Taming the wild Quadrafire 2100, part one

  • Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.

    We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.

    We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
Status
Not open for further replies.

precaud

Minister of Fire
Jan 20, 2006
2,307
Sunny New Mexico
www.linearz.com
Experience with woodstoves shows that, even with their sophisticated air systems, they are not overly complicated items, and if they're misbehaving, there's usually a reason (or reasons) why. I've decided to write this long-winded discourse as an encouragement to others who notice something not quite right with their stove's operation, and highlight some things to look out for in tracking down and solving the problems.

A few weeks ago I posted my dismay with how my new Quad 2100 was behaving. On paper this stove looked like it would give me everything I was wanting: consistent, controllable burns with front-to-back burn geometry; quick warmup; and a little larger firebox than the Morso. Well, what I got was indeed an effective heater, but one that had four significant faults that made it unacceptable to use.

1. One burn speed: hot and fast.
2. No useable coals for morning startup.
3. An uneven burn pattern in the firebox (always stronger, cleaner burn on the right and exiting to the left).
4. The glass becomes horribly crudded up in use. (See the first photo)

Now, I must say, I've never encountered a stove that both burned really hot AND dirtied up the glass so badly. Dirty glass usually points to a combustion issue of some sort. So from the start I had a hunch this was not going to be an easy one to tackle.

The dealer recommended I first check the door gasket; a leaky gasket could conceivably cause all of these problems. Sure enough, it was installed sloppily, leaving gaps and soft spots in three of the corners. See the second photo, showing the large gap in the lower right corner. So I replaced the gasket, being careful to maintain the density around the corners. Result: the glass became a little cleaner on the right, but even worse on the left side (see photo 3). So problems lay elsewhere.

At this point I knew that deeper scrutiny was required. So I took down the Quad and put the Morso back up to keep things warm. It was a nice reminder of just how sweet a stove the Morso is.

And so began a general inspection to discover anything that might be contributing to any of the stove's problems. First thing found was a gap, on the inside left, between the sheet that forms the airwash channel, about 3" high, 3/16" wide on the bottom, 1/16" on the top (see photo 4). There was no such gap on the right side. Sloppy construction. I patched it with stove cement.

I couldn't help but notice the holes in the panel that feeds the airwash channel. I've never seen this sort of thing before. This is a row of 14 holes 1/4" in diameter which goes all the way across (see photo 5). Quad is taking part of the air that would normally be the primary airwash air and dumping it directly into the exhaust stream above the firebox! No wonder the glass won't stay clean! And no wonder they can spec this stove at 2.1 gms/hr emissions! Except in high-fire conditions, the exhaust gasses are constantly being diluted by fresh air! It's one way they cheat to get the EPA figures lower.

OK, after seeing this, I decided it's time to examine each air system carefully. Despite it's name and the marketing hype surrounding it, the Quad 2100 has three air systems, a couple of which do double duty.

Primary air: Enters on the bottom-front (see photo 6). For this pic, the control is in "off" position. Notice the stop screw, welded in place. Even in the "off" position, the actual control is about 1/3 open. This opening feeds three sources: an "under-fire" air opening (lots more about this later), the primary airwash over the glass, and the row of holes mentioned above.

Secondary air: Two openings under the stove on either side, each 1"x2" (see photo 7). That's big. They feed the above-fire tubes and manifold with a HUGE amount of air. There is no control, they are always on.

Startup air: Is fed by a separate channel under the stove (see photo 8). Behind the bracket is a 2"x3" opening which feeds a hole in the bottom-rear of the firebox. When the control is opened (only when making a new fire or feeding new logs!) it gives tons of air to quickly fill the firebox with flames. Also notice the little hole there. I was very suspicious of it at first. Another 1/4" hole, a small amount of air is always being fed to the back of the fire, which really helps burn off the wood in the back of the firebox. Anyone who has used long, skinny stoves (front-to-back or north/south) knows that the very back of the logs are sometimes air-starved and don't always burn completely. The little amount of air that this opening gives makes sure it does. Very effective.

Well that is what we have to work with in solving this stove's problems. Part two will show what modifications were made and discuss the results.

EDIT: Ooops, only 4 pics per post allowed.... see this thread for the last four photos:
https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/forums/viewthread/5430/
 

Attachments

  • qf1.jpg
    qf1.jpg
    25.6 KB · Views: 915
  • qf2.jpg
    qf2.jpg
    15.1 KB · Views: 910
  • qf3.jpg
    qf3.jpg
    23 KB · Views: 894
  • qf4.jpg
    qf4.jpg
    20.6 KB · Views: 965
As a potential owner, I read this post with some concern. Do you think that you got a lemon, or are the problems you describe inherent in the design?
thanks,
Paul
 
I have to admit that dumping air out of the back of the airwash manifold seems like a stupid idea. Properly done, you could get sufficient flow across the glass and out of the holes, but I think 14 .25" holes is WAY too many. That's a huge amount of air escaping.
 
Out of all the quad units we have sold (which is quite a lot) I have encountered only one that was constantly over firing. We have it in our shop and have not gotten it down and investigated it yet.
 
I currently have a VC intrepid non-cat. I'm moving it into another room, and due to VC's clearance specs, it will not fit - the quadrafire 2100 seems like a comparable stove, and its clearance specs seem much more reasonable. I take it you think the quadrafire 2100 is a good stove?
 
psmitchell said:
As a potential owner, I read this post with some concern.
A healthy response, I'd say...

Do you think that you got a lemon, or are the problems you describe inherent in the design?l
Well, as Corie's reply suggests, it's a design issue and not a lemon case. But to be fair to all the blanking work I've put into sussing this out (and writing this mini-series,) you'll have to wait until I post Part Three for the detailed answer. For now, I'll say that, once modded, I think it's overall an excellent stove and it will be my primary heater next winter. The cause of the stronger burn on the right side has been identified and the fix is easy. Quad needs their corporate head examined for doing such a stupid thing (as you will see). And I can't believe I'm the only complainer about it. Are most users so undiscerning?
 
And no wonder they can spec this stove at 2.1 gms/hr emissions! Except in high-fire conditions, the exhaust gasses are constantly being diluted by fresh air! It’s one way they cheat to get the EPA figures lower.

That would have no effect on the gms/hr emissions. Total emissions is total emissions regardless of the flow. They're not specifying in PPM.

It sounds like there is something else going on.

As for the dirty glass, I have that problem on my 3100i even when it's burning clean on low fire. Quad's air-wash leaves something to be desired.
 
Well, as Corie’s reply suggests, it’s a design issue and not a lemon case. But to be fair to all the blanking work I’ve put into sussing this out (and writing this mini-series,) you’ll have to wait until I post Part Three for the detailed answer. For now, I’ll say that, once modded, I think it’s overall an excellent stove and it will be my primary heater next winter. The cause of the stronger burn on the right side has been identified and the fix is easy. Quad needs their corporate head examined for doing such a stupid thing (as you will see). And I can’t believe I’m the only complainer about it. Are most users so undiscerning?

I don't think they sell many 2100i's. My dealertalked me out of one and sold me the 3100i because he thought it was a better overall stove. I'm glad he did.
 
TMonter said:
That would have no effect on the gms/hr emissions. Total emissions is total emissions regardless of the flow. They're not specifying in PPM.
Sure it would - unless there's flame up there to use it, a diluted exhaust is a cooler exhaust, with more particulates clinging to the pipe wall.

As for the dirty glass, I have that problem on my 3100i even when it's burning clean on low fire. Quad's air-wash leaves something to be desired.
No argument from me there!
 
TMonter said:
I don't think they sell many 2100i's. My dealertalked me out of one and sold me the 3100i because he thought it was a better overall stove. I'm glad he did.
Your 3100 may have the same issue as the 2100 - stay tuned :)
 
Sure it would - unless there’s flame up there to use it, a diluted exhaust is a cooler exhaust, with more particulates clinging to the pipe wall.

Diluted exhaust is also a higher rate of exhaust leaving meaning increased flow out of the pipe which would to a point increase velocity and overall ACFM. Additionally you'd have to dilute the exhaust an awful lot to cause particles to cool enough to stick.
 
TMonter said:
Diluted exhaust is also a higher rate of exhaust leaving meaning increased flow out of the pipe which would to a point increase velocity and overall ACFM.
Methinks you're missing the point. This isn't additional air, it is taken from what would otherwise be the primary airwash, so no change in flow, just a bunch of air that doesn't contribute to combustion most of the time.
 
precaud said:
psmitchell said:
As a potential owner, I read this post with some concern.
A healthy response, I'd say...

Do you think that you got a lemon, or are the problems you describe inherent in the design?l
Well, as Corie's reply suggests, it's a design issue and not a lemon case. But to be fair to all the blanking work I've put into sussing this out (and writing this mini-series,) you'll have to wait until I post Part Three for the detailed answer. For now, I'll say that, once modded, I think it's overall an excellent stove and it will be my primary heater next winter. The cause of the stronger burn on the right side has been identified and the fix is easy. Quad needs their corporate head examined for doing such a stupid thing (as you will see). And I can't believe I'm the only complainer about it. Are most users so undiscerning?

So, if I'm not willing to do any of these mods that you are working on (I'm not), what would you suggest as an alternative stove from a btu/clearance perspective, that doesn't have these design flaws?
 
Well, First I admit I didnt read every post but the OP say he checked the condition of the stove gasket and replaced it. I failed to see where he did the dollar bill test to assure that it had a good seal all the way around. Maybe I missed it but that burn pattern on the glass looks like a leaky gasket still.
 
psmitchell said:
So, if I'm not willing to do any of these mods that you are working on (I'm not), what would you suggest as an alternative stove from a btu/clearance perspective, that doesn't have these design flaws?
One of my main requirements was for a front-to-back burn firebox in this size stove, and I don't remember finding any alternates.
 
Hmmmmmmm, Morso 3610 ;)
 
precaud said:
babalu87 said:
Hmmmmmmm, Morso 3610 ;)
It's east-west, and much bigger...

East-west??????????? We went through this before didnt we?

Easier to run too ;-P
 
Methinks you’re missing the point. This isn’t additional air, it is taken from what would otherwise be the primary airwash, so no change in flow, just a bunch of air that doesn’t contribute to combustion most of the time.

But you're claiming that the extra air helps it meet PM emissions in grams/hour which doesn't make sense. I deal with boilers and combustion systems day in and day out and that simply doesn't jive. Overall emissions are determined mainly by firing rate and since this is a total PM value while it may reduce the grams/btu it wouldn't reduce the overall grams emitted (at least not in any meaningful way).

That extra air at the outlet was likely for CO/hydrocarbon burnout (energy recovery)
 
babalu87 said:
East-west??????????? We went through this before didnt we?
Some people seem to think it has to do with where the loading door is. I see it as how the primary air is presented to the wood - lengthwise or sideways.

Easier to run too ;-P
Perhaps, but costs more than double around here. And much wider... wouldn't fit for me. Besides, I already have the 2100... :)
 
Me too (on where the fire starts)

I look at the stove and call the front North so I call mine a North/South burn
 
TMonter said:
But you're claiming that the extra air helps it meet PM emissions in grams/hour which doesn't make sense.
Perhaps I'm wrong. It was one of several "claims" I made about it.

I deal with boilers and combustion systems day in and day out and that simply doesn't jive. Overall emissions are determined mainly by firing rate and since this is a total PM value while it may reduce the grams/btu it wouldn't reduce the overall grams emitted (at least not in any meaningful way).
Perhaps.

That extra air at the outlet was likely for CO/hydrocarbon burnout (energy recovery)
As I said... when there's flame up there, I can see it's usefulness. But in the life-cycle of a firing load, it's mostly dilution air.
 
babalu87 said:
I look at the stove and call the front North so I call mine a North/South burn
So, you normally cut shorter logs and load them with one end toward the front?
 
As I said… when there’s flame up there, I can see it’s usefulness. But in the life-cycle of a firing load, it’s mostly dilution air.

Come up with a cheap way to regulate that air based on firing rateand we'll go into business together ;-P
 
TMonter said:
Come up with a cheap way to regulate that air based on firing rateand we'll go into business together ;-P
Yeah, really... :)

If it would stay clean, an optical-based system would make sense to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.