# Kuuma  Vaporfire 200 vs PSG Caddy



## Binny (Nov 23, 2011)

Thanks to a lot of information pouring in from users of this site and some people even taking the time to speaking to me personally on the phone to share thier experiences I have decided to go with a furnace that is a little more efficient then what I was leaning towrds before... So I have narrowed it down to the Caddy and Vaporfire 200.  I was wondering what owners of both had to say. It has been a little hard for me to find info on the Vaporfire.  

2200 sf two level house.  1100 on each floor. Almost never drops below 10 where I live. Average temp in Jan is 17 deg


----------



## Binny (Nov 24, 2011)

Would just like to add I am not looking tI start a " my furnace is better then yours " thread...  Or an EPA furnace war... Lol.  Just looking for some personal experiences


----------



## laynes69 (Nov 24, 2011)

I would look at the 100. It's larger and the open plenum will be better if there's an outage. I think the Caddy has a higher heat output, both operate off of secondary combustion. There's little electronics on the Caddy the Kummas have a thermocouple, computer, and other electronics. I think the kumma appears to be well built furnace, but personally I think they are ugly but that varies from person to person.


----------



## Binny (Nov 24, 2011)

It seems to me as far as size and output if I was going to consider the 100 then I would have to look at the max caddy also.. I'm kinda caught between long burn times and afraid of getting cooked out of my house...  As far as kuuma goes. The 8-12 hours of useful heat and 6 hrs or so of coals after that sound very enticing...


----------



## laynes69 (Nov 24, 2011)

Yeah it sounds good. The 100 has an output on low of around 30,000 btus. That's a pretty low output. On the Caddy and maybe the Kuuma, the fire starts out low, a few hours later will peak at high which is when it's fully off gassing, then gradually lower. We woke 9 hours later this morning with a coal bed of 3 to 4" of coals. No full loads yet and I'm not burning my best wood yet. It got down to around 30* last night. Furnace set at 72, house at 71, I can't complain. With the Caddy having a firebrick floor, it helps hold a coal bed longer. I like the computerized controls of the Kuuma, but I also love my glass door so I can view the fire.


----------



## Binny (Nov 24, 2011)

As far as the log length... The caddy takes 22in wood and the 200 takes 16in wood and it looks like they get the same burn times with the 200 getting up to 6 hours of coals to start a new fire... Do you think it burns that much less wood with similar heat output??


----------



## FyreBug (Nov 24, 2011)

RiverGuide said:
			
		

> Would just like to add I am not looking tI start a " my furnace is better then yours " thread...  Or an EPA furnace war... Lol.  Just looking for some personal experiences



Sounds like you've been on AS! This forum is a lot different. Product wars are not allowed! 

The Max Caddy might be a tad too much furnace for your house. It all depends on your level of insulation etc... Best thing to do is get an Energy audit done with the blower test and it will give you the BTU load requirement for your house.

The nice thing about the Caddy's is you can always add an electric element or oil burners later on to make it a 'full stand alone legal' furnace.

In the lab, we got up to 19 Hrs burn time with the Max Caddy but keep in mind these are guys who get paid to burn wood all day long. There's always a caveat when burning wood but with the Max you should get between 10-12 hours of useful heat.

All the best and let us know how it goes.


----------



## laynes69 (Nov 24, 2011)

We cut our wood at 16-18" for our furnace. I don't think I've ever cut anything longer. I like room for air movement within the firebox.


----------



## thecontrolguy (Nov 25, 2011)

Just another opinion;  My nearest neighbor installed a PSG Caddy as a side-by-side with an electric furnace last year. He just finished building a (reasonably) well insulated large-ish house (2400 sft) and it heated all that just fine.  I had been initially concerned that the firebox was a little small and the BTU rating was either conservative or the furnace was in fact too small.  The only issue I saw was that he was burning dry beetle-kill pine, that was stored outside uncovered.  Creosote-like liquids ended up dripping out the heat exchanger tubes access panel in the front and making a mess all over and the front of the furnace. Blech. His own fault, but this is just a note that this model DOES NOT LIKE any wet wood. Hot fires and dry wood only.  Good luck


----------



## Binny (Nov 25, 2011)

Yeah I heard that regarding wet wood.  But I think any very efficient furnace will be a little temperamental as far as wood moisture goes.... Did he give you an idea of his experience with burn times


----------



## laynes69 (Nov 25, 2011)

I'd say there was a problem. We have basically dust in our heat exchanger. Even though the wood was wet, also sounded like he wasn't letting it get hot enough. Dry wood is a must.


----------



## lampmfg (Nov 28, 2011)

Please PM me for any type of questions or concerns you have about the Kuuma.  LOL about the AS EPA comment...


----------



## lampmfg (Nov 28, 2011)

laynes69 said:
			
		

> I would look at the 100. It's larger and the open plenum will be better if there's an outage. I think the Caddy has a higher heat output, both operate off of secondary combustion. There's little electronics on the Caddy the Kummas have a thermocouple, computer, and other electronics. I think the kumma appears to be well built furnace, but personally I think they are ugly but that varies from person to person.



They are much better looking in person, but I agree they don't look the best in pictures.


----------



## Binny (Nov 28, 2011)

lampmfg said:
			
		

> laynes69 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It's a good thing I want to heat my home and not to take it on a date... Lol


----------



## Binny (Nov 28, 2011)

lampmfg said:
			
		

> laynes69 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It's a good thing I am looking for it to heat my home and not take it out on a date... Lol


----------



## slamotto (Nov 29, 2011)

_ I like the computerized controls of the Kuuma, but I also love my glass door so I can view the fire. _

I think this pretty much captures the essence of the Kuuma vs Caddy debate in my mind, at least.  I have a vaporfire 100, and I LOVE the electronic damper control.  That being said, I would really like to have a glass door on there to satisfy my desire to see the fire burn.  

I don't think you can go wrong with either unit.  I can tell you from my experience that you will get top notch service from Darryl and Garrett if you decide to go with a Kuuma.


----------



## roknwoe (Jan 22, 2012)

I am not an owner of the Kuuma nor AN Caddy. But have been investigating them both for a future purchase. 

While the Kuuma only emits 30-40,000 of BTU output, Daryl Lamppa's brochure for the Model 100 Kuuma indicates it will heat a 3500 square foot home.

The Kuuma model 100 weighs 695 pounds, whereas the AN Caddy weighs 560 pounds.  To me, this means you are getting 135 pounds of more stainless steel, insulation, quality/value?, and heat transferring materials with the Kuuma.

The Kuuma, comes from Tower Minnesota, while the AN Caddy comes from Quebec Canada.  Whether buying American guarantees parts supplies in case of future repair issues, or is better for America's economy...is a decision for each American buyer.

The AN Caddy is built by a large manufacturer, while the Kuuma is built by a small family business and directly distributed by them (Lamppa).

The AN Caddy (per our local distributor) requires the input cold air to come into the unit from the right or left side of the unit, while the Kuuma's require the input cold air to come into the unit from the back.  (this "might" be a show stopper for either unit depending on how you will connect to the flu, or how much room you have in the basement, and the arrangement of any other furnaces you wish to conjoin with.). 

While the AN Caddy has a glass front, unless the unit will be placed in the living/family room (as opposed to the corner of a concrete basement), to me...it seems unnecessary and a potential item to break.  For instance, while attempting to replace the rope gaskets on the doors of our living room $3000 Hearthstone Heritage soap stone wood stove,  I accidentally broke the glass front, which cost $150. We always (to see the great fire)  have to clean the dirt off the glass on a regular basis with a special glass cleaner sold by the local dealer. 

The AN Caddy now (January 2012) costs about $2800 from our local dealer, while the Kuuma 100 costs about $3450.

Per the EPA test results: I am impressed with the overall 83% EPA efficiency of the Kuuma, compared to the overall 76% EPA efficiency of the AN Caddy.

Per the EPA test results: I am also impressed with the 98% emissions/combustion efficiency of the Kuuma, compared to the 90% emissions/combustion efficiency of the AN Caddy.

The above information comes from the manufacturers: brochures, Websites, You Tube videos. 

I recently had a phone conversation with Daryl Lamppa, and asked him how much the EPA testing done in Middleton Wisconsin cost for the Kuuma 100.  He indicated it cost:  $25,000.  The accessibility of talking directly to the designer, manufacturer, and distributor in a quick phone call left a good impression.

For the last 32 years we have fired up an old 2800 WoodChuck add-on furnace in the basement.  It has been bullet proof and I enjoy the challenge of operating it.  However, the city is fast encroaching on our country life, and I am concerned about potential complaints from neighbors about even small amounts of chimney smoke, and creosote/safety issues in the chimney.

I appreciate the Hearth.Comm website information, and have learned much from its contributors.

Thank you.


----------



## FyreBug (Jan 23, 2012)

That was a good unbiased review. I know Kuuma and had the opportunity to talk with those folks on a few occasions. While i've never had the privilege to play with their furnace, many users will tell you they make a great product.

On a side note, there are some philosophical difference to our (PSG) approach to the market. PSG is only available through a dealer network. The reason for this is we feel a local dealer is in a best position to provide sales, service and installation support. It also helps the local economy. As far as service is concerned, I myself have gone to support our dealer network by visiting users homes in OH, MI, NY, PA & IN (some of them are on Hearth.com). Most of the time the problems are installation issues. 

We've made some changes to the Caddy this year. The blower box comes separate and the cold air return can be handled from the top, right or left. It now comes with an ECM motor and you can add an electric element or oil burner to make it a 'stand alone' furnace. 

Many users have told us the glass on the door is a good selling feature since it let you see at a glance if you need to add wood. We've built in an airwash so the glass stays clean. 

Hopes this helps.


----------

