Compare: AirScape 1.7 WHF vs Tamarack HV1600
They may have similar airflow ratings, but that’s where the similarity ends. While the HV1600 is simply a modified HV1000 with higher RPM fans, the AirScape 1.7 is a carefully optimized design that is an whole different engineering class. We’ll show you why below.
The detailed comparison table below uses information provided by Tamarack or observed on technical review. We’ve highlighted the points we think are most important, and below the comparison table we provide a brief explanation of these key differences.
Comparing specs: AirScape 1.7 WHF vs Tamarack HV1600
| models | AirScape 1.7 WHF | Tamarack HV1600 |
|---|---|---|
| airflow | 1700/1000 CFM (high/low) | 1600/1000 CFM (high/low) |
| speeds | two-speed | two-speed |
| fans | four 10-inch precision | two 10-inch precision |
| power draw | 140W | 276W |
| efficiency | 12.1 CFM/W | 5.8 CFM/W |
| noise | 3.5/2 Sones (high/low) | 5.5/3 Sones (high/low)† |
| housing | aluminum | plastic |
| attic seal | aluminum-perf doors | foam doors with tape cladding |
| insulation | 2” fiberglass for R-7 | 2” PolyISO for R-22 ‡ |
| mechanism | heavy-duty actuator | two clock motors |
| grille | aluminum cube core | stamped metal louvered |
| grille free area | 14.5” x 22.5” | 14.5” x 22.5” |
| control | wall switch (remote option $79) | wireless remote |
| unit weight | 36 lbs | 21 lbs |
| made in | Canada | USA |
| street price | $869 | $799 |
| cost per CFM | $0.51 | $0.50 |
† Tamarack had previously published these noise specs but has since removed them from their literature.
‡ Tamarack claims R-22 for their insulation value, but we find this puzzling. Any construction materials manual will tell you that it requires 3 inches of PolyISO to deliver R-22. In any case, it is our opinion that insulation level is far secondary to the quality of the seal. Read more on this
Understanding key differences
- four fans vs. two fans: this allows the AirScape fans to run at lower RPM which results in MUCH quieter and more energy-efficient operation.
Listen to the difference here
- unique design: the “bomb-bay” door design on the 1.7 also acts as a sound baffle when the unit is running and seals tight against heavy automotive gasketing when the unit is off. And it requires no vertical clearance where installation is tight.
- more energy efficient: even running twice as many fans, the 1.7 uses nearly half the energy of the HV1600. How can this be? AirScape is using more efficient fans, and operating them at more efficient RPMs. In other words, better design.
- heavy-duty actuator vs. clock motors: this is a significant build-quality and durability issue. Ask a mechanical engineer: the difference in torque here is like a V6 vs. a lawn-mower engine. Not only that, but you can block the movement of our actuated door without damage whereas this would destroy a clock motor. In the industrial marketplace, you can buy at least five of the Tamarack hysteresis (clock) motors for the price of a single AirScape actuator.
- premium cube core grill: the cube core grill is both more attractive and more efficient (not to mention more expensive) than the standard-issue stamped metal grill that comes with the HV1600.
There are other differences too. Like aluminum vs. plastic housing; metal-clad doors vs. those made with foam and tape. Heavy automotive rubber gasketing vs foam. Or the fact that the 1.7 is designed with all serviceable components on the outside for ease of repair, whereas this is not the case with the HV1600.
So in summary, we are suggesting that the 1.7 is a much more ambitiously engineered product that is dramatically quieter and more energy efficient, and the build quality difference is substantial. Yet, the price premium vs. the Tamarack HV1600 is modest.
This spring, Tamarack started slinging mud about our 1.7, making some rather aggressive and bewildering accusations. Here’s our response—with no mud-slinging required.
Still have unanswered questions about how these two products compare?
Call or email us and we would be happy to answer them.
