EPA certified furnace by England's

[begreen]

The 3500 has been redefined. Now it's the EPA certified 28-4000. It looks a bit like the 30NC firebox in furnace form.
http://www.heatredefined.com/englander/stove/englander-3000-sq-ft-add-on-wood-furnace

 

[Highbeam]

Wrong forum, maybe a mod can move it!

Manual draft control so really just a noncat stove with a large blower. Did you notice how close the blower intake is to the combustion air inlet?

 

[begreen]

Yes, looks like the 30NC in a furnace cabinet. Figured this would be of interest to both forums. Looks like a decent cheap shop heater.

 

[webby3650]

Looks pretty nice! Any idea what the retail price is?

 

[begreen]

About $1250 at HD.

 

[webby3650]

About $1250 at HD.

Wow! Not bad at all.

 

[Highbeam]

And if it really is an nc30 underneath then emissions are very low. Low enough to install in Washington even.

 

[lampmfg]

Emissions .728 lbs/mmbtu

http://www.heatredefined.com/assets/images/general/28-4000_1.pdf

 

[Highbeam]

Emissions .728 lbs/mmbtu

http://www.heatredefined.com/assets/images/general/28-4000_1.pdf

I need an emissions rate per hour since that is what the law requires. I read the link and the gph might be in there, it's confusing. I do see hhv efficiencies of over 73% for the 1250$ Englander which the kuuma only beats by 5 or 6 points. That surprises me.

 

[Tegbert]

I need an emissions rate per hour since that is what the law requires. I read the link and the gph might be in there, it's confusing. I do see hhv efficiencies of over 73% for the 1250$ Englander which the kuuma only beats by 5 or 6 points. That surprises me.

I know that on Home Depot website it states it can't be shipped to Washington. Hopefully it just isn't certified yet cause this would be nice in my shop if my home insurance allows it.


Lopi Rockport

 

[BrotherBart]

I waited 30 years for them to come up with that thing. Too late now dang it!

 

[brenndatomu]

I waited 30 years for them to come up with that thing. Too late now dang it!

Why too late...you ain't dead yet...and global warming hasn't advanced to the point of not needing supplement winter heat in the house...

 

[lampmfg]

I need an emissions rate per hour since that is what the law requires. I read the link and the gph might be in there, it's confusing. I do see hhv efficiencies of over 73% for the 1250$ Englander which the kuuma only beats by 5 or 6 points. That surprises me.

6.84 gr/hr is what I have found for that model in comparison to the Kuuma at .72 gr/hr. Efficiency is one thing but when it comes to no creosote that equals safety which should help give every one piece of mind whether at night or while away from your home.

In the state of Washington from what I see, non-catalytic models need to be 4.5 gr/hr and catalytic models need to be 2.5 gr/hr.

 

[Highbeam]

6.84 gr/hr is what I have found for that model in comparison to the Kuuma at .72 gr/hr. Efficiency is one thing but when it comes to no creosote that equals safety which should help give every one piece of mind whether at night or while away from your home.

In the state of Washington from what I see, non-catalytic models need to be 4.5 gr/hr and catalytic models need to be 2.5 gr/hr.

I have found the same information since posting last week. Odd since the NC30, that this furnace is based on, previously tested at less than 2 gph. Must be a different testing protocol or a result of the "furnacizing" of the NC30. Regardless, this Englander furnace is yet another excessively dirty furnace being put out on the market. "Excessively" as determined by WA state law.

 

[lampmfg]

I have found the same information since posting last week. Odd since the NC30, that this furnace is based on, previously tested at less than 2 gph. Must be a different testing protocol or a result of the "furnacizing" of the NC30. Regardless, this Englander furnace is yet another excessively dirty furnace being put out on the market. "Excessively" as determined by WA state law.

The NC30 was a stove though right? The testing of furnaces and stoves under the new EPA guideline is apples and oranges. Kind of like the Tundra being EPA approved when it first came out even though there wasn't EPA approval for furnaces. They tested it using the stove guideline even though that was very misleading to the public.

 

[laynes69]

Why was it misleading? If one owned a epa certified stove, what's wrong with having a whole house heater that passed emission testing? The tests now are apples and oranges due to firebox sizes. It's much easier for a 2 cu ft firebox to burn clean than a 4 cu ft firebox so different rules had to apply. Now there's furnaces on the market with 5+ cu ft fireboxes meeting certification. And before you say they produce 5 grams per hour of smoke, prior to that, they were 30-60 grams per hour. Even woodstoves meeting older epa standards, I don't hear of the owners having chimney fires.

 

[lampmfg]

To me, I found it very confusing that if there was not an EPA test for wood furnaces how could there be EPA approved wood furnaces? I don't think they test a truck for EPA emissions using a car test and then sell them as EPA approved. Oh well, that was in the past now anyway and we all do have an actual EPA method for wood furnaces now.