QuadraFire Explorer II versus Jotul Castine F400

Hey Creosote Cowboy,

I went through a somewhat similar decision process a few years ago when installing a new stove in our current home - for me it was the Quad Explorer 2 vs. the Jotul F55. In my case, I needed a rear-vent stove. Begreen is spot on in that the F400 is solely cast iron construction - comparing the Explorer 2 to either the F45 or F55 is more apples to apples in terms of how the stove will behave from a burning/heating standpoint as both feature plate steel fireboxes with cast iron bodies around that. I wound up going with the Explorer 2 as my wife wanted an enameled finish which was/is not an option with the F55. Overall, I feel that the Explorer 2 is a fine stove. Jotul also makes a great stove, so I don't think you'd go wrong either way. Comes down to preferences. One of my preferences is for North-South loading - the Quad (and the Castine) don't lend themselves to that; in both cases the firebox is shallow and wide. The F55 on the other hand looks as though it would accommodate more of a N-S loading configuration. You may not care. The Quad also has a "startup air flow" feature that I don't think makes a hill of beans difference in startup. I figured this was due to my less than ideal venting setup, but I have a good friend from church who also got a Quad Explorer 2 and he can't tell much of a difference with this feature either. We just ignore it. So, if your dealer/installer tries to sell you on this you have 2 data points that say its nothing revolutionary. On the flip side, the Quad looks great with the enameled finish and when secondary combustion is going it does look awesome. I believe their slogan is something like "nothing burns like a Quad" and there is some merit to that. Looks different than the two other secondary combustion stoves I've run (a Pacific Energy and a Napoleon).

Not sure if this is helpful. If I were you I'd probably think about how a 100% cast iron stove would behave compared to the hybrid steel firebox/cast exterior stove in the particular setup and make that a strong factor in my decision. I suppose looks are also important - our stove is in the middle of the big open living area/kitchen/dining room so my wife wanted something that looked good since you look at it all year. I thought that the F55 looked good too, but that's me.

Best of luck in your decision and let us know what stove you go with. Again, both companies make great stoves and I personally don't think you'd go wrong with either from a quality standpoint.

Tim(fromOhio)

Yup, watch the requirement. No r-value is called out but it does state "metal clad". Many pre-made hearth pads that install guy wants to sell you are overpriced and do not include this feature. I made my hearth pad using multiple layers of durock with sheet metal in between, tile on top. I'll try to attach a pic.

OK, pic successfully attached - didn't know if it would be too large; first one I conveniently found. As you can see, the hearth is pleasantly warm, but not hot. Dogs love it.

Regarding the radiant heat - while the stove is our primary heat source in the winter (estimate 70%?) I do not get up in the night to feed it. I load it before bed, get it cooking, damper down, go to bed. I have one of those small thermoelectric fans on the top of the stove. There are mornings when it is still rotating slowly and the stove is still nice and warm. So, even after the fire has died down the cast iron is continuing to radiate the heat nicely. I suspect a fully cast stove would be cooler at this point - would have given up the heat by then.

If I recall correctly I did 3/4" plywood, then durock, then sheet metal, then durock, then tile. I also used a felt material underneath the plywood so that the hearth floats and won't mare the underlying hardwood. As much as my wife likes our house, its not the "forever" house for me. Behind the Quad used to be a zero clearance gas log fireplace. In the event of a move, I'll take out the quad, remove the hearth pad, and reinstall the gas logs.

I figured the sheet metal was in case a big ember fell out unnoticed and burned through the metal would dissipate the point source of heat. In any case, my advice is to follow the manufacturers guidelines to the "t" for liability purposes.

Wow, my hearth is way over-built then! For some reason I also looked at a glass hearth pad - maybe the F55 required "ember only" protection? As you can see from the pic I also have the hearth over a hardwood floor. One concern I had with the glass was that due to the inherent unevenness with hardwood I thought I might get small ash/dust/wood chip particles under the glass and that, in time, it would look like a mess with this stuff inevitably infiltrating under the hearth. I was also concerned about somebody dropping the ash rake, a log, etc. on the glass. With tile I have a chance to spot repair a chip. Glass, not so much. So are you leaning towards the Castine?

Begreen - seems that a lot of copy/paste must happen with stove companies. Quad appears to have an incorrect or outdated requirement in the manual. I remember when I put my Napoleon 1150p in our old home I called them multiple times trying to verify an r-value and got some generic, excessive answer. You might recall that the 1150p has under-stove wood storage area. If the high r-value requirement was driven by heat given off the bottom of the stove (it didn't get that hot) why design it to have wood storage between said high r-value hearth and stove box?