Good stove and heater, but not simple in comparison to some. There are lots of positive postings on this stove here. Search on "Progress Hybrid"Ok, Just got off a great phone call with Woodstock and now I'm really liking the Progress Hybrid-seems really simple in terms of construction and plenty big. Any more users of this stove out there? Again, many thanks to all who have helped in my search!
They never were good stoves. They were just better than say, a fisher... With the exception of some early stoves, they have always been parts heavy and high maintenance. I frequently talk to people that loved them and never had any trouble, until I bring some of the common problems with them, they then admit they had to leave the bypass open to make it work. Truth is, most of them needed major work but the owner was unaware, so they just left the bypass open.they’ve made some of the most troublesome stoves on the market over the last 20 years
The 600 has been discontinued, now the biggest stove is the F-500 and it does have a cat. No bypass though, odd...I'm with you on not wanting a cat, but the Progress hybrid is the only exception I'd make. If you are really committed to not having a cat get a Jotul F500 or 600 V2. I believe the V3 of the F500 is now a hybrid.
Have you seen the price yet?Ok, Just got off a great phone call with Woodstock and now I'm really liking the Progress Hybrid-seems really simple in terms of construction and plenty big. Any more users of this stove out there? Again, many thanks to all who have helped in my search!
Ok, Just got off a great phone call with Woodstock and now I'm really liking the Progress Hybrid-seems really simple in terms of construction and plenty big. Any more users of this stove out there? Again, many thanks to all who have helped in my search!
I agree completely!I sense a desire for soapstone. I’ve had a stone stove and do not see stone as a positive thing. It’s neutral at best. It looks good but generally was more harm than good.
The progress hybrid is small at 2.8 and not as controllable as the larger Ideal Steel which is 3.2 cubes.
I wasn’t saying you couldn’t, or shouldn’t afford it. It’s just unreasonable to spend all that extra money if it's not what you’re looking for. Considering there’s a lot of other quality stoves for less money.Yes, saw the price and they're running a rebate of $700.00. To be perfectly honest..it's not that price is NO issue but I'm a fan of amortization...the idea that the price could be amortized over x # of years. My VC 1610 was a killer on the amort. sched. Cost x parts x frequency of rebuild= expensive. I'm happy to pay more now versus more later in terms of parts x maintenance. I'm not entirely in love with soapstone and, yes, the box is 2.8 cu/ft but looking at all the units I'm considering..3.2 is the largest and 2.8 the smallest. We're talking roughly one log difference.
Excellent analysis, Ashful. We burn 24/7 from about now-ish through April..sometimes later. As you say, we're used to cast iron and the quicker "heat-up" but really don't need this type of heat. We do travel for a week here and there during Winter and return to a cool house. Once the stove gets going, it's just a few hours before the house is warm again. I'm really trying to drill down into this as not only are there so many varying features to each stove design, there are aspects of the designs that I anticipate will be problematic in the future. I liked the Hearthstone Manchester until I saw the exploded view diagram and the parts list (and the prices for replacement parts). While it has received good reviews, I'm not certain this particular stove will hold up to heavy use after a decade. I could be wrong. But I'm really trying to find a simpler design. The Manchester has a lot of internal parts that are cast iron-Primary and Secondary manifolds. Inner front, front grill...a ceramic piece-all stuff prone to cracking, warpage and eventual replacement. I'd say at this point I'm looking for a good sized fire box-2.8 or bigger and the simplest design-internally-that I can find. I'm not wedded to cast, steel or stone, cat or non. Thanks again!
Since maintenance and lifetime are clearly a primary consideration for you, I suspect the least maintenance will be achieved with any of the welded steel box stoves. That would be any BK 30 series, PE Alderlea, or Jotul F50/55, from the list discussed above. These also happen to be the more convective designs, as they’re mostly cast panels hung on welded steel boxes, with a convective vented air gap between.
The Jotul 300-500 may have simple inner workings, but they’re still cemented iron stoves, like your old VC. I see nothing wrong with a cemented iron stove up to about 20 years of age, but expectations and desires may vary. I’ve done the tear down and rebuild of a Jotul 500, albeit the older catalytic design (Firelight 12), the new Jotul 300-500 are identical in that regard. It is not a small or clean job, and you’ll achieve competence right around the time you finish the job, immediately wanting to redo it.
2.8 cu ft is not small. 3.2 cu ft is just about 14% larger. It's a big and willing heater and good for larger spaces. It's hard to say what is sensed, but it seems like the steampunk aesthetic of the Ideal Steel might not fit in the decor. Hard to say. In one post the OP wants simple, without the complexities of a cat and bypass. And in the next a cat stove piques interest.The progress hybrid is small at 2.8 and not as controllable as the larger Ideal Steel which is 3.2 cubes.
The F55 is front load only. It's the F50 that has the top-load option.The F55 is a great option. I think it can top load if that matters.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.