Replies

1. 
   SamT | May 03, 2004 03:47pm | #1

   ^

   Arguing with a Breaktimer is like mud-wrestling a pig -- Sooner or later you find out the pig loves it. Andy Engel

2. 
   TrimButcher | May 03, 2004 03:56pm | #2

   I'm no expert,  so this advice is worth what you paid for it...

   Sub pumps are more expensive.  As you noted, more powerful per hp because it's easier to push the water uphill as opposed to sucking it up.

   Can't tell you which would last longer. A good quality pump should last a long time regardless of type.

   If by surge tank you mean a pressure tank, yes, that is still required by a sub pump.

   Re casing, you should ask your pump supplier. 

   Top quality pumps include Grundfos, Jacuzzi, and Myers.

   Regards,

   Tim Ruttan

3. 
   tenpenny | May 03, 2004 04:17pm | #3

   For what you're doing, I'd just go with another jet pump.  Easy to pipe in, your electical is there, nolo problemo. 

   If it was for the supply to the house, I'd go with a sub.  Quieter, more efficient, all that.  Keep the tank, you need it.  One advantage of replacing a jet pump (I assume you have two lines down the well, but with only 20 ft lift, you might not) is that you can run the wires through the other line to get them from the house to the well.

   Casing doesn't need to be replaced, but will probably have to be modified, so you can hang the pump on the pitless adapter.  Depends on how your existing piping is done. 

   Personally, if you're using it for watering outside, I'd go with a replacement jet pump.  Couple hundred bucks, no fuss, no muss.  Subs will run you quite a bit once you factor in the cable and stuff.  Goulds is a good name in both types. 

1. 
   Scarecrow | May 03, 2004 05:47pm | #4

   Thanks all, I've been seesawing but I think you've all tipped the scales....I'll just replace ol Betsy with a new jet pump and call it good.

   "in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king..."

4. 
   DavidThomas | May 03, 2004 08:35pm | #5

   Yes, submersibles are more efficient.  Grundfos is very good.  So is Flint&Wallings and theirs tend to be higher flow, lower pressure (your situation).

   But as others have posted, another jet pump would be plug-n-play.  And that is worth a lot of bother and $.

   Also, getting a higher flow pump, may not get you more water - the well might dewater.  You can get a sense of that by gauging it early in the morning before any water use.  And then after an hour of watering the lawn.  If there is still several feet of water above the pump, then you could get more flow out of it.

   Another difference, sub vs jet:  The submersible pump always has its lower half (the motor) submerged, so its inlet is 2-3 feet off the bottom of the well.  The inlet of a jet pump can be right at the bottom.  And with such a shallow well, the additional 2-3 feet of drawdown may (or may not) be critical.

   David Thomas   Overlooking Cook Inlet in Kenai, Alaska
5. 
   caseyr | May 03, 2004 08:36pm | #6

   Replacing the jet pump would probably be easier. 

   I replaced the jet pump on my well (100 ft depth, 20 ft static water level) a couple of years ago but plan on pulling the piping out of the well and replacing with a submersible pump when I get the time to pull all of the piping (down pipe of 1 1/4" galvanized, up pipe of 1 1/2" galvanized). 

   I bought the submersible pump on sale a year after I bought the jet pump for about the same price (~$200).  The jet pump was 3/4 hp while the submersible was 1/2, yet the submersible had a gpm rating that was about 1/3 greater for the depth I figured I would be pumping.  The main reason I decided to change was that I thought I was having some problems with the foot valve and would need to pull the piping anyway, plus the pipe had been down the well for about 60 years, so I have no idea as to what shape it happens to be in. 

   For all but the shallowest wells, the submersible seems to be the way to go.