Kingsford: Really more burn time?

P

pull_my_butt

Knows what a fatty is.
Joined
Sep 1, 2012
Messages
80
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
Taylorsville, NC
Ya'll know how the Kingsford bags advertise as more bbq time per pound right? Well, I've been doing some experiments. I don't think it burns any longer than the lump charcoal I use. By the time the briquettes ash over, they've lost so much size already.

I was going to start using briquettes for bbq and lump for grilling but I guess it really doesn't make a difference in burn time. Plus, briquettes are so damn ashy.

What are your thoughts and experiences?
 
I get longer burn time from Stubbs (I get it at Lowes). I've not timed it out, but I can do an ~18 hour smoke with Stubbs and not have to add new fuel, whereas with Kingsford I have to add more fuel.
 
It's called marketing......

I get longer and hotter burns from lump than I do from briquettes. Lump also produces much less ash.

Not all charcoals are created equal, so it is a matter of personal choice as to what meets your needs.
 
I get more BTU's out of lump than kingsford. It starts up twice as fast as well. Burns much hotter. Goes out easier (when you snuff it). Produces 1/10th the amount of ash as charcoal briquettes. Only problem is the size isn't uniform like briquettes so you can get pockets of air between the lump which causes temp instability.. so you have to pack it well.

I like that kingsford blue is more popular than lump charcoal, this keeps the lump charcoal prices down.
 
I have converted to stubbs and lump only. I also get better burn time out of stubbs. I used Kingsford for about 6 to 8 years so I can compare from experience. So for what it's worth IMHO no you don't get any longer burn from Kingsford.
 
I exclusively use lump in all my cookers except the PBC. Though I used lump in the PBC seems like it does better with briqs. For briqs in the PBC I use Stubbs. Its great stuff and natural. I even gave Kingsford comp a try and didnt like it at all.

I mainly use the new Cowboy lump, Royal Oak for low and slow, Mesquite lump for open pit grilling (burns really hot) and Stubbs in the barrell.


Recently picked up Coconut shell briqs that Lowes started to carry but havent tried it yet. Its all natural again and suppossed to burn the hottest and pretty long.
 
Recently picked up Coconut shell briqs that Lowes started to carry but havent tried it yet. Its all natural again and suppossed to burn the hottest and pretty long.[/QUOTE]

I've been wanting to try these but just didn't know much about them. When you try them could you post how they worked for you? Sorry for the hijack
 
grillinguy247 said:
Recently picked up Coconut shell briqs that Lowes started to carry but havent tried it yet. Its all natural again and suppossed to burn the hottest and pretty long.
Click to expand...

I've been wanting to try these but just didn't know much about them. When you try them could you post how they worked for you? Sorry for the hijack[/QUOTE]

Def will. Hooefully tomorrow.
 
In my WSM I do get longer burns with Kingsford. Obviously, there's a lot more ash as well, but the burn times are not even close for me.
 
I run almost all lump I get briquettes from HEB for the snake in the kettle and starting the Lump in the UDS
 
In all of my cookers KBB definitely burns longer. I haven't done a scientific time comparison, but I know because I have to reload with lump on longer cooks. I don't reload with KBB.

Not sure what type of cooker you are using.
 
For the price its hard to beat Kingsford charcoal. Lump is ok but way overrated imho. If i want smoke flavor i use real wood not lump, no telling what type of wood is used in lump.
 
>> For the price its hard to beat Kingsford charcoal.

>> no telling what type of wood is used in lump.

I never thought I'd see two sentences like these, so contradictory, in the same paragraph.
 
Not sure about burn times but for me kbb is a choice because of cost. Purchased on sale it's $5 for a twenty pound bag.
 
Are we still talking about using junk fuel for our cookers? Quality food and prep deserves clean burning fuel. That is most often achievable with lump charcoal. Most bricks out there are laden with "other materials" than cooking coal. Never had I experienced better response to the taste of the Q than when I switched form Bricks to Lump. Me I use Royal Oak Nature-Glo.
 
I think what it comes down to is marketing vs reality.

The marketing says that in laboratory tests under controlled conditions with hundreds of samples... you could probably get the new briqs to burn exactly the way they say. That, to me, is cherry-picking.

The reality is that when someone who has been using the old briqs for years buys the new formula briqs for the first time- they will be shocked at the differences in burn time and temp and probably ruin some good meat while they either look for a better alternative or tune their ingrained personal cooking style and techniques to the new briqs, which lets be real, are only a product of Kingsford looking for a way to make cheaper briqs.

I have been using both Kingsford and Royal Oak for a long time, and after seeing this, I think i'm going to be strictly RO from now on.

And that's all I have to say about that.
 
What keeps me from using KBB is that they admit using pine as one of there wood fillers. Some people have been using it for so long that they don't even notice that hint of turpentine taste, but I can after I switched to lump for so long and went back and used it for one smoke. I'll only use it if I can't get lump and Stubb's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Kingsford rethinks startegy on charcoal price hikes
Replies
10
Views
994
cardman
C
L
Thoughts on Charcoal
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
Get’n Smokey
G
C
Charcoal sales - B&B briquets vs. Cowboy
Replies
2
Views
998
dummy que
D
C
Has else anyone noticed Kingsford charcoal smelling like ... manure ... lately?
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
Fooball
F
K
Kingsford Original Versus Weber Charcoal Briquettes - My Take
Replies
10
Views
2K
KevGuy
K
Back
Top