Replies

1. 
   renosteinke | Dec 21, 2015 11:01am | #1

   Well Worth It

   After all ... what's losing 3" of overall house dimension matter?

   I am not so sure about 2x6 walls being stronger; strength depends more on things like sheathing and bracing.  The benefits of thicker walls are less obvious.

   First off, there's a lot more room in the wall for wires and pipes. Modern homes have loads more in the walls than houses of even the Clinton era. Having the extra 1-1/2" depth really helps you get a solid, undisturbed layer of insulation on the outside wall.

   (Look at it this way: Electrical boxes are about 1-1/2" thick ... meaning you've reduced your insulation to 2" thick behind every box in a 2x4 wall).

   Lots of things exit the top of a wall. Having the wider top plate makes a huge difference to the guy working in the attic, along the eaves.

   Can you use "standard" windows and doors? Yes. Doors are often stocked with frames appropriate for 6" framing- or 'adapter' trim is stockes. Windows are set in a 'box' made by the framer and trimmed out by the finish carpenter, so there's no issue there.

2. 
   wmheinz | Dec 21, 2015 01:14pm | #2

   I can't believe it's not required....

   Have you checked with your local building department and the Tennessee State Codes??  2x6 with R21 insulation is bare minimum here in the northwest.. and this won't actually meet the code here any longer..

   There's only a minimal increase in costs and lots of savings to be had..  Just like any wise investment, a little expense now will yeild a lifetime of rewards.  Just do some minimal research online and you will see the benefits.. 

1. 
   mark122 | Dec 21, 2015 07:31pm | #7

   still meets code

   wmheinz wrote:

   Have you checked with your local building department and the Tennessee State Codes??  2x6 with R21 insulation is bare minimum here in the northwest.. and this won't actually meet the code here any longer..

   There's only a minimal increase in costs and lots of savings to be had..  Just like any wise investment, a little expense now will yeild a lifetime of rewards.  Just do some minimal research online and you will see the benefits.. 

   unfortunatly r-13 is still the standard and code minimum over here. (chattanooga).

1. 
   junkhound | Dec 21, 2015 08:23pm | #8

   Built sons office with 2x8 walls on 24" centers.

   (had the 2x8s free salvage, so good cost savings)

   code in his residential area was 800 sq ft main floor area (inside) maximum, so really made sense for the 8" walls. 

   lotsa variables on where you are and the climate.  His office runs $30 month electric bill total (mini-split heat, elec HW heat, and 4 computers and lights plus some basement shop use.

2. 
   wmheinz | Dec 28, 2015 09:11pm | #9

   In 2013....

   In 2013, Tennessee rank 50th in energy efficiency...in 2010, 60 of the 90some counties had no building code or permit requirements at all.  And yet they spent twice as much per capita on energy consumption as folks in the NE.  OUCH!!  The reasons put forth around not updating or even requiring a code, it that the upfront costs are too great - even though these minor expenses are paid back in a handful of years and continue to save money for the residents for the life of the building. 

   Just because the State can't get it's act together is no excuse for a consumer (home owner) not to educate themselves on making good choices for their future...just like this OP is doing.  It doesn't take much research to come up with a way to save those precious energy $$ through additional insulation, some minor changes in construction techniques and making the structure more air-tight. 

   Good luck...

1. 
   mark122 | Dec 28, 2015 10:15pm | #10

   preachin to the choir.

   part of the problem in Chattanooga is the very low energy cost, the TVA keeps our kw at a crazy low price. 

   my last residential build included 3.5 closed cell encapsulation of the home, triple pane windows, and a ground source heat pump.

   doesnt make it right, and i wasnt saying it was. just replying to your comment to the OP about checking local codes.

3. 
   oops | Dec 21, 2015 03:13pm | #3

   I've seen it argued that the cost of 2 x 4 framing 16" o.c. vs. 2 x 6 framing 24" o.c. is marginal. 

   Also, with 2 x 6 framing, you will be gaining 2' of insulation that provides a perpetual savings in energy cost.

4. 
   melissamitchell | Dec 21, 2015 03:41pm | #4

   Thanks for all the replies

   Will definitely be using 2x6 16" centers. 

1. 
   calvin | Dec 21, 2015 05:27pm | #5

   Melissa

   Talk to inspection regarding your framing and see the options available.  2x6 on 2' centers lessens the amt of studs and resultant transfer of heat/cold through framing members. 

1. 
   DanH | Dec 21, 2015 06:24pm | #6

   I kinda like 19.2" centers,

   I kinda like 19.2" centers, as it produces walls with less of a tendency to "oil-can".  The downside is that standard batt insulation won't fit, and you must run sheet goods horizontally everywhere.

1. 
   mark122 | Dec 28, 2015 10:18pm | #11

   if i were to tell my framers to frame on 19.2's they would think im messing with them, bet you they have never seen one done that way. just to inconvenient and way to much waste in framing and wall coverings.

1. 
   wmheinz | Dec 29, 2015 08:51pm | #12

   What's the savings???

   half a dozen studs on a whole house....not worth the hassle.  I have framed a couple of floor and roof structures using 19.2" spacing....but only large school projects where there was a legitimate cost savings - more efficient use of joists/rafters/trusses saving a significant number of structural members..  Since sheathing is always laid perpendicular on floors and roofs, no real change other than framers having to mark up their tape measures..

2. 
   mark122 | Dec 29, 2015 10:25pm | #13

   who said there were saving?

   even commercially I would never chose to use this spacing. on a roof if your going over 16" then you (well, I do at least) are upgrading your decking and that upgrade can be used with 24".

3. 
   DanH | Dec 30, 2015 07:52am | #14

   My observation is simply that the wider spacing gives you better insulation efficiency, and being narrower than 24 eliminates some of the problems you have with warping/oil-canning at 24.  Certainly there are reasons to not use it, but it's worth keeping in the back of one's mind.

4. 
   mark122 | Dec 30, 2015 08:16am | #15

   is a good spacing. most homes standing close/over  a century (in these parts) are 19.2 framed. 

5. 
   BossHog | Jan 03, 2016 09:09am | #16

   In your climate I think there would be a long payoff time for 2x6 walls.  But since I don't have a crystal ball and don't know where energy prices are going there's no way to know for sure.

   The added lumber cost isn't terribly significant.  You lose a little square footage.  At roughly $125 a square foot to build a simple house, that can add up.

   You can buy windows and doors with jamb extensions for 2x6 walls. That's an added cost to consider. It would pay to check locally, as things vary a lot from one region to another.

   If I ever build another house I would definitely use 2x6 walls. But I'm further north than you are.