# Kozy heat Z42 or FPX 44



## Jade (Sep 26, 2007)

I’m building a new house in rural SW Georgia and considering wood as primary heating for a 2,000 sf two story home.  I’ve never done whole house heating with wood.  My choice for appearance and floor space reasons is a wood-burning fireplace, but I haven’t ruled out wood burning stoves.  If I were to go with the stove, I would choose the Hearthstone Mansfield.   

In fireplaces, I’m comparing the Kozyheat Z-42-CD and the Fireplace Extrordinair FPX 44.  I like the non-cat & 6” flue features of the KozyHeat.  The FPX 44 has the bigger firebox, but it’s a cat.  I’d like to get comments about my fireplace choices.  Is the Z-42 a vented unit?


----------



## builderbob (Sep 26, 2007)

Jade said:
			
		

> I’m building a new house in rural SW Georgia and considering wood as primary heating for a 2,000 sf two story home.  I’ve never done whole house heating with wood.  My choice for appearance and floor space reasons is a wood-burning fireplace, but I haven’t ruled out wood burning stoves.  If I were to go with the stove, I would choose the Hearthstone Mansfield.
> 
> In fireplaces, I’m comparing the Kozyheat Z-42-CD and the Fireplace Extrordinair FPX 44.  I like the non-cat & 6” flue features of the KozyHeat.  The FPX 44 has the bigger firebox, but it’s a cat.  I’d like to get comments about my fireplace choices.  Is the Z-42 a vented unit?


"
Do some thread searches here--such as for "zero clearance woodburning fireplaces", "kozyheat", and "fireplace xtrordinaire", and "Lennox Montecito Estate" or "Bis Tradition",  among others.

You will find many comments and discussion of both the FPX44 from Travis, and for the Z42 from Kozyheat.

I too am looking for wood fireplaces.

From my reasearch I have found cold air intake an area of concern for me.  I have put the Kozyheat42 on my finalist list, and scratched the Travis FPX off my list.  Also, I am still considering the Lennox Montecito Estate/Security Bis Tradition (clones). 

The Kozyheat42 uses one 4" duct for cold air intake, and it allows use of solidpack chimney.

The FPX requires 2, 6" ducts for aircooling of fireplace shell, plus it requires air-cooled chimney, plus it requires another duct (which must be from outside air if you want the FPX "posipressure system to work) for combustion air.  I have decided for me that is way too much cold air coming in to defeat all the insulation and enregysmart windows etc I would pay for in a new house.  Some webposted comments have indicated the FPX aircooled chimney has been a problem for cold air infiltration into the fireplace area of the home.

The Lennox/Bis unit also needs only 1, 4" duct for outside air, and allows use of solidpack chimney.


But you can read all the comments on these units here and at links in some of the discussions.  Also, go to this site's "Rating" section.  There the owners who care to rate their units also usually leave comments pros and cons on their units.

Good luck.

BTB


----------



## Gooserider (Sep 26, 2007)

As a side note, you should probably also plan to have some form of conventional heat - you may not always be home to feed the fire, and it is good to have an automatic backup.  Also I understand that some mortgage sources won't go for a house that doesn't have backup heat.

I would also suggest careful consideration of the placement of the stove and chimney - try for a central location, avoid the evil outside chimney...

Gooserider


----------



## Jade (Sep 26, 2007)

BTB said:
			
		

> "
> Do some thread searches here--such as for "zero clearance woodburning fireplaces", "kozyheat", and "fireplace xtrordinaire", and "Lennox Montecito Estate" or "Bis Tradition",  among others…..I have put the Kozyheat42 on my finalist list, and scratched the Travis FPX off my list.



BTB
I’m also leaning toward the Kozy Heat as it’s a US family owned company, non-cat., and competitively priced.  I’ve searched archives and ratings, as this is a major HVAC decision.  Very little on Kozy Heat 42 in ratings, but read Rod Poplarchick’s review after 20 installs. I looked at the Lennox/BIS products also, but there are too many mixed reviews.  



			
				BTB said:
			
		

> The Kozyheat42 uses one 4" duct for cold air intake, and it allows use of solidpack chimney.



I think this will work better for me.  FPX seems too complicated and I’m with you on no more cold air infiltration.  Thanks for your comments.  I’m getting a better idea of what will work better.  

I contacted a CA vendor (where I am currently) for more feedback and an opportunity to see the units.  This vendor sells FPX and suggested that the Kozy Heats were not vented and not legal in CA. This feedback threw me, but I just called Kozy Heat and the 42 is vented.  I may go see the FPX, but this vendor also made it out to be the most expensive unit I’ve reviewed so far.



			
				Gooserider said:
			
		

> As a side note, you should probably also plan to have some form of conventional heat - you may not always be home to feed the fire, and it is good to have an automatic backup.  Also I understand that some mortgage sources won't go for a house that doesn't have backup heat.
> 
> I would also suggest careful consideration of the placement of the stove and chimney - try for a central location, avoid the evil outside chimney...



Gooserider
There’s no mortgage company involved, but I do want to plan for when I’m away.  Without much additional expense, what do you suggest?  Am I keeping water pipes from freezing? Now’s the time to plan for draining the water system and/or installing pipe insulation etc..  How are others using wood as primary heating handing this?

The unit will be centrally located.  After reading the archives, I considered thermal mass to store heat using a masonry heater.  However, GA locals tell me that there are no local masons.   The more answers I find, the more questions I seem to have.  

There’s only one heating contractor in the area and he’s looked at my building site.  He’s strongly suggesting conventional heat pump, but I want to be as free of the utility companies as much as possible.  It will take a bit of planning and research, but I think it can be done (safely and wisely too).


----------



## builderbob (Sep 26, 2007)

Jade said:
			
		

> BTB said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## hearthtools (Sep 27, 2007)

Where are you in California>
The Z42 is a Clean burning EPA phase II stove that meats June 1 1990 Standards.
I love the unit.
It heats Well and has a great price for what you get in a 500# build in fireplace.
the other option would be one of the EPA RSF but hey tend to be smaller.


----------



## Gooserider (Sep 27, 2007)

Jade said:
			
		

> BTB said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Draining pipes is not a bad idea, but it's tricky.  You pretty much have to design your plumbing with the right pitch to drain, and even then you have to deal with the various drain traps in toilets, sinks, etc.  There are also other materials used in most houses that really don't like being frozen.  We used to have a summer cottage that we would drain the water system for the winter, it took about 3-4 hours on each end of the season to deal with it, hardly the sort of thing you'd want to do very often.  Far easier is to have a conventional heating system of any sort that is set to come on around 50* or so, and not worry about draining the pipes.

As a backup system, I'm not all that sure what the best alternative is, but I would probably think of using the same thing as you are using for your cooking and hot water, as that way you only have to pay for the heating system itself, not the extra infrastructure to support it.  

Gooserider


----------



## Jade (Sep 27, 2007)

BTB said:
			
		

> That FPX dealer who tried to scare you on the Kozyheats, I think I would avoid.  Unless you just want some entertainment to see how far he is willing to go with his line of BS.  Maybe you can press him on the point to explain just “how” Kozyheats are “not vented”.



If I had the time I would pursue this, but I would rather spend this time getting better ‘edge’-ucated. 



			
				BTB said:
			
		

> I wouldn’t rule out Lenox/Bis Montecito Estate/Tradition, as they have some good features going for them.  PLUS Lennox has the best actual warranty I have seen.


OK I’ll look further.  With Lennox, I looked at the Villa Vista/BIS Panorama more than the Tradition.  It is also a cat.  Still no customer comments for or against.  

The Lennox review I received was from a dealer also.  When asked why he didn’t carry the Lennox line since the warranty was so extensive, he replied that it breaks and needs to be fixed and customers would rather have a product that doesn’t leak/break. Labor is covered for the 1st year then it’s at customer’s expense.  Something along this thread https://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/forums/viewthread/8195/



			
				hearthtools said:
			
		

> Where are you in California>
> The Z42 is a Clean burning EPA phase II stove that meats June 1 1990 Standards.
> I love the unit.
> It heats Well and has a great price for what you get in a 500# build in fireplace.
> the other option would be one of the EPA RSF but hey tend to be smaller.




Hearthtools
The Z42 seems to be what I need.  I’m in Alpine, so more than 400 miles from you.  I’d love to see the unit though.  Is there a Z42 dealer closer to me?



			
				Gooserider said:
			
		

> Far easier is to have a conventional heating system of any sort that is set to come on around 50* or so, and not worry about draining the pipes.
> 
> As a backup system, I'm not all that sure what the best alternative is, but I would probably think of using the same thing as you are using for your cooking and hot water, as that way you only have to pay for the heating system itself, not the extra infrastructure to support it.



The hot water is going on a PV solar system.  I’m not much of a cook, so I’m going with electric for appliances and lighting.  I’ll look into back up electric heat further.  In the SE, it’s a little cheaper than NG.  

Thank you all for your help.


----------



## builderbob (Sep 28, 2007)

Jade said:
			
		

> BTB said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Jade (Sep 28, 2007)

A different one.  This one knew that I wasn't buying the unit from them.  Just curious, you've been looking for a long time.  Why haven't you taken the plunge yet?


----------



## builderbob (Sep 28, 2007)

Jade said:
			
		

> A different one.  This one knew that I wasn't buying the unit from them.  Just curious, you've been looking for a long time.  Why haven't you taken the plunge yet?



Haven't got our home plans finalized yet, or building started.  I like to do things like this well ahead of time.  I don't like running around like a chicken with my head cut off once the homebuilding freighttrain starts coming at me.

This way I will be comfortable with our final decision.  I keep trolling for more input before cutting my lists of finalists to the one "American Idol".

BTB


----------



## Gooserider (Sep 28, 2007)

Thinking about it, while I would be inclined towards a Masonry Heater if I were in a cold enough climate to need that sort of heat output, I'm really not sure I like the notion of any sort of prefab fireplace either.  It seems like they are a lot of work and expense to put in, and they get really expensive and require "major surgery" if you ever want to change anything.  Even installing new, they seem to get really expensive when you figure in what it takes to install one.

There are many folks that claim you get less heat per split out of a prefab or insert than you do out of a free standing stove.

The only advantage I see is the option that some units offer of letting you duct heated air to other parts of the house.  Seems to me like if you do a good design job and put the stove in the middle of the house, this isn't a big advantage.

If I didn't do an MH, I'd consider building a nice centrally located hearth, and maybe an "island" backstop behind it, w/ plenty of R-value, and drop a Class A chimney through the roof overhead.  Then I could put any sort of free standing stove on it I liked, and if I changed my mind / wanted to upgrade later, it could be done with minimal expense and hassle.  In the mean time, I'd probably have spent less money than a prefab would have cost.

In addition, I personally think that there is something aesthetically wrong about the look of a modern high efficiency fireplace or insert.  Maybe it's because I grew up with an open fireplace, but the unavoidable "fire under glass" look of a modern fireplace or insert seems "wrong" to me - yet the same fire in a box looks great to my eyes when it's a free standing stove.  There seems to be some sort of subconcious reasoning that fireplaces should be open, but stoves shouldn't be - Don't ask me to explain!   :-S  :red: At any rate, I would also find the results of a designed in free standing setup more appealing.

(Note, this does NOT mean I object to modern prefabs / inserts - I wouldn't want to live with an open fireplace other than perhaps a properly built Rumford, so I understand the reason for the modern units, they just don't do as much for me appearance wise as a stove.)

Gooserider


----------



## builderbob (Sep 28, 2007)

Goose has some good food for thought on this whole business.

Another "main" consideration is whether you intend to try and heat your home 24/7 with your stove/fireplace, or whether it would be more for ambiance.

Your first post mentioned using woodburner as a "primary" heating source.  This may well influence whether you find more benefits with stove rather than high efficiency fireplace.

Also, if you do want to go high-efficiency fireplace, if you would be burning 24/7 or anywhere clode to that, then the Travis Fireplace Xtrordinaire becomes a much more viable candidate.  With 24/7 burning, the posipressure system would overcome any "cold air infiltration" problems.  The Travis FPX falls short and owners notice cold air infiltration into the home when the FPX is NOT being used but sitting idle and cold.  If it is always burning, that problem disappears.  And the Travis FPX is a goodlooking unit.  Very nice.

In my case, the fireplace will be for once in awhile ambiance fires.  Heatpump will be primary heating source.

So, you need to know just what are your own NEEDS and WANTS---then prioritize them.  

Couple of other factoids---the Kozyheat Z42 uses individual bricks for hearth liners.  Very easy to find a cheap/quick replacement.  Both the Lennox Montecito Estate/Bis Tradition and the Travis FPX use proprietary hearth "panels".  So instead of replacing maybe one brick, you have expense and time for waiting for proprietary replacement.  Advantage Kozyheat Z42 on this point.

I think you may have mentioned too, the Kozyheat Z42 uses 6" solidpack chimney, and I believe you have choice of several brands meeting H1043 standard.  Lennox/Bis require 7" Security Chiomney Co chimney.  Small advantage Kozyheat there on expense.

BTB


----------



## R&D Guy (Sep 29, 2007)

Jade,

While I haven't read the entire post, I do have this advise; I'm sure both units will be more than enough heat for your home despite the number of cooling ducts, or their diameter. Personally I'd look at the one with the larger firebox since that should translate into a longer overnight burn, but most importantly, look at the unit that has the best look to you in your home. See what the face options are (if any). After all, when you invite company over they're not going to care if it cost less, or can, or can't hold one more piece of wood - it's going to be all visual. 

My $0.02


----------



## Jade (Sep 29, 2007)

Gooserider said:
			
		

> Thinking about it, while I would be inclined towards a Masonry Heater if I were in a cold enough climate to need that sort of heat output, I’m really not sure I like the notion of any sort of prefab fireplace either.



I agree.  I like the idea of a fast burn and hours of radiant heat.  It’s a good return for small investment (labor and energy wise).  However, here's what I've found so far.  The masonry heater costs $10-15,000. and a prefab $5-8,000. finished.   Now a wood stove would heat better than the prefab and costs about $1,000 less, but it doesn’t give me the same fireplace ‘feel’.  It seems that the prefab offers the aesthetic appeal of the MH for those who can't afford the MH. 



			
				Gooserider said:
			
		

> It seems like they are a lot of work and expense to put in, and they get really expensive and require “major surgery” if you ever want to change anything.



The MH would also require "major surgery".  A wood stove would not.  For me, it's the delicate balance of form and function.  Aesthetics keeps winning, although I know that it’s function that matters.  The MH represents form and function, but isn’t affordable right now.   There are a few MH kits that line up with the budget a little better, but that requires a contribution of sweat equity that I just don’t have right now either.   



			
				Gooserider said:
			
		

> If I didn’t do an MH, I’d consider building a nice centrally located hearth, and maybe an “island” backstop behind it, w/ plenty of R-value, and drop a Class A chimney through the roof overhead.  Then I could put any sort of free standing stove on it I liked, and if I changed my mind / wanted to upgrade later, it could be done with minimal expense and hassle.  In the mean time, I’d probably have spent less money than a prefab would have cost.



OK.  Sounds great – thermal mass, simple radiant heat, easy accessibility, design flexibility, and most affordable wood heating option.  I'd love the 'upgrade' option if it would mean a partial investment now that's enhanced later.   How is a minimal expense upgrade possible?  If the upgrade is to a MH, will it not require footing under the slab?  Wouldn’t that require tearing out the hearth and slab as a total rebuild for the MH?  Also, what happens to the wood stove at that time?  Where does that go?


----------



## Jade (Sep 29, 2007)

BTB said:
			
		

> Goose has some good food for thought on this whole business.



Yes, he does and I appreciated his tactful approach too.   ;-) I see the ZC fireplace as a permanent part of the house that requires more consideration than in the selection of a stove or a furnace.  I wonder how the wood burning unit sales stats compare.    



			
				BTB said:
			
		

> Also, if you do want to go high-efficiency fireplace, if you would be burning 24/7 or anywhere clode to that, then the Travis Fireplace Xtrordinaire becomes a much more viable candidate.  With 24/7 burning, the posipressure system would overcome any "cold air infiltration" problems.  The Travis FPX falls short and owners notice cold air infiltration into the home when the FPX is NOT being used but sitting idle and cold.  If it is always burning, that problem disappears.  And the Travis FPX is a goodlooking unit.  Very nice.



I am looking for a primary heating source.  However, my exterior walls are R-26. There may be times when it may need to sit idle and not draw cold air in.  That makes me quite uncomfortable.  



			
				BTB said:
			
		

> So, you need to know just what are your own NEEDS and WANTS---then prioritize them.


It’s good to have you and others on this board to help identify and clarify those needs, wants and priorities.  Hopefully, this discussion will help others as the other threads helped me.



			
				BTB said:
			
		

> Couple of other factoids---the Kozyheat Z42 uses individual bricks for hearth liners.  Very easy to find a cheap/quick replacement.  Both the Lennox Montecito Estate/Bis Tradition and the Travis FPX use proprietary hearth "panels".  So instead of replacing maybe one brick, you have expense and time for waiting for proprietary replacement.  Advantage Kozyheat Z42 on this point.
> 
> I think you may have mentioned too, the Kozyheat Z42 uses 6" solidpack chimney, and I believe you have choice of several brands meeting H1043 standard.  Lennox/Bis require 7" Security Chiomney Co chimney.  Small advantage Kozyheat there on expense.



Didn’t know about the proprietary hearth “panels”.  Thanks for the info.  6" pipe is less expensive than 7" anyway.  The Kozyheat may be the one.  I still haven’t gotten a dealer quote on it.  Went stove shopping yesterday and found that dealers vary significantly.  So I’ve got to do my homework there too.


----------



## Jade (Sep 29, 2007)

R&D;Guy said:
			
		

> Jade,
> 
> While I haven't read the entire post, I do have this advise; I'm sure both units will be more than enough heat for your home despite the number of cooling ducts, or their diameter. Personally I'd look at the one with the larger firebox since that should translate into a longer overnight burn, but most importantly, look at the unit that has the best look to you in your home. See what the face options are (if any). After all, when you invite company over they're not going to care if it cost less, or can, or can't hold one more piece of wood - it's going to be all visual.
> 
> My $0.02



The head keeps telling the heart not to buy with the eyes.  Hopefully they'll stop fighting soon.  :coolsmile:


----------



## builderbob (Sep 30, 2007)

Jade said:
			
		

> The head keeps telling the heart not to buy with the eyes.  Hopefully they'll stop fighting soon.  :coolsmile:



@@@Here's a thought-----give your heart free reign to let it look with the eyes.  Then, with that choice before you, start listing the advantages of that specific unit, to give the head something to be satisfied with.  And if the head keeps sputtering out, but what about this shortcoming, challenge the head to clarify "just how important in my list of priorities is that shortcoming".

And maybe some of those so-called shortcomings you could throw out here at the forum for discussion and viewpoints.  Who knows, maybe with more info and new perspectives, that shortcoming might recede in importance, or maybe even disappear entirely.

Like I say, just a thought.

BTB


----------



## Gooserider (Sep 30, 2007)

Jade said:
			
		

> Gooserider said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well the permanence of an MH is one factor - aside from possibly redoing the facade, you can't really change an MH - you essentially build the MH and then wrap a house around it.  

While I suppose that if you were building on a slab, and built the required footings for an MH as part of the hearth setup for what I described, you could come back later and replace the stove with an MH, but that would be quite a bit of extra work and expense.  In reality, my opinion is that an MH is something that should be done at build time as part of constructing a new home, or not at all.  I don't think that an MH is a reasonable "retrofit" in most circumstances.

What I had in mind was more the ability to change one woodstove for another - build the hearth on the large side, or maybe do a raised platform, with a large area of non-combustible floor around it, so that you aren't likely to be running into clearance issues with any stove you'd consider in the future.  The cost difference between building an "oversize" vs. a "minimal" hearth is going to be nominal, maybe a couple hundred for materials.  For now, put a "low budget" stove on the platform - Say an Englander for instance.  Later, as you have better finances, and a better idea of what you need, pull the Englander out, sell it off, and drop a fancier / more expensive stove in it's place - say a Hearthstone or Woodstock Soapstone unit.  The only things that would get changed are the stove itself, and maybe the connector pipes.  

That's my take from the "functional" side of things.  Obviously if you prefer the look of a pre-fab this isn't as desirable of an approach.

You are the only one that can make the choice on the aesthetic side - we can suggest things based on what we think would work, and what WE think looks good, but everybody has different tastes, and there are no "right answers" about such things - I'm not fond of the looks of the prefabs, but that is just me...

Gooserider


----------

