Efficiency of the 22.5 versus the 18.5


 
C

C. Moore

TVWBB Member
My six year old 18.5" WSM was stolen a month ago. It is time to replace it, and I am trying to determine how much extra coals I will use if I get the 22.5" instead. Any thoughts will be appreciated.

Also, has anyone tried to use the charcoal ring from an 18.5" while cooking in the 22.5"? As long as the coals are kept together in the smaller ring, it seems like there may be some efficiency from using the smaller ring and, thus, not spreading the fire out as much. Again, any thoughts will be duly appreciated. Thanks.
 
C., I have both and truthfully I don't realize a major difference. Obviously the coal ring is larger but you don't have to fill it up all the way. Over a years period I have not noticed a change in my coal comsumption. I do however use several different cookers.
If you need or want the xtra space get the 22.5.

Mark
 
I have both but do not have enough experience with the 22 1/2" to notice a difference. Proportionally you will use more fuel with the 22 1/2 but you also have a much greater capacity.
I also have both a 22 1/2" & 26 3/4" OT and not shy about using for a small "low & slow" cook.
If I'm only going to have one WSM, it would definitely be the 22 1/2. Much easier to adjust down for capacity than to adjust up.
 
At first I did not think that the 22 used more fuel, but I have started to think other wise. Doing an overnight butt cook on the 18 I could get some sleep. With the 22 I have to make sure I get up early and refuel. But I think the reason is whatever diameter of fuel is put in the smoker the burn is going to spread out at a faster rate as the 18 due to the larger heat chamber.

With that being said, I would much rather have the 22 than the 18 (I have both and use both). Just the capacity is worth the little more fuel you will use.

You also asked whether you could use a smaller charcoal ring. Exactly my thought a few years ago. And I built one from some expanded metal. I use this a lot with shorter timed cooks. Somewhere on this forum is a link on this with some pictures.

Dan
 
When you consider the surface area that is subject to heat loss and the interior volume that must be heated it is pretty much a given that it will use more fuel. The main point in making your decision should be the cooking area. Did you need more area when using your prior WSM. If so go with the 22. If you were happy with the cook area then stay with the 18.

Mike
 
Wow. The 22.5 really goes through a lot of charcoal. I started an overnight smoke at 5:30 with about 3/4 of a bag, which is what I used with my 18. By 11:30, most of the coals were gone, fallen through the rack, and the smoker was below 200 at the top. I light and added the rest of the bag. By 8 am, the smoker was stone cold.

Do you guys load with a full bag of charcoal, and expect to add more? I may try using the old charcoal ring, if only to keep the coals stacked longer. In the 22.5, the coals spread out and seemed to burn out quicker.

I am looking forward to doing a turkey in this thing.
 
I have and use both. I load the the same way typically, that is, a full ring of K blue, with a small amout of lit added for a controlled minion type burn, usually but not always driven and monitored by a stoker. I cook 225 to 250 almost exclusively.

I can tell you with certainty, the 22 uses "a lot" more fuel than the 18. Now that the subjective is out of the way....

I get almost an hour per pound of K Blue in the 22. Probably 50 minutes per pound.

I get over an hour and a half per pound in the 18. Probbaly an hour and 40 minutes.

Only you can decide if this makes much difference in the big scheme of things. It does not make much difference to me when my average price for charcoal is about $0.30 a pound.

One last thing: Owning and loving both, if I could only have one, it would be the 22 hands down, not even close. I love not fussing with long racks of ribs and large briskets if that is what I am cooking. The WSM22 is my favorite cooker I have ever cooked on. The 18 is the second.
icon_smile.gif
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stone:
Wow. The 22.5 really goes through a lot of charcoal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a relative statement. The 22 goes through very little charcoal ... compared to a charbroil horizontal offset.

As stated above, I get an average of almost an hour per pound of fuel. Not nearly as good as a well seasoned 18, but a lot better than many cookers of similar cost.
 
Charcoal cost is a minor part of cooking.
On sale I'll buy for $0.20- $0.25/ lb.
Do you need the room?
My 18 WSM will cook 7 chickens, or 5 butts , or 2 briskets, or a lot of racks of BB ribs.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by John Ford:
Do you need the room?
My 18 WSM will cook 7 chickens, or 5 butts , or 2 briskets, or a lot of racks of BB ribs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I've used three grates, rib racks, leg racks, you name it to boost capacity. However, there's other things to consider, like convenience and versatility from being able to fit everything on the top grate.

I thought my cooker just ran really slow compared to all the posts I read, but other than the rare turkey or HH brisket cook, I always use two or more grates. Anyway, so yesterday I did a little cook of eight or nine leg quarters on the top grate. I couldn't believe it, but they were done in only 1.5 hr....with water in the pan!

So yeah.....I'd love to have the big bullet for the added flexibility. Foiling ribs would be a LOT easier as well.
 
I have a 22.5. Did a pair of pork butts with one full ring load of K that lasted 14 hours. Temps fluctuated between 230 and 260 for the overnight cook. I add a second grate crosswise before loading the K. I seems to keep the k longer in the fire ring before falling through
 
I have the crossed grates in both my 18 1/2" and 22 1/2" WSM's. Guess it's just me but I always start a cook with a full water pan. I'll experiment with some of the other options one of these days. I use my 18 1/2" more than my 22 1/2" but have a few more cooks under my belt with the 22 1/2. I minion using Royal Oak lump and fill the ring about 3/4 full, bury my wood, and about 1/3 chimney to light. The 18 1/2"r tunes in and runs a steady 250 and holds for 6 to 8 hours with no messing around or adding coals. The 22 1/2 likes 245 - 248. Fill the same as the 18 1/2"r. Usually holding these temps when I finish and shut down. I always have charcoal left when I clean it the next day. Know I'm proportionaly using more charcoal, but if I'm using the 22 1/2"r, that means I'm also cooking more, so the tradeoff equalizes. Think the criss-crossed charcoal grates helps a lot. I'm down to ash or very fine pebble before they fall through.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frank D (Wenatchee):
I have a 22.5. Did a pair of pork butts with one full ring load of K that lasted 14 hours. Temps fluctuated between 230 and 260 for the overnight cook. I add a second grate crosswise before loading the K. I seems to keep the k longer in the fire ring before falling through </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm. Might give that a try with some K Comp. Never tried a second charcoal grate other than for lump since I figured that briqs might not get enough air later in the cook.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

 

Back
Top