17-VL secondary tubes, the same?

[joecool85]

I had this started in another thread, but it really should be it's own.

Corie, are the secondary burn tubes the same front and back? Someone at some point mentioned they were different but I had mine out yesterday and they look the same. Then I checked the manual and they have the same part number, but online they are listed as two separate parts numbers.

Corie replied that if they are different, the one with smaller holes would go in back. I had written to Englander and they wrote back that the one with LARGER holes goes in back. Then I asked for clarification since I had gotten Corie's response here first and they sent me these two PDFs. The holes are identical in size according to the spec sheet and as far as I can tell the only difference is the angle of the holes coming out. On my stove, all holes point towards the front. If I'm reading these spec sheets right then the rear tube the holes should end up pointing towards the back/top of the stove. But this is accounting for the mounting screws being at the rear of the tube like they are in my stove. Maybe on later stoves they moved the mounting screw so it's easier to get at and thus made also moved the tab on the secondary burn tube?

 

[pen]

When buying the parts from Englander it explains that they are different, but unfortunately not how.

I agree that the diagrams sent are confusing. Where's Mike (stoveguy2esw)? He'll know.

http://www.englanderstoves.com/store/17-VL_Parts.html

pen

 

[joecool85]

Look at the pics though, Pen. It's obvious they are identical except for the mounting tabs. The holes are in the same spots, they are the same size, the tube is the same length, diameter and thickness, same material. But the mounting tab is vastly different. Both my tubes the mounting tabs are in identical locations though. If I put the rear tube on that is displayed in that image, it would point the secondary holes towards the upper/rear section of the firebox whereas now they point straight forward on both tubes. I'm wondering if at some point they moved the mounting hole. To get the holes to point forward with the rear tube in the picture it would put the mounting screw in front of and below the rear tube - easy access. On mine it is directly behind the tube and between the tube and rear of the stove, can't see and it's a tight fit for even my small hands.

**edit**
I should note they sent me high-res PDFs, I had to screen capture them into jpgs to post here, but I can read all the fine print.

 

[pen]

It's either a change or else your stove had the wrong tube put in it?

pen

 

[joecool85]

It's either a change or else your stove had the wrong tube put in it?

pen

I thought about it being the wrong tube, but if it is then they mounted it right - I mean, the holes should all point forward, right?

 

[SmokingAndPoking]

I'm sorry I can't be more help guys. I can't remember what the tubes look like. You need to get with someone at Englander for better clarification. I haven't seen this stove in over two years and I've designed a lot of stuff since, so I just can't remember.

 

[joecool85]

I'm sorry I can't be more help guys. I can't remember what the tubes look like. You need to get with someone at Englander for better clarification. I haven't seen this stove in over two years and I've designed a lot of stuff since, so I just can't remember.

I appreciate trying to help Corie.

What it comes down to is that the way I put my stove together it has to be the way it came in since we have verified the hole sizes are suppose to be the same.

 

[joecool85]

Ok, well now I got ANOTHER document from Englander and this one matches what Corie had thought.

So, which documents do I believe? It appears that since my stove matches this newest document, I should go with that and make sure that the tube with 5/32" holes is in the rear and the 11/64" holes tube in front. Talk about a slight difference in size though, 1/64" ! I wonder how much it even matters?

 

[joecool85]

Brandon Morrison from Englander just emailed me directly and had this to say:

Sorry for the confusion for the drawings and my mistake of saying the
holes are the same size. The pdf drawings you were sent were not
correct. They were from a prototype stove. The document that I just sent
you in color with pictures is the correct one. Go by that one 11/64"
front holes and 5/32" on the back holes.

So we finally have it figured out. The only difference is the hole size. 11/64" front and 5/32" back.

 

[pen]

Wonder how much of a difference that really makes for the stove. Being that damn close you'd think they'd just split the difference and keep from having to make 2 different ones. Guess it must be important.

pen

 

[joecool85]

Wonder how much of a difference that really makes for the stove. Being that damn close you'd think they'd just split the difference and keep from having to make 2 different ones. Guess it must be important.

pen

Yeah, it must be important because you're right, inventory of both parts plus machine two different parts is a pain and I'm sure they wouldn't do it "just because." Since the prototype stove had 3/16" holes on both pipes and these ones are 1/64" and 1/32" smaller respectively, it must have made a substantial difference in burn quality, btu output or emissions.