Jotul F 602 V2
- Thread starter Todd
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
Thanks for the update. Looking forward to your reports on the F602CB v2. I suspect that the F45 & F50 will remain non-cat as well, and maybe the F55 too.
There's EPA testing info in the link if you click technical documentation if anyones interested. Pretty much explains the whole testing method and results. Not real world burning by any means but I guess they need to have some kind of standard for all stoves.
Yes, and cordwood testing results to boot. New to the manual is a section under Operation about the V2 features and efficiencies. In that section the guidance on wood seasoning is a bit optimistic for hardwood, saying 6-14 months is optimal. That may be about right for small 2" splits, but a 4"+ split of white oak is going to need more seasoning.
jetsam
Minister of Fire
Around here, 6 month oak is wet, heavy, and hisses and spits if you try to burn it. 14 month oak isn't that much better.
As many rain days as we've had on the east coast, best not to count this year as drying time at all...
I think I read somewhere they used Red Oak.
They must of modified the stove a bit, I noticed the stated BTU's have increased a tad from the 602 CB. Maybe they increased the combustion air somewhere?
They must of modified the stove a bit, I noticed the stated BTU's have increased a tad from the 602 CB. Maybe they increased the combustion air somewhere?
It wouldn't surprise me if they increased the secondary air supply, perhaps by adding more holes or enlarging the holes on the secondary air chamber.
The exploded view of the V2 in the manual shows what looks like a set of fingers at the front and top of the baffle to add turbulence to the flow.
Shocking that that simple change (maybe they added some airflow amount changes as well) could increase the btu's from 28,000 to almost 50,000. Makes me not believe the numbers. If it truly does perform that much better, why did it take EPA regulation for the company to make such a dramatic improvement with such a seemingly simple change? Wow.
Shocking that that simple change (maybe they added some airflow amount changes as well) could increase the btu's from 28,000 to almost 50,000. Makes me not believe the numbers. If it truly does perform that much better, why did it take EPA regulation for the company to make such a dramatic improvement with such a seemingly simple change? Wow.
I'd consider the upper end a straight mathematical formula.
You burn 6.36lbs of wood up in 1 hour. 7500btu/lb., you get their magic number. If you burn it, the heat must have been released.
You burn 6.36lbs of wood up in 1 hour. 7500btu/lb., you get their magic number. If you burn it, the heat must have been released.
You can’t compare old test results or specs to the new standardized test results. That was one of the reasons for the new testing methods. Now, in theory, the consumer can compare new stoves in an apples to apples manner.
I would love to have the older models retested using current testing methods so that we can see the benefit, or lack of benefit, to stove replacements.
I'm sure that can be arranged for a few ten thousand buck notes.
So true. It would be telling to see how much efficiency and low range capability was sacrificed for the sake of this step of slightly lower emissions.
Some may have sacrificed a little, we don't know yet. For others, efficiency will be gained and the stoves will see an improvement over the older design. I too would like to see some side by side comparisons, but that's unlikely. Unfortunately, it takes several reports here to start teasing out stove performance from user error, learning curve, wood species, draft issues, boasting, etc..
Thanks for the explanations everyone. Wish they spent more time improving the design then playing with numbers.
They improved the design enough to qualify for the 2020 regs. And they did it without adding a cat. The numbers between the F602CB v1 tests and v2 tests are actually pretty close. It's not surprising that with greater efficiency they were able to squeeze out a little more heat. The problem is with the confusing spec for the output listed for the v1 on their website. A look in the v1 manual clarifies what they meant:
12,000 to 47,700 BTU/hr.
Heat Output Range results are determined during specific emissions tests established by the EPA.
28,000 BTU/hr.
The Maximum Heat Output value is representative of a more frequent re-fueling cycle than specified in the EPA High Heat Output test method.
In the v2 manual they simply list the EPA tested data.
12,000 to 47,700 BTU/hr.
Heat Output Range results are determined during specific emissions tests established by the EPA.
28,000 BTU/hr.
The Maximum Heat Output value is representative of a more frequent re-fueling cycle than specified in the EPA High Heat Output test method.
In the v2 manual they simply list the EPA tested data.
Last edited:
Yes, it's been out for a little bit now. Thanks for posting the video. This is a significant redesign of an old favorite.
Last edited:
Wonder why they just didnt replace the CB with this new ECO? What about the V2? Maybe just a bandaid until the new ECO is in full production?
Not sure. It's a more sophisticated design. Maybe they are trialing it in Europe first? Waiting for US lab testing?
Last edited:
Nigel459
Feeling the Heat
My takeaway of the new eco design is that there’s no primary air control. The only control shown is boost/ignition air, which needs to be off when the fire is established, according to the video... maybe I’m wrong... hmm
Similar threads
