- Nov 27, 2012
- 0
Question:
A friend looked at the Napoleon 1400 and 1900 (non-cat) models and immediately told me to get the 1900 if it wasn't terribly much more expensive. When I asked why, he told me that it has a longer burn time and such you need to load it less often. The 1400 has a 2.25 cubic feet fire box, the 1900 a 3.0 cubic fire box. He said smaller hot fires could be used just as easily.
I'd heard earlier to not get too big a stove as small fires don't heat it up enough and creosote is a problem.
Could someone comment and let me know which is the case?
Answer:
A smaller stove burning hotter is more efficient and easier to use, especially in a non-cat. The tradeoff is burn time, as your friend says.
However, a 3.0 cubic foot box is not extremely large, falls into the medium/large category. Most stoves today are from 2-4 cubic foot capacity.
A friend looked at the Napoleon 1400 and 1900 (non-cat) models and immediately told me to get the 1900 if it wasn't terribly much more expensive. When I asked why, he told me that it has a longer burn time and such you need to load it less often. The 1400 has a 2.25 cubic feet fire box, the 1900 a 3.0 cubic fire box. He said smaller hot fires could be used just as easily.
I'd heard earlier to not get too big a stove as small fires don't heat it up enough and creosote is a problem.
Could someone comment and let me know which is the case?
Answer:
A smaller stove burning hotter is more efficient and easier to use, especially in a non-cat. The tradeoff is burn time, as your friend says.
However, a 3.0 cubic foot box is not extremely large, falls into the medium/large category. Most stoves today are from 2-4 cubic foot capacity.
