TARM vs. EKO efficiency ?

[EWD1]

Help, I need an unbiased opinion.
1 Tarm claims 80-85% and the EKO 91%, Is the EKO more efficient?
2 How do the boiler controls compare?
3 Is the Tarm variable output like the EKO?

 

[WoodNotOil]

The following post has a good discussion of both of these options:

https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/forums/viewthread/18072/

I have a tarm and am very happy with it. Look at the btu outputs for model comparison. Call one of the companies and they can help you with heat loss calculations and sizing. I think the differences between them becomes somewhat less important once large heat storage is added because you are doing one long continuous burn.

 

[Eric Johnson]

I wouldn't worry about the relative efficiency claims. They're both estimates that most users will never see anyway. Same basic technology.

The EKO has a few nice bells and whistles that might make it a better value, but it's hard to argue with Tarm's track record or engineering. People who have both boilers all seem to love them.

The EKO Super (which is the only model you can get in the U.S. these days) comes standard with turbulators in the hx tubes. Not only that, but they can be easily moved up and down to clean the heat exchanger, so you don't have to take the thing apart and brush it out. The Super also has a built-in cooling coil which can be used as a hot water heat exchanger in some applications. The EKO has a variable speed fan that modulates the burn somewhat as it gets hotter. And, it has a "puff" feature programmed into the controller that keeps the coals alive during idle.

 

[webbie]

I agree with Eric - similar efficiency.

But the Tarm is welded by Danes and the EKO by Poles.

Both are pretty good at building ships, so I assume they know their welding.