I'm in the process of deciding on 2 insert Wood Stoves. The Quadrafire 4100 or the Regency 2400. Anyone have and pros and cons for both??? thanks
Regency Vs. Quadrafire
- Thread starter johnnyf0614
- 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
- Status
Add the hampton 300 to the line up. Its that regency with a pretty face! As far as quad or the others...I think the quad is not as nice. 2 controls on the quad vs 1 on the others...fewer is easier. 2nd look at the door and the hinges...the quad looses out here. Finally ask the weight of the 2 units. The quad is lighter. Both are pretty equal in firebox size and the burning is similiar. I was looking at the same companies and finally bought the hampton, I am verrrrrryyyyy pleased
I will say that some people may like the additional controls on the quadrafire. You've got timed start-up air, coupled with the ability to control the air entering both the front and rear of the fire. I know personally I love being able to adjust every air quantity possible, so that's something to consider. However I know lots of people just want to keep it simple as long as it works properly.
Burntime I have to ask why you say the door and hinges are a losing point for quadrafire? I've never seen anything particularly bad about them.
Also, be careful with the weight comparison as a measure of quality. Differences in firebricks, and styles of baffle boards can have a profound effect on the weight of a stove. It may not automatically mean that the thickness of the steel is the change.
Burntime I have to ask why you say the door and hinges are a losing point for quadrafire? I've never seen anything particularly bad about them.
Also, be careful with the weight comparison as a measure of quality. Differences in firebricks, and styles of baffle boards can have a profound effect on the weight of a stove. It may not automatically mean that the thickness of the steel is the change.
Look at the mass of the hinge and the pivot point. Don't get me wrong I like the quad but I felt the regency/hampton are superior products with the hampton winning hands down. I was set on the quad 4300 insert until a rep showed me the regency at the local home show. The quad was a better looking stove. Then I found the hampton on the website and the hampton won. The regency also has a slightly quieter fan in my opinion with similiar volume. I could not do a side by side comparison but with perception being a reality ;~) I went with the hampton. Its definitely an apples vs apples comparison. 1 more thing, the hampton had the enamal finish. Much easier to clean!
The hampton 300 is not a equal comparison to the 4100i the 4100i is a smaller unit to that stove the 300 would but in the same class as the 5100i for heating capacity the 5100i is a monster it is a very subtantial stove and would a more fair to comp. to heating capacity. the the 4100i is a nice unit and i dont think you cloud go wrong. but if you want to compare apples to apples you should look at the 5100i as the 2400
The firebox and the output of the 4100 and the hampton are the same. Look it up. Approx 75000 btus about 77% efficient...2.5 cu ft box. I spent more than a few minutes scouring the specs before plunking down the cash. Either is a nice stove but the point is there are different stoves for different folks. I vote hampton...Its in the livingroom. Quad is not bad, its just I like the look etc of the hampton better.
No quad only claims 65k on the 4100i and 75k on th 5100i so in it is not the same size the 4100i box is 2.47 and the 5100i is 3.0burntime said:
Thats in the ballpark to me. Within 10k btu, and 2.5 for the firebox. The firebox size is where all the magic happens!
Now you are catching on...the btus are a best guess and firing the heck out of the stove. The firebox size is the important number. Both offer secondary burn and efficiencies are in the same range...output will be about the same. The 5100i with a 3 cu ft box will give off more simply cause it holds more. Thats why I say the 4100 quad and the hi300 hampton are both in the ballpark for output.
Yea i am catching on the hampton numbers dont really produces what they claim or the quad numbers are under what 2.5 can really do that is assumeing that the hampton has 2.5 so is that a real good comparison the real quaestion is what is the space you are tryin to heat and if the hampton/regancy is misleading in it specs. as if you are looking to heat any more then 2000 i would have to say that the 4100i 2400 and the 300 if they all have the same firebox are not capable of doing such a space . and the 5100i with the 3.0 firebox is the best choice.burntime said:
What are you a quad dealer? You seem all edgy over this. All the stove manufacturers have more of a guestimate on btu output. It will depend on the climate and how well the house is insulated. My home is 1400 sq ft 1957 brick ranch with an exposed basement and pretty open. Walls are r7, attic r50. The hampton works all the way to -20 in Wisconsin. In a new home I don't think you would have a problem with either. In an old farmhouse you would be wishing for more. The original poster wanted the pros and cons. Like I said before the 2 are similiar but I chose the hampton for the reasons stated above. I am extremely happy with my choice a year later. To throw more in the mix there is a poster named warren with an osborn 1800. I don't remember where but I seem to remember him saying he was heating 2000 or 2200 square feet. I don't remember exactly but I thought that theat stove was 55k btu and a smaller than 2.5 cu ft box. And he was wishing for the larger unit now. Even the stove guys in my area said look at firebox and not btu output, then oversize slightly and don't look back. Good luck to johnnyf hopefully this helps in his quest. Mileage may vary, value accordingly.
it was your original statement that seemed to make the arugement to compare apples to apples acctually i have sold them both it is not what the specs stated that some how there was some secret to the hampton that it produced 75k and if some one wents to look at this correctly you would be right that firebox size is the way to go and 3.o is the big dog on the block and that if you are looking to get 75k out of any of those units the only one that will get you close is the 3.0 firebox all the manufatures lie.
So you disagree with the firebox and the efficiencys being equal that the stoves are similiar? Thats the apples to apples comparison johnny was looking for. Both are close. One more thing johnny, look at the way the quad door is set up for loading, if I remember right it has a half hex opening. Some may think that this is to allow more wood in but I feel the reality is the flat face allows more versatility to really load er' up. You need to pack these size stoves to get the 9 hour burn time and it also needs to be a quality hardwood. Like stoveguy states, if your looking for the behemouth of heaters go for a 3 cu ft firebox.
Thanks for the information that the both of you have provided. Still uncertain on my choice however. I'll keep you guys posted.
I work at a Quad dealer... they are great products. High quality stuff and they stand behind it. If there are cracks or other things wrong with the welded metal, and no evidence of abuse, you get a new stove usually. The new 4100 ACC stove is really cool also, if your dealer has the new stuff already. I made a post about the ACC stove a while back if you wannt read it. Basically there is a timer for the startup air and some other air control changes were made. Thier new slogan for this is "Load, Light, Live".
Nope they have not, I did not see the word "insert" when i read his post the first time. So the 4100I would be an ACT version.
burntime said:
Just as a proof that there are different tastes, I emphatically DON"T LIKE enamel finishes, and much prefer basic flat black paint. Enamel to me just doesn't look like a stove, and it is a finish that is nice until it gets damaged, but is then non-repairable. A painted stove just needs a hit off the rattle-can.... Not saying you are wrong in your choice, just that there are reasons for both alternatives.
Gooserider
- Status