Older home - no fireplace - want efficient wood fireplace insert

[edog1975]

My older home has the perfect place to put a fireplace in my living room and it’s on an outside wall. I was thinking of building a nice brick hearth and then getting an insert installed which would be piped straight outside and up the side of the house. I’ve looked around and haven’t found any articles about creating a “fake” hearth to put an insert in.

Would there be a problem with this? Is there something I’m not taking into consideration?

 

[bholler]

My older home has the perfect place to put a fireplace in my living room and it’s on an outside wall. I was thinking of building a nice brick hearth and then getting an insert installed which would be piped straight outside and up the side of the house. I’ve looked around and haven’t found any articles about creating a “fake” hearth to put an insert in.

Would there be a problem with this? Is there something I’m not taking into consideration?

You can't build a fake anything for an insert. You would need a fully functional code compliant fireplace with foundation and full hearth extension on a proper slab etc for an insert. But you could get a high efficency prefab fireplace and face it out however you want.

 

[TWilk117]

Get a free standing stove.

 

[HomeinPA]

My older home has the perfect place to put a fireplace in my living room and it’s on an outside wall. I was thinking of building a nice brick hearth and then getting an insert installed which would be piped straight outside and up the side of the house. I’ve looked around and haven’t found any articles about creating a “fake” hearth to put an insert in.

Would there be a problem with this? Is there something I’m not taking into consideration?

Regency EX-90 or Quadrafire 7100 or similar models are considered "fireplaces" and are much more efficient and listed as close-clearance installations.

 

[Zack R]

Go with a freestanding stove, build a nice hearth with brick, etc.. to make it look nice. Its better to have the chimney inside/vertical as much as possible so it stays warm vs a fully external one out in the cold.

 

[Woody Stover]

If you want to go free-standing but don't like stove pipe up to the ceiling, you can go out and up, providing you are OK with the look outside. Or you could have a chase outside, which would keep the chimney warmer and drafting better if you don't have a lot of height. Just throwing out some ideas that might look good to you, as ZackR mentioned. With a rear-vent stove, you may be able to go straight outside from the flue outlet, avoiding pipe in the room altogether. Or you can get painted pipe to go up a few feet first, then out, if the stove is top-vented. A free-standing stove will heat better, if that's a consideration.
http://woodstove.com/index.php/owner-photos

 

[NoobTube]

I definitely would say go with the free-standing stove. And while your at it there is nothing more efficient than a Blaze King...

 

[HomeinPA]

I definitely would say go with the free-standing stove. And while your at it there is nothing more efficient than a Blaze King...

The opinions expressed by NoobTube do not necessarily reflect the opinions of everyone on the list

 

[John B]

I just put in an insert and I would agree with everyone that says go with a freestanding stove. Once I get the kinks worked out with my install I will be happy, but having done a freestanding stove would have been easier and had better heat output overall.

 

[bholler]

I definitely would say go with the free-standing stove. And while your at it there is nothing more efficient than a Blaze King...

That depends on you btu load.

 

[blacktail]

An insert is for when you have a worthless open fireplace but want a wood stove. It's fixing the problem of an open fireplace.
If you want a wood stove, then get a wood stove.
If you want a fireplace that actually heats, then look at modern high efficiency fireplaces.

 

[jetsam]

There is no point to spending thousands to build a bunch of old timey infrastructure so that you can have a worse heater.

Get a freestanding stove!

 

[vwmike]

As someone who just tore out my fireplace and went freestanding after 5 years, I would never go back!!

 

[HomeinPA]

There is no point to spending thousands to build a bunch of old timey infrastructure so that you can have a worse heater.

Get a freestanding stove!

The high efficiency "fireplaces" such as the ex-90 or quad 7100 are comparable to a freestanding stove. They are basically wood stoves designed for in-wall installation.

 

[gzecc]

You have room and motivation to stack and store 6 cords of wood in your yard, if you plan on heating your home with this appliance?

 

[jetsam]

The high efficiency "fireplaces" such as the ex-90 or quad 7100 are comparable to a freestanding stove. They are basically wood stoves designed for in-wall installation.

A stove with a couple square feet of surface area exposed to the room can't compete with one that has its whole surface area in the house where you want the heat. Add in the construction costs involved, and the constant need for the blower with the zc/insert.... it's not much of a competition between the two.

 

[Ashful]

I definitely would say go with the free-standing stove. And while your at it there is nothing more efficient than a Blaze King...

The opinions expressed by NoobTube do not necessarily reflect the opinions of everyone on the list

The data is out there, so it’s not a matter of opinion. Use the EPA list of “Actual Measured Efficiency”, or the various LHV and HHV values published by manufacturers. Opinions don’t matter, data does.

The most efficient wood stove listed by the EPA, with “actual measured efficiency” data is the Kuma Sequoia, at 84%.

The Blaze King King and the Woodstock Ideal Steel Hybrid 210 tie for second place at 82%. There are very few stoves outside of these three manufacturers breaking 80%, in the EPA’s “actual measured” data.

To the OP: these numbers matter very little to anyone outside of our woodstove geekdom, here. Buy a good stove from a quality company, whether that be Kuma, Woodstock, Blaze King, or another. Do some reading, get some ideas, and then run them by this crowd before you spend a dollar on it.

 

[bholler]

The data is out there, so it’s not a matter of opinion. Use the EPA list of “Actual Measured Efficiency”, or the various LHV and HHV values published by manufacturers. Opinions don’t matter, data does.

The most efficient wood stove listed by the EPA, with “actual measured efficiency” data is the Kuma Sequoia, at 84%.

The Blaze King King and the Woodstock Ideal Steel Hybrid 210 tie for second place at 82%. There are very few stoves outside of these three manufacturers breaking 80%, using the EPA’s “actual measured” data.

To the OP: these numbers matter very little to anyone outside of our woodstove geekdom, here. Buy a good stove from a quality company, whether that be Kuma, Woodstock, Blaze King, or another. Do some reading, get some ideas, and then run them by this crowd before you spend a dollar on it.

But what happens as the burn rate goes up?

 

[jetsam]

But what happens as the burn rate goes up?

Either you get a heater that is correctly sized to your space, or complain that the BK is no better than a tube stove because you didn't. Both methods seem to work for people.

 

[bholler]

Either you get a heater that is correctly sized to your space, or complain that the BK is no better than a tube stove because you didn't. Both methods seem to work for people.

So you are saying that I should be using a king to heat a house that was easily heated with a regency 3100? Even though the princess is rated to heat 2500 sqft? Which it does I just am seeing no wood savings.

 

[HomeinPA]

The data is out there, so it’s not a matter of opinion. Use the EPA list of “Actual Measured Efficiency”, or the various LHV and HHV values published by manufacturers. Opinions don’t matter, data does.

The most efficient wood stove listed by the EPA, with “actual measured efficiency” data is the Kuma Sequoia, at 84%.

The Blaze King King and the Woodstock Ideal Steel Hybrid 210 tie for second place at 82%. There are very few stoves outside of these three manufacturers breaking 80%, in the EPA’s “actual measured” data.

To the OP: these numbers matter very little to anyone outside of our woodstove geekdom, here. Buy a good stove from a quality company, whether that be Kuma, Woodstock, Blaze King, or another. Do some reading, get some ideas, and then run them by this crowd before you spend a dollar on it.

We can argue back and forth all day long but the original question indicated the individual wanted a fireplace so that's what was addressed. If they want a "fireplace" then the best option for wood-burning is the high efficiency styles mentioned (in my professional opinion). Whether he considered a stove originally is unknown. It may or may not be an option for other reasons. Interestingly enough, the only people discussing this are all of us as the OP hasn't chimed in lately.

 

[Ashful]

But what happens as the burn rate goes up?

Can't speak for the Kuma, but on the BK and Woodstock, the efficiency drops to nearly as bad as other stoves... no worse.

 

[jetsam]

So you are saying that I should be using a king to heat a house that was easily heated with a regency 3100? Even though the princess is rated to heat 2500 sqft? Which it does I just am seeing no wood savings.

Umm... yes, exactly. If you have to burn the princess on medium and high all the time, you really might as well have a tube stove (although the princess will be much better in shoulder season unless you insist on burning it like a tube stove then, too).

You had a carbeurated Camero that got 25mpg at 30mph and 20mpg at 80mph, and switched to a Honda Fit that gets 50mpg at 30mph and 25mpg at 80mph. You're driving the Fit at 80 and you don't like it because you want the 35mpg that is advertised in the brochure.

That's fine; the Honda isn't for every driver, but lots of us really are getting 40mpg out of it because we don't drive it like we used to drive the Camaro.

(That analogy doesn't quite work because the honda in the example has an efficiency sweet spot at 30, and it's actually about 60, but that is artistic license for the sake of the comparison to stoves.)

 

[Ashful]

Umm... yes, exactly. If you have to burn the princess on medium and high all the time, you really might as well have a tube stove (although the princess will be much better in shoulder season unless you insist on burning it like a tube stove then, too).

You had a carbeurated Camero that got 25mpg at 30mph and 20mpg at 80mph, and switched to a Honda Fit that gets 50mpg at 30mph and 25mpg at 80mph. You're driving the Fit at 80 and you don't like it because you want the 35mpg that is advertised in the brochure.

That's fine; the Honda isn't for every driver, but lots of us really are getting 40mpg out of it because we don't drive it like we used to drive the Camaro.

(That analogy doesn't quite work because the honda in the example has an efficiency sweet spot at 30, and it's actually about 60, but that is artistic license for the sake of the comparison to stoves.)

Amusing analogy, but in bholler’s defense, he has never said he doesn’t like the Princess. In fact, he said he likes it. It’s just that, in his usage mode, the benefits are minimized. Totally understandable.

 

[blades]

its simple the colder it gets the harder you push what ever appliance which equates to using more fuel.