The BK King vs Quadrafire Adventure III?

[volunbeer]

Hello - new signup for a longtime lurker. Wife and I have finally decided to take the plunge and put a wood stove in the corner of our basement (roughed in with sheetrock) before next winter. The house is very large and 3 stories (was a foreclosure on a beautiful piece of property) so it is unlikely that one stove will cut it when it is real cold, but I love to cut and split wood and think we will save on our electric and propane bills. We have some advantages (central open stairs and we can keep most of the basement closed off in the winter so a fair amount of heat should make it up to the main floor and upstairs. I would anticipate running the stove pretty hard for 3-4 months out of the year.

We had pretty much decided on a Quadrafire Adventure III and it has some features I really liked (thermostat, claimed output, and ease of use), but it is such a new stove that I have not been able to find reviews from people who have a season under their belt. I like to research major purchases and there is very little out there on this stove. We wanted the biggest BTU's we could legally install.

I am also curious about the BK King. Per the advertising the Quad seems to put out more BTU's, but I am somewhat skeptical. Stove will have a lot of pipe on the outside of the house (will take it out and run it up about 20'. I am concerned about the length of the 6" pipe and proper draft.

Here in the Pacific NW and I have lots of fir and ponderosa pine - in a pinch I can scrounge for tamarack, but it would take me a few years of real heavy cutting to run out of fir I want to get rid of on my own property and I don't see that big of a difference between tamarack and fir on BTU's (everyone here loves tamarack). I can get free ponderosa rounds and plenty of pallets via craigslist (picked up about 2 cords of rounds today in about 90 minutes and two trips) and I know it won't burn long, but it should burn hot. I already have 3 cords of wood drying and have a couple of dozen fir trees to take down for another project. 25ton splitter is on the way and it's so bone dry here in the summer that I should be able to dry everything without a problem by the time Winter hits. .

I have friends who have both brands and they like them so I am open to either. I want to get this purchase right because it is going to be costly. Only wish I could get a few trainloads of oak from our old place in Florida!

I also know that BK may have some new stuff coming out and that makes me want to wait. I am also curious if the BK puts out as much real heat as the Quad claims for the Adventure III. Quad claims up to 4000 sq ft and BK claims 3000 sq ft, but they seem to measure things differently and the BK is about the same size as the Quad?

Any thoughts or input would be very much appreciated and I enjoy the shared experiences on here. They both look like good stoves and I don't really care what they look like - I want the one that will take the biggest amount of wood and keep going. If I did not live in the Peoples Republic of Washington I would buy a wood boiler or have one of the big wood furnaces!

 

[kennyp2339]

The BK will give you steady consistent heat, depending on house type and outside weather you can get a burn from 14 to 30 hours per load, slow and steady, once the house is warmed up the BK takes the cake.

 

[webby3650]

There is very little that's "automatic" with the quad. These square foot and btu ratings are rarely worth the paper they are printed on, this quad rating is one of those. Blaze King publishes actual test results, most all non-cat stoves are allowed to publish a "default" test result. Meaning it was close, but not consistent enough to put an actual number on it.

When comparing stoves look more at firebox size than Btus, 3 cubic feet is pretty much the minimum size for a 24/7 heater. The quad is 3 cubic feet compared the Kings 4+. Simple math says that the quad wouldn't out heat the king.

 

[Jags]

Hey Webby - just so we are comparing apples to apples, the quad 3 is the new big boy on the block at 4.5 cuft.

But I digress. You are correct - the BK is a long time proven stove that has legendary burn times. Be aware that it uses the 8" pipe, not the 6 (like the quad). I suspect that trying to run a stove - from the basement - for a very large house is gonna require burning the stove on the "high" range a fair amount. That somewhat negates the low and slow characteristics of cat stove but not completely. They are better at returning more consumed BTU's to the living quarters than the tube stoves.

With all that said - the BK is the Chevy 454 of the stove world. A big brute with proven lugging performance that has been around for a long time with the reliability too take to the bank. The quad is the newly untested V10 with very little in the market to go off of (other than Quad has been around a long time). This is where you have to make the choice. "The red pill, or the blue pill?"

 

[webby3650]

Hey Webby - just so we are comparing apples to apples, the quad 3 is the new big boy on the block at 4.5 cuft

The quadrafire site took me to the wrong stove then.. Sorry the wrong info.
I'd like to see how usable the firebox is, so often these "big" stoves aren't all that big inside. I've heard that a lot of manufacturers measure the box size before the brick and baffle are added. I find it hard to believe a 4.5' stove would pass emissions on a 6" flue.

 

[Jags]

so often these "big" stoves aren't all that big inside.

Agreed - and I haven't personally seen the firebox of one, just going off of the propaganda in print.

 

[begreen]

For this reason I usually go by the firebrick layout and take a guess at the height of the baffle or tubes over the floor of the firebox. For the Adventurer III I guessed the height to be 15". (the firebricks are 13.25" tall) Based on that the volume looks to be about 4.1 cu ft.. There could be a bit more room before the glass that I'm not accounting for which would bring it close to 4.5 cu ft..

This is a well insulated firebox. There is a layer of refractory insulation behind the firebrick.

Volunbeer, if you do get the Quad please keep us posted. Curious to know how this big boy performs.

 

[Highbeam]

I find it hard to believe a 4.5' stove would pass emissions on a 6" flue.

I used to think that this was the reason for a 6" flue but wood furnaces have fireboxes in the 5 cubic foot range (drolet heatpro) that use a 6" flue with all natural draft. The 8" flue on the king is either a relic of the past, or related to the draft requirements of the cat. Time for an update on that IMO.

I also know that BK may have some new stuff coming out and that makes me want to wait.

BK is not coming out with anything bigger, higher output, than what they already have. Instead they are adding medium sized inserts and smaller things. You can't beat the king but it is a big heater.

You live in Eastern WA. Both quadrafire and BK have their big factories by you. Cool! I read about the quad thermostat and was not impressed. You just can't regulate a non-cat very well and 95% of the time, a house stove won't be run at high output. Because of this, a stove with superior low/medium performance is superior.

 

[webby3650]

The 8" flue on the king is either a relic of the past, or related to the draft requirements of the cat. Time for an update on that IMO.

The King will not pass emissions with a 6" flue.

 

[begreen]

I read about the quad thermostat and was not impressed. You just can't regulate a non-cat very well and 95% of the time, a house stove won't be run at high output. Because of this, a stove with superior low/medium performance is superior.

VC stoves and the old Hearthstones were non-cat thermostatically regulated stoves. Their thermostat worked quite well. We had the Resolute in small house. The thermostat definitely tempered the burn cycle and kept if from becoming uncomfortable. A friend down the road has an H1. Their house stays just right for many hours with its thermostatic control.

 

[Highbeam]

The King has not yet passed emissions with a 6" flue.

There, fixed it for you.

 

[webby3650]

VC stoves and the old Hearthstones were non-cat thermostatically regulated stoves. Their thermostat worked quite well. We had the Resolute in small house. The thermostat definitely tempered the burn cycle and kept if from becoming uncomfortable. A friend down the road has an H1. Their house stays just right for many hours with its thermostatic control.

If only the VC non-cats weren't pieces of crap! They thermostatic control was ok at best, and their non cat tech was sub par to say the least. Hearthstone, well they are all mild heaters, thermostatic control or not.. The control on a Blaze King is unparalleled, until you've experienced it personally, it's almost unbelievable.

 

[webby3650]

If only the VC non-cats weren't pieces of crap! They thermostatic control was ok at best, and their non cat tech was sub par to say the least. Hearthstone, well they are all mild heaters, thermostatic control or not.. The control on a Blaze King is unparalleled, until you've experienced it personally, it's almost unbelievable.

The old VCs I should exclude from my statement. The Resolute was a fine little stove.

 

[begreen]

Yes, we really loved the original Resolute.

 

[bholler]

You just can't regulate a non-cat very well and 95% of the time, a house stove won't be run at high output. Because of this, a stove with superior low/medium performance is superior.

I am not sure where you come up with the idea that 95% of the time house stoves are not run at high output. Mine is typically run pretty high. And the op already said that he had a big house so they may be running high allot of the time. I agree cat stoves are great if you need low and slow but many people do not. Now the fact that they will be using pretty much all soft wood would push me more towards a cat stove to extend the burn time and i agree the fact that the quad is so new would scare me a bit also. But I am curious to see one running it sounds pretty interesting.

Also you fixed the comment about the king on 6" the same could be said about your statement that non cats cant be controlled well. We just haven't seen one that could be yet that does not mean it cant be done.

 

[Highbeam]

The 95% thing came from BKVP on another thread and I believe it. Once you get a stove that stays running for 30-40 hours you just don't need to play catch up anymore. Now, I also have a shop stove that intentionally is run at max output all of the time. That's one of the reasons it is a non-cat.

I can't wait to see what the next good non-cat improvements are. I am especially fond of improvements that allow longer burn times without catalysts.

Cat stoves are more than just "low and slow" stoves. They have a high setting too and even at high setting they kill the non-cats for burn time. The tradeoff if that dang cat maintenance/lifespan issue and not burning trash.

 

[bholler]

Once you get a good stove that stays running for 30-40 hours you just don't need to play catch up anymore.

That depends on the heat loss of your house and the btu input from your stove. I agree that a big stove with a constant output is better than the peaks you get from most non cats but most non cats cost quite a bit less that most cats and if you are not going to use that low slow burn is the extra cost worth it? To some yes and to others no.

I hear arguments here all the time that cat stoves still destroy non cats for burn time at higher heat outputs. And yes cat stoves are more efficient but not that much more and you are still using the same wood with the same Btu content. I think it is a bigger deal to you guys who use soft woods but for me burning only hard woods I am happy with my non cat. I would not mind having a bigger stove for more btu output but honestly the 8 to 10 hour burns I get are just fine with me.

 

[Highbeam]

That depends on the heat loss of your house and the btu input from your stove. I agree that a big stove with a constant output is better than the peaks you get from most non cats but most non cats cost quite a bit less that most cats and if you are not going to use that low slow burn is the extra cost worth it? To some yes and to others no.

I hear arguments here all the time that cat stoves still destroy non cats for burn time at higher heat outputs. And yes cat stoves are more efficient but not that much more and you are still using the same wood with the same Btu content. I think it is a bigger deal to you guys who use soft woods but for me burning only hard woods I am happy with my non cat. I would not mind having a bigger stove for more btu output but honestly the 8 to 10 hour burns I get are just fine with me.

Good points bholler. An honest 12 hours of burn time would be sufficient for most folks. Real burn time that you can load on without kindling. I am able to burn the big NC30 so hard that I have to reload after 3 hours but that is out in the shop.

I went back right away and removed the "good" part about a good cat stove because I don't want to imply that the only good stove is a BK. I happen to really like some other stoves.

 

[bholler]

Good points bholler. An honest 12 hours of burn time would be sufficient for most folks. Real burn time that you can load on without kindling. I am able to burn the big NC30 so hard that I have to reload after 3 hours but that is out in the shop.

And I am not trying to put down cat stoves in any way at all. Just saying they are not necessarily the right choice for everyone. I easily get 12 hours without kindling if i am burning oak or better. I consider burn time usable heat though. And with good wood i can get 10 hours if i am not pushing it hard. 6 to 8 if I am. I Have a 30 foot chimney so mine always has the air shut all the way after it gets hot. Then i control it more with a stack damper. And allot of the control of my heat output comes from wood species. I will say a thermostat would be much easier but It works fine for me.

 

[begreen]

We're happy with our large non-cat. Temperature swings are pretty much a non-issue once you get the operation down. The mass of the cast-iron jacket acts as a heat sink to buffer temperature.

 

[begreen]

That said, we ain't burning today. 89º just set the all time record for the month of April.

 

[volunbeer]

Just got home and thanks for the replies. To clarify, my goal is to burn a lot of wood. The house is huge (foreclosure - we mostly bought the property) and we don't really use the basement much unless guest are visiting so our goal is to get the most heat possible. We don't even frequent the basement and I work long hours so I also want something that my wife can handle during the day or if I am out of town for work. Ideally if we could run the stove at high output we would load at least twice a day (morning and evening) and probably throw in a few pieces of ponderosa pine when it is really cold periodically (I can get tons of rounds for free). The house has a pretty extensive heat/air system - 2 electrics and 2 propane furnaces - with lots of ducts (third floor has it's own system). I am also considering redoing the ducts in the basement where the "box" would be able to pull most of the hot air off the basement ceiling directly into the fan/duct system from the air returns. The insulation is pretty good, but there are lots of windows and those suck heat even though they are good quality. In a pinch I can get a large high quality floor fan to push the heat towards the stairs. The basement is usually noticeably cooler.

From a maintenance standpoint the "thermostat" on both units is attractive because it supposedly "manages the stove" so there should be less maintenance. Both stoves appear to be suitable units for what we want, but the BK appears to be a proven unit and the Quad is an untested unit from a reputable company. Wish there was more information on the long-term performance of the Quad.

Given the lack of "constant monitoring" for the stove does that change your thoughts any? I know all stoves require attention, but based on the glossy pages these two appear to be my best option allowable in the environmental fantasy land I live in.

 

[Highbeam]

How big is this place? Ducts to basement, lots of wood, desire for automation, how about a wood furnace? The big drolet meets Washington emission regulations of under 4.5gph.

 

[volunbeer]

It is too big - over 5000 sq ft Basement was not finished when we bought it (roughed in). I was open to a big wood furnace, but wife wants a stove because we might use the basement some day as a mother-in-law setup. Venting a big wood furnace from our utility room would be a real pain in the butt. We like the corner of the basement because we can just go out and up with the pipe (partial daylight) and it is close to door to exterior. Should be able to store a fair amount of wood inside there.

We would have never built this place, but the property and view are spectacular and value wise this foreclosure made far more sense than building our own place (not to mention we could not find a nice property at a decent price).

If I can sell her on wood heat I would like to redo our den on the main level and put in a nice looking smaller cooktop stove for her. With two stoves I think we would rarely run electric and never run propane unless it stayed below zero for extended time. .

 

[begreen]

A couple things to note. The hvac return intake must be at least 10 ft from the wood stove. If the basement is uninsulated figure on about a third of its heat output going out the walls and not heating the house.