stufus
New Member
Overall, I view pre epa stoves like a classic car that can be enjoyed with a highball and friends. To me, it also just seems wasteful to throw out something just because it is old or not the top efficiency. It costs energy to make new things all things considered and it is still better to burn wood than oil. I personally enjoy keeping them running and they are pretty forgiving too with the type of wood you burn (doesn't have to be super super dry). Just my two cents.
Cheers,
I think the "old car / new car" analogy is appropriate. However, just like cars, many pre-EPA stoves are from the age when carburetors had the bugs worked out and they performed reliably, predictably, and even got decent gas mileage! Some pre EPA stoves are more like a 1930s car - beautiful, fascinating, (somewhat) unsafe, and unreliable.
I'd love to own a model T and a late 80s K10 or F150, but they're very different animals. I would comfortably daily the pickup but only occasionally fire up the model T for a nice Sunday cruise. I'd take a 1980s truck far out into the woods every weekend (I might actually do this...) largely because of the relative mechanical simplicity (where a problem can be fixed with a tool box, rather than an OBD scanner, wifi, and a powerful CPU) and robust baseline reliability.
The dichotomy of "pre EPA" and "EPA-approved-I'm-saving-the-planet-and-not-an-evil-smoke-dragon" can get a little out of hand sometimes. To throw, say, a barrel stove and a 1980s stove with a long flame path, legitimate secondary combustion, and >70% heating efficiency into the same category seems a bit inequitable.
What do I know, though? I ain't no scholar; just another uneducated redneck from the sticks 😂.