Looking for some advice...currently run a Quad grand voyager in a 3,000 sq/ft house. The stove supposedly produces a max of 52,000 btu with a firebox of approx 2.5 cu/ft. My question is I see stoves with almost identical sized fire boxes producing almost 50% more heat. Most around 75,000btu. Why is that? Are some stoves just better at throwing heat than others? The hearthstone Clydesdale really catches my eye. Also the Osburn 2400 is a tank at 100,000btu but with a larger firebox at around 3.3 I think. Is it basically all in the size of the firebox and the btu numbers these manufacturers say are just BS?
Quad Grand Voyager vs comparable inserts
- Thread starter Greatscott01
- Start date
-
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.
SculptureOfSound
Feeling the Heat
Those max burburn rate numbers are a function of two variables, the efficiency of the stove and the maximum burn rate (i.e. how much wood the stove will go through in an hour with the air wide open).
So the higher max btu numbers just means the stove can burn faster/more wood in an hour.
The more important numbers to compare are the EPA low and high btu numbers. These show realistic btu output for a given stove at real world settings and can be compared stove to stove. Actual btu output is likely higher than the listed EPA numbers (due to EPA testing using crib wood vs real world cord wood usage) but as long as you consider it all relatively youll be ok.
For example is stove 1 has a low/high EPA rate of 10,000/30,000 btu, and stove 2 is 15,000/45,000, stove 2 puts out approx 50% more btu
So the higher max btu numbers just means the stove can burn faster/more wood in an hour.
The more important numbers to compare are the EPA low and high btu numbers. These show realistic btu output for a given stove at real world settings and can be compared stove to stove. Actual btu output is likely higher than the listed EPA numbers (due to EPA testing using crib wood vs real world cord wood usage) but as long as you consider it all relatively youll be ok.
For example is stove 1 has a low/high EPA rate of 10,000/30,000 btu, and stove 2 is 15,000/45,000, stove 2 puts out approx 50% more btu
So you’re saying go strictly off the EPA btu ratings since they are all tested with the same wood and in same environment.
Looking at that chart it says the quad grand voyager puts out 25,000btu and the quad 4100 puts out 50,000btu. But on quadrafires website they are almost identical. Seems crazy that on the manufacturers website they are almost identical but according to EPA, one literally doubles the heat output of the other.
Looking at that chart it says the quad grand voyager puts out 25,000btu and the quad 4100 puts out 50,000btu. But on quadrafires website they are almost identical. Seems crazy that on the manufacturers website they are almost identical but according to EPA, one literally doubles the heat output of the other.
SculptureOfSound
Feeling the Heat
I think that 4100 you are looking at is the stove. The insert is the 4100i and if I recall had a number around 25000 btu for the high end
I recently was looking for an insert and was between the grand voyageur and the Clydesdale. I decided on the Clydesdale and I'm thrilled with it. However I think it may fall just short for heating 3,000 sq ft. Mine heats about 2,400 well but it seems that's about its limitation. I think if I was looking for that much sq footage I would look to a free standing stove. I am by no means an expert however.
You’re 100% right I was looking at the free standing by accident.
What’s your thoughts on a catalytic stove? Seems like they throw a lot more heat but I also understand that the catalyst needs to be changed every few years. Not sure what they cost though
What’s your thoughts on a catalytic stove? Seems like they throw a lot more heat but I also understand that the catalyst needs to be changed every few years. Not sure what they cost though
SculptureOfSound
Feeling the Heat
I don't think cats throw more heat...their specialty is throwing less heat but for far longer. For example, if you only needed 10,000 btu an hour a cat stove would be the way to go...it can burn low and slow for far longer than a tube stove.
I’ve been looking at the Kuma Sequoia lately, seems like a very powerful stove an that has a catalyst. Have you had any experience with that stove? EPAbtu on that was something around 13,000-50,000. 3.0 cubic foot firebox I believe.
Similar threads
