Opinions on firebox size relative to home size

[NoahMT]

I am in the process of selecting a new stove for my home. The house is single level 960 sq ft and basically open floor excect for a large bathroom/laundry. I am looking at an Enviro Kodiak 1200 or heatilator ws18. I live in western Montana so we see temps below freezing for several straight months and burn season is about 7 months. I would really like to be able to keep a fire overnight which I understand is basically impossible burning lodgepole with the stoves mentioned above.

My question is would the Kodiak 1700 or heatilator WS22 be a terrible idea in a house this small? They are 2.5 and 2.7 cu ft vs 1.8 and 2.0. I understand this will require more diligent chimney cleaning and smokier fires but is this a minor inconvenience for overnight burns or a situation of cooking myself out and having a lot of significant issues? Any personal experience or feedback is greatly appreciated

 

[begreen]

In your climate and location I'd go for the larger model. The Kodiak 1700 is a sweet, first-line stove. The Heatilator is more like a value-line Quadrafire.

Build smaller, partial load fires in milder weather. If you have a variety of wood to choose from burn lower btu wood in mild weather and the harder stuff (tamarack?) in the coldest weather.

 

[stovelark]

If you can, I too would recommend the 1700 Kodiak, as BG said, it is a very sweet, easy to run and somewhat easy to control stove. In your climate too, I think you'll appreciate the longer pieces of wood of the 1700 and the extra firebox capacity/burn time available. I have sold many ws18 and ws22 stoves too, for the money, they are more plain but nice burning stoves. The Kodiaks are more robustly made too. Keep the stovetop temps in the 400-500 degree range, I don't think you have to worry about having too small of a stove... I too think the ws18 and 1200 would be too small.

 

[yooper08]

Climate and how well insulated the home is factor into the decision of how big a stove to get. The square footage numbers published should be thought of as maximums (some manufacturers publish how they got that number). The stretches in MT where temps dip into single digits or below, a larger stove is a nice to have to keep up. If the home isn't well insulated, again a larger stove is good to have, but if that's the case, some insulation work can go a long way.

If you go with a larger stove, you can simply not fill it up all the time. Granted, this means adding wood on a more frequent basis but you're regulating the heat output. Add at least 4 splits and you really shouldn't have a smokey fire.

 

[NoahMT]

I have a few additional questions stemming from the responses above. I must also say that all my previous wood burning experience has been with an outdoor wood boiler in Pennsylvania, and that baby is literally an insinerator, burns anything from 3ftx18in oak rounds do deer carcasses and engine oil.

When stovelark mentioned keeping the stove top temp at 400-500 is that actually the top surface or the temp inside the pipe a few feet above the stove? Also, are you burning larger rounds at night? I see alot of people around here splitting things I wouldn’t think need split. Thanks for the responses so far.

 

[begreen]

They may be splitting the rounds to help them dry quicker. Unsplit rounds dry slowly. Burning larger splits, if fully seasoned, does help extend burn times.

 

[yooper08]

400-500 is top surface, although you can go higher for the times when it's cold. You typically don't want to go north of 700. Personally I like to go for 500-600 on most occasions.

I recently split an oak tree that was probably about 12" in diameter. Some of it I quartered, some of it I halved, it's good to have a variety of sizes. Ideally it's at 20% or less and not mixed with venison bits. You're going to have to ditch your OWB habits and split wood, otherwise you're going to be burning unseasoned wood and you'll get frustrated with the heating performance.