# Kuuma Vapor-Fire 100 EPA Testing Results



## lampmfg (Oct 21, 2016)

We have received confirmation that these are the final emission results for the testing of our Kuuma Vapor-Fire 100-

Cat 1 – 0.147 lb/MMBtu

Cat 2 – 0.089 lb/MMBtu

Cat 3 – 0.093 lb/MMbtu

Cat 4 – 0.043 lb/MMBtu


Our average is .093 lb/MMBtu, which is pretty impressive considering no catalytic converter is being used for combustion and the current standard is .93 lb/MMBtu (10 times better).  It's the only warm air furnace that we are aware of which has exceeded 2020 EPA phase 2 emissions requirements.  We haven't received the final document from Intertek yet for final EPA certification and it might be a little while since we have to update our owners manual and a couple of other things.  If we had more time and money I know we could've done a little better but we don't want to invest another large amount of $ to retest all of the categories and my dad doesn't have any more time to sit through all of the burns

EPA Phase 1 requirement is .93 
EPA Phase  2 requirement is .15 (coming in 2020) all 4 burns need to be under the .15 and not just the average (very difficult)!

If you don't meet these requirements you won't be able to sell the furnace when the requirement goes into effect.

For comparison, I found the following information posted on other furnace manufacturers websites:

Mini-Caddy - .841 lb/MMBtu
Caddy             - .654 lb/MMBtu
Max Caddy  - .735 lb/MMBtu
Tundra II        - .654 lb/MMBtu
Heatmax       - .654 lb/MMBtu
Heatpack      -  .841 lb/MMBtu
Heatpro         - .735 lb/MMBtu


----------



## BoiledOver (Oct 21, 2016)

Congrats on getting it right............

Are these improvements to what you had previously?


----------



## lampmfg (Oct 21, 2016)

BoiledOver said:


> Congrats on getting it right............
> 
> Are these improvements to what you had previously?



This testing was different.  Instead of just completing a low or high burn we had to get them all into specific categories .  Example if your high burn was at 50,000 btu your low burn had  to be at a specific btu like 16,000.  I'm just throwing these numbers out there but hopefully, you get the drift.  It was very challenging to get them into the categories with our controlled burn.  My dad spent a ton of time down there since he was present for the entire burn runs, which could end up being 14-16 hours days with the pre-burn as well.  

I'm hoping to get him to document the entire process when he has time so everyone can see what is required.


----------



## JRHAWK9 (Oct 21, 2016)

Awesome!  Here's a link to the requirements he stated above:

https://www.epa.gov/residential-woo...y-requirements-wood-fired-forced-air-furnaces


----------



## JRHAWK9 (Oct 25, 2016)

I thought I'd play around a little bit with some numbers for the heck of it to compare the LBS/MMBTU rating furnaces are tested by to the GRAMS/HOUR rating which the stoves are tested by.  This will also help answer the question posted above by someone asking about how these new test results compare to the test results from when they tested back in 2010.  I'll be using the emission test results posted above and will be assigning an assumed BTU/HOUR heat output rate per category.  I don't know the actual average heat output per category, but I will assume my assumptions are not that far off based on past test results.

1MM BTU = 1,000,000 BTU's
1LB = 453.59 grams

Cat 1:  15,000 BTU's/HR @ 0.147 LB/MMBTU =  1.01 g/hr
Cat 2:  25,000 BTU's/HR @ 0.089 LB/MMBTU =  1.00 g/hr
Cat 3:  35,000 BTU's HR @ 0.093 LB/MMBTU =  1.48 g/hr
Cat 4:  45,000 BTU's HR @ 0.043 LB/MMBTU =  0.88 g/hr

If my assumed heat output rates are too high compared to actual, then the overall g/hr rating will decrease by the percentage of the difference.  Same goes if my assumed values are too low compared to actual, the overall g/hr rating will increase by the percentage of the difference.  IE, if Cat 4 happens to put out 90,000 actual BTU's on average then the grams per hour would also double to 1.75 g/hr.

Looks to me the emissions are very similar to what they tested back in 2010 and are well below the EPA 2020 stage 2 spec for wood stoves as well.


----------



## PassionForFire&Water (Oct 27, 2016)

What is the reason that hot air furnaces need to meet 0.15 Lbs/mmBTU for each category burn, starting 2020?
Boilers need to meet 0.1 Lbs/mmBTU starting in 2020 for each category
Just wondering why hot air furnaces are allowed to be 50% "dirtier" ???


----------



## JRHAWK9 (Oct 27, 2016)

PassionForFire&Water said:


> What is the reason that hot air furnaces need to meet 0.15 Lbs/mmBTU for each category burn, starting 2020?
> Boilers need to meet 0.1 Lbs/mmBTU starting in 2020 for each category
> Just wondering why hot air furnaces are allowed to be 50% "dirtier" ???




They aren't allowed to be 50% dirtier.  Re-read the standards again.  The 2020 standard for hydronic heaters reads:


> 0.10 pounds per million Btu heat output for each burn rate
> _Alternative limit_: 0.15 pounds per million Btu heat output for each burn rate. If tested with cordwood; method must be approved.



-CRIB VS CORD WOOD-

Interesting read on the use of -CRIB VS CORD WOOD-

The standard for hot air furnaces -require- cordwood to be used.  So they are both required to meet the same emissions level, just that with hydronic heaters you are allowed to use cribs for the testing procedure.  If you use cordwood it has to meet the same 0.15lb/MMBTU as furnaces.

Below are the standards for all wood fired appliances:
-WOOD FURNACES-
 -WOOD STOVES & PELLET STOVES-
-HYDRONIC-


-HERE'S- a link to the emission results from a Garn Jr.  To see an example of what the InterTek testing results look like click on the emissions tab to download all the documents.  This test was done at the same Middleton, WI testing facility as the Kuuma was tested at.

For comparison's sake, below are screen captures from the results PDF linked to above for the Garn Jr.









So....if I'm reading this correctly, the Garn Jr currently is over 2x's "dirtier" than the Kuuma is and will not meet the 2020 standard as is.  Average emissions: 0.201 LBS/MMBTU vs 0.093 LBS/MMBTU for the Kuuma.

So, does anyone know of any wood burning appliance that has met the 2020 standard, besides Kuuma??

EDIT  Looks like the Garn 2000 does meet 2020 standards.


----------



## Highbeam (Oct 31, 2016)

JRHAWK9 said:


> I thought I'd play around a little bit with some numbers for the heck of it to compare the LBS/MMBTU rating furnaces are tested by to the GRAMS/HOUR rating which the stoves are tested by.  This will also help answer the question posted above by someone asking about how these new test results compare to the test results from when they tested back in 2010.  I'll be using the emission test results posted above and will be assigning an assumed BTU/HOUR heat output rate per category.  I don't know the actual average heat output per category, but I will assume my assumptions are not that far off based on past test results.
> 
> 1MM BTU = 1,000,000 BTU's
> 1LB = 453.59 grams
> ...



Thank you Hawk. WA does not honor this lb/MMBTU jive. Instead they strictly require a particular gph rate. So no furnace has yet been legal in WA. Perhaps someday they will change the law from gph.


----------



## hondaracer2oo4 (Oct 31, 2016)

Heatmaster g200 owb meets the 2020 standard. So does the new woodmaster clean fire owb.


----------



## STIHLY DAN (Oct 31, 2016)

Highbeam said:


> Thank you Hawk. WA does not honor this lb/MMBTU jive. Instead they strictly require a particular gph rate. So no furnace has yet been legal in WA. Perhaps someday they will change the law from gph.


I believe that lb/MMBTU has a direct conversion to GPH. So either should work.


----------



## JRHAWK9 (Oct 31, 2016)

STIHLY DAN said:


> I believe that lb/MMBTU has a direct conversion to GPH. So either should work.



One is mass of emissions per heat output and the other is mass of emissions over time.  These two, by themselves, are not able to be directly converted.  You need to know the average heat output (BTU/hr) at which the lb/MMBTU emission rate was taken in order to convert.  I converted it above by assuming an average heat output over the time the emissions were measured.  It's just simple dimensional analysis.  The nice thing is they are directly proportional to each other, so if the average heat output is wrong then the g/hr rate will change by the same proportion.

Take for instance this hang tag I posted above for the Garn Jr.




You are given:  0.20 LB/MMBTU and 3.81 g/hr.  There are 1,000,000 BTU's in 1 MMBTU and there are 453.59 grams in 1 lb.  Using solely these numbers, one can solve for the average BTU output over the time frame these emissions were measured.  Using the same dimensional analysis I used above, only solving for 'X' BTU/HR instead of computing g/hr.

0.20 lbs/MMBTU * 1 MMBTU/1,000,000 BTU * X BTU/HR * 453.59g/1 lb = 3.81 g/hr

X = 41,998 BTU/hr

So, for however long their test burn lasted for, it output an -average- of 41,998 BTU's per hour, emitted 0.20 lbs of emissions per million BTU's at a emission rate of 3.81 g/hr.


----------



## lampmfg (Nov 1, 2016)

The g/hr. are as follows and I'm guessing you just divide it by 4 and get .725

Cat 1  - .62
Cat 2  - .58
Cat 3  - 1.06
Cat 4  - .64


----------



## JRHAWK9 (Nov 1, 2016)

lampmfg said:


> The g/hr. are as follows and I'm guessing you just divide it by 4 and get .725
> 
> Cat 1  - .62
> Cat 2  - .58
> ...



cool, now one can roughly figure out the average hourly BTU rate during when these tests were ran for the individual categories. 

Cat 1:  0.147 lb/MMBTU and 0.62 g/hr = 9,298 BTU's/hr average over the length of burn  
Cat 2:  0.089 lb/MMBTU and 0.58 g/hr = 14,367 BTU's/hr average over the length of burn
Cat 3:  0.093 lb/MMBTU and 1.06 g/hr = 25,130 BTU's/hr average over the length of burn
Cat 4:  0.043 lb/MMBTU and 0.64 g/hr = 32,820 BTU's/hr average over the length of burn


----------



## Highbeam (Nov 2, 2016)

JRHAWK9 said:


> cool, now one can roughly figure out the average hourly BTU rate during when these tests were ran for the individual categories.
> 
> Cat 1:  0.147 lb/MMBTU and 0.62 g/hr = 9,298 BTU's/hr average over the length of burn
> Cat 2:  0.089 lb/MMBTU and 0.58 g/hr = 14,367 BTU's/hr average over the length of burn
> ...



So then this furnace is equivalent to a small pellet stove?


----------



## JRHAWK9 (Nov 2, 2016)

Highbeam said:


> So then this furnace is equivalent to a small pellet stove?



As for what the final numbers actually are and how they arrived at them, I have no idea, but I'm sure it's something Daryl will be documenting in the future, once everything is finalized.  I know they had to run the furnace a bit differently during the testing process because the whole testing procedure wasn't designed for an automatic adjusting furnace like the Kuuma. 

I don't know, as I never had a small pellet stove nor do I know what their real world standardized output numbers are.  I truly think, we as consumers, have gotten so used of all these exaggerated claims made by manufactures that a lot of us will be surprised once the actual numbers start coming out as a result of the standardized EPA testing procedure.  I'm pretty sure I see it already, as the regular Caddy according to their website is rated at 15,436 BTU/h to 49,638 BTU/h (radiated AND delivered) and 12,635 BTU/h to 44,857 BTU/h (delivered only) which is way lower than I remember it being a couple years ago.  I could be wrong though.  The Max Caddy is rated at 19,243 BTU/h to 67,069 BTU/h (radiated and delivered).

Lamppa right on their website from day one has always stated, "30-40,000 BTU per hour – up to 10 hrs".  They have never over-stated their BTU output, if anything it's probably understated a bit.  I can speak from experience in saying you can pack the Kuuma to the gills (80+lbs of oak), put it on absolute maximum burn and you will still have 8+ hour burn times.  It is physically not designed to burn wood faster than that.  It's designed to maintain a controlled and efficient burn throughout the burn cycle.  It's air damper is controlled by the computer based upon firebox temp and the level of burn you have it set at in order to keep the fire burning as efficiently and as clean as possible.  Room temperature has no bearing on the level of burn.  I believe furnaces like the Tundra and Caddy line have the room thermostat tied into the air damper.  When the thermo calls for heat the damper opens to speed up the burn rate and heat output.  This way of doing things decreases overall burn times at the benefit of more heat but also more emissions and less efficiency.

Highbeam, looks like the Blaze King Princess is also comparable to a smallish pellet stove eh?  lol  
12,528 BTU's/h to 37,587 BTU's/h according to their site.


----------



## JRHAWK9 (Nov 3, 2016)

JRHAWK9 said:


> I truly think, we as consumers, have gotten so used of all these exaggerated claims made by manufactures that a lot of us will be surprised once the actual numbers start coming out as a result of the standardized EPA testing procedure.  I'm pretty sure I see it already, as the regular Caddy according to their website is rated at 15,436 BTU/h to 49,638 BTU/h (radiated AND delivered) and 12,635 BTU/h to 44,857 BTU/h (delivered only) which is way lower than I remember it being a couple years ago.  I could be wrong though.



Looks like my memory -was- right.  I dug up an older Caddy brochure from December 2012 which claimed their average BTU output to be almost 70,000 BTU's/hr.  I'm sure SBI weren't the only ones exaggerating their numbers from before they were required to succumb to standardized testing.  I've always known their old numbers were not real world certifiable as the math just didn't add up, but I had no way to prove it because there were no standardized tests.........until now.  Require them all to participate in standardized testing which resembles real world use and POOOF, all of a sudden the numbers drop like a rock.  LOL


----------



## laynes69 (Nov 3, 2016)

That 70,000 output is over a 3 to 4 hour period at peak burn, then reduces. It's stated in their brochure.  I can burn a full load in under 6 hours or go 12+ hours. There's a significant difference between the two. If the Kuuma can only burn a load in a set period, then it's output is reduced but steady over a period. However, the Caddy works off of demand and can maintain a set temp in the house. Two completely different setups. I do think the Caddy has a greater output at high demand.


----------



## JRHAWK9 (Nov 3, 2016)

Hi Laynes    I knew that post was going to pull ya out of hiding   

If that's the case then it's still deceiving being labeled as average though.  In real world use, you won't be able to average that as you won't be able to keep it burning at peak burn in between loadings.

Yep, I agree, I would expect the bell shaped curve of plotting BTU's over time would look shorter and wider on the Kuuma vs narrower and taller on the Caddy.


----------



## laynes69 (Nov 3, 2016)

The numbers in testing aren't necessarily what's to occur in the real world also. I was told the numbers can be lower in testing, considering wood species and moisture plays a large role in output. I suspect eventually all furnaces will contain a thermocouple and computerized controller. I wouldn't call it deceiving, considering a majority of the time, it's not going to hit the max burn rate, unless there's a good call for heat.


----------



## JRHAWK9 (Nov 3, 2016)

They are given a choice of either oak or Douglas fir between 19-25% MC if I remember what I read correctly.  

It will be interesting over the next few years to see what happens.  I called the local Hearth place who sells the Caddy line to see what he thinks is going to happen and to just chat.  His response was they don't know and he thinks all the manufacturers are still waiting to see if things will be changing. He seems to think there's a chance that standard may become relaxed a bit when it gets closer to 2020 if a lot of manufacturers raise a stink about the difficulty of meeting it.  He also thinks they may be going with some sort of catalytic setup.  He probably has no clue about the computer controlled technology available though.  Who knows.  I can't see the standard being relaxed for furnaces though seeing one furnace has already passed, showing how it's possible to do so.


----------



## STIHLY DAN (Nov 3, 2016)

laynes69 said:


> That 70,000 output is over a 3 to 4 hour period at peak burn, then reduces. It's stated in their brochure.  I can burn a full load in under 6 hours or go 12+ hours. There's a significant difference between the two. If the Kuuma can only burn a load in a set period, then it's output is reduced but steady over a period. However, the Caddy works off of demand and can maintain a set temp in the house. Two completely different setups. I do think the Caddy has a greater output at high demand.



I am not poking the bear or saying anyone is better than the other. But the 70,000 btu is the average, so that is for the entire burn time. The manual jrhawk put up also says 106,000 btu peak which would be that 3-4 hr peak burn. What I find interesting is it says max load of 55 lbs wood. If wood is 6,000 btu per lb thats 330,00 btu. so at 106,000 btu max would be a burn time of 3 hrs total not peak.  Or an average burn time of 4.7 hrs at 70,000 btu.  So according to the manuals numbers if the average btu is 70,000 btu then the average burn is less than 5 hrs. So if you can get a 12 hr burn your average would be around 30,000 btu per hr real world. I am only pointing out the manuals funny math. Also these numbers seem to match the new testing.
Jrhawk9 your ocd is in high gear this fall. I love it. You go, you mad scientist math geek.


----------



## STIHLY DAN (Nov 3, 2016)

Also note that the manual says 6.6 grams per hour. THAT IS NOT VERY EFFICIENT. Thats in the smoke dragon realm. Don't kill the messenger, thats what the manual says. Frankly I am shocked, I thought the caddy was MUCH cleaner than that. chit, a 2010 Kuuma was 1 gram an hour.


----------



## JRHAWK9 (Nov 4, 2016)

Here's a link to the 2012 Caddy PDF I mentioned above.  http://woodstoves.net/documents/PSG_20-12-2012_ANG.pdf

Here's their little diagram found in that brochure in which laynes is referring to.





Still makes it very exaggerated, if you ask me.  This then tells me the 2012 Caddy produces 69,160 BTU's or more (average output) from about 1.25 hours into the burn till about 5.5 hours.  It also shows it making 106,400+ BTU's (maximum output) from about 1.8 hours to 4.6 hours.  This differs quite a bit from the new rating found below:






The Caddy line are great furnaces, I'm not criticizing them.  I'd have one if I hadn't stumbled across Kuuma.  I'm mainly criticizing how they have marketed them in the past.  I've always known their claims, as well as many other manufacturers claims, to be very exaggerated.  The new testing procedure may not 100% accurately represent real world use, but it's got to be MUCH closer than all these exaggerated claims being made previously.


I also saw that 6.6 g.hr emissions rating from 2012.  The new rating is 0.654 lb/MMBTU, which is still 7 times dirtier than the Kuuma.


----------



## brenndatomu (Nov 4, 2016)

JRHAWK9 said:


> The new rating is 0.654 lb/MMBTU, which is still 7 times dirtier than the Kuuma.


0 x 7 = 0


----------



## STIHLY DAN (Nov 4, 2016)

Ok, what is optimal efficiency and how much volume of CO gas is 11.2 lbs.


----------



## JRHAWK9 (Nov 4, 2016)

Density of CO at NTP is 0.1150 lb/CF.  So 97.4 CF of CO per million BTU.

Optimum efficiency, as defined -HERE- is, "Optimum overall efficiency at a specific burn rate (LHV)"  Still don't really know what that means.


----------



## Highbeam (Nov 5, 2016)

STIHLY DAN said:


> Also note that the manual says 6.6 grams per hour. THAT IS NOT VERY EFFICIENT. Thats in the smoke dragon realm. Don't kill the messenger, thats what the manual says. Frankly I am shocked, I thought the caddy was MUCH cleaner than that. chit, a 2010 Kuuma was 1 gram an hour.


Yes, 6.6 is dirty but don't make the mistake of equating high efficiency with low emissions. Totally unrelated. My bk is the second most efficient stove in the market but emissions are higher than many.


----------



## STIHLY DAN (Nov 5, 2016)

Highbeam said:


> Yes, 6.6 is dirty but don't make the mistake of equating high efficiency with low emissions. Totally unrelated. My bk is the second most efficient stove in the market but emissions are higher than many.



They absolutely are related. Yes one unit may be able to extract more heat out of the flue gas than another making it "more efficient" But if you are not burning the particulates and smoke you are throwing unmade heat up the chimney. in other words you are getting more btu's out of the same lb of wood.


----------



## Highbeam (Nov 5, 2016)

STIHLY DAN said:


> They absolutely are related. Yes one unit may be able to extract more heat out of the flue gas than another making it "more efficient" But if you are not burning the particulates and smoke you are throwing unmade heat up the chimney. in other words you are getting more btu's out of the same lb of wood.


 
Nope. Unrelated. Weird but true. Just check the stoves out that have been tested for emissions and efficiency.


----------



## STIHLY DAN (Nov 6, 2016)

Highbeam said:


> Nope. Unrelated. Weird but true. Just check the stoves out that have been tested for emissions and efficiency.



All I can say is that science says that it is true. You can play roger goodel, but numbers are truth. When you have your fossil fuel unit tuned, the give you combustion efficiency from a combustion analyzer.  You can have 2 units with same combustion efficiency but 1 unit use much less fuel because it has a better heat transfer. like the difference between a single pass boiler and a triple pass.


----------



## Highbeam (Nov 6, 2016)

STIHLY DAN said:


> All I can say is that science says that it is true. You can play roger goodel, but numbers are truth. When you have your fossil fuel unit tuned, the give you combustion efficiency from a combustion analyzer.  You can have 2 units with same combustion efficiency but 1 unit use much less fuel because it has a better heat transfer. like the difference between a single pass boiler and a triple pass.



It just doesn't work like that Dan. It's great when a design accomplishes both high efficiency and low emissions but there are plenty that can only excel in one. Think about it.


----------



## brenndatomu (Nov 6, 2016)

STIHLY DAN said:


> You can have 2 units with same combustion efficiency but 1 unit use much less fuel because it has a better heat transfer. like the difference between a single pass boiler and a triple pass.





Highbeam said:


> It just doesn't work like that Dan. It's great when a design accomplishes both high efficiency and low emissions but there are plenty that can only excel in one. Think about it.


Makes sense to me...the triple pass boiler will have less run time because it can satisfy the 'stat faster...thereby more efficient


----------



## maple1 (Nov 6, 2016)

I've been wondering something about all this emission testing stuff for a while now - and this looks like a good place to bring it.

How does all this testing, account for ash production? Because I would assume that any fly ash that goes out the flu when burning would show up as emissions in the testing - but some appliances send out more fly ash than others, and some retain more ash in the appliance itself, to be cleaned out later with your handy scoop & bucket or whatever tools of choice. So how is that accounted for? Seems that could skew testing results dramatically.


----------



## JRHAWK9 (Nov 6, 2016)

maple1 said:


> I've been wondering something about all this emission testing stuff for a while now - and this looks like a good place to bring it.
> 
> How does all this testing, account for ash production? Because I would assume that any fly ash that goes out the flu when burning would show up as emissions in the testing - but some appliances send out more fly ash than others, and some retain more ash in the appliance itself, to be cleaned out later with your handy scoop & bucket or whatever tools of choice. So how is that accounted for? Seems that could skew testing results dramatically.




Go -HERE- and download the entire emissions test report of the Garn Jr.  It has all the data, if you feel like combing through it.  I have no idea how similar it is to the wood furnace testing procedure though.


----------



## STIHLY DAN (Nov 6, 2016)

Highbeam said:


> It just doesn't work like that Dan. It's great when a design accomplishes both high efficiency and low emissions but there are plenty that can only excel in one. Think about it.



That is why there is 3 inefficiencies, combustion efficiency, thermal efficiency, overall efficiency.  Yes you are correct somewhat. You can have a dirty burn like the Bk  but be very thermal efficient, and have it be overall more efficient than a clean burn drolet that is not thermally efficient. But overall efficiency takes into account both so it wont be by much. Unless say you made your very thermally efficient BK into a clean burn also. Then your overall efficiency would be much greater.

To BK and drolet  owners, this was just hypothetical numbers to use in an example. No need to get your panties in a bunch.


----------



## Highbeam (Nov 6, 2016)

STIHLY DAN said:


> That is why there is 3 inefficiencies, combustion efficiency, thermal efficiency, overall efficiency.  Yes you are correct somewhat. You can have a dirty burn like the Bk  but be very thermal efficient, and have it be overall more efficient than a clean burn drolet that is not thermally efficient. But overall efficiency takes into account both so it wont be by much. Unless say you made your very thermally efficient BK into a clean burn also. Then your overall efficiency would be much greater.
> 
> To BK and drolet  owners, this was just hypothetical numbers to use in an example. No need to get your panties in a bunch.



Thanks Dan, I only consider overall efficiency as important (regular epa solid fuel stuff) and have owned very low emissions stoves that were very inefficient. Then I moved to a much more efficient stove that had worse emissions ratings. Similarly I own a diesel truck with higher efficiency and higher emissions than current models. 

I have just enough experience to know better than to call emissions and efficiency directly related.


----------



## STIHLY DAN (Nov 6, 2016)

Highbeam said:


> Similarly I own a diesel truck with higher efficiency and higher emissions than current models.



Funny, I was going to use that example next.


----------



## STIHLY DAN (Nov 6, 2016)

To get back on track, thats whats so great about the Kuuma. Great emissions and great efficiency. All wrapped up in a set it and forget it unit.


----------



## brenndatomu (Nov 6, 2016)

STIHLY DAN said:


> thats whats so great about the Kuuma. Great emissions and great efficiency. All wrapped up in a set it and forget it unit.


Wonder what they would charge me to mod my Tundra a lil? Or even better, the Yukon! Ole CK (used to be on AS) would have (in a past life) a cow if he found out that Kuuma was "messin up" one of his beloved Yooks


----------



## STIHLY DAN (Nov 6, 2016)

brenndatomu said:


> Wonder what they would charge me to mod my Tundra a lil? Or even better, the Yukon! Ole CK (used to be on AS) would have (in a past life) a cow if he found out that Kuuma was "messin up" one of his beloved Yooks



He was fun to talk to. Very passionate. I bet yukon sales went down after he left them.


----------

