# In the market for a new woodfurnace



## laynes69 (Aug 31, 2017)

As everyone here knows, I've had a rebadged Caddy for some time now. While it has served it's purpose, it also developed a large hole in the heat exchanger late last winter. I don't fault the manufacturer so much, as I fault the design. I believe the reason it happened was due to the heat exchanger passing thru the return. Right where the return and heat meet was where it occurred. Otherwise there is zero corrosion. At this point I'm either forced to repair and if so I replace that portion with stainless, or purchase something new. While our furnace did well, I would push it when we dropped to below zero, so I'm looking at something larger. 

All of my research had led me to the golden eagle 7700. The emissions are half that of the old furnace, and the firebox is in the 5 cu.ft. range. It has stainless brick stays in the firebox, different pilot air, a hinged ash pan door, powdercoated cabinet and the heat exchanger is 1/8th in steel that has actual solid tubes and not welded steel. I'm choosing to install back to a series install and eliminate the dampers for easier operation for my wife. The unit is also manufactured in Alabama. Speaking with a shop here in ohio, I can get one for 2100 without the blower. Pricing the napoleon, they are 4200 and and the max caddy is over 4,000 also. It sucks, but gives me an opportunity to go larger for our home.


----------



## DoubleB (Aug 31, 2017)

My entirely selfish opinion, because I have no skin in the game, is that you get it.  If they could be more robust than our Drolet furnaces have been, but near the same price point and similar (or evidently better?) performance, than we'd all love to hear about it.  Especially from a guy who has your experience to know.  

Hasn't the 7700 been around for a while?  I don't recall hearing anyone chime in here with experience operating one though.


----------



## laynes69 (Aug 31, 2017)

No, it has not. This is the second year, but they did redesign from the first models which were closer to the Caddy in regards to design. I guess they tightened up emissions in the redesign. From what I'm hearing from dealers and the manufacturer, it is one of their highest quality furnaces.

Here is a video it's in French, but it shows some of features of the furnace. This is the smaller version.


----------



## Highbeam (Sep 1, 2017)

laynes69 said:


> I don't fault the manufacturer so much, as I fault the design.



Never heard that before. Usually the manufacturer provides the design.

How long did the caddy last you? I could swear I remember when you did the upgrade. Did you smell smoke in the house or notice the hole during cleaning?

If you spend twice as much on a furnace that lasts twice as long would you be happy?

Gotta say, Golden Eagle looks pretty sketchy. Not a familiar name brand.


----------



## kennyp2339 (Sep 1, 2017)

Another user burned by US stove company. Whats the efficiency rating of the new furnace? 5cu firebox sounds humongous like 50 - 60 lbs worth of splits per load.


----------



## laynes69 (Sep 1, 2017)

I understand the design comment, I guess what I'm saying is I see why the design has been changed, no other manufacturer uses it. It's pretty much the same issue as a boiler with no return protection, just an area for condensation to occur and premature failure.

My old usstove furnace was the tractor supply special, and while it was hard to control at times, it was over 20 years old when removed and still used today. It's been flooded a couple of times and been pretty well abused and it still was solid. 

Being familiar with the design of the, Napoleon, PSG, and Usstove offer similar designs, however, I see upgrades with the Golden Eagle that I currently do not have. While the emissions don't bother me whether it's 7 grams per hour or 2, I believe the Golden Eagle comes in around 3.5 grams which is damn good for a firebox that size. I've been looking for an upgrade for a while. I noticed it one day when I smelled a whiff of smoke, and when I went to clean out the exchanger, the tool poked thru and I found it.


----------



## brenndatomu (Sep 3, 2017)

Just my 2 cents...probably a lot of new or updated models to be released in the next few months to couple years...I'd hate to buy something and then a new model catch my eye...guess my point is that it doesn't sound like that would be a difficult repair...at least good enough to get another year or two (three?) out of it.
I noticed that I was occasionally getting a small pool of goo at the bottom of the center heat exchanger tube on my Tundra (right at the back) so I cut a 6" x 20" (IIRC) piece of sheet metal to wrap around the outside of that area of the pipe...held in place with a large SS hose clamp. It acts as a bit of an insulator for that area and has accomplished my goal...only dry soot to be found during the weekly cleaning.


----------



## brenndatomu (Sep 3, 2017)

I thought the Golden Eagle line was now US Stove owned?
Does this model have Tstat control...I know the one I looked at did not.


----------



## laynes69 (Sep 3, 2017)

Yeah, they are owned by US Stove. The first model looked like a Caddy. I did see a Kuuma on Craigslist, but it's the smaller model (it was $750), even if it was the larger model, I don't think it would be enough. I don't want a model without a heat exchanger, so that puts out a lot of manufacturers, and I need a plenum, which most don't use. I also want to go back to a series install. I've talked to the manufacturers of the other furnaces, and I'm going to make a 2 hour drive to see the Golden Eagle in person. I do believe it's controlled via thermostat. It does have a servo and damper setup similar to the Caddy.


----------



## brenndatomu (Sep 3, 2017)

Any interest in the new Shelter SF2600? Supposed to be a beast...on sale right now...https://www.menards.com/main/heatin...7-c-12809.htm?tid=-4067754097726651504&ipos=5
or the SF3100...5.7 CF firebox!


----------



## laynes69 (Sep 4, 2017)

brenndatomu said:


> Any interest in the new Shelter SF2600? Supposed to be a beast...on sale right now...https://www.menards.com/main/heatin...7-c-12809.htm?tid=-4067754097726651504&ipos=5
> or the SF3100...5.7 CF firebox!


I considered it until I realized there was no heat exchanger, only 8" plenum, forced draft and a flue size of 8". My liner is only 5.5" inch and I won't go back to forced draft.


----------



## brenndatomu (Sep 4, 2017)

No heat exchanger...hmm. And forced draft...interesting...never seen a clean burn firebox with forced draft. I can see the 8" flue would be a deal breaker for ya for sure.
Just curious though, why the dislike for forced draft?


----------



## laynes69 (Sep 4, 2017)

brenndatomu said:


> No heat exchanger...hmm. And forced draft...interesting...never seen a clean burn firebox with forced draft. I can see the 8" flue would be a deal breaker for ya for sure.
> Just curious though, why the dislike for forced draft?


My old furnace had forced draft. It was a pre epa model, and whenever I would hear the blower rattling the woodfurnace in the AM, it would be stone cold. When I quit using it, I had coals. The shelter or firecheifs rely on heat exchange in the top of the firebox. I get that now, however I also get additional heat from the exchanger. I can't wait for someone to purchase one and get some results, however due to the lack of a heat exchanger, I'm guessing flue temps would be much higher.


----------



## N.Fo (Sep 7, 2017)

laynes69 said:


> I considered it until I realized there was no heat exchanger, only 8" plenum, forced draft and a flue size of 8". My liner is only 5.5" inch and I won't go back to forced draft.



Gentleman,
I can tell you that the Shelter 2600 uses 6" flue, not 8".  
Also, I learned that the heat exchanger in the new EPA Shelters is crazy efficient, yet simple.
I have had a variety of stoves & furnaces and tried my own modifications.  I can say with certainty that a Draft Induction Blower is essential for a legit forced air furnace.  Anything less is a knife at a gun fight.  A furnace that operates like a stove does not use fuel as efficiently as an induction furnace.


----------



## laynes69 (Sep 7, 2017)

What makes the shelter heat exchanger any more efficient? From what I've seen, it's an open airspace above the firebox. As I've stated above, a single 8" or even a dual 8" plenum is not enough for our home, so that puts the shelter out.


----------



## laynes69 (Sep 7, 2017)

Here is a screenshot from the specs from menards.


----------



## N.Fo (Sep 7, 2017)

I have a pre-EPA furnace from the same factory, (Fire Chief) and it's a beast!  ( FC500 in a 2800sq/ft residence ) 
 Burn time is my focus.  The new Fire Chiefs get 12-18 hours.  I'm used to a 8 hour burn time lifestyle. That is what I asked their manager about with the new design for the EPA models.  I may throw my current model on craigslist and buy a new EPA model.  It's September already.  I've gotta act quick.

Sounds like older pre-EPA units like mine have a pretty basic air jacket.  And the new EPA units have air channels all over to maximize heat transfer.  The dual supply outlets seem easy enough. The old unit keeps my house up to temp.  If the new units are distinctively more potent and efficient, I really want one.  less cord wood fuel = less labor for me.


----------



## 3fordasho (Sep 7, 2017)

I've heard a couple references to these new shelter's as "heating beasts" but have yet to actually hear from someone that actually has one.  With none of my $$ in the game I would highly encourage you to purchase one and report back ;-)

When I initially looked at the SF2600 I was sure it was a 6" flue otherwise I would have stopped right there.  I suspect the Menards spec page is a typo at 8" flue.  Their spec page for the SF3100 does not list a exhaust dimension at all.   I also was under the impression that the forced draft blower was only used when the thermostat was calling for heat and perhaps start up, otherwise natural draft - I could be mistaken however.





N.Fo said:


> I have a pre-EPA furnace from the same factory, (Fire Chief) and it's a beast!  ( FC500 in a 2800sq/ft residence )
> Burn time is my focus.  The new Fire Chiefs get 12-18 hours.  I'm used to a 8 hour burn time lifestyle. That is what I asked their manager about with the new design for the EPA models.  I may throw my current model on craigslist and buy a new EPA model.  It's September already.  I've gotta act quick.
> 
> Sounds like older pre-EPA units like mine have a pretty basic air jacket.  And the new EPA units have air channels all over to maximize heat transfer.  The dual supply outlets seem easy enough. The old unit keeps my house up to temp.  If the new units are distinctively more potent and efficient, I really want one.  less cord wood fuel = less labor for me.


----------



## brenndatomu (Sep 7, 2017)

3fordasho said:


> When I initially looked at the SF2600 I was sure it was a 6" flue otherwise I would have stopped right there. I suspect the Menards spec page is a typo at 8" flue. Their spec page for the SF3100 does not list a exhaust dimension at all. I also was under the impression that the forced draft blower was only used when the thermostat was calling for heat and perhaps start up, otherwise natural draft - I could be mistaken however.


I agree.


3fordasho said:


> With none of my $$ in the game I would highly encourage you to purchase one and report back ;-)


Yes...


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Sep 9, 2017)

N.Fo said:


> I can say with certainty that a Draft Induction Blower is essential for a legit forced air furnace.  Anything less is a knife at a gun fight.  A furnace that operates like a stove does not use fuel as efficiently as an induction furnace.



I can see how forced induction would be very useful the first 5-10 minutes of lighting, before the natural draft is strong. But in a proper install the natural draft is stronger than necessary for over 95% of the burn. That's why it's necessary to limit the amount of intake air for most of the burn. Forced induction's not going to do a whit of good.


----------



## Highbeam (Sep 9, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> I can see how forced induction would be very useful the first 5-10 minutes of lighting, before the natural draft is strong. But in a proper install the natural draft is stronger than necessary for over 95% of the burn. That's why it's necessary to limit the amount of intake air for most of the burn. Forced induction's not going to do a whit of good.



Of course it will do good. It's just like a supercharger or turbo on an engine. More air means more fuel can be burned which means more heat can be delivered to the space for a given firebox size.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Sep 9, 2017)

Highbeam said:


> Of course it will do good. It's just like a supercharger or turbo on an engine. More air means more fuel can be burned which means more heat can be delivered to the space for a given firebox size.



If the fire needs more air you can just open the intake further.


----------



## Highbeam (Sep 9, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> If the fire needs more air you can just open the intake further.



Maybe you don't understand. Have you never heard of a blast furnace or a blacksmiths forge? Whatever you can get with natural draft, you can more with forced air! There are tradeoffs of course and I would prefer natural draft for several reasons but the fact is that more fuel can be burned faster with forced intake.


----------



## STIHLY DAN (Sep 9, 2017)

laynes69 said:


> Here is a screenshot from the specs from menards.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


laynes69,  Why are you looking at anything but thr Kuuma? If you had a  Kuuma from the start and this happened it would have been covered under warranty . Spend the money and get what you want/need. The caddy has proved inferior , So get with a small local manufacturer , that will treat you right.


----------



## laynes69 (Sep 10, 2017)

As I've said before, I do not believe the Kuuma would keep up when the weather would turn cold. Just because it has low emissions does not mean it will heat anything. We have a large Victorian home with over 42 windows. While I have the money to purchase one, I'm not going to spend almost 6,000 dollars either. At this point, I'll probably repair what I have since life has recently dealt me a bad hand (not the furnace) and see where these new models go. When I do purchase something, I will be looking closely at the design and build. As far as being phase 1 or 2, it doesn't matter to me. Anything at this point blows away what I used to have. Just because something isn't a Kuuma doesn't mean it's inferior.


----------



## Highbeam (Sep 10, 2017)

Waiting a few years will surely give you more choices as the manufacturers all offer new models to meet the new regs. If the kuuma was even close to being reasonably priced, you would see a lot more of them.


----------



## brenndatomu (Sep 10, 2017)

You don't think they are reasonably priced? I agree that they are pricey...but when you consider that they are they best...lowest emissions, best efficiency, made right here...by Americans, using a very high % content of American materials...excellent customer service and support...sounds reasonable to me...maybe not affordable for everybody...but reasonable non the less.
I mean heck, look at the PSG Max Caddy (and some others)...getting very close to the same money


----------



## STIHLY DAN (Sep 10, 2017)

laynes69 said:


> As I've said before, I do not believe the Kuuma would keep up when the weather would turn cold. Just because it has low emissions does not mean it will heat anything. We have a large Victorian home with over 42 windows. While I have the money to purchase one, I'm not going to spend almost 6,000 dollars either. At this point, I'll probably repair what I have since life has recently dealt me a bad hand (not the furnace) and see where these new models go. When I do purchase something, I will be looking closely at the design and build. As far as being phase 1 or 2, it doesn't matter to me. Anything at this point blows away what I used to have. Just because something isn't a Kuuma doesn't mean it's inferior.


Well, I think PSG is a very good unit as you have seen/lived with. But why is the HE not covered under warranty? Kumma and yukon have a 25 year warranty. I truly hope you can successfully repair your caddy, also hope that the bad hand life dealt you works out for the better. I am just saying you had not the best durability with one of the 2 best units, why not try the other? Ford verse chevy thing. ya know.


----------



## laynes69 (Sep 10, 2017)

The unit I own is a usstove, which is covered under a 3 year warranty. I did have an issue a few years into ownership, but SBI which was the manufacturer ( manufacturer of the Caddy). The design was dropped quite a few years ago. What I've found is many manufacturers build a product with a longer warranty and the same product with a shorter warranty. It's nice to have a longer warranty, however they aren't always needed, and some have limitations regardless of what's presented. If I find a unit that can produce what's necessary and save thousands, I'm going to choose that product. Honestly, I'll repair my furnace for less than a hundred dollars. I paid 1,200, so I can't complain. As I've said a hundred times, I do not believe the Kuuma would be enough for our home.


----------



## STIHLY DAN (Sep 10, 2017)

I will say I have not seen a max caddy in person, but I have seen pics and specs. To me I can't imagine it is that much more powerful. Being in the BTU business, 42 windows correlates to a huge damn house. I am totally surprised your max caddy did such a good job, I am thinking the size of your house with those windows is in the range of 250,000 Btu's. The Kumma definitely can't do that. Also please remember I am not in the club of if I own it, it is the best . I am a bit ocd and researched the hell out of wood furnaces. With my hvac knowledge I picked what I thought was the best and was surprised at how well it worked. One of those rare pleasantly surprised situations. I do not recommend many things, but this I do. Just not for you as you need more than what it can do. Still can't wrap my head around how the max caddy could fulfill your needs.  $100 repair is all you need? Great, glad to hear it. No need to be in the market for a new unit either.


----------



## brenndatomu (Sep 10, 2017)

STIHLY DAN said:


> I am totally surprised your max caddy did such a good job


I think it is a standard Caddy...not the Max


----------



## laynes69 (Sep 10, 2017)

brenndatomu said:


> I think it is a standard Caddy...not the Max


Correct! I have 2500 square feet with 10' ceilings ( 2 stories) and a 1200 square foot basement. It's a 3.5 cu ft firebox, which is the Caddy. The Max Caddy, or something in the 4.5 to 5 cu.ft range would give me what's necessary when we drop to the single digits and below zero. We do not use fuel in the coldest of weather, however I would like it warmer than 68-70 during those times. At zero degrees, the heat loss calculation was around 75 to 80 thousand btus an hour. We still have a few areas that can be buttoned up, but until then it is what it is.


----------



## Highbeam (Sep 11, 2017)

brenndatomu said:


> You don't think they are reasonably priced? I agree that they are pricey...but when you consider that they are they best...lowest emissions, best efficiency, made right here...by Americans, using a very high % content of American materials...excellent customer service and support...sounds reasonable to me...maybe not affordable for everybody...but reasonable non the less.
> I mean heck, look at the PSG Max Caddy (and some others)...getting very close to the same money



6000$. They do have the best specs. I don't see where the extra money is going. Why should this device cost over triple the rest of the other devices? A 50% upcharge, so 3000$, for the better performance is more than enough "extra".


----------



## brenndatomu (Sep 11, 2017)

Highbeam said:


> 6000$. They do have the best specs. I don't see where the extra money is going. Why should this device cost over triple the rest of the other devices? A 50% upcharge, so 3000$, for the better performance is more than enough "extra".


Mmm, no, you will be spending closer to 4 or 5k for a Max Caddy in many/most cases...Yukons were 5k for the basic Husky...more for the Polar...and I'm not even talking with shipping cost as you obviously are.


----------



## Highbeam (Sep 11, 2017)

brenndatomu said:


> Mmm, no, you will be spending closer to 4 or 5k for a Max Caddy in many/most cases...Yukons were 5k for the basic Husky...more for the Polar...and I'm not even talking with shipping cost as you obviously are.



Yes, you're right. There are other premium furnaces that are priced within 1500$ of the Kuuma. Of course, that 1500$ buys you an entire furnace from some companies! I was comparing to the drolet type line which apparently costs 1/3 as much to make. I chose to pay a premium for my woodstove to get higher performance and I would expect to pay a premium for "top of the line" here too. Yukons are not even comparable and their price point just goes to show you how even a turd can have a ridiculous price tag. Shipping cost is negligible for all. I was using the 6k$ from upthread for the kuuma.

The price for a max caddy is irrelevant because it is not the same size as the kuuma. How about the caddy? It's hard to find a price for these furnaces, especially when sales of them in my state is prohibited due to the high levels of pollution they spew. I hear actual numbers are much lower than what you posted.

I would love to have a Kuuma in the shop. Really. It would be perfect for me. Sadly, the price is extremely high.


----------



## laynes69 (Sep 11, 2017)

In looking at different options, I've contacted dealers of the Napoleon HMF series, PSG dealers and others. When I get a quote from a dealer for the Napoleon which is over 5,000 dollars and they can take 25% off the price....hmmm. I looked at the Golden Eagle 7700 and in talking to various dealers, they felt the value far exceeded the PSG in terms of both money and quality. I'd be looking at a Max Caddy which would cost around 3500 without a blower, or the Golden Eagle which new comes in at 2500. I understand there is a longer warranty, but I may not need it. I used to build pumps, and we would change the color of them, add a warranty and sell them for double or more for the exact same product.


----------



## brenndatomu (Sep 11, 2017)

laynes69 said:


> I used to build pumps


You work for G/R? I was out there to their university for a class in 2015 or '16...top notch...and got a tour of the new plant, nice!


Highbeam said:


> Yukons are not even comparable and their price point just goes to show you how even a turd can have a ridiculous price tag


Turd...I wouldn't call 'em turds...they were ahead of their time at one point...just haven't been updated to meet any new regs for a long time...they are a very well built furnace and at the time I was convinced that the Yukon was my only whole house wood furnace choice due to only having one chimney available for the fuel oil burner and the wood burner...yooks have both into one chimney legally. I have since then figured out a way around this, that works for me and my set up.
I am still looking forward to see what their new stuff looks like when they release it...the latest update from them said they are now just going to bypass the 2017 emission regs and certify to the 2020 regs...makes sense to me. Why go through all that headache/expense twice in 3 years? In the meantime they are only selling new units outside of the US.


----------



## Highbeam (Sep 11, 2017)

brenndatomu said:


> You work for G/R? I was out there to their university for a class in 2015 or '16...top notch...and got a tour of the new plant, nice!
> 
> Turd...I wouldn't call 'em turds...they were ahead of their time at one point...just haven't been updated to meet any new regs for a long time...they are a very well built furnace and at the time I was convinced that the Yukon was my only whole house wood furnace choice due to only having one chimney available for the fuel oil burner and the wood burner...yooks have both into one chimney legally. I have since then figured out a way around this, that works for me and my set up.
> I am still looking forward to see what their new stuff looks like when they release it...the latest update from them said they are now just going to bypass the 2017 emission regs and certify to the 2020 regs...makes sense to me. Why go through all that headache/expense twice in 3 years? In the meantime they are only selling new units outside of the US.



I'm really looking forward to see what comes available from all of the companies when they are forced to meet the new regs. Seems the bulk of wood furnaces were left in the dark ages of technology due to being exempt from the EPA regulations. The OP, @laynes69, might be dodging a bullet my eeking out a few more years so that more options come available.

Like woodstoves, very few wood furnaces are true turds. I exaggerate for your benefit. It's pretty clear that you own one. I remember crappiekieth who said he worked for Yukon really pushing their stuff.


----------



## brenndatomu (Sep 11, 2017)

Highbeam said:


> I remember crappiekieth who said he worked for Yukon really pushing their stuff.


Now that dude believed in his product!


Highbeam said:


> I exaggerate for your benefit. It's pretty clear that you own one


I do own one...that's my avatar pic. I'm not currently using it though...other than the rare backup heat situation, then the oil burner gets a little use...very little.


----------



## lampmfg (Sep 12, 2017)

brenndatomu said:


> Mmm, no, you will be spending closer to 4 or 5k for a Max Caddy in many/most cases...Yukons were 5k for the basic Husky...more for the Polar...and I'm not even talking with shipping cost as you obviously are.



We are in the process of evaluating our true cost to manufacture our 100 model.  However, when you factor in manufacturing in a small town, paying reasonable wages to employees, EPA testing,  high-quality materials, and computerized burn controls I think it's going to be very close to what we currently charge.  Obviously, if we have a new factory and automate more we can produce faster but will have to factor in those costs of all new equipment as well. 
 I'm very confident there will not be any cheap EPA approved furnaces on the market in 2020.  If you understand the new regulations to get all 4 burns underneath .15 grams and not just getting that average is very difficult.  We really sweated out making the final burn.  You can see from our competitor's test results there will need to be a complete product redesign to achieve this and that is going to be very costly and time-consuming.  We took this approach from the beginning even though a product like the Tundra was able to come along and sell a ton of units at a price point most were looking to pay.  A lot of the R&D was done by the public and you can see with a new version of it rolling out multiple times.  
We definitely don't price gouge and have charged what was necessary to keep the lights on at our factory with our current manufacturing timeline.  You definitely don't see my dad driving a Mercedez and since I do the books I can tell you not many or any would do his job for the wages he has made over the years.  Hopefully, we are able to make and sell a ton of these because he definitely deserves it!  He's had this dream for many years and I admire his will and determination it has taken to get here.


----------



## Highbeam (Sep 12, 2017)

lampmfg said:


> We are in the process of evaluating our true cost to manufacture our 100 model.  However, when you factor in manufacturing in a small town, paying reasonable wages to employees, EPA testing,  high-quality materials, and computerized burn controls I think it's going to be very close to what we currently charge.  Obviously, if we have a new factory and automate more we can produce faster but will have to factor in those costs of all new equipment as well.
> I'm very confident there will not be any cheap EPA approved furnaces on the market in 2020.  If you understand the new regulations to get all 4 burns underneath .15 grams and not just getting that average is very difficult.  We really sweated out making the final burn.  You can see from our competitor's test results there will need to be a complete product redesign to achieve this and that is going to be very costly and time-consuming.  We took this approach from the beginning even though a product like the Tundra was able to come along and sell a ton of units at a price point most were looking to pay.  A lot of the R&D was done by the public and you can see with a new version of it rolling out multiple times.
> We definitely don't price gouge and have charged what was necessary to keep the lights on at our factory with our current manufacturing timeline.  You definitely don't see my dad driving a Mercedez and since I do the books I can tell you not many or any would do his job for the wages he has made over the years.  Hopefully, we are able to make and sell a ton of these because he definitely deserves it!  He's had this dream for many years and I admire his will and determination it has taken to get here.



I believe that all companies providing a value to their customers deserve to make a fair profit. I also don't mean to badger you guys but you must understand that your furnaces cost 3-4 times as much as the tundra that also will claim to  "factor in manufacturing in a small town, paying reasonable wages to employees, EPA testing,  high-quality materials, and computerized burn controls". What you have is a much lower emissions product that tests out a few % more efficient as well. Once in production mode, stamping these things out, the 100 model and the tundra aren't that different to make. So we must assume that you are trying to recoup sunk costs for R&D over your admittedly small number of produced units. Fair enough. You need to break even on that investment plus make a profit and right now you have the market cornered for the 2020 compliant furnace.

You don't have to explain anything to me. I understand that it's a take it or leave it situation. My interest, and I am not alone, is that you make a very desirable product that would be in my shop if it weren't for the very high price. There is a huge spread between cheap and a Kuuma.

Thank you for listening and responding Garrett. It reflects very well on your company that you are here.


----------



## STIHLY DAN (Sep 12, 2017)

Hold on!! There is NO comparison with the tundra and the Kumma! The VP100 is built much better, has a greater warranty, higher efficiency, more BTU's  and was not designed to KILL people like the original tundra. Tundra used the public as R&D has potentially/ actually killed people and have changed there design at least 4 times in 3 years to make them safer, then  more durable. In year 1, I bet the huge company of SBI had more replacement units then Kuuma did in 25 years. Comparing a Kuuma to a tundra is just retarded.


----------



## brenndatomu (Sep 12, 2017)

STIHLY DAN said:


> Comparing a Kuuma to a tundra is just *intellectually disabled*.


Fixed that for ya...


----------



## STIHLY DAN (Sep 12, 2017)

brenndatomu said:


> Fixed that for ya...


Thanks, sometimes I need a politically correct moderator.  I thought i done good by not using the 1st word that came to mind.


----------



## Highbeam (Sep 13, 2017)

STIHLY DAN said:


> Comparing a Kuuma to a tundra is just retarded.



Like it or not, that's what the buying public will do. Lucky for Kuuma that comparison should justify the higher price, right?


----------



## STIHLY DAN (Sep 13, 2017)

Unfortunately not. The buying public will look at the sales pitch and brochure and say well its the same. But we in the know, know better. The tundra is an efficient low economy unit. Better than most tractor supply units in the same price range. But not even close to the quality or efficiency  of a Kumma. These are built to last, they do not cheap out or risk anything. I questioned the price at 1st also, I could buy 2 oil or gas furnaces for the price of the Kumma. Now I understand what I bought. I do not endorse many things but the proof is in the pudding. I was fearful of only wood heat for a year, it worked out so well its been 6 years with only thr Kumma for heat. So much for the fears.


----------



## Highbeam (Sep 14, 2017)

STIHLY DAN said:


> Unfortunately not. The buying public will look at the sales pitch and brochure and say well its the same. But we in the know, know better. The tundra is an efficient low economy unit. Better than most tractor supply units in the same price range. But not even close to the quality or efficiency  of a Kumma. These are built to last, they do not cheap out or risk anything. I questioned the price at 1st also, I could buy 2 oil or gas furnaces for the price of the Kumma. Now I understand what I bought. I do not endorse many things but the proof is in the pudding. I was fearful of only wood heat for a year, it worked out so well its been 6 years with only thr Kumma for heat. So much for the fears.



Have you actually compared the efficiency numbers published by the EPA and by Kuuma for all of the approved furnaces? The kuuma is only 4-5% more efficient than the rest. Still several percent less efficient than my woodstove. Where the kuuma shines is in the low emissions and build quality.


----------



## STIHLY DAN (Sep 14, 2017)

Highbeam said:


> Have you actually compared the efficiency numbers published by the EPA and by Kuuma for all of the approved furnaces? The kuuma is only 4-5% more efficient than the rest. Still several percent less efficient than my woodstove. Where the kuuma shines is in the low emissions and build quality.



I relatively agree with you. I totally agree with the low emissions and build quality.   The only 4 - 5 % more efficient has some murky water in that statement. 1) low emissions coincides  with efficiency on wood heat. 2) heat transfer, 2 identically efficient units the same size and 1 can produce more heat than the other. 3) 5% is huge! Take an 85% efficient gas furnace, Add 5% efficiency and you now have a condensing furnace using PVC for a flue pipe. Compare the prices between the 2 of them.
Lastly add the computer that makes it load and go. No loading and waiting for it to get to temp (20 minutes?) then walk away. Then add the end of the burn, even with the T-stat not calling the damper will open and burn the coals down. No other furnace operates like this, No wood stove does either. I realize its hard to appreciate it without living through both. I sleep for 8 hrs a night and am gone for work for 11 hours a day. The EPA wood stove was a nightmare, the Kuuma is slightly more work than my oil boiler was.
My brother has a $4,000.00 new Hearthstone wood stove. He cannot heat as much space, cannot control the temps in the house, he can't zone all the rooms, can't burn near as long, can't load and go, has to deal with coaling, also has to do ashes every day, and does not produce domestic hot water. I can also attest that his chimney is MUCH dirtier than mine.   ( its not the wood because that mooch burns mine, Which is very dry) So even comparing the Kuuma's price or emissions to a wood stove is  *intellectually disabled*.   I guess we should agree to disagree, Please note that I am debating with you and its not personal or meant as disrespectful, even if it sounds it.


----------



## Highbeam (Sep 14, 2017)

There's no debate, we're saying the same thing but you're lucky enough to own one.


----------



## lampmfg (Sep 15, 2017)

Also, take into consideration that efficiency wasn't the goal of this test at all.  We had to make some operational changes to accommodate getting all four burns under the .15, which was our *only* goal going into this test.  Unlike the others who were attempting to certify just for phase 1.  I'm very confident that we would've been at 83+ like when we tested in 2010 if we wouldn't have been worried about meeting the burn thresholds for certain categories.


----------



## N.Fo (Sep 25, 2017)

Have you checked out the Fire Chief EPA models?  I have only seen the 1000. I really want to see the 1500.  I have a FC500 that is awesome but pre-EPA.  I am totally content with my current heat production.  
Efficiency stats & the fancy math behind it is fine & good, but anything that heats like my Fire Chief for a 14 hour burn time gets my purchase. And that is what I have heard about the Shelter which I understand is the twin to Fire Chief.
laynes69, I promise you my Pre-EPA Fire Chief 500 would be enough furnace for your house.  My mind is on honest burn length. 8, even 9 hours of unsupervised burn time has been pushing it.  Please chime in if you have seen the EPA Fire Chief !!


----------



## laynes69 (Sep 25, 2017)

N.Fo said:


> Have you checked out the Fire Chief EPA models?  I have only seen the 1000. I really want to see the 1500.  I have a FC500 that is awesome but pre-EPA.  I am totally content with my current heat production.
> Efficiency stats & the fancy math behind it is fine & good, but anything that heats like my Fire Chief for a 14 hour burn time gets my purchase. And that is what I have heard about the Shelter which I understand is the twin to Fire Chief.
> laynes69, I promise you my Pre-EPA Fire Chief 500 would be enough furnace for your house.  My mind is on honest burn length. 8, even 9 hours of unsupervised burn time has been pushing it.  Please chime in if you have seen the EPA Fire Chief !!


I don't doubt it would be enough, I will NOT go back to a pre EPA firebox period. I burned wood for years and wouldn't put myself back thru it. I've been looking online at the firecheifs, but their overall efficiency ratings are not that high compared to the others. I'm going to ride out this winter and see what comes up for reviews on other furnaces.


----------



## motoguy (Jan 13, 2018)

STIHLY DAN said:


> I relatively agree with you. I totally agree with the low emissions and build quality.   The only 4 - 5 % more efficient has some murky water in that statement. 1) low emissions coincides  with efficiency on wood heat. 2) heat transfer, 2 identically efficient units the same size and 1 can produce more heat than the other. 3) 5% is huge! Take an 85% efficient gas furnace, Add 5% efficiency and you now have a condensing furnace using PVC for a flue pipe. Compare the prices between the 2 of them.
> Lastly add the computer that makes it load and go. No loading and waiting for it to get to temp (20 minutes?) then walk away. Then add the end of the burn, even with the T-stat not calling the damper will open and burn the coals down. No other furnace operates like this, No wood stove does either. I realize its hard to appreciate it without living through both. I sleep for 8 hrs a night and am gone for work for 11 hours a day. The EPA wood stove was a nightmare, the Kuuma is slightly more work than my oil boiler was.
> My brother has a $4,000.00 new Hearthstone wood stove. He cannot heat as much space, cannot control the temps in the house, he can't zone all the rooms, can't burn near as long, can't load and go, has to deal with coaling, also has to do ashes every day, and does not produce domestic hot water. I can also attest that his chimney is MUCH dirtier than mine.   ( its not the wood because that mooch burns mine, Which is very dry) So even comparing the Kuuma's price or emissions to a wood stove is  *intellectually disabled*.   I guess we should agree to disagree, Please note that I am debating with you and its not personal or meant as disrespectful, even if it sounds it.



I was "John Q Public" 3 years ago, when I started my search for a wood furnace.  At the time, I was very impressed with the heat output per wood used of the Avalon Arbor wood stove in our (recently purchased) home.  I was also very impressed at the (unexpectedly large) reduction in LP usage, when using this little stove. 

I was NOT, however, impressed with the time/dance necessary to go from "loading" to "in reburner mode".  Too long, too finicky, too much of a PITA.  I knew I wanted an EPA furnace, due to the heat output per wood volume experience with the Avalon.  I ALSO knew I wanted something much more "load and forget" than the little Avalon.  Something the wife or kids could safely load if I was gone.  Or, hell, something I can reload within 5-10 minutes, and then leave the house without worries. 

The efficiency/praise of the Kuuma turned me on to them, but the "load and go" and safety aspect of the Kuuma computer was likely what sold me on them.   I knew I could save a good amount by NOT buying a Kuuma, but long after the money was gone, I'd be bitching about that "loading ritual" with other offerings.  I'm on the opposite side of that coin, now.  The money is gone, so it doesn't "hurt" anymore...however, I LOVE just opening the door, raking coals/ash, throwing wood in, closing the door, and forgetting about it.

Firebox gets warmer than normal?  The audible alarm wakes me up (our bedroom is above the furnace).  Power goes out?  The Kuuma is rated for gravity flow, and shuts up tight to smother the fire down.  I don't worry about runaway fires, or the glowing-red flu that I occasionally saw with the little Avalon stove.

For me, the Kuuma was a higher cost, but represented a much better value over the long term.  Convenience, safety, etc.


----------



## Mrpelletburner (Jan 27, 2019)

N.Fo said:


> I really want to see the 1500.  I have a FC500 that is awesome but pre-EPA.  I am totally content with my current heat production.
> 
> My mind is on honest burn length. 8, even 9 hours of unsupervised burn time has been pushing it.  Please chime in if you have seen the EPA Fire Chief !!



I know this is an old post and you might not even visit this site, but I have the 1500 and only getting 4-5 hours.

Couple questions for you regarding the 500 you were using. 

Do you have a biometric damper installed? If so, what is it set to?

Do you set the thermostat and let the draft blower kick on?


----------



## JRHAWK9 (Jan 27, 2019)

laynes69 said:


> At zero degrees, the heat loss calculation was around 75 to 80 thousand btus an hour.



Just curious, do you have any records of past LP or oil use?  Just curious as to what you used per year, on average.  You live in a warmer climate than we do, but I'd think your heat bill would have been pretty darn high.


----------



## laynes69 (Jan 28, 2019)

JRHAWK9 said:


> Just curious, do you have any records of past LP or oil use?  Just curious as to what you used per year, on average.  You live in a warmer climate than we do, but I'd think your heat bill would have been pretty darn high.


No, at one time our house had 2 oil furnaces, one up and one down. The house was insulated in the late 70's with ureaformaldyhyde foam, but it shrank quite a bit. I think dad would burn probably 8 cord of wood and use a tank or two of LP a year.  We have been almost 100% wood for quite a while now.


----------

