Jotul F 602 V2

begreen

Mooderator
Staff member
Nov 18, 2005
79,151
South Puget Sound, WA
Thanks for the update. Looking forward to your reports on the F602CB v2. I suspect that the F45 & F50 will remain non-cat as well, and maybe the F55 too.
 

Todd

Minister of Fire
Nov 19, 2005
9,246
NW Wisconsin
There's EPA testing info in the link if you click technical documentation if anyones interested. Pretty much explains the whole testing method and results. Not real world burning by any means but I guess they need to have some kind of standard for all stoves.
 

begreen

Mooderator
Staff member
Nov 18, 2005
79,151
South Puget Sound, WA
Yes, and cordwood testing results to boot. New to the manual is a section under Operation about the V2 features and efficiencies. In that section the guidance on wood seasoning is a bit optimistic for hardwood, saying 6-14 months is optimal. That may be about right for small 2" splits, but a 4"+ split of white oak is going to need more seasoning.
 

jetsam

Minister of Fire
Dec 12, 2015
4,257
Long Island, NY
youtu.be
Yes, and cordwood testing results to boot. New to the manual is a section under Operation about the V2 features and efficiencies. In that section the guidance on wood seasoning is a bit optimistic for hardwood, saying 6-14 months is optimal. That may be about right for small 2" splits, but a 4"+ split of white oak is going to need more seasoning.
Around here, 6 month oak is wet, heavy, and hisses and spits if you try to burn it. 14 month oak isn't that much better.

As many rain days as we've had on the east coast, best not to count this year as drying time at all... :p
 

begreen

Mooderator
Staff member
Nov 18, 2005
79,151
South Puget Sound, WA
Missing from the information was the species of wood. Ash can dry pretty quickly.
 

Todd

Minister of Fire
Nov 19, 2005
9,246
NW Wisconsin
I think I read somewhere they used Red Oak.

They must of modified the stove a bit, I noticed the stated BTU's have increased a tad from the 602 CB. Maybe they increased the combustion air somewhere?
 

begreen

Mooderator
Staff member
Nov 18, 2005
79,151
South Puget Sound, WA
It wouldn't surprise me if they increased the secondary air supply, perhaps by adding more holes or enlarging the holes on the secondary air chamber.
 

MRP

New Member
Sep 12, 2019
2
USA
The exploded view of the V2 in the manual shows what looks like a set of fingers at the front and top of the baffle to add turbulence to the flow.
Shocking that that simple change (maybe they added some airflow amount changes as well) could increase the btu's from 28,000 to almost 50,000. Makes me not believe the numbers. If it truly does perform that much better, why did it take EPA regulation for the company to make such a dramatic improvement with such a seemingly simple change? Wow.
 

jotulguy

Feeling the Heat
Oct 9, 2010
376
central Pa
The exploded view of the V2 in the manual shows what looks like a set of fingers at the front and top of the baffle to add turbulence to the flow.
Shocking that that simple change (maybe they added some airflow amount changes as well) could increase the btu's from 28,000 to almost 50,000. Makes me not believe the numbers. If it truly does perform that much better, why did it take EPA regulation for the company to make such a dramatic improvement with such a seemingly simple change? Wow.
Have you considered it’s now tested with cord word not the old EPA crib wood method?
 

begreen

Mooderator
Staff member
Nov 18, 2005
79,151
South Puget Sound, WA
The EPA tested output for the F602CB v1 is 12,000-47,700BTUs/Hr. with softwood.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceBus

EatenByLimestone

Minister of Fire
Jul 12, 2006
7,093
Schenectady, NY
I'd consider the upper end a straight mathematical formula.

You burn 6.36lbs of wood up in 1 hour. 7500btu/lb., you get their magic number. If you burn it, the heat must have been released.
 

Highbeam

Minister of Fire
Dec 28, 2006
16,351
Mt. Rainier Foothills, WA
The exploded view of the V2 in the manual shows what looks like a set of fingers at the front and top of the baffle to add turbulence to the flow.
Shocking that that simple change (maybe they added some airflow amount changes as well) could increase the btu's from 28,000 to almost 50,000. Makes me not believe the numbers. If it truly does perform that much better, why did it take EPA regulation for the company to make such a dramatic improvement with such a seemingly simple change? Wow.
You can’t compare old test results or specs to the new standardized test results. That was one of the reasons for the new testing methods. Now, in theory, the consumer can compare new stoves in an apples to apples manner.

I would love to have the older models retested using current testing methods so that we can see the benefit, or lack of benefit, to stove replacements.
 

begreen

Mooderator
Staff member
Nov 18, 2005
79,151
South Puget Sound, WA
I would love to have the older models retested using current testing methods so that we can see the benefit, or lack of benefit, to stove replacements.
I'm sure that can be arranged for a few ten thousand buck notes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Highbeam

begreen

Mooderator
Staff member
Nov 18, 2005
79,151
South Puget Sound, WA
Some may have sacrificed a little, we don't know yet. For others, efficiency will be gained and the stoves will see an improvement over the older design. I too would like to see some side by side comparisons, but that's unlikely. Unfortunately, it takes several reports here to start teasing out stove performance from user error, learning curve, wood species, draft issues, boasting, etc..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Highbeam

EatenByLimestone

Minister of Fire
Jul 12, 2006
7,093
Schenectady, NY
Some my be able to be guessed at from the stoves that were able to make the jump untouched.
 

MRP

New Member
Sep 12, 2019
2
USA
Thanks for the explanations everyone. Wish they spent more time improving the design then playing with numbers.
 

begreen

Mooderator
Staff member
Nov 18, 2005
79,151
South Puget Sound, WA
They improved the design enough to qualify for the 2020 regs. And they did it without adding a cat. The numbers between the F602CB v1 tests and v2 tests are actually pretty close. It's not surprising that with greater efficiency they were able to squeeze out a little more heat. The problem is with the confusing spec for the output listed for the v1 on their website. A look in the v1 manual clarifies what they meant:
12,000 to 47,700 BTU/hr.
Heat Output Range results are determined during specific emissions tests established by the EPA.
28,000 BTU/hr.
The Maximum Heat Output value is representative of a more frequent re-fueling cycle than specified in the EPA High Heat Output test method.

In the v2 manual they simply list the EPA tested data.
 
Last edited:

begreen

Mooderator
Staff member
Nov 18, 2005
79,151
South Puget Sound, WA
Yes, it's been out for a little bit now. Thanks for posting the video. This is a significant redesign of an old favorite.
 
Last edited:

Todd

Minister of Fire
Nov 19, 2005
9,246
NW Wisconsin
Wonder why they just didnt replace the CB with this new ECO? What about the V2? Maybe just a bandaid until the new ECO is in full production?
 

begreen

Mooderator
Staff member
Nov 18, 2005
79,151
South Puget Sound, WA
Not sure. It's a more sophisticated design. Maybe they are trialing it in Europe first? Waiting for US lab testing?
 
Last edited:

Nigel459

Burning Hunk
Oct 24, 2017
220
Ontario, Canada
My takeaway of the new eco design is that there’s no primary air control. The only control shown is boost/ignition air, which needs to be off when the fire is established, according to the video... maybe I’m wrong... hmm
 

jotulguy

Feeling the Heat
Oct 9, 2010
376
central Pa
As a global hearth manufacture many regions require different test results. This model is not for distribution in the North American market. The F-602v2 is the 2020 model and moving forward the solution for the North American market.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nigel459