WSM options

[HankB]

When it is cold out side the 22 has a hard time getting over 190 degrees when all vents are wide open.

I'm surprised you had that difficulty. I've only done one cook on my 22.5 so far (had the 18.5 since '09) and it held near 300°F with 24 lb of chicken and a 20 lb turkey. And that was with two of three bottom vents open and 10°F weather.

As to the OP's question - that is tough. When I chose in '09, I went with the 18.5 and found that it generally met my needs. Ribs result in a compromise - either trimming the racks and/or adding a third grate to fit. But they work. A big brisket can be cut in half and divided between the two racks. Heck, I've done that on the mini-WSM as well. But when a 22.5 came up for $150 on CL I jumped. :biggrin1:

If cooking for two (my situation) or a small family, the 18.5 will be adequate. If cooking for larger groups, the extra space in the 22.5 will be useful. Obviously there are folks here that prefer either.

 

[DaveElliott]

If you can, spend the extra $100 and get the 22. You'll be happy to have the extra space not if, but when you need it.

 

[charrederhead]

Personally, I hate ribs not fitting flat on my 18.5. Get the 22.5!

 

[Smoothsmoke]

Spend the extra $100 on the 22". They can be fuel hogs, but you could purchase a charcoal ring for an 18" that would still give good results but would be more fuel efficient than the one that comes with the 22".

The size of the fire ring would not make it more efficient. Regardless of the size of the ring. The same amount of lit coals would be need to maintain the vessel at your target temperature. It's not like you have to heat up less space because the ring is smaller.

 

[Smoothsmoke]

I have a Brinkman ECB which I don't really have positive results with. But I have a Weber OTG with the smokenator and have great results with that.

I want to move up to the WSM but not sure if I should go with the 18.5 or 22.5, thoughts?

It really depends on how many you plan to cook for on a regular basis. If it's only 3-4, get the 18.

 

[LTG]

22.5". Accept no substitute. The extra room is worth the additional fuel required to run it compared to the 18.5". Don't pay attention to the fuel hog comments either. They are still very efficient.

 

[yakdung]

I would recommend the 22.5 because I own one and love it.
:grin:

 

[sparky']

^^^ That's what i did. Bought the 22" and the charcoal ring for an 18" for the smaller cooks. The 22" has a lot more room for ribs.

me too. i do own a 18 wsm also but use the 22 more.

 

[Big slick]

The 22 is not just for big cooks, but cooking big pieces of meat. A slab of ribs, without shortening will not fit on an 18 and neither will a big packer without draping over something like a rib rack.

Go for the 22, you won't be disappointed for an extra $100.

BINGO!

That's exactly why I'm glad I went with the 22.5" WSM.

 

[K-Train]

Go big. You can adjust for shorter cooks, or for smaller cuts of meat. However you can't make the 18.5 any bigger then it is.

 

[Smoking Westy]

The 22 is not just for big cooks, but cooking big pieces of meat. A slab of ribs, without shortening will not fit on an 18 and neither will a big packer without draping over something like a rib rack.

Go for the 22, you won't be disappointed for an extra $100.

+1 to this post. I went with the 22.5" version for this reason alone. I wanted to be able to put full packers on without bending, rolling, etc. I found it to come in real handy when doing 30+ pounds of pork belly at a time as well.

You can also good big slabs of salmon without having to cut them into smaller chunks as well.

Spend the 100 bucks up front and you'll never have to wonder if you should have gotten the big one.