What's a good price for a Dutchwest large?

[wg_bent]

I found one new for 950. It's a cat model.

Good price or not?

 

[Shane]

Sounds right. Maybe a 100 or 200 below list. I'll look when I get to work in the morning and let you know list, unless someone else know's and posts.

 

[seaken]

I make that about $300 below list. Pretty good for a new stove. Maybe a little high if used.

The Catalytic versions of the DW are a little finicky. If a recent model it has been updated and a little better than the earlier models. Early models had problems with the inner top cracking. The catalytic fire is on the top instead of to the rear. Harder to engage the cat and easier to screw up if your don't know what your doing. But I have many happy customers with that stove. It's for true wood burners. Nevertheless, I think the new EverBurn models are better and may be worth the extra $300 in the long run.

Sean

 

[carpniels]

warren,

I have not heard anything good about the dutchwest models ever. read the reviews. Like seaken says, a few hundred saved now is easily forgotten when you are dealing with a lot of aggravation in the winter trying to get heat.

 

[elkimmeg]

Calling Shane to the front desk Care to comment on the cat dutchwest quality issues and running characteristics?

 

[tradergordo]

Definitely go with the non-cat model. Good reviews, and nothing to replace. The cats have to be replaced every few years for around $300 and just give you aggrevation and extra work. WHat's the point?

See
(broken link removed to http://www.chimneysweeponline.com/hocats.htm)

Best price for large size non-cat Dutchwest (model#2479) I could find was $1139 from here:

http://www.lehmans.com/

 

[Todd]

Definitely go with the non-cat model. Good reviews, and nothing to replace. The cats have to be replaced every few years for around $300 and just give you aggrevation and extra work. WHat's the point?

See
(broken link removed to http://www.chimneysweeponline.com/hocats.htm)

Best price for large size non-cat Dutchwest (model#2479) I could find was $1139 from here:

http://www.lehmans.com/

Don't believe everything you read. It's more like every 4-6 years at $100 if you burn properly. You also get longer slow burns with more heat and burn less wood. I definitely like my cat better than my non cat.

 

[elkimmeg]

Takes me all of 10 minutes to remove my cat blow it out and replace it. The Stovecombustor's off market brand cost me $59
and it lights off all the way down to 380 degrees not the OEM requiring 500 degrees. Fact combustor stoves burn cleaner and produce more heat.. Yes there is a bit more manitance to get the desired results 10 minutes at the start of the heating season ans another 10 in the middle. Have you priced out secondary air tubs recently. and you thought cats were expensive. that's right they burn out warp plug up. Remember the everburn and secondary air inlets require cleanning to work. Don't think for a minute maintance is not required. I call it preventive but also to achieve good preformance from my stove .I want to know what is going on.
I also clean the flues and connector pipes at mid heating season

 

[MountainStoveGuy]

Here we go again, lets not hijack this thread on cat vs non cat, but this comment is relevent now to this thread. For what its worth, i have never sold a set of burn tubes the 10 years i have been in this biz, not one time, either im about to get a big run on them or they dont wear out around here.

 

[elkimmeg]

How many replacement cat have you sold?

 

[BrotherBart]

Here we go again, lets not hijack this thread on cat vs non cat, but this comment is relevent now to this thread. For what its worth, i have never sold a set of burn tubes the 10 years i have been in this biz, not one time, either im about to get a big run on them or they dont wear out around here.

The coriolis effect inside the tubes makes them last a long time.

 

[MountainStoveGuy]

only a few, we used to stock the jotul cats along time ago. and we replace them here and there maybe one a year, but i dont have more then 20 out in the field either. On the other hand, i have thousands of non cats out there. I havent had a cat stove in my showroom since 1999.

 

[MountainStoveGuy]

Here we go again, lets not hijack this thread on cat vs non cat, but this comment is relevent now to this thread. For what its worth, i have never sold a set of burn tubes the 10 years i have been in this biz, not one time, either im about to get a big run on them or they dont wear out around here.

The coriolis effect inside the tubes make them last a long time.

I miss that thread.

 

[tradergordo]

Definitely go with the non-cat model. Good reviews, and nothing to replace. The cats have to be replaced every few years for around $300 and just give you aggrevation and extra work. WHat's the point?

See
(broken link removed to http://www.chimneysweeponline.com/hocats.htm)

Best price for large size non-cat Dutchwest (model#2479) I could find was $1139 from here:

http://www.lehmans.com/

Don't believe everything you read. It's more like every 4-6 years at $100 if you burn properly. You also get longer slow burns with more heat and burn less wood. I definitely like my cat better than my non cat.

I don't think you can just compare "cat" vs. "non-cat", you have to compare specific models. There are really bad cat models, and really bad non-cat models out there. To compare apples to apples in the context of this thread we should look at a Dutchwest large cat vs. dutchwest large non-cat.

(broken link removed to http://www.vermontcastings.com/content/products/productdetails.cfm?id=309):
EPA Emissions Rating 1.4 (grams/hr)
Btu/h (Max.) 40000 Btu
Btu/hr Range EPA Test Method 11,300 to 26,800 Btu/hr
Burn Time (Max.) 9 hours
Heating Area (Max) 1600 sq. ft

(broken link removed to http://www.vermontcastings.com/content/products/productdetails.cfm?id=314):
EPA Emissions Rating 1.31 (grams/hr)
Btu/h (Max.) 55000 Btu
Btu/hr Range EPA Test Method 11,300 to 26,500 Btu/hr
Burn Time (Max.) up to 14 hours
Heating Area (Max) 1000-2400 sq. ft.


As you can see, the non-cat model has lower EPA emissions than the catalytic model, a significantly higher max BTU (although SLIGHTLY lower EPA test method 11 range), a substantially longer max burn time, and a higher recommended heating area range. Oh, and did you know the catalytic model has only a 3 year warrantee but the non-cat model has a lifetime warrantee?

 

[Todd]

Tradergordo,
You are comparing the large noncat Dutchwest to actually the Medium cat Dutchwest. The non cats are listed as small, medium, and large. The cat models are small, large, extra large. So if you want to compare apples to apples, compare the large non cat with the extra large cat. The numbers are pretty simular, maybe a little better for the cat model. The big number, 74% efficiency cat model verses 63% non cat.

 

[tradergordo]

Tradergordo,
You are comparing the large noncat Dutchwest to actually the Medium cat Dutchwest. The non cats are listed as small, medium, and large. The cat models are small, large, extra large. So if you want to compare apples to apples, compare the large non cat with the extra large cat. The numbers are pretty simular, maybe a little better for the cat model. The big number, 74% efficiency cat model verses 63% non cat.

I don't think so Todd, but I could be wrong. The large cat seems to compare with the large non-cat. For example, the extra large cat takes 25" logs and has an 8 inch flue collar - this is CLEARLY NOT similar to the others. The large size in both styles has an 6 inch flue collar. The large non-cat takes 22-24 inch logs. I tried to find the firebox capacity on both but I don't see them listed for both, tried to find overall weight, which I also can't find for both

As for the stated efficiency ratings - these are meaningless EPA default rates, which is why I didn't include them. If you don't believe me, do some searching. If you look at the EPA documentation, you will see that ALL non-cat woodstoves are listed at 63% efficient for every manufacturer. I don't really know why they do this, but it certainly adds to the confusion.

See:
(broken link removed to http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/resources/publications/monitoring/caa/woodstoves/certifiedwood.pdf)

 

[Shane]

You are wrong. Non Cat comparable model is the Large to the Catalytic Xtra Large.

 

[Todd]

Tradergordo,
You are comparing the large noncat Dutchwest to actually the Medium cat Dutchwest. The non cats are listed as small, medium, and large. The cat models are small, large, extra large. So if you want to compare apples to apples, compare the large non cat with the extra large cat. The numbers are pretty simular, maybe a little better for the cat model. The big number, 74% efficiency cat model verses 63% non cat.

I don't think so Todd, but I could be wrong. The large cat seems to compare with the large non-cat. For example, the extra large cat takes 25" logs and has an 8 inch flue collar - this is CLEARLY NOT similar to the others. The large size in both styles has an 6 inch flue collar. The large non-cat takes 22-24 inch logs. I tried to find the firebox capacity on both but I don't see them listed for both, tried to find overall weight, which I also can't find for both

As for the stated efficiency ratings - these are meaningless EPA default rates, which is why I didn't include them. If you don't believe me, do some searching. If you look at the EPA documentation, you will see that ALL non-cat woodstoves are listed at 63% efficient for every manufacturer. I don't really know why they do this, but it certainly adds to the confusion.

See:
(broken link removed to http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/resources/publications/monitoring/caa/woodstoves/certifiedwood.pdf)

Yes there are differences in the flue collars, and the fireboxes are also different because they have two different burning systems. Look at the stove dimensions. HxWxD. The large non cat and extra large cat are basicly the same.

Yes, the EPA rates all non cats at 63%, but they also list cat stoves at 72%. Seems to me cats are a little more efficient according to their test. I know there are other test labs out there, but they are bias to the manufactures to make their numbers more attractive to the buyer. They are both sweet looking stoves and I'm sure either will do the job.

 

[tradergordo]

Yes, the EPA rates all non cats at 63%, but they also list cat stoves at 72%. Seems to me cats are a little more efficient according to their test. I know there are other test labs out there, but they are bias to the manufactures to make their numbers more attractive to the buyer. They are both sweet looking stoves and I'm sure either will do the job.

The EPA DOES NOT test efficiency. As you rightly noted, they do IMPLY cat technology is more efficient - from the best I can gather, this is based on OLD non-cat to cat model comparisons? Maybe someone else knows more? The generalization may actually still be true based on a survey of all EPA approved stoves, I have absolutely no idea, but the generalization does more harm than good - each stove needs to be evaluated on its own. Again, those default ratings are completely meaningless.

If someone has a link to actual lab tested efficiency ratings - I would be VERY interested in seeing the data. I don't know why the EPA doesn't do it themselves as I don't think it would be a huge amount of additional work for them as they are already testing every model in other ways. All I've found so far is a comment on the (broken link removed to http://www.chimneysweeponline.com/hocats.htm)site saying "The fact is, there is much laboratory evidence [showing not-cat technology can be as efficient or moreso than cat technology]. Woodstove efficiency testing reveals the exact amount of heat a given stove delivers for a given quantity of wood burned, and independent laboratory test results document that EPA approved non-catalytic woodstoves are just as fuel efficient as catalytics. This means catalytic stoves won't burn any less wood than non-cats to heat the same area."

But getting back to the ATTEMPT at an apples to apples comparison, I will redo it with extra large cat compared to large non-cat. NOTE: The extra large cat model takes 25 inch logs, has an 8" flue, and is AT LEAST 70 lbs. heavier (134 lbs heavier based on the owners manual!) - so this is NOT really "apples to apples" when compared to the non-cat model which takes 22-24 inch logs, has a 6" flue, and is significantly lighter.


(broken link removed to http://www.vermontcastings.com/content/products/productdetails.cfm?id=311):
EPA Emissions Rating 1.3 (grams/hr)
Btu/h (Max.) 55000 Btu
Btu/hr Range EPA Test Method 10,500 to 27,700 Btu/hr
Burn Time (Max.) up to 12 hours
Heating Area (Max) 2400 sq. ft.
Weight 550 lbs. (but the owners manual says its 634 lbs!)
Unit Depth 18 in.
Unit Height 33 in.
Unit Width 28 in.

(broken link removed to http://www.vermontcastings.com/content/products/productdetails.cfm?id=314):
EPA Emissions Rating 1.31 (grams/hr)
Btu/h (Max.) 55000 Btu
Btu/hr Range EPA Test Method 11,300 to 26,500 Btu/hr
Burn Time (Max.) up to 14 hours
Heating Area (Max) 2400 sq. ft.
[from (broken link removed to http://www.vermontcastings.com/catalog/elements/files/2006/30002291_Dutchwest_NC_Lg.pdf)]
Weight 480 lbs.
Unit Depth 19 in.
Unit Height 32.5 in.
Unit Width 29.75 in.


So the non-cat large model has basically the same EPA emissions as the extra large catalytic model, a similar (slightly tighter) BTU/hr range on EPA test method, the same max BTU, the same recommended heating area, and a better max burn time by two hours. So the specs are about the same. Without further information you have to assume the efficiency ratings are almost identical considering the similar EPA emmissions and BTU specs. The non-cat might be slightly more efficient given the longer listed max burn time, or the cat might be slightly more efficient given the slightly higher max BTU/hr range on EPA test.

Bottom line - for very similar specs, if you go the catalytic route you have a substantially heavier stove with a catalytic converter that has to be replaced every few years (or performance will fall off a cliff) , a 3 year warrantee, and the requirement of an expensive 8 inch flue. Compare that to the non-cat which has a longer max burn time, no cat to replace, has a 6 inch flue, and a lifetime warrantee.

 

[Shane]

The encore non-cat is the cleanest stove for emmissions ever tested. Weird how this cat vs. non-cat topic comes up so often. I will agree that a generalization is no good every stove and stove owner should be evaluated individually. That's one thing about the stove industry there's a seat for every ass.

 

[Todd]

It would be nice to see some actual side by side testing results, but I think it is highly unlikely. All these numbers they come up with and yet they never explain how they come up with them. To each his own, for me, from my personal experience with non cat vs cat stoves, I'll go with the cat technology. I just think in real world burning, it's better for me. I have a cleaner chimney, burn less wood, and seems to give more heat than my 3 previous EPA non cats. The new everburn technology has only just begun, and time will tell weather it replaces the cats.

 

[elkimmeg]

Shane the Defiant Cat stove is the cleanest stove ever EPA tested right company wrong model By the way I did post how the EPA or an Epa approve testing lab conducts a test Maybe Craig can make it a winki

ttp://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/forums/viewthread/1103/

 

[Shane]

I was talking to my VC rep last week and when I said that the Defiant was the cleanest tested he told me I was wrong and that it was the Encore he had a pretty little brochure and everything.

 

[Todd]

According to the VC site Shane is right. The non cat Encore is .7 grams, and the cat Defiant is .8 grams. Wow, those are low emmisions.

 

[tradergordo]

According to the VC site Shane is right. The non cat Encore is .7 grams, and the cat Defiant is .8 grams. Wow, those are low emmisions.

They might both be right. Encore non-cat is technically the cleanest because it produces the lowest emmisions of any stove ever tested by the EPA but the Defiant cat model may be the lowest emmission PER BTU stove ever tested by the EPA (?).