Laminate vs engineered & underlay questions

ariarnia

Hello all. i need to replace the carpet in my living room and was planning on laminate but have been thinking about engineered wooden flooring. I've had laminate in the hall before and its a bit scratched up (2 kids and a scatty dog).  I know the engineered stuff says it is suitable for areas of heavy use but I have been wondering how hard wearing it is and if its worth the extra cost.

has anyone experience of it long term? is there much difference in quality between say the cheapest per pack in B&Q and the most expensive from somewhere else as in enough to justify the difference in price? do I need anything special to go under it (the floor under the carpet is concrete and the house is dry) B&Q recommended 5mm panels? thanks.  

shiraz99

Engineered wood is a natural wood flooring so will show up the odd ding, scrape etc over time although the species of wood choice may have an affect on how bad this gets. The advantage over laminate though is because it's real wood you can sand it back or repair it should you feel the need to. Also, sunlight does have an affect on a wooden floor and it will "age" and change colour over time. I've had a Kahrs Oak engineered wood floor down for over 15 years and yes it's showing it's age but I'd still take this over laminate any day.

As far as underlay is concerned as you're fitting over concrete you will need to check the moisture content of the subfloor first and, if necessary lay a DPM. At the very least you'll need to have an underlay that has a vapour barrier.

skycatcher

I replaced a laminate with an engineered floor a year ago. The engineered looks a million times beter but it will scratch easily if a piece of grit walked in. It also had a nicer sound when walked on. A 5mm foam underlay was put on the concrete floor before it was fitted.

ariarnia

thanks.

Kahrs seems to be one of the most expensive types of engineered floor. is it worth the mark up and should i completely avoid everything from b&q or is there not much difference given its all 'real' wood? i also read you had to use Kahrs underlay with Kahrs floors and that's really expensive as well. is that the truth or is that just for the warranty (i've got house insurance which would include the floor if i wasnt covered by the manufacturer warranty i think)

shiraz99

ariarnia said:

thanks.

Kahrs seems to be one of the most expensive types of engineered floor. is it worth the mark up and should i completely avoid everything from b&q or is there not much difference given its all 'real' wood? i also read you had to use Kahrs underlay with Kahrs floors and that's really expensive as well. is that the truth or is that just for the warranty (i've got house insurance which would include the floor if i wasnt covered by the manufacturer warranty i think)

They may well recommend their own underlay but I doubt it's part of the Kahrs warranty. I certainly didn't install it, although I don't think they had their own underlay back when I had my floor installed. I used a product called Cush 'n' Wood which was one of the best underlays for a floating wood floor back in the day, not sure if it's available anymore.

shiraz99

Another good option as an alternative to laminate is LVT.

ariarnia

Thanks. I've never really liked vinyl. I've got it in the kitchen currently but ill be replacing it as soon as i get around to it. I don't know why but it just never appealed. 

I've just been told the floor in the lounge isn't concrete. its the original maybe 1970s tiles. does that change the advice re floating or glued and underlay? 

jennifernil

Don't compare LVT with ordinary vinyl.

ariarnia

jennifernil said:

Don't compare LVT with ordinary vinyl.

Erm... okay... but whatever... i'm considering an engineered wood floor not a LVT one and i'm looking for some input on that. id say the same if someone suggested carpet because i dont want carpet in that room either so i dont really care if some carpets are better than other carpets. 

do you have any experience with Kahrs engineered flooring? do you think its worth the extra compared to cheaper options for engineered wood flooring? do i still need a dpm if i'm laying over original tiles rather than concrete? what thickness of underlay did others use? 

if you can help with any of those questions or if you've anything else to say about engineered flooring then thanks. 

kdotdotdotdot

Seeing as you've asked twice about price, it's worth mentioning (again) that there is a halfway point between engineered wood and laminate, and that's LVT.  It looks like real wood but has none of the disadvantages and is cheaper.  If you've been walking on laminate all this time, you'd have no problem with LVT.  I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand just because you don't like your kitchen lino, which is something totally different.  

This is the money saving forum after all, and we're trying to save you money by giving options that will look the same but be cheaper.

ariarnia

which is great. completely. I get that people think its a good product but i'm interested in learning more about engineered wood because I don't particularly like my current laminate. which is why i was asking about engineered wood in the first place.  

I'm lucky enough that money isn't an issue for me for this job, so I don't need a 'cheaper' option. what I want is to be comfortable that i'm getting the best value option. which is why I'm asking things like is the 100+ per square meter stuff actually worth it or is the stuff at 50 per square meter better value for money (whats the actual difference that i should be looking for). and do i need the more expensive 5mm sound dampening underlay for a ground floor or does the basic 2mm stuff work given I'm talking about putting it on existing tiles not on bare concrete?