Was looking at grills in Lowes today and trying to figure out which model is
better: The PerfectFlame split hood, or the Charbroil TEC.

Both appear to be of similar construction and probably both come from China. The
TEC model is several hundred dollars more than the PerfectFlame.

TEC has the reputation and until a few years ago, the patent, which probably
accounts for some of the price difference.

The PerfectFlame has a split cabinet, which makes isolating the hot IR burner
from the other burners much easier and also allows the IR burner to come up to
operating temp much faster.

OTOH, the TEC has the burner right up under the grate, protected by a glass
plate. This also has the advantage of allow marinades to sizzle on the plate
under the meat.

From what I've read, an unprotected IR burner will quickly clog up from
drippings, so points to the TEC. OTOH, the design of the PerfectFlame unit is
such that you could set a tempered glass plate between the burner and the grate
will a couple of inches of space above and below.

Thoughts, comments, personal experiences would be much appreciated.

--
"Tell me what I should do, Annie."
"Stay. Here. Forever." - Life On Mars

"Rick Blaine" wrote:
> Was looking at grills in Lowes today and trying to figure out which model
> is
> better: The PerfectFlame split hood, or the Charbroil TEC.
>
> Both appear to be of similar construction

I looked at both and don't recall the two being similar in construction.
IIRC, the PF model's SS was mostly cosmetic and in the front.


>
> TEC has the reputation and until a few years ago, the patent, which
> probably
> accounts for some of the price difference.

The patent that expired was for the ceramic design. They have since gone to
a SS burner design with the glass plate. That design is still
patent-protected.


>
> OTOH, the TEC has the burner right up under the grate, protected by a
> glass
> plate. This also has the advantage of allow marinades to sizzle on the
> plate
> under the meat.

The TEC burner also heats the entire area uniformly.


>
> Thoughts, comments, personal experiences would be much appreciated.

I bought the TEC series and have been happy with it. One thing that irks me
is the rotisserie design, but that's about it. Plenty of discussion about
the model he
"http://www.bbqsource-forums.com/invboard/index.php?showtopic=1250&st=165"


--
Mike

"Tinman" > wrote:


Thanks for the comments!

>
>I looked at both and don't recall the two being similar in construction.
>IIRC, the PF model's SS was mostly cosmetic and in the front.
>
>

I'll go back and look again, but the booklet I have from Lowes and my memory was
that they were both 100% SS.


>The patent that expired was for the ceramic design. They have since gone to
>a SS burner design with the glass plate. That design is still
>patent-protected.
>
>

The TEC grill I looked at had a ceramic plate with the glass cover. Keep in mind
that both grills are less than $1000, so they won't be the latest technology.

>
>The TEC burner also heats the entire area uniformly.

I didn't see any significant difference in the PF. It uses a flat ceramic burner
similar to the TEC model, but mounted about 6" below the grate and no glass.

--
"Tell me what I should do, Annie."
"Stay. Here. Forever." - Life On Mars

"Rick Blaine" wrote:
> "Tinman" > wrote:
>>
>>I looked at both and don't recall the two being similar in construction.
>>IIRC, the PF model's SS was mostly cosmetic and in the front.
>>
>
> I'll go back and look again, but the booklet I have from Lowes and my
> memory was
> that they were both 100% SS.
>

I remember the SS on the hood and some frontal areas being different than
the rest (plus the back is mostly black). I liked the two-hood design, but
the construction did not seem all that great (it flexed heavily when moved
or twisted). Go ahead and test the whole thing with a magnet.


>
>>The patent that expired was for the ceramic design. They have since gone
>>to
>>a SS burner design with the glass plate. That design is still
>>patent-protected.
>>
>>
>
> The TEC grill I looked at had a ceramic plate with the glass cover.

Nope. It had a SS TEC burner with the TEC glass plate over it. All the CB
TEC models at Lowe's use the exact same TEC burner design. If you saw
ceramic it wasn't a CB TEC grill (not even the rotisserie burner is ceramic
on the TEC series).


> Keep in mind
> that both grills are less than $1000, so they won't be the latest
> technology.
>

The CB TEC series actually does use the latest patented burner design from
TEC. It's not built with the same quality of course, nor is it built by TEC,
but it's one of the most inexpensive ways to get that type of burner without
paying $3,000+ (Solaire portable duly noted).

It is the ceramic infrared burner design, used on most all other IR burners
that is based on the older (patent expired) TEC design.


>>
>>The TEC burner also heats the entire area uniformly.
>
> I didn't see any significant difference in the PF. It uses a flat ceramic
> burner
> similar to the TEC model, but mounted about 6" below the grate and no
> glass.

I don't understand how you couldn't notice it. The ceramic burner on the PF
model doesn't cover anywhere near the entire grate area (less than 50%). The
TEC burner has a much larger flame area, and it heats the entire glass plate
uniformly. Even the single TEC burner model has a good 50% more high-heat
grilling area. And if that ain't enough the 4 burner model has even more TEC
grilling area.

I bought the grill for the TEC burner, plain and simple. If this was not
available, or performed badly, I would most likely have gone with one of the
Jenn-Air models, or a Weber. But for me it has performed well. I can sear
steaks like a restaurant (a nice char on the outside and if desired rare on
the inside--and still juicy).

In the end you need to decide if the searing feature is worth it or not
(without it you can get a more inexpensive model). For me I figured I'd use
it more if it had the TEC design. That means I don't only sear steaks and
whatnot. It works great for drizzling marinades right over food. Instantly
vaporizes, and no flare-ups. Cleans easy too--like a self-cleaning over.



--
Mike

"Tinman" > wrote:

>
>I looked at both and don't recall the two being similar in construction.
>IIRC, the PF model's SS was mostly cosmetic and in the front.
>
>

OK, I stopped by again this evening. The non-IR PFs are as you described with a
SS cover trimed in black metal. The IR models are all 304 SS.


>
>The patent that expired was for the ceramic design. They have since gone to
>a SS burner design with the glass plate. That design is still
>patent-protected.
>

Yep. The TECs are using a metal IR burner as you mentioned. I was wrong to say
both were using a ceramic burner. The burner covers about 90% of the grate as
you mentioned.

Interestingly enough, the PF IR burner was rated at 18K BTU, but covers about
50% of the grate area. The TEC did not list a separate IR burner rating, but
based on the total burner rating, looked to be considerably less - around 12K.

They may get an equal temp at the food by putting the IR burner right under the
grate with only the glass plate in between.


>
>The TEC burner also heats the entire area uniformly.
>

Hard to say how the PF would compare, other than the burner chamber is funnel
shaped and has a larger burner. The greater distance may even things out a bit.
The design of the metal around the burner would make it very easy to lay a sheet
of IR glass. This would protect the burner and possibly even things out were
that necessary.

> Plenty of discussion about the model he
>"http://www.bbqsource-forums.com/invboard/index.php?showtopic=1250&st=165"

Good link - thanks.

--
"Tell me what I should do, Annie."
"Stay. Here. Forever." - Life On Mars