Rangeley vs Oslo

[Bub381]

Just wondering how big the firebox is in the Oslo?2.67 cu ft in the Rangeley.Supposed to be 10% overall more efficient than the Oslo but rates the same 70.000 btu and 2000 sq ft heating area.The Oslo lists 9 hr burn and the Rangeley lists 8+ and i have gotten 9 so far.We all know that listings are no better than our own findings.The Oslo sure looks better.Just kinda comparing,burning time as well as wood.

 

[BrowningBAR]

Just wondering how big the firebox is in the Oslo?2.67 cu ft in the Rangeley.Supposed to be 10% overall more efficient than the Oslo but rates the same 70.000 btu and 2000 sq ft heating area.The Oslo lists 9 hr burn and the Rangeley lists 8+ and i have gotten 9 so far.We all know that listings are no better than our own findings.The Oslo sure looks better.Just kinda comparing,burning time as well as wood.

Burn times on the Oslo seem to very greatly from most of the posts I've seen. I nearly bought one over the summer (in fact another poster here ended up getting) but I passed on it since I wanted longer burn times and more controllable heat. My situation is a little weird, though.

You will probably find that burn times may get longer once you figure out the stove.

 

[PapaDave]

Just wondering how big the firebox is in the Oslo?2.67 cu ft in the Rangeley.Supposed to be 10% overall more efficient than the Oslo but rates the same 70.000 btu and 2000 sq ft heating area.The Oslo lists 9 hr burn and the Rangeley lists 8+ and i have gotten 9 so far.We all know that listings are no better than our own findings.The Oslo sure looks better.Just kinda comparing,burning time as well as wood.

Burn times on the Oslo seem to very greatly from most of the posts I've seen. I nearly bought one over the summer (in fact another poster here ended up getting) but I passed on it since I wanted longer burn times and more controllable heat. My situation is a little weird, though.

You will probably find that burn times may get longer once you figure out the stove.

Understatement. :lol:

 

[Scott2373]

My wife and I decided on the Rangeley over the Oslo, mainly because of the placement of the stove. The Oslo is side-load, while the Rangeley is top-load. Our stove sits flush to the wall near the corner, so side-load would have been all but impossible since the door is on the left and so is the wall. I liked the looks of the Rangeley a bit better as well (more modern looking), so those two objects were the main selling points. As far as choosing Jotul over everything else, was the fact that I liked the hybrid (Iron on Steel) design, the size of the stove and the size of the firebox coupled with efficiency, burn time and BTU output. So far, I've gotten my 1850 sq. ft. house up to 80 degrees with it and a 7 hour overnight burn. I'm looking forward to when my wood dries out more and I get more used to the operation of the stove! I'm looking forward to 10+ hour burns!

 

[BrowningBAR]

Just wondering how big the firebox is in the Oslo?2.67 cu ft in the Rangeley.Supposed to be 10% overall more efficient than the Oslo but rates the same 70.000 btu and 2000 sq ft heating area.The Oslo lists 9 hr burn and the Rangeley lists 8+ and i have gotten 9 so far.We all know that listings are no better than our own findings.The Oslo sure looks better.Just kinda comparing,burning time as well as wood.

Burn times on the Oslo seem to very greatly from most of the posts I've seen. I nearly bought one over the summer (in fact another poster here ended up getting) but I passed on it since I wanted longer burn times and more controllable heat. My situation is a little weird, though.

You will probably find that burn times may get longer once you figure out the stove.

Understatement. :lol:

It really is no surprise at this point. Weird has followed me throughout my life.

 

[Stump_Branch]

Just wondering how big the firebox is in the Oslo?2.67 cu ft in the Rangeley.Supposed to be 10% overall more efficient than the Oslo but rates the same 70.000 btu and 2000 sq ft heating area.The Oslo lists 9 hr burn and the Rangeley lists 8+ and i have gotten 9 so far.We all know that listings are no better than our own findings.The Oslo sure looks better.Just kinda comparing,burning time as well as wood.

Burn times on the Oslo seem to very greatly from most of the posts I've seen. I nearly bought one over the summer (in fact another poster here ended up getting) but I passed on it since I wanted longer burn times and more controllable heat. My situation is a little weird, though.

You will probably find that burn times may get longer once you figure out the stove.

Who me?
Be happy in your case as i would think with my setup, 9 hours is tops. I have no problem going overnight, but theres no sleeping in at all.
I find 8 to 8.5 is ideal, meaning starting from coals with out having to " breath life" into the fire to get it going. 30 to one hour is what breaks easy restart from kindling and small spilts to might as well just start over, at least its warm.

Browning. Half bought the cat stove due to your documented test reports on the thing that matters, useable heat over time.

 

[jotul8e2]

I just measured my Oslo for another thread and came up with 2.5 cu. ft.

I agree that under nine hours is about the ideal for overnight burns. But I have gone 10 plenty of times, it just takes smaller splits to get going quickly.

 

[BrowningBAR]

Who me?

Yup!


[/quote]Be happy in your case as i would think with my setup, 9 hours is tops. I have no problem going overnight, but theres no sleeping in at all. I find 8 to 8.5 is ideal, meaning starting from coals with out having to " breath life" into the fire to get it going. 30 to one hour is what breaks easy restart from kindling and small spilts to might as well just start over, at least its warm.[/quote]

When I was thinking about going with the Oslo (that is currently sitting in your home ) I would find members like you getting 8-10 hours or heat production and then others getting far less. I was concerned I was't going to get much longer burns than what the Vigilant and the Heritage gave me. In the end I think I made the right call. I have plenty of heat with my current set up, now I just need to tweak things and go cat with all three stoves.

Browning. Half bought the cat stove due to your documented test reports on the thing that matters, useable heat over time.

Oh boy, than I really hope it works out for you! :red:

Seriously, though, I'm interested in knowing how the two stoves compare and how your comparison compares with my comparison. (that sentence just looks wrong.)

 

[Stump_Branch]

Well i hope to con some friends with beer to help me swap them out sometime this week so i can see what the fireview can do in the family room before i make the final call. I really only want to move one stove down a flight of steps once.
Interestingly enough the short legs on the oslo put the flue exit in the same spot as the fireview. Short of lugging the weight should be a quick change.

 

[logger]

Typically 8-10 hrs on a full load of hardwoods. Its never exact. I did have hot embers after something like 14 hrs, but that was only once and I was very suprised. No complaints with my Oslo.

 

[cptoneleg]

Typically 8-10 hrs on a full load of hardwoods. Its never exact. I did have hot embers after something like 14 hrs, but that was only once and I was very suprised. No complaints with my Oslo.

If you count fire up by throwing in some splits, an overnight success, that 14 hrs is common with real dry split small pine, im gonna cut split plenty now that I am convinced it won't (pine) burn your house down. That stuff will fire off with one ember glowing.

Logger post a larger picture sometimes of your hearth and stove looks pretty neat.


Good Luck

 

[Bub381]

Thanks all.i believe that answers it.I believe i will get better burn times.Still tweaking the primary a little.3/4 closed and still closing a little more to test it.Right now i'm keeping the stove at about 300,i realize it's causing buildup but it gets so darned hot.Moving alot of air also.I have run it up to 650,just not cold enough to keep it up there yet.

 

[begreen]

I imagine you would be sitting naked right now had you picked up a 30NC instead. Run shorter hot fires or just add a log every hour or two until it gets colder.

 

[Bub381]

That's just how i'm running it right now.1 log every couple hrs,it's still in the 80's in the stove room but nice in the livingroom.70's!! Trying to keep it up above too low of a burn but it's hard this time of year.Just me being a newbie is all.I do heat her up now and then and clean the glass,around 400 or so.Cleans better hotter but i clean it manually in between fires.Thanks for your reply BeGreen,appreciated.You think the shorter hot fires would be better?

 

[begreen]

Our temps outside look similar to what you are getting right now. We are burning morning and evening fires on sunny days. We've been letting the sun and heat pump warm the house during the day. On dank cold days like today we are burning 24/7, but with partial loads of wood that are allowed to burn way down to just enough coals to start a fire again. My wife prefers to just toss a log on every few hours and that works too. Our house is quite open so there are no real hot spots.

Are you using a fan to blow air from the cooler parts of the house into the stove room?

 

[Bub381]

Yes i am,we have small rooms in this old 1800 circa house.There are 3 doorways leading to the stove room and we're blowing cool air into the room from 2 of them.Keeping the air on the floor also.The rest of the house is heating fine and we don't use that room much so it's ok i guess.Also have a doorway corner fan in the opposite end of 1 of the adjoining rooms blowing away from stove.The small stoveroom just can't be cooled fast enough but we're doing better with the 1 log at a time.The hot shorter burn can get close to 100 in there so kinda going this route.Blower on stove running and ceiling fan pulling up.Maybe run boxfans on floor at a faster speed.