We are re-habbing an old house that will include replacing all of the old leaky windows. We're considering bids from several of the majors: Pella, Marvin, Anderson, Sierra Pacific. One common theme among all these players is that they all use Cardinal glass. We're debating where to use Cardinal's Low-e 270 and Low-e 366.
The house is rectangular and oriented east-west on the long axis. The house was literally picked up and set back down on a slight (a few degrees) bias to the northeast, relative to the summer sun travel. The intent of this orientation was to optimize winter passive solar gain.
btw: There were many factors that necessitated lifting the house. We didn't do it just to change the orientation
We're placing the bedrooms on the northern half of the house. Cooking and living areas are on the southern half. We're in south-western Montana.
The eastern side of house won't have any windows. The western side will have full sun (this is where the view is) on summer afternoons. The southern exposure will have seasonal full sun. We will be changing the overhangs on the southern exposure to optimize summer shading and winter passive solar gain. Additionally the mature trees on the southern exposure will contribute to the shading and full sun strategy.
We're thinking of using Cardinal Low-e 366 all around the house. It's not much more expensive than the Low-e 270. The thinking is that the 366 will solve a lot of the summer heat problems on the western exposure and be a good general performer for the colder months.
The dilemma comes in on which glass to use on the southern exposure. We are trying to reconcile the desire for passive solar gain in the winter (ie Low-e 270) with the desire to retain heat on those cold winter nights (ie Low-e 366.) The Cardinal literature is largely silent (or perhaps I'm just not understanding it) on the differences in these glass types relative to our objectives.
Any thoughts on how we might reconcile these competing needs?