How in the world do I choose a medium-large steel woodstove with sooooooo many on the market ??? Has

  • Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.

    We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.

    We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
  • Hope everyone has a wonderful and warm Thanksgiving!
  • Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
Status
Not open for further replies.

jay3000

New Member
Hearth Supporter
Jul 30, 2008
61
Greensboro, NC
I've been poking around the internet for a week now and I'm no closer than I was.

The Englander NC30 looks like a good choice. It's on the upper end of medium, but not huge. I like the quadrafire 4700 but the price is higher than I want to spend..

I want something that is efficient, has pedastal legs, 2-2.5 Cu ft box., relatively low clearances, if it opens from the left that would be a plus, and it needs a decent ash box..

Any suggestions and real world experience would be helpful. I want to make a good decision this time..

THanks for your help
Jay
 
Your right there are alot of choices out there. Check out the Kodiak 1700 it has a 2.5 cu ft firebox. Lopi also has their Republic line of stoves. Both are within your price range. Others to check out are Buck, Drolet, and Napolean. Good luck
 
Thanks. I also notice a lot of different efficiency ratings but the particulate ratings are similar..

How can two stoves have nearly equivalent particlate rating but their overall efficiency rating are 15% different??
 
Efficiency ratings can vary due to the method of testing. The EPA throws all non cat stoves into a default efficiency of 63% and some manufactures pay independent labs to test with cord wood to get a higher number for bragging rights and sales. There are so many variables in efficiency I really don't think you could pin point any one number for any stove. I would figure all the steel noncats to be pretty much equal as far as efficiency.
 
Todd said:
Efficiency ratings can vary due to the method of testing. The EPA throws all non cat stoves into a default efficiency of 63% and some manufactures pay independent labs to test with cord wood to get a higher number for bragging rights and sales. There are so many variables in efficiency I really don't think you could pin point any one number for any stove. I would figure all the steel noncats to be pretty much equal as far as efficiency.

THat explains whey every single Buck stove says 63% efficiency rating. I had kind of written them off for that reason. THat seemed awfully low compared to others, but the particulate ratings were low. I guess the particulates are what you need to focus on when trying to choose efficiency??????
 
I will second the Kodiak 1700 as I have the insert of that model. Decent price,5/16 steel on top, and 2.5 cu.ft firebox. And not nearly as ugly as it looks on their website!! Look at my avatar, that is the 1700 insert. Yes, it`s black, not that ugly gray. (their marketing manager should be fired)..

Hope you have your wood supply already. And me thinks don`t wait forever, price of steel is still rising.

For the Kodiak, do a search for Enviro. Or Sherwood Industries.
 
jay3000 said:
Todd said:
Efficiency ratings can vary due to the method of testing. The EPA throws all non cat stoves into a default efficiency of 63% and some manufactures pay independent labs to test with cord wood to get a higher number for bragging rights and sales. There are so many variables in efficiency I really don't think you could pin point any one number for any stove. I would figure all the steel noncats to be pretty much equal as far as efficiency.

THat explains whey every single Buck stove says 63% efficiency rating. I had kind of written them off for that reason. THat seemed awfully low compared to others, but the particulate ratings were low. I guess the particulates are what you need to focus on when trying to choose efficiency??????

Yep, Buck is displaying the EPA efficiency. Sometimes you see one or the other or both. Oh, and particulates probably don't tell the whole story as far as efficiency either.
 
I think at least one of the jotuls has an efficiency rating of 71% as a non cat stove. But thats cast and very expensive. I think the Englander 30nc was on my list as it seems to provide a couple of the amenities of both worlds. Cheap price,available good size firebox and a plate steel body with a cast iron door. Something to be said for these plate steel stoves and that is a plate stove can more easily be adapted at the factory with subtle changes in design to make a better stove while with cast its a long expensive process. Have you looked at the harmans and napoleons?
 
JPapiPE said:
I think at least one of the jotuls has an efficiency rating of 71% as a non cat stove. But thats cast and very expensive. I think the Englander 30nc was on my list as it seems to provide a couple of the amenities of both worlds. Cheap price,available good size firebox and a plate steel body with a cast iron door. Something to be said for these plate steel stoves and that is a plate stove can more easily be adapted at the factory with subtle changes in design to make a better stove while with cast its a long expensive process. Have you looked at the harmans and napoleons?

Thanks.. Yeah I have looked at those. The problem around here is finding a dealer for the stoves that aren't sold online. And, If you buy something off the net. Finding somewhere that will sell you the proper pipe is also a PITA. If you go to a dealer, they know you didn't buy their stove..

I Really like the Pacific Energy stoves because they open fron the left, and my wood will be stored on the left, (that seems very convenient) but the closest dealer is 170 miles away. And, I have no idea what they cost either..The search continues..
 
stoveguy2esw said:
jay , how big an area are you looking to heat?

If a 30-NC won't do it he is heating great downtown Greensboro.
 
stoveguy2esw said:
jay , how big an area are you looking to heat?

Well, I don't want to be a slave to the stove anymore during the workweek, but I want to be able to heat 2000 sf or more on the weekends if I want to. I have a 2200 SF house with 800 SF VAULTED. One room is 2 stories high. I've decided to light a fire at night on the weeknights and burn it through the night, but not get up early enough to get it going for the next day. Does that make sense??
 
Makes sense to me, any time you have the furnace off due to your wood fire is oil (or whatever) not burned. I plan to continue to run my wood insert cold evenings and weekends, but only when it is cold, under 30 degrees. Otherwise, I'll run my heatpump...i.e., electricity, not oil.
 
stoveguy2esw said:
jay , how big an area are you looking to heat?

I guess it's better to err on the big side??? I can always burn a small fire in a big stove. I dunno, I'm really struggling. I'm done trying to burn a fire 24x7 in the winter just because it takes time to re start a fire. It's hard on the stove. I burn tons of wood. If the sun comes out and the stove is also burning it gets way hot inside the house. It's always a guess if the sun will poke out.
 
jay3000 said:
Thanks. I also notice a lot of different efficiency ratings but the particulate ratings are similar..

How can two stoves have nearly equivalent particlate rating but their overall efficiency rating are 15% different??

the "overall efficiency rating" is "default" in order to maintain a "true" efficiency rating the manufacturer must pay a pretty significant sum , and recertify (paying that significant sum each time) at a much more frequent rate. this translates to a higher manufacturing cost which would end up being passed to the customer through higher prices (which helps no one except maybe the testing facility who have to earn a living as well) if you take a peek at the epa site (broken link removed to http://www.epa.gov/woodstoves/index.html) look up the listing of epa certified stoves sold in the us you will find that virtually all will list the default number for the category they fall under , cat, non-cat , pellet, they all have identical ratings as they accept default.

now, if you understand the criteria the units have to meet to be epa certified, the combustion efficiency they hit at testing is going to be much higher than default or they will not burn clean enough to pass. thermal efficiency (heat transfer efficiency) varies greatly in testing when you look at a timed test , and think , well steel conducts faster than soapstone, so the transfer rate would be higher, this isnt necessarily so , faster yes , higher maybe not , soapstone absorbs heat and releases it over a longer period, testing which would reflect transfer efficiency would not be fair to them when compared to steel or cast iron even though the heat stored and released by the soapstone stove would conduct into the room eventually.

personally i put a lot of stock into the PM readings.(understand im industry) granted this is not done under real world conditions with john q. public's wood, but consider this , if a stove hits 1.6 (to use the 30-nc as an example) in testing , and another brand (im not going to name an example , but say stove "x" hits 3.2 GPH(or twice the PM) in testing with the exact same criteria, it stands to reason that in real world use , the stove with the lower GPA is still burning cleaner, and cleaner in my mind is a higher percentage of the actual log is consumed rather than being dragged up the flue , so the more of the actual wood is burned (PM is small pieces of solids in smoke which is really unburnt fuel) the more efficient the stove is, and the more BTU's per log you garner. (not to mention the cleaner your flue should be split for split)

all that said , in the world of EPA cert stoves , the difference is minor in heat output for units of similar firebox size and construction. the real litmus tests are "looks" , "price" and "support" the combination of the above should be the deciding factor in what you are looking for in the firebox size you require to heat the space you wish to heat.
there are many fine brands of stoves out there, any one of these brands ofEPA rated stoves will perform far better than a pre phase 2 non-epa stove of the same size will as far as BTU in the house per log. search for the look you like, the size you need, and with features you like and in your price range. which ever one you pick will very likely make you happy.
 
jay3000 said:
stoveguy2esw said:
jay , how big an area are you looking to heat?

I guess it's better to err on the big side??? I can always burn a small fire in a big stove. I dunno, I'm really struggling. I'm done trying to burn a fire 24x7 in the winter just because it takes time to re start a fire. It's hard on the stove. I burn tons of wood. If the sun comes out and the stove is also burning it gets way hot inside the house. It's always a guess if the sun will poke out.


big stove , 3CF or larger , 30-nc , or a big cat stove like the blaze king , you will want to move air around pretty heavily too i think. large firebox will get you easy overnigt burns , a cat stove (generally speaking) tends to have a longer heating cycle but the 30 and other large box non-cats like the PE summit have 8-10 hour burn times or better as well.

2 to 2.5 CF i think would only be if you get a cat unit otherwise it may not be able to handle your sq footage (especially with vaulted ceilings) and still give overnight burns

my opinion , if im wrong guys , tell me
 
I live in pretty much the same climate as you do and it is wood burner's hell guy. We cannot just light the stove around Thanksgiving and keep it cranking like we are in Maine or somewhere like that. Get over that idea. Wastes wood and sweats everybody out of the house. You have to get into a groove of how much to fire the stove and when to let it go out.

Example: If it is going to be a cold night around here I load up the 30-NC around 9:00 and get a burn settled in by around ten. The house temp comes up as the temp outside drops. The next morning the stove has enough coals that I put a couple of splits on and get it back up to speed. If the forecast is for a 50 degree sunny day I am done. The splits are going to burn for two to three hours and the mass of the stove is going to keep putting out heat for another four or five hours. By that time the sun is heating the house too. If needed another one or two can be added around noon. If we are here.

You have to work with what ya got weather wise and the stove you have. In this climate bigger is better works best because it keeps rolling out heat longer without having a fire kicking around the clock. Sure you restart'em more but that is just the way it is and it saves a hell of a lot of wood.

It can be a pain in the butt, that is why heat pumps were invented, if you let it be one.
 
Geeze.. THanks Mike. That's what Ive been thinking all along. But I just haven't been able to pin that down. Your 30 NC is still very, very much in the running. How do I talk to someone about ordering this model and getting different options. The lady at Home Depot looked like a "deer in headlights".. I need to get stove pipe as well..
 
BrotherBart said:
I live in pretty much the same climate as you do and it is wood burner's hell guy. We cannot just light the stove around Thanksgiving and keep it cranking like we are in Maine or somewhere like that. Get over that idea. Wastes wood and sweats everybody out of the house. You have to get into a groove of how much to fire the stove and when to let it go out.

Example: If it is going to be a cold night around here I load up the 30-NC around 9:00 and get a burn settled in by around ten. The house temp comes up as the temp outside drops. The next morning the stove has enough coals that I put a couple of splits on and get it back up to speed. If the forecast is for a 50 degree sunny day I am done. The splits are going to burn for two to three hours and the mass of the stove is going to keep putting out heat for another four or five hours. By that time the sun is heating the house too. If needed another one or two can be added around noon. If we are here.

You have to work with what ya got weather wise and the stove you have. In this climate bigger is better works best because it keeps rolling out heat longer without having a fire kicking around the clock. Sure you restart'em more but that is just the way it is and it saves a hell of a lot of wood.

It can be a pain in the butt, that is why heat pumps were invented, if you let it be one.

Yeah.. Agreed. I have a south facing house with lots of windows. If it's sunny I need no heat. It's a crap shoot some days.. I'm done trying to burn it all the time though. How much can the heat pump cost on a 50 degree day?? 2 dollars??
 
jay3000 said:
Geeze.. THanks Mike. That's what Ive been thinking all along. But I just haven't been able to pin that down. Your 30 NC is still very, very much in the running. How do I talk to someone about ordering this model and getting different options. The lady at Home Depot looked like a "deer in headlights".. I need to get stove pipe as well..

Feel free to call me 336-255-4126 Jay

I sent an e-mail from your website too


jay , i sent you a PM its in your inbox, talk to ya soon
 
stoveguy2esw said:
jay3000 said:
Thanks. I also notice a lot of different efficiency ratings but the particulate ratings are similar..

How can two stoves have nearly equivalent particlate rating but their overall efficiency rating are 15% different??

the "overall efficiency rating" is "default" in order to maintain a "true" efficiency rating the manufacturer must pay a pretty significant sum , and recertify (paying that significant sum each time) at a much more frequent rate. this translates to a higher manufacturing cost which would end up being passed to the customer through higher prices (which helps no one except maybe the testing facility who have to earn a living as well) if you take a peek at the epa site (broken link removed to http://www.epa.gov/woodstoves/index.html) look up the listing of epa certified stoves sold in the us you will find that virtually all will list the default number for the category they fall under , cat, non-cat , pellet, they all have identical ratings as they accept default.

now, if you understand the criteria the units have to meet to be epa certified, the combustion efficiency they hit at testing is going to be much higher than default or they will not burn clean enough to pass. thermal efficiency (heat transfer efficiency) varies greatly in testing when you look at a timed test , and think , well steel conducts faster than soapstone, so the transfer rate would be higher, this isnt necessarily so , faster yes , higher maybe not , soapstone absorbs heat and releases it over a longer period, testing which would reflect transfer efficiency would not be fair to them when compared to steel or cast iron even though the heat stored and released by the soapstone stove would conduct into the room eventually.

personally i put a lot of stock into the PM readings.(understand im industry) granted this is not done under real world conditions with john q. public's wood, but consider this , if a stove hits 1.6 (to use the 30-nc as an example) in testing , and another brand (im not going to name an example , but say stove "x" hits 3.2 GPH(or twice the PM) in testing with the exact same criteria, it stands to reason that in real world use , the stove with the lower GPA is still burning cleaner, and cleaner in my mind is a higher percentage of the actual log is consumed rather than being dragged up the flue , so the more of the actual wood is burned (PM is small pieces of solids in smoke which is really unburnt fuel) the more efficient the stove is, and the more BTU's per log you garner. (not to mention the cleaner your flue should be split for split)

all that said , in the world of EPA cert stoves , the difference is minor in heat output for units of similar firebox size and construction. the real litmus tests are "looks" , "price" and "support" the combination of the above should be the deciding factor in what you are looking for in the firebox size you require to heat the space you wish to heat.
there are many fine brands of stoves out there, any one of these brands ofEPA rated stoves will perform far better than a pre phase 2 non-epa stove of the same size will as far as BTU in the house per log. search for the look you like, the size you need, and with features you like and in your price range. which ever one you pick will very likely make you happy.

Hey Mike,
As far as this GPH testing goes, isn't it done with doug fir 2x4's and 4x4's at a certain moisture and stacked a certain way to make sure there is a certain air space between each? And this is the EPA that does this test right, because they are the ones that enforce the standards for emissions? How could you put alot of stock into this test, when you know a stove can operate totally different with cord wood? When some manufactures do an independent cordwood test the GPH result is likely to be totally different and most likely to be over the EPA's required numbers? That's why you never see a cordwood GPH test result on the sales tag, but you see a jump in the BTU or efficiency number. What is the NC-30 cordwood GPH?

I think the whole wood stove testing is flawed and there should be a better way with real world tests, if it's possible, and an average or range of numbers to give the buyer a more realistic look. Right now manufactures come up with a design that will pass the EPA GPH test with flying colors, and then juice up the BTU's with their own cordwood tests.
 
Todd said:
stoveguy2esw said:
jay3000 said:
Thanks. I also notice a lot of different efficiency ratings but the particulate ratings are similar..

How can two stoves have nearly equivalent particlate rating but their overall efficiency rating are 15% different??

the "overall efficiency rating" is "default" in order to maintain a "true" efficiency rating the manufacturer must pay a pretty significant sum , and recertify (paying that significant sum each time) at a much more frequent rate. this translates to a higher manufacturing cost which would end up being passed to the customer through higher prices (which helps no one except maybe the testing facility who have to earn a living as well) if you take a peek at the epa site (broken link removed to http://www.epa.gov/woodstoves/index.html) look up the listing of epa certified stoves sold in the us you will find that virtually all will list the default number for the category they fall under , cat, non-cat , pellet, they all have identical ratings as they accept default.

now, if you understand the criteria the units have to meet to be epa certified, the combustion efficiency they hit at testing is going to be much higher than default or they will not burn clean enough to pass. thermal efficiency (heat transfer efficiency) varies greatly in testing when you look at a timed test , and think , well steel conducts faster than soapstone, so the transfer rate would be higher, this isnt necessarily so , faster yes , higher maybe not , soapstone absorbs heat and releases it over a longer period, testing which would reflect transfer efficiency would not be fair to them when compared to steel or cast iron even though the heat stored and released by the soapstone stove would conduct into the room eventually.


Hey Mike,
As far as this GPH testing goes, isn't it done with doug fir 2x4's and 4x4's at a certain moisture and stacked a certain way to make sure there is a certain air space between each? And this is the EPA that does this test right, because they are the ones that enforce the standards for emissions? How could you put alot of stock into this test, when you know a stove can operate totally different with cord wood? When some manufactures do an independent cordwood test the GPH result is likely to be totally different and most likely to be over the EPA's required numbers? That's why you never see a cordwood GPH test result on the sales tag, but you see a jump in the BTU or efficiency number. What is the NC-30 cordwood GPH?

I think the whole wood stove testing is flawed and there should be a better way with real world tests, if it's possible, and an average or range of numbers to give the buyer a more realistic look. Right now manufactures come up with a design that will pass the EPA GPH test with flying colors, and then juice up the BTU's with their own cordwood tests.

i agree that the EPA test doesnt give a complete set of numbers due to the difference in fuels. to have a "cordwood" battery of tests for emmissions would be nearly impossible to regulate the control with any degree of accuracy. the doug fir is used due to its ease of consistancy (meaning they can literally dial its moisture content to cubic foot to a very tight parameter) that said think back to high school science classes. an experiment which makes a comparison , needs a "control" and "variables" the stove is the variable as no two manufacturers do it exactly the same. so the test charge of fuel must be the "control" otherwise there would not be an accurate sampling.

that said, it doesnt give an accurate heat output as its simply not a "heating charge" but just leaving it at that doesnt give any idea what the unit can do heat wise in the real world. ive seen small firebox units come in with higher BTU ratings from EPA testing than units with almost twice the firebox size, and claim to heat half the square footage, thats confusing to "john q" when he shops for stoves. in house testing allows the maker to be able to post more expectable numbers for his unit which makes for a better comparison.

ive seen both cordwood and epa setups tested in our lab. the BTU output you get in cordwood tests are stupid high compared to the epa battery. PM will be higher as well obviously, but to list a stove with epa with a certain type of hardwood at a certain moisture content is all well and good, if that wood is available to you , but other regions may only have ponderosa pine and pinon. to be truly accurate we'd have to test with that too. personally i wish that the "actual" efficiency rating criteria werent so expensive so that cost could be kept down and that percentage could be added instead of everyone taking "default", its just so stinking expensive to maintain.
 
You might want to check out the Napoleon stoves. I have researched extensively and that is what I decided to buy. However, it's kind of like the proverbial GM vs. Ford vs. Chrysler vs. Toyota debates. Look around and talk to some reputable dealers before you buy. The topic that seemed to appear over & over was you can tame a fire output down by burning smaller amounts of wood, but you can never boost a fire over the fire boxes' size. So if you are going to look at burning a fire over a period of days, go with a larger unit.
 
I second the Napoleon 1900 recomendation. I've had mine a year now and put 7 cords through it. Heats my 3500 sqft house so well, do not ever have to turn on furnace. Of course I live in Northern California but the Vermont Castings Encore I had before was a complete mistake.
 
You burned 7 cords with Santa Rosa's climate? Wow. Either the Napolean eats wood, you need insulation, or you like your house in the 90s :bug:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.