Old vs Modern wood stove

jreed said:

Hopefully this hasnt been beat to death here but I tried the search and didnt find much.

Anyhow, I have an Alaska Kodiak stove from who knows when. It is in my basement and I use it to heat my small ranch house. It does an ok job. However, it is too much work to cut firewood to not use an efficient stove. So, my question, is there a noticable difference in the amount of heat and efficiency in the newer stoves? For example, I was looking at a Napolean 1400. Would this be a major upgrade or a waste of money?

Click to expand...

You will see a noticeable difference between a pre-EPA stove and a modern stove. Less wood used, less smoke, cleaner chimney.

With no experience with the new stoves I would still say over most people should see reduced fuel usage for the same BTU output. However a smokeless chimney can be and fairly clean can be achieved with the older units. I would visit someone with a newer stove to experience first hand first before jumping into an expensive new stove. I personally don't think the new more efficient stoves give off heat like the old ones. But I too need to do more research. I would hate to send 2500-3000 on a new stove only to find out it won't do the job.

I noticed that a modern clean burning stove will use less fuel, and gives virtually no smoke after firing up, and can burn small loads easier and cleaner due to a better insulated burn box.
The BTU rating for the stove will tell you what kind of heat each one will give and generally with a modern stove they can be smaller than the older models and give off more heat. Have a look at some of the convection stoves, I dont think they are so common in the States yet ?
I really love some of the older Jotuls, but I prefer the newer clean burn Jotuls and Morsos.

wkpoor said:

With no experience with the new stoves I would still say over most people should see reduced fuel usage for the same BTU output. However a smokeless chimney can be and fairly clean can be achieved with the older units. I would visit someone with a newer stove to experience first hand first before jumping into an expensive new stove. I personally don't think the new more efficient stoves give off heat like the old ones. But I too need to do more research. I would hate to send 2500-3000 on a new stove only to find out it won't do the job.

Click to expand...

How do you figure?

And yes, and old stove like a Vigilant can have a rather clean chimney. Not as clean as the the new stoves I use. But I can get the Vigilant to burn rather well. That doesn't mean it's efficient, though. If I replaced the Vigilant with a newer stove I would probably reduce the wood consumption in half.

I have a new EPA stove in the house, but out in my shop I have an older pre-EPA wood stove. The one in the shop is a quality stove for it's time and heats the shop up well, but it sure is hungry.
Having the two stoves to use really helps reinforce how much more efficient the new EPA stoves are. I can load the older stove in the shop with nearly twice as much wood, but it only has half the burn time of the stove in the house. Also just by looking just at the glass you can tell which one is cleaner burning, the house stove glass stays clear burn after burn, if I burn properly, the shop stove glass turns black after every burn, no mater what.

Go for it, you won't be disappointed.

When I find a good deal, you can bet I'll be replacing the stove in the shop.

Key point to understand, however, is that newer stoves do not tolerate wood that is less dry very well. Yes they CAN burn it, but you will not get the heat out of the stove that you expect. So, if you are in the "stack for 5 months, then burn that oak" camp then if you switch stoves you are likely to be disappointed burning the "same wood" as before. However, if you have a good stack of dry wood - 2-3 years stacked is wonderful (depending on your climate and wood type of course), then you are very likely to be positively impressed with a new stove.

And +1 to Jags comment - be sure you are comparing apples to apples on BTU ratings; If you go by the "estimated area it can heat" to replace your stove you may well find that it isn't what your old stove is. Also if your old stove is steel, don't expect the same feel from a new stone stove (or even cast for that matter). That isn't old vs new but just differences in stoves.

How do you figure?

Click to expand...

I've been to a friends house that has a VC ,don't know the model. Very nice stove, pretty to look at, but doesn't come close to the radiant warmth of my old smoke dragon or my neighbors old Fisher. Was visiting another household last winter were a brandy new unit was installed in a family room addition. Same thing it was going alright for the small space it was in but not even close in comparison. Both houses didn't have that distinctive ,open the oven door feeling, when I walked in. And even sitting close to the stoves they just didn't have that overwhelming sensation of heat. When I walk into my neighbors shop his Fisher just overwhelms you with heat and my Nashua does the same.

wkpoor said:

How do you figure?

Click to expand...

I've been to a friends house that has a VC ,don't know the model. Very nice stove, pretty to look at, but doesn't come close to the radiant warmth of my old smoke dragon or my neighbors old Fisher. Was visiting another household last winter were a brandy new unit was installed in a family room addition. Same thing it was going alright for the small space it was in but not even close in comparison. Both houses didn't have that distinctive ,open the oven door feeling, when I walked in. And even sitting close to the stoves they just didn't have that overwhelming sensation of heat. When I walk into my neighbors shop his Fisher just overwhelms you with heat and my Nashua does the same.

Click to expand...

You seem to be comparing apple to oranges. Comparing an 80k-100k BTU Fisher stove with a 50k BTU stove is a bad comparison. My 30 year old vigilant at 500°F heats about as well as my 4 year old Heritage at 500°F.

I think Carbon liberator and Browning have sized it up nicely.

There really isnt much competition between the 2.

If you get an old stove with realistically 55% efficiency and a modern stove of 80% efficiency, same size burn box, which one will give off more heat and use less fuel?

Efficiency- how much heat per pound/stick/frinkle of wood put in the stove. That's not just total heat output. They make different sizes of stove

I dont know your set up, but I m guessing a new stove would be the most efficient method.

Take a broad look at whats on the market.

Also another thing to look at is the burn box, most modern stoves are using Vermiculite.
This insulates the burn box which in turn lets you burn smaller loads at higher temperatures and gives more heat and efficiency.
Morso have a great selection of these, so does Jotul , but I think the Jotuls are only available in Europe?!?

wkpoor said:

How do you figure?

Click to expand...

I've been to a friends house that has a VC ,don't know the model. Very nice stove, pretty to look at, but doesn't come close to the radiant warmth of my old smoke dragon or my neighbors old Fisher. Was visiting another household last winter were a brandy new unit was installed in a family room addition. Same thing it was going alright for the small space it was in but not even close in comparison. Both houses didn't have that distinctive ,open the oven door feeling, when I walked in. And even sitting close to the stoves they just didn't have that overwhelming sensation of heat. When I walk into my neighbors shop his Fisher just overwhelms you with heat and my Nashua does the same.

Click to expand...

i dont think you can compare different stoves in different homes, with different layouts, with varying degrees of insulation and varying quality of firewood and make a conclusion that the older stoves heat better. however there is something to the notion that the smoke dragons throw more heat, and there are two main reasons why i believe some people feel that the smoke dragons heat better.

#1: if you have green or only partially seasoned wood then you will be able to get better performance from the older stoves, and alot of people that have these older stoves are used to burning 3-5 month old wood and they do ok with that, then they buy a new stove and dont realize that the poor performance is due to their fuel. that same wood wont heat as well in an epa- stove of identical size

#2: btu's or heat or whatever you want to call it comes from the wood, not the stove (i dont care what those stove brochures say) 5 oak splits will give off the same amount of heat whether you burn them in a smoke dragon, an epa stove or a fireplace (the stoves are obviously better at releasing that heat where we want it though). this brings us to fuel consumption, an older stove under normal operating conditions will burn wood faster than an epa stove under normal operating conditions. so that older stove may give the impression of being a better heater but in reality if the epa stove was run a little more wide open it would eat the same amount of wood and throw the heat hard and fast like that old smoke dragon, provided you can get the same amount of wood into both stoves.

In one way my old smoke dragon heated my house better than my new fancy soapstone stove. I had a 3 + cf stove called a Garrison 1 that would heat my house uncomfortably warm. I just had to load it every 4 hours with unseasoned Red Oak and the stove pipe would glow red and you could hear the suction the draft created. It sounded like a jet turbine. I would burn a cord a month easily just burning nights and weekends. My new stove will keep my house warm if I load her every 6-8 hours with each reload using half the wood of the old stove.

It is like comparing a 69 Camaro with a 390 to a new one with a v6. They are getting 300 horsepower from a v6 and twice the fuel economy if not more. It's a good analogy because wide open they produce similiar amounts of horsepower just like the stoves. Where the new stoves shine is when they are cruising at operating temp. You can lower the air, burn a fraction of the wood and still get heat from them. The old stoves will just smolder and gunk up your chimney.

Having been in my grandmother's home with both a Fisher Papa Bear and a Lopi Liberty, I can say for certain that the Fisher gave off far, far more radiant heat than the Liberty. I can also say that the Fisher belched more smoke and make a ton more creosote. Personally, I prefer getting up on the roof more infrequently, so I know which stove I'd lean towards.

Pagey said:

Having been in my grandmother's home with both a Fisher Papa Bear and a Lopi Liberty, I can say for certain that the Fisher gave off far, far more radiant heat than the Liberty. I can also say that the Fisher belched more smoke and make a ton more creosote. Personally, I prefer getting up on the roof more infrequently, so I know which stove I'd lean towards.

Click to expand...

The liberty is a 75k BTU stove. The Papa Bear is what, a 100k BTU stove? Maybe more? Isn't the firebox on the Papa 5+ cu ft? It can take a 30" log. Not a fair comparison.

I am not saying it's "fair". I am simply stating that one throws far more radiant heat than the other. The Liberty is a jacketed, convection heater with heat shields on 3 sides.

I'm sure there is a myriad of reasons why the comparisons are tough to make.
Are all the new EPA stoves small in size? Most I've seen look to be half the average smoke dragon size. And that means less surface area to radiate from.
Not to belittle anything but some of the log burn times had by new stoves could be more efficient ways to smolder less wood in a smaller fire box.
I read and hear the argument for less wood consumption. However I'm thinking many are like me with an unending supply of free hardwoods so consumption rate is of no concern to me.
With all this said (and I admit a little negative sounding towards new stoves) I'm not opposed to owning a new stove. Problem with reference to original post, is you can't test drive a stove. Basically its a referral thing. However how many people after spending 2-3K on a stove are going to honestly tell you they are a little less than happy with the purchase.

Jags said:

wkpoor said:

Are all the new EPA stoves small in size?

Click to expand...

You could fit your upper body in an Englander NC30 or a Blaze King King.

Click to expand...

:lol: Yeah, I think the BKK would allow you to cremate a St. Bernard.

BrowningBAR said:

An old stove like a Vigilant can have a rather clean chimney. Not as clean as the the new stoves I use. But I can get the Vigilant to burn rather well. That doesn't mean it's efficient, though. If I replaced the Vigilant with a newer stove I would probably reduce the wood consumption in half.

Click to expand...

OK, if you're burning the Vigilant cleanly, where is all that extra wood going?

Pagey said:

Jags said:

wkpoor said:

Are all the new EPA stoves small in size?

Click to expand...

You could fit your upper body in an Englander NC30 or a Blaze King King.

Click to expand...

:lol: Yeah, I think the BKK would allow you to cremate a St. Bernard.

Click to expand...

The Mob rated the stove #1 in 2010's "Great Ways To Dispose Of A Body" handbook.