Hearthstone GreenMountain Vs Regency Cascades

[eselick]

Hi - We've been using a Regency F3100L for the past 20 years. It's a beast and can really heat up the place but the noise from the Airmate is a major pain. We're considering getting a hybrid to reduce emissions and the amount of wood we burn. I'm thinking about getting a Green mountain 40 or a Regency F2500. I don't think we can fit anything bigger into our space.
So it's almost 2025 and these stoves have been around long enough to see how well they stand up and how well they burn wood.
I'd appreciate your input and comparisons about burn time, durability, dealer support and anything else you'd like to mention. Also, how loud are they with the blowers on?
Thanks and happy holidays!
Elliot

 

[begreen]

I wouldn't expect a dramatic drop in wood consumption with the new stove. The F3100 was reasonably efficient. There will be some savings and new stoves do burn cleaner. Has the blower been cleaned and oiled? If that is the primary issue it may be addressed with servicing.

The Hearthstone G60 would be a closer equivalent in size. Personally, I am not fond of either Hearthstone's or Regency's Cascade hybrid implementation for these 2 stoves. I don't like the cat being right below the flue collar. That's a waste of heat. And some are reporting frequent ash clogging. The Regency Pro line F3500 is a better implementation.

A couple other hybrid stoves to look at are the Lopi Endeavor and Libery are good as well as the Kuma Ashwood or Wood Classic.

In non-catalytic stoves the Pacific Energy Summit or the Osburn 2000 are worth considering.

 

[eselick]

Thanks so much for your words of wisdom. It's hard to believe with all the advertising surrounding the efficiency of EPA 2020 stoves that there wouldn't be a significant drop in wood consumption. But I'll bear in mind what you've said, and I appreciate all the recommendations for the other stoves.
To be continued )
Cheers
Elliot

 

[all night moe]

If it was me, I'd keep your stove. Your only complaint is the blower noise.
If your really looking to conserve fuel, and your home is insulated well for a low and slow burn, a Blaze King may fit the bill.
You did say you have space requirements though.....

 

[bholler]

If it was me, I'd keep your stove. Your only complaint is the blower noise.
If your really looking to conserve fuel, and your home is insulated well for a low and slow burn, a Blaze King may fit the bill.
You did say you have space requirements though.....

A Blaze King won't save much wood over a 3100 unless the Regency was oversized and constantly overheating the home. I made that switch and saw very little difference in wood use. Now the bk definitely gives more even heat. And works better in milder weather. But there just isn't much efficency gain

 

[all night moe]

A Blaze King won't save much wood over a 3100 unless the Regency was oversized and constantly overheating the home. I made that switch and saw very little difference in wood use. Now the bk definitely gives more even heat. And works better in milder weather. But there just isn't much efficency gain

Lesson learned. I don't have a BK but lust a Princess. I find the 24-30hr low and slow burn times intriguing.
I would have thought that would save fuel with less reloads.
FWIW, I don't take your wisdom and expertise lightly.

 

[eselick]

I've never used a catalytic stove, but isn't it true that you're burning VOC's that would otherwise go straight up the chimney, and shouldn't that mean increased BTU's and therefore less wood?
What am I missing?

 

[all night moe]

I've never used a catalytic stove, but isn't it true that you're burning VOC's that would otherwise go straight up the chimney, and shouldn't that mean increased BTU's and therefore less wood?
What am I missing?

The wood is still burning. It's off gassing just isn't wasted up the flue.
Your getting more BTU per pound but burning the same pounds.
I was just under the impression that a BK, burning low and slow, would extend burn times....thus less wood.

 

[bholler]

Lesson learned. I don't have a BK but lust a Princess. I find the 24-30hr low and slow burn times intriguing.
I would have thought that would save fuel with less reloads.
FWIW, I don't take your wisdom and expertise lightly.

Yeah if you only need the btus that a 24-30 hour burn gives you there will be lots of wood savings. But other than mild weather i am running the same burn times I did with the Regency at 8 to 10 hours because that is the btu level I need.

 

[bholler]

I've never used a catalytic stove, but isn't it true that you're burning VOC's that would otherwise go straight up the chimney, and shouldn't that mean increased BTU's and therefore less wood?
What am I missing?

You are burning slightly more of the volatiles out of the smoke. Like 1 to 2% more than with a good tube stove like your 3100. So yes there is a slight gain but not much. The real benifit of a cat stove is being able to burn at a lower output while still burning clean. If you don't need that low end output there is not much advantage

 

[eselick]

Please tell me if I've got this right. With my F3100, it's burning off most of the emissions when there's a hot fire. When it's ripping, I can see the flames shooting out of the holes in the tubes. But when it's not that hot, it's not burning the VOC's and so becomes less efficient than a good catalytic stove.