Fire box size ... advertised VS actual

[Rob_Red]

I've been noticing advertised firebox sizes are usually not the actual usable amount of space, in fact they are typically way off. Is this because they are measuring without the baffle? Is this consistant across all manufacturers? It's pretty hard to compare apples to apples

 

[begreen]

It varies with the manufacturer, but yes, many firebox volumes are exaggerated and include the whole firebox volume instead of the loadable volume. The actual loadable volume is often less, particularly on E/W loaders because they can't be loaded as full as a N/S loader without concerns of a log rolling and hitting the glass. Some EPA reports provide the actual loadable volume which is a more helpful number.

 

[Highbeam]

My BK and Englander were really close to spec but the hearthstone was way smaller than it was supposed to be.

 

[ABMax24]

Here's another question on this topic; is the EPA loading volume based on a certain specification, for example to load 1" below the secondary tubes, or is this load volume chosen by the testing agancy/manufacturer to perform better during emissions testing?

 

[Woody Stover]

loadable volume is often less, particularly on E/W loaders because they can't be loaded as full as a N/S loader without concerns of a log rolling and hitting the glass.

My stove has andirons to prevent that, but they DO take a inch or two off the loadable volume.

 

[begreen]

Here's another question on this topic; is the EPA loading volume based on a certain specification, for example to load 1" below the secondary tubes, or is this load volume chosen by the testing agancy/manufacturer to perform better during emissions testing?

Seems to vary with the testing lab. Some don't even include this. It would be nice to see consistency across reports.