Enlighten me - Why, really, shouldn't I start with an old airtight?

[SWVA]

My deal is as follows. Get ready for an earful:

I am a new entrant to wood stoves and wood heat, though I have indirect experience with the process (friend's farms, greenhouses, etc.) and am comfortable jumping in. I am about to close on my first house, a 1940 cottage on approximately 15 acres, which we will be renovating for years to come, no doubt. My wife and I plan to establish a small homestead/farm. For reasons of frugality and independence, we want to burn wood as our primary heat source. The house, which is only about 1300 sf, has a propane furnace, which would be the back up.

The land has a good number of mature trees, but no real, dependable, wood lot to speak of. However, wood is plentiful in our part of the country. From my initial research, it appears that I can easily buy a cord of seasoned hardwood for $200.00. I am grappling with the following: shell out the cash now for a new EPA stove (jotul 400 or Oslow?), or keep it cheap and simple to start and pick up an old Fisher of some variety. The way I am currently thinking, the cost to purchase and operate an old airtight stove for our first 3-5 years would be considerably lower than a new purchase and installation, even considering the increased fuel consumption implicit in the operation of an old stove.

I figure $3000.00 or more all told for a new sparkly wood stove install. I am confident I could pick up a Fisher mama bear (or similar stove) in good shape for $600.00. Even if I burn 50% more wood per year, it would take 3-5 years, at least, to realize any savings with the EPA stove. By that time, the farm would be up and running and I could repurpose the fisher as a greenhouse heater when I upgrade. Saving money on the front end would be a big benefit, as I also need a tractor, livestock, fencing, etc. So, against that backdrop, would it really be such a bad idea to go old school at first? If so, why? Are the old smoke dragons really that bad?

 

[SWVA]

I forgot to add: I realize that for a similar price, I could buy a cheap EPA stove that would possibly out perform an old Fisher. However, I like the aesthetic and would enjoy having an old, durable, and reliable stove around for any possible worst-case scenario that might eventually play out.

 

[fossil]

So long as there are no state or local restrictions (assuming you care about those things), go for it. Rick

 

[Grisu]

Classic Fisher: about 35 to 40% efficiency; new EPA-stove: 70 to 75% efficiency. If you would really buy your wood, that's paying almost twice as much in fuel for the Fisher than for the EPA-stove. You would barely be saving anything compared with propane in that case.

$3000 is total cost for stove, chimney, hearth and install. The last 3 would be the same for any stove. What you need to compare is $600 for Fisher versus $900 for a budget EPA-stove like an Englander or Drolet. Is using half the amount of wood, having a view of the fire, longer burn times, and closer clearances plus UL-listing, warranty, and customer support not worth the additional $300?

Get your wood under 20% internal moisture, buy an EPA-stove and enjoy the benefits of having a modern heating appliance.

(And be aware that green wood also burns crappy in a Fisher. Water does not burn.)

 

[begreen]

Welcome. If you are practicing the laudable virtue of frugality, an EPA stove makes sense. It will use less wood over the lifetime of the stove. Significantly less. You seem to be torn between two other decisions looks (Jotul Oslo) vs practicality (Old Fisher). There is a solution. You can get a modern stove that will do the job well yet cost less than $1000. And yes, it will last for decades but will use at least 30% less wood. That is a huge impact both on the budget and on the environment. The compromise? It is going to need dry wood to perform well and it will need enough draft to burn well. A short 10ft chimney won't suffice. I would look at a stove made in your neighborhood. The Englander Madison.
(broken link removed to http://www.englanderstoves.com.php54-1.dfw1-2.websitetestlink.com/englander/stove/englander-madison-1200-1800-sq.-ft.-wood-stove)

it appears that I can easily buy a cord of seasoned hardwood for $200.00.

That is probably a fallacy at this time of year. If you can find truly well seasoned hardwood now you have a golden dealer.

 

[Hogwildz]

Go for the old tech if that is what you want. I think your savings you have in mind will be much less than you are anticipating.
The cost savings will be minimal or negative, when your burning additional cordage a year at $200.00 per cord.
Are you prepared to get up in the middle of the night to reload that thing, or wake up to a cooler/cold house in the morning?
Are you prepared to possibly sweep the chimney more often, or pay someone to do it more often? Which may be with any stove vs. burning habits & moisture content of wood being burnt.
Are you prepared for the 3' clearance all around it will require from all combustibles? Noting that if/when you buy a new stove, you will either have to reuse the stack you have set up for the old stove, or cut a new hole through everything to position the new stove so it is not sitting in the middle of no mans land. Does the lil woman mind that you won't be able to enjoy the view of the fire through the solid steel doors that are on the old Fisher?
Are you prepared to relearn all your loading, burning habits over again if/when you do buy a new stove. Cause it will be like starting over.
The question you should reconsider and ask yourself is, why, really, should you?
And quite simply, the newer stoves look ten times better than any of the old ones you're going to find.
There are things to be frugal about in life, and wood stoves are not one of them. Of course, these are only my opinion, so take it with a grain of salt.
But, if your set on the old Fisher or like, then by all means, go with what makes you and the woman happy.
It comes down to your preference.

 

[Hogwildz]

Saving money (theoretically, but not really) with an old stove.... eh
Saving some real dough with a new stove over a short time period, and also in the long run Cha ching $
Saving money, wood, labor processing & longer time between reloads, Cha cha ching $$
Waking up to a nice toasty house in the morning, with plenty O colas to reload and keep things toasty.......priceless. $$$
And did I mention the view?

PS: Laying nekkid in front of the fire with the lil woman, basking in the glow of the fire against her soft skin... YOWZA! (Discalimer: Results may differ between persons). Some folks should maybe have steel doors....

And on a serious note, just glass doors alone are nice to have the room lit up, especially during power outages.

 

[SWVA]

I'm not set on anything just yet. In fact, until late last night when this current line of thought developed, I had all but settled on buying a new beauty. I probably should have titled this thread more appropriately "short term economics of EPA vs. airtight stoves," or something similar. As any frugal man would be, I am obviously attracted to the higher efficiency of new models, even if I was initially skeptical that an "EPA" anything could be better than a "non-EPA." I certainly don't mind spending money for quality and would be more inclined to go that route than to buy a budget modern stove. That may seem silly. Vintage or top of the line new is a trap I find myself falling into frequently.

 

[begreen]

We owe a lot to the classic stoves of yore. They paved the way to better evolving designs. But economically and environmentally their time has passed. Wood is more expensive to buy now and better measuring of efficiency and output have led us to better designs. And Hog is right to point out, a good fire view is a pleasure unto itself.

 

[fossil]

Knowing little about the "geography" of your long term plan, I'd point out that the stove aside, the installation costs involved in a proper flue system and hearth are non-trivial. Point being, that if the stove is to be situated in the intended long-term location, then the hearth and flue system probably ought to be installed with that in mind. What may serve your chosen "interim" stove, if not suitable for your "eventual" stove will be a non-recoverable cost, and it'll all have to be re-done. This shouldn't be difficult to take into account, but much better now than later. Rick

 

[BrotherBart]

All I can tell ya is that after heating for 30 years with the old stoves, twenty-one years with an old one with glass in the doors, using half the wood and getting more heat in the joint makes me say I would never go back.

And the new one cost me a whopping $400 more in 2006 dollars than the old one did in 1985 dollars.

 

[dafattkidd]

I'm not set on anything just yet. In fact, until late last night when this current line of thought developed, I had all but settled on buying a new beauty. I probably should have titled this thread more appropriately "short term economics of EPA vs. airtight stoves," or something similar. As any frugal man would be, I am obviously attracted to the higher efficiency of new models, even if I was initially skeptical that an "EPA" anything could be better than a "non-EPA." I certainly don't mind spending money for quality and would be more inclined to go that route than to buy a budget modern stove. That may seem silly. Vintage or top of the line new is a trap I find myself falling into frequently.

If you're going with a short term fix and eventually upgrading to a more expensive Jotul, consider a low cost Englander as the short term fix. These units are well made, have great customer service, burn clean, blast out tons of heat and are only a few hundred dollars over your budgeted price of $600 for a Fisher. You will save the difference in fuel costs (wood consumption) in the first two months of burning.

Based on results posted on this site, there are a lot of high quality, low cost EPA units available on the market. The math indicates that you will get the best economic outcome by saving on fuel, due to burning a more efficient EPA unit.

If you like the aesthetic and nostalgia of an old Fisher stove, than that's a whole other story. Either way, you should get a good wood supply ready now for this season and next season. Good fuel is beneficial in both newer and older units. Good luck!

 

[SWVA]

I really appreciate this kind of input, and it is the reason I joined the forum. Abstract number crunching is one thing, but it useful to hear from folks with real experience on both systems to compare.

All I can tell ya is that after heating for 30 years with the old stoves, twenty-one years with an old one with glass in the doors, using half the wood and getting more heat in the joint makes me say I would never go back.

And the new one cost me a whopping $400 more in 2006 dollars than the old one did in 1985 dollars.

really appreciate

 

[osagebow]

As others have stated, you would be penny wise and pound foolish with a old school stove. Get a Virginia made englander 30 (made right down the road in Amherst county. I believe )It will get you through the night, unlike a fisher. Also, getting on the 3 year plan with dry wood is worth the work.
Welcome, and good luck.

 

[brenndatomu]

Why would you even consider used/obsolete when you can get a new stove, like for instance, a Englander NC30 for $899 at HD, and that's not even a sale price! Oh, and the thirty is a well respected stove around these parts, defiantly NOT a "budget" class stove...

 

[Hogwildz]

All I can tell ya is that after heating for 30 years with the old stoves, twenty-one years with an old one with glass in the doors, using half the wood and getting more heat in the joint makes me say I would never go back.

And the new one cost me a whopping $400 more in 2006 dollars than the old one did in 1985 dollars.

I can't help but yet again point out, I got my Summers Heat(Englander 30) for $476.00 on sale at Lowes, well a few years back now.
I was on the phone with Tom from Chimneysweeponline laughing about how my stove is out of the 5 year warranty, and I have not installed it yet LMAO.
I am ashamed to admit it has quite a bit of dust on it, well anywhere that it isn't acting like a shelf to store crap on.

 

[SWVA]

Why would you even consider used/obsolete when you can get a new stove, like for instance, a Englander NC30 for $899 at HD, and that's not even a sale price! Oh, and the thirty is a well respected stove around these parts, defiantly NOT a "budget" class stove...

I hadn't looked at Englander, but am definitely looking now! I had no idea they were a Va company. Definitely a plus.

 

[Silenced38]

5 years ago i put in a box wood cast iron stove. Just for supplemental heat. I put it out of the way, in a back room. It put out very little heat, burnt more wood, and wouldnt last more than 4 hours max. This year i up graded stoves. ESW Madison. Had to remove the chimney and reinstall it in a location more centrally located. So the heat will spread out better. Its what i should have done 5 years ago.
I say buy a good stove now and save money on another project. Why have to do the work of installing a stove twice? Like i did. I think youll be happier in the long run. But thats my opinion.

 

[Charles1981]

Get the Englander 30. Its cheap, its EPA efficient, it puts out a ton of heat, it is highly praised across the board here at the forums.

It will put out more heat, you won't have to wake up in the middle of the night to load it, and you will get it new most likely instead of heavily used.

 

[DanCorcoran]

If you decide to go with the old one, plan on getting up at least once in the middle of the night, all winter, to reload the stove (you'll be back asleep before you know it...30 minutes to an hour?). Or wake up to a really cold house. Or use propane half the night.

Edit: I retract my statement, based on statements from those more in the know than I. Sleep well...

 

[bholler]

I am sorry guys but a good fisher can easily burn all night. I would still prefer a modern stove but you can absolutly get 8 hours out of an old stove. Now you will need much larger clearances a bigger flue and allot more wood but if you are ok with those things go for it.

 

[BrotherBart]

Yeah I never got up and reloaded my old large Sierra insert and the joint stayed warm all night. Crapped up the chimney regularly, but didn't have to reload in the middle of the night. And the 4.3 CF firebox could eat a bunch of wood.

 

[fossil]

I could get my old Lopi 530 to burn pretty much all night, even with our NW softwoods. Stuff it to the gills at about 11 PM, turn the air down. In the morning there would generally be enough hot coals still glowing in there to easily re-stoke the fire. Used a lot of wood, and burned pretty dirty, though. I like my Liberty replacement much better for a number of reasons. But there's no question the old gal would put out some heat. Rick

 

[bholler]

I am by no means saying i would go with the fisher but with good wood and a good chimney they can work well

 

[Poindexter]

I started splitting would for the family iron box stove while Ford was in the White House. I still have the stove from my grandpa's garage out in my shop. I ran a EPA cert non-cat stove for a couple seasons. I have a new this summer catalyst equipped stove on my hearth now. I don't "know" how much less wood I am going to burn this winter, but I already know, with no snow on the ground yet possibly half way through shoulder season that i am going to burn a lot less than I would if I hadn't upgraded the stove.

If you can size a firebox to your living space the efficiency jump from iron box to EPA cert non-cat is noticeable. I felt it as fluctuating temperature in my house. My particular non-cat cert stove would either run very hot or very very very hot, but I have no doubt I was getting more heat per stick or more heat per cord, however you want to measure it the epa cert non cat was putting more heat into the building and less up the stack than the old iron box. Less time working on the woodpile, less motrin to take, more time to spend with the wife, however you want to invest the savings is up to you.

Jumping from non-cat to a cat stove is the same efficiency jump again, feels bigger. More expensive stove, but I am getting even more BTUs out of every stick than I ever was before. So I can build a smaller woodpile for next winter. I have even more time to spend with my wife or work on the house or go fishing than I did last year and the years before that, because I am not handling as much wood every year. And - this is huge to me - with the cat stove I can turn it down to low and run it overnight. I am not familiar with every non-cat stove out there. The Englander is a really popular stove and I don't read much negative about them.

In twenty words or less I would say go with the most efficient stove you can comfortably afford, you'll save the most time at your woodpile for years to come.