees to the bottom layer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't have the ceiling rocked then use the fiberglass bats. Two layers run perpendicular.

I might consider blown glass in a wall cavity but because of the air movement I'd go with cellulose in the attic. Having said that I've blown cellulose in more attics and walls then I care to remember. Protect your lungs and a good mask respirator with spare cartridges. The mess isn't bad unless you plug the hose. Keep the feed down, that'll ensure you won't plug and it'll give more loft to the cellulose. Rolling bats would be tough if you have a 4/12 trusses, although crawling in to put in chutes isn't fun either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already put upt the chutes before I sheetrocked. Celulose is suppose to be way better when it comes to fires plus it is a recycled product. That is why I was leaning. I have 5/8" rock so I would think that should hold it up just fine. I think I need 15" of cellulose vs 20" of the fiberglass. The price difference was 490 vs 820 quite a jump. I guess it is a ford chevy thing. Thanks for the input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already put upt the chutes before I sheetrocked.

Make sure you put in the chutes and the windwash barrier. Chutes do not meet current code by themselves any longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • Love the curvature of the antlers.   Beautiful mount!
    • Not a monster for sure but he makes the season a success. I wasnt going to be able to hunt tomorrow because of a first communion, not afternoon today because of my dads birthday, and only evenings Monday&Tuesday.  So time was limited and i am more than happy to eat jake. Here he is.
    • Either I'm slackin', or the sun is rising earlier than it did last year! Didn't make it to the river until 6, but surprisingly I was still the first to arrive  walked to my normal starting spot, but once there, something told me to go out of the ordinary. So I packed away my black panther martin and put on a crayfish husky jerk. I didn't catch the trophy I desired, but I did catch some nice ones, with the biggest being about 15 inches. I ventured farther downstream than I ever had before, and wanted to keep going, but it appeared that the fishing easement ended, and I may have been on private property. I stayed in the river the entire time, but didn't want to push my luck, so I went back upstream. Caught 19 total, probably lost at least as many. Surprisingly, no brook trout though. 
    • Oh yeah, a lot of the newer 1/2 tons have frame rust issues as well.  If you want a serious off-road machine, you need to go back to the models with the straight front axles, and of course, they're getting harder to find in decent shape too.  Especially in the rust belt.  You can still find solid older trucks if you head west, young man...        
    • Just to be clear- The wrangler wasn't introduced until 87 so at least compare apples to apples and having owned ford,chevy and dodge trucks of the Wrangler era I can testify they all have issues. My 08 Ram had more frame and fender rust than my older Jeep. The Chevy's have plenty of frame issues as well. Yes. It's a concern but if you want something like this,there is no better alternative.   https://www.google.com/search?q=chevy+frame+rust+problems&client=opera&hs=Lrs&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAnPz1kMrTAhVpw4MKHSs9B1UQ_AUICigB&biw=800&bih=381
    •   Good questions. You have 3 body style configurations to choose from.  The YJ body was made from 87-97 and that had either a 4 cyl or an inline 6. It had leaf springs and a pretty spartan interior IMO. Some serious off roaders liked the leaf springs but they rode pretty rough IMO.   I feel the 4 cyl is anemic especially with bigger tires. The 4.0 inline 6 is bulletproof, has decent torque and power and fits the Jeep about perfectly. In the YJ series the manual transmission seemed like a better option in my experience.   The TJ ran from 98-06. This version replaces leaf springs with coil over shocks. Mine is an 06 and has the dana rear with the 4.0 and auto trans. I have BFG AT KO 32x10s and on gravel they have taken out 2 side mirrors by throwing rocks at them.    I prefer the TJ series. It has better suspension and interior than the YJ while keeping the original drive train. Fuel economy pretty much sucks as you are essentially driving a brick. I probably get about 12 MPG. If they had done a diesel I would think the wrangler could get 30 but...   The JK series replaced the TJ and was a pretty radical redesign. The body is wider, the drivetrain is totally different and the interior was upgraded quite a bit as well. They went to a pentastar V6 instead of the inline 4.0. trans was upgraded as well. They also started to sell the 4 door unlimited which gives more interior space as well. The new ones are much more civilized and refined which is great for taking the top off and driving to the lake or beach. OTOH they are expensive and harder to justify taking off the top and heading into the woods to hunt or find mud. 
    • Yes, you do have to have at least a weak cell signal and battery for the GPS to work. I know that can be challenging at times in the woods.
    •   Not sure about the new V6, but the old inline 6 was bulletproof, and had a lot of low end torque, which is a desirable feature in an off-road vehicle.       Any 1/2 ton pickup truck from the 70's and early 80's in particular, had a much better frame than a Jeep.  Body panels rust in all of them.   Not saying this is a deal-breaker for a Jeep, just something to watch for, since it is a very common problem.    
  • Our Sponsors