Firebox size, burn times and wood consumption???

[Trilifter7]

I am currently in the market for a new stove and have been looking at all possible options with a 6" flu. I am still torn an whether to go with a 2 cu ft or a 3 cu ft stove. My concern is wood consumption between the two and burn times. I know you can get longer burn times out of a bigger firebox, but at what cost of wood cunsumption is my question? Do I stick with a 2 cu ft stove and deal with 8-10 hr burn times or do I go to the 3 cu ft and get 10-12 hr burn times while using more wood? I'm still not sure which is better. Since I am heating a 2000 sqft house I am right in that middle zone where I can run a 2 cu ft stove hot and manage or use a 3 cu ft on lower demand and still do well. My current 2 cu ft VC Resolute has been doing a good job and I run it on about low to middle heat but it only gives about 4-6 hours of heat. I want a longer burning stove but at what cost to wood consumption will a bigger firebox have?

 

[Jasper 83]

There shouldnt be any difference in wood consumption over burn time in the bigger stove. It gets the same mileage but has a bigger tank allowing you to drive further between fill ups

 

[rdust]

Buy a bigger stove fill it like a 2 cubic foot stove if you'd like. Heating 2K you deserve a 3 cubic foot stove. I don't think consumption between the two will add up to anything you can measure.

The big question for fuel savings is cat or non-cat imo I easily cut a cord out of my consumption going from an EPA non cat to an EPA cat.

 

[branchburner]

When increasing the firebox size, I think a cat stove should allow for reduced wood consumption by letting you burn more efficiently with a lower heat output, during periods periods when extended high heat output is not desired.

The burn technology of my stove is just the opposite: some downdraft stoves like to burn very hot with a full load, which is great for really cold weather, but to keep a long period of secondary combustion going I sometimes end up overheating the place and using more wood than optimal (especially in the fall and spring months).

 

[velvetfoot]

The big question for fuel savings is cat or non-cat imo I easily cut a cord out of my consumption going from an EPA non cat to an EPA cat.

I didn't realize that.

 

[rideau]

2000 square feet, I'd go with a Woodstock Progress Hybrid..both catalytic and secondary burn technology, will use even less wood than a cat stove, is very user friendly, has long burn times regardless of heat load --12 hours very easily on low, medium, moderate or high heat output in my experience. Load size determines heat output,split size determines burn time within the available range which is easily up to 16 hours, so you never waste wood. Switches on its own between burn technologies as the situation demands...often burns with both technologies. Maintains a really even home temp, gets up to speed quickly, takes only about 15 minutes to get going, then burns for a good 12 hours (longer if you want) with no necessary further adjustments. However, if you want a roaring fire, or a pretty fire, at any point, you can just open the air a bit and the stove responds immediately. Close the air back down, and she slows right down. Every 12 hours or so, open the air, open the bypass, open the door, rake coals forward if you wish, or just level any coal bed, reload, close air to 1/2 to 2/3 depending on your draft, wait for wood to char, close air a bit more, close bypass, wait a few minutes and shut air almost completely to completely, and let burn until you want to reload half a day or so later.
While dry wood is recommended, and gives you a better burn and less need to clean the screen and cat, this stove willburn very nicely with less than ideally dried wood, which is a great advantage for first year burners who may not have a few years wood stacked c/s. Woodstock tested it with 38+% moisture sugar maple and it did just fine...had almost the same burn times, emissions as with 19% moisture sugar maple, and/or dry Doug Fir EPA test wood.

Great customer service, very attractive stove, very comfortable heat, and stove is built to last a lifetime. Sold directly from the manufacturer, comes with a six month money back warranty if you are not ssatisfied with the unit for your needs. What's not to like?

Love mine.

Had a Fireview (Woodstock) previously, loved it too, but not really large enough for a 2000 sq foot home...better to upsize. PH is rated to 2200 feet easily.

 

[rideau]

I didn't realize that.

Yes, its true. They are a bit more efficient (on average about 72 % versus 63 % I believe), and they are more easily adjustable to give the ideal amount of heat for outdoor temp, so less wood is burned unnecessarily.

 

[BrowningBAR]

Yes, its true. They are a bit more efficient (on average about 72 % versus 63 % I believe), and they are more easily adjustable to give the ideal amount of heat for outdoor temp, so less wood is burned unnecessarily.

A cat stove is more efficient when run at lower temps. A non-cat stove is more efficient at higher temps.

 

[rideau]

A cat stove is more efficient when run at lower temps. A non-cat stove is more efficient at higher temps.

Really? That is something I am uninformed about. Would like to learn about it. Can you explain?

Pausing to think (always a good thing to do):

I know the PH, with both technologies, is more efficient than either, so it makes sense that a non-cat is more efficient at some point in the burn than a cat, but can you explain how/why? Also, I am under the impression that even with that being so, overall throughout the course of a complete burn, a cat is more efficient than a non-cat. For the same amount of wood burned, a cat on average will produce more usable heat than a non cat?

 

[corey21]

Really? That is something I am uninformed about. Would like to learn about it. Can you explain?

Pausing to think (always a good thing to do):

I know the PH, with both technologies, is more efficient than either, so it makes sense that a non-cat is more efficient at some point in the burn than a cat, but can you explain how/why? Also, I am under the impression that even with that being so, overall throughout the course of a complete burn, a cat is more efficient than a non-cat. For the same amount of wood burned, a cat on average will produce more usable heat than a non cat?

Cat stoves burn smoke starting at 500F. Non cats burn smoke at 1000F.

 

[rideau]

Cat stoves burn smoke starting at 500F. Non cats burn smoke at 1000F.

I know that. But that wouldn't mean the cat wouldn't continue to burn smoke if the stove got hotter? Or that you wouldn't end up with both a cat and sceondary burn?

 

[dafattkidd]

Hey Drifter, I can't really speak to the cat wood consumption because I've only have non cat EPA certified stoves.

Here's what I do know: wood consumption goes up if I want more heat. You can load a 3 cf unit like a 2 cf unit and have the extra firepower when you need it. I have found more wood in the firebox increases burn times, but more impressively puts out more heat throughout the burn cycle. So for me, wood consumption is determined by heat demands. A few sticks will get a quick hot fire when needed, and a full load n my 3.2 cf beast will crank tons of heat four hours.

I went from 1.7 cf insert to a 3.2 cf insert. A 500* fire in the larger unit pours a lot of heat into my drafty house. Hope that helps.

A few things I like about the oversized unit: less worn with the chainsaw as I can fit longer splits in there, never over coaling issues on really cold days, more flexibility with loading and load times.

*Also worth noting: I rarely completely fill my firebox to the brim. A typical load is 70-80% full.

 

[weatherguy]

If your worried about fuel consumption then I would go with the Woodstock Hybrid or one of the BK's.

 

[Backwoods Savage]

I am currently in the market for a new stove and have been looking at all possible options with a 6" flu. I am still torn an whether to go with a 2 cu ft or a 3 cu ft stove. My concern is wood consumption between the two and burn times. I know you can get longer burn times out of a bigger firebox, but at what cost of wood cunsumption is my question? Do I stick with a 2 cu ft stove and deal with 8-10 hr burn times or do I go to the 3 cu ft and get 10-12 hr burn times while using more wood? I'm still not sure which is better. Since I am heating a 2000 sqft house I am right in that middle zone where I can run a 2 cu ft stove hot and manage or use a 3 cu ft on lower demand and still do well. My current 2 cu ft VC Resolute has been doing a good job and I run it on about low to middle heat but it only gives about 4-6 hours of heat. I want a longer burning stove but at what cost to wood consumption will a bigger firebox have?

For 2000 sq ft one is usually better to go with the 3 cf rather than the 2 cf. However, we do know there are folks how have and are heating their home with a 2 cf stove. But, if one does this, the home should be well insulated for sure, otherwise you would need the furnace for backup heat. Of course living where the temperatures do not get extreme helps also.

Your comparison of 2 cf getting 8-10 hour burn vs 3 cf 10-12 hour burn is not necessarily correct. We have a 2 cf and easily get a 12 hour burn time. In addition, the type of wood you burn in the stove matters a lot. For example, you will get more heat from oak than you will from many other woods. Same goes for something like black locust. But if someone has only cottonwood or popple or soft maple, then the burn times will be much shorter.

 

[Trilifter7]

Hey guys, thanks for all the input so far. It is looking like a bigger stove is the way to go. I do agree with the CAT being a more conservative option for overall wood consumption. I was scared of going to a CAT stove at first but I have warmed up to the idea. A few things to add to my situation.... I only have 13' of flu so my draft is a little on the week side. I could always add on some but at best I could have 15-16' total. This worries me with going to a CAT stove. I also really like the top load option of my current VC Resolute. The stoves I have been looking at are the VC Encore 2-in-1, the Harman Oakwood and the Qaudrafire Isle Royale. I am feeling more comfortable about going with a bigger firebox now, just not sure what my best option is given my draft situation.

 

[Trilifter7]

Also to add, I know there is a lot of support for the Woodstock PH but its just not for me. I'm sure its a a great stove and all but I'm not a big fan of the soapstone look or the side load feature of it. Maybe one day but for now its just not an option for me. Same with the BK's.... great stoves but not for me. There are a lot of Stove options out there so any advice I can get that helps me narrow my options is greatly appreciated. Like I said before, the top load option is very important to me right now. And keeping with the topic of this post the stove size and burn style are key factors in narrowing my options right now with what is available.

 

[BrowningBAR]

I only have 13' of flu so my draft is a little on the week side. I could always add on some but at best I could have 15-16' total. This worries me with going to a CAT stove.

This will be a worry whether it is a cat stove or a non-cat stove.

I also really like the top load option of my current VC Resolute. The stoves I have been looking at are the VC Encore 2-in-1, the Harman Oakwood and the Qaudrafire Isle Royale. I am feeling more comfortable about going with a bigger firebox now, just not sure what my best option is given my draft situation.

I have owned 4 top loading stoves, 1 front loader, and one side loader. I like top loading, also, but do not make that a limiting factor for your stove purchase as there are not many top loaders out there.

The Harman Oakwood and VC Encore are about the same size stove: 2.3 cu ft firebox.

The Isle Royale is a larger stove: 3 cu ft firebox.

The Harman TL300is a top loader and has a 3 cu ft firebox.

The Jotul F50 is a top loader with about a 2.5 cu ft firebox.

 

[Trilifter7]

This will be a worry whether it is a cat stove or a non-cat stove.


I have owned 4 top loading stoves, 1 front loader, and one side loader. I like top loading, also, but do not make that a limiting factor for your stove purchase as there are not many top loaders out there.

The Harman Oakwood and VC Encore are about the same size stove: 2.3 cu ft firebox.

The Isle Royale is a larger stove: 3 cu ft firebox.

The Harman TL300is a top loader and has a 3 cu ft firebox.

The Jotul F50 is a top loader with about a 2.5 cu ft firebox.

I know there are not a lot of options for top loading... but enough to make it a difficult decision. I really liked the Isle Royale until I went and looked at it. I have been to the dealer twice now and am just not sold on quadrafires build quality. Surprisingly... and just opposite of what everyone says I was very impressed with the new VC stoves. Everything from the ash pan handle and seal to the top lid and the front doors. The encore just seemed better built after looking at the two. I liked the Harmans but I really like the cast iron look so the TL300 is out. The Oakwood looks really nice but i wish the front doors were a double door instead of the single swing open style. That is my only real issue with the Harman though. As for the Jotul... I'm not a big fan of the style. Like I said, I really like the cast iron look and style. I was also looking at the Lopi Leyden but have not been to the dealer to check it out yet.

 

[begreen]

This will be a worry whether it is a cat stove or a non-cat stove.


I have owned 4 top loading stoves, 1 front loader, and one side loader. I like top loading, also, but do not make that a limiting factor for your stove purchase as there are not many top loaders out there.

The Harman Oakwood and VC Encore are about the same size stove: 2.3 cu ft firebox.

The Isle Royale is a larger stove: 3 cu ft firebox.

The Harman TL300is a top loader and has a 3 cu ft firebox.

The Jotul F50 is a top loader with about a 2.5 cu ft firebox.

With a short stack, I wouldn't try a downdraft stove. Of these, the Isle Royale has shown itself to be a fairly easy breathing stove. It might work on a straight up 13 ft flue.

 

[BrowningBAR]

With a short stack, I wouldn't try a downdraft stove. Of these, the Isle Royale has shown itself to be a fairly easy breathing stove. It might work on a straight up 13 ft flue.

Agreed. I know the Defiant likes the taller chimney over my shorter chimney and the shorter chimney was still 17-18 feet.

At 13 feet (and even 15 feet) the downdraft stoves could struggle, especially in milder weather.

 

[Trilifter7]

With a short stack, I wouldn't try a downdraft stove. Of these, the Isle Royale has shown itself to be a fairly easy breathing stove. It might work on a straight up 13 ft flue.

Agreed. I know the Defiant likes the taller chimney over my shorter chimney and the shorter chimney was still 17-18 feet.

At 13 feet (and even 15 feet) the downdraft stoves could struggle, especially in milder weather.

Good to know guys. I am pretty much deciding now between a VC Encore 2-in-1 or the Isle Royale. This makes for an interesting comparison for me since i'm looking at either a 2 cu ft CAT stove or a 3 cu ft non-CAT stove. There is a dealer for each in my area so I will have to do some more research on the two. This does bring me back to my original thought that it looks like I could get similar burn times on a 2 cu ft stove as I could with a 3 cu ft stove with the difference being wood consumption. I'm starting to lean towards the smaller CAT stove if it in fact would give me similar results as the Bigger non cat.

 

[BrowningBAR]

This does bring me back to my original thought that it looks like I could get similar burn times on a 2 cu ft stove as I could with a 3 cu ft stove with the difference being wood consumption. I'm starting to lean towards the smaller CAT stove if it in fact would give me similar results as the Bigger non cat.

Well, I run a Cat Encore (2.3 cu ft), a Cat Defiant (3.2cu ft), and a Non-Cat 30NC (3.5 cu ft)

First, you need to determine how much heat you will need. The 3 cu ft stove will provide more usable heat at lower temps than the 2 cu ft stove. I can get 12 -14 hours from the 3 cu ft. I would get up to 16 hours from the Defiant if my place wasn't so drafty.

At 250 degrees, the 30 is still providing usable heat. The Encore does not due to its size.

If the Encore is not a little oversized for you (and at 2,000 sq ft, it doesn't seem like it would be), you can expect 6-8 hours of heat during cold weather. The 3 cu ft stove will provide 9-12 hours of heat.

I do not know what type of winters you have, how insulated your home is, or what you consider warm. I can only speak from my specific experiences with the Encore, 2 cu ft stoves and 3 cu ft stoves.

 

[Trilifter7]

Well, I run a Cat Encore (2.3 cu ft), a Cat Defiant (3.2cu ft), and a Non-Cat 30NC (3.5 cu ft)

First, you need to determine how much heat you will need. The 3 cu ft stove will provide more usable heat at lower temps than the 2 cu ft stove. I can get 12 -14 hours from the 3 cu ft. I would get up to 16 hours from the Defiant if my place wasn't so drafty.

At 250 degrees, the 30 is still providing usable heat. The Encore does not due to its size.

If the Encore is not a little oversized for you (and at 2,000 sq ft, it doesn't seem like it would be), you can expect 6-8 hours of heat during cold weather. The 3 cu ft stove will provide 9-12 hours of heat.

I do not know what type of winters you have, how insulated your home is, or what you consider warm. I can only speak from my specific experiences with the Encore, 2 cu ft stoves and 3 cu ft stoves.

My actual sq footage is 1800. It's fairly well insulated except for the room the stove is in. That room was added on by the previous owner and he did not leave any space between the ceiling and the framing so there is only about 3-4" total bw the ceiling and the roof. There are also about 12 windows in that room so I lose a lot of heat from a 300 sq ft area of my house. its not very drafty so that helps. Overall i would say the Resolute has done ok with heating but the biggest problem i face is short burn times. this allows the house to cool while I'm at work and even some at night before i wake up. Thats the only reason I am looking to upgrade to a newer stove. The Resolute puts out enough heat on low to maintain temp and I can turn it up to get quick heat if I have to. I am only getting about 4-5 hours of usable heat though. If i could get that to about 8-10 hours of usable heating i could easily satisfy my needs. I just want to to that at the most efficient way possible. My wood is free so cost of fuel isn't a concern to me. My time however is not, so if i can get good burn times from a smaller stove and use less wood while doing it I would be very happy. At the same time I don't want to undersize myself and be stuck in the same situation I'm in where I don't get enough heat. This is why I am doing as much research as I can on what will hopefully work out best for me. I appreciate all the advice everyone has given so far and I will take all the insight into this I can get.

 

[clemsonfor]

i run a 3.5cuft cat stove. I can get 10-14 hours when I need good heat with good load and tightly packing it. That said when I have it drafted down low I can get heat for 24+ hours and then restart with the coals at hand, even when using pine, just less quality coals and less heat.

There are plenty of variables here.