# Charcoal or Gas BBQ Grill



## andyzee (Jun 19, 2006)

Well, since we're well into the BBQ season, just wondering what everyone out there prefers. Me, I'm a charcoal guy, feel you just don't get the same flavor on gas.


----------



## Greg (Jun 19, 2006)

Gas here: a Weber Genesis Silver-B with stainless grates. I grill a lot (winter too) so I need the convenience of gas.


----------



## andyzee (Jun 19, 2006)

I presently have the first on pictured below, great grill has served me well over the years. This weekend I was at Lowes and found the second one pictured. Great grill, think I'm going to have to buy by the end of the season.


----------



## Vortex (Jun 19, 2006)

I'm a charcoal guy when I can be. Need the time to do charcoal right.  Up north I charcoal.  Home or in the parking lot its gas grills. I carry a gas grill with me in the back usually all summer.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Jun 19, 2006)

andyzee said:
			
		

> Well, since we're well into the BBQ season, just wondering what everyone out there prefers. Me, I'm a charcoal guy, feel you just don't get the same flavor on gas.



I agree. I use to have gas and I do miss the convinence, but for taste charcoal alldaway.


----------



## bvibert (Jun 19, 2006)

Gas here only because I'm too lazy to deal with the charcoal.


----------



## pizza (Jun 19, 2006)

charcoal is supposed to be better to cook with..
gas is certainly more convenient.

I prefer charcoal.. unless I'm in a hurry.

-steve


----------



## SkiDog (Jun 19, 2006)

Charcoal...and preferedly the real wood charcoal..not briquetts....

I will use gas, and have to in some instances...but like mentioned...NOTHING BEATS THE TASTE OF CHARCOAL FIRED MEATS...

Mmmm burnt flesh..

M


----------



## andyzee (Jun 19, 2006)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> Charcoal...and preferedly the real wood charcoal..not briquetts....
> 
> M


 
You might like this site: http://www.nakedwhiz.com/lump.htm they review all sorts of lump charcoal. Very much into it with their reviews, pics and all. I use Royal Oaks myself.


----------



## SkiDog (Jun 19, 2006)

andyzee said:
			
		

> You might like this site: http://www.nakedwhiz.com/lump.htm they review all sorts of lump charcoal. Very much into it with their reviews, pics and all. I use Royal Oaks myself.



Nice link..thanks man...I cant remember the brand I use, ill try to remember to look tonight..

In fact I just recieved as a gift a 50 gallon oil drum that has been split...mounted with legs and wheels..a chimmney, and propane burners as WELL AS the ability to cook with charcaol...I cant wait to have it delivered...ill take pics...

M


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 19, 2006)

Charcoal all the way! I grill a lot and it is way worth the extra hassell. Buy yourself a nice chimney and you never have to worry about lighting fluid (which tastes horrible on the meat) or issues starting the fire. Twenty minutes and you are ready to grill. Most things take 10 minutes tops on my Weber. Once you taste the Charcoal difference, it is almost impossible to go back to Gas Grills. The taste is SOOOOO much better and the meat cooks through better as well. Can't recommend Charcoal enough.

If I wanted to grill a lot during winter, I might get a Gas Grill just for winter only. Charcoal sucks in the winter. But I would accept no substitute for fair weather grilling.


----------



## andyzee (Jun 19, 2006)

And it's neck and neck. I had a friend that found a way to get the best of both worlds. He had a gas grill, I talked him into charcoal. Once he tried, he didn't want to go back to the gas. He took the burners out of the gas grill put it into his charcoal grill, so that the gas ignited the charcoal. Once the charcoal was well lit, he would turn off the gas, usually only took a few minutes. Never need lighting fluid


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 19, 2006)

I prefer charcoal but use gas, because I live in an appartment, on the ground floor, and my neighbors probably wouldn't appreciate getting smoked out. Plus, landlords get a little nervous about having charcoal around.

This thread could get uglier than one discussing NASCAR, abortion, healthcare reform, social security, terrorism, and Iraq, all rolled into one.


----------



## Sky (Jun 19, 2006)

andyzee said:
			
		

> I had a friend that found a way to get the best of both worlds. He had a gas grill, I talked him into charcoal. Once he tried, he didn't want to go back to the gas. He took the burners out of the gas grill put it into his charcoal grill, so that the gas ignited the charcoal. Once the charcoal was well lit, he would turn off the gas, usually only took a few minutes. Never need lighting fluid



BRILLIANT!  I voted Charcoal..but have a gas grill.  I have not used it in the winter lately (like Greg)...but have in the past and will in the future.

I think the combo idea is sweet.


----------



## andyzee (Jun 19, 2006)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> This thread could get uglier than one discussing NASCAR, abortion, healthcare reform, social security, terrorism, and Iraq, all rolled into one.


 
You forgot global warming  which, quite frankly, charcoal may add to.


----------



## ga2ski (Jun 19, 2006)

gas due to convenience


----------



## Jonni (Jun 19, 2006)

I mostly use the gas grill, but on occasion we'll set up the wood grill. Nothing like cooking steak over an open wood fire.


----------



## teachski (Jun 20, 2006)

Poll is flawed!   You forgot to put other person's grill!


----------



## Marc (Jun 20, 2006)

andyzee said:
			
		

> And it's neck and neck. I had a friend that found a way to get the best of both worlds. He had a gas grill, I talked him into charcoal. Once he tried, he didn't want to go back to the gas. He took the burners out of the gas grill put it into his charcoal grill, so that the gas ignited the charcoal. Once the charcoal was well lit, he would turn off the gas, usually only took a few minutes. Never need lighting fluid



Bastard stole my idea.  I've been planning on doing that for a while now.


Besides the convenience of lighting the charcoal quickly, I was planning on using only the gas burner for those times after work when I wanted a quickly charred piece of dead animal flesh without dealing with charcoal ashes.


----------



## andyzee (Jun 20, 2006)

Marc said:
			
		

> Bastard stole my idea. I've been planning on doing that for a while now.
> 
> 
> Besides the convenience of lighting the charcoal quickly, I was planning on using only the gas burner for those times after work when I wanted a quickly charred piece of dead animal flesh without dealing with charcoal ashes.


 
You snooze, you loose.


----------



## Grassi21 (Jun 20, 2006)

I voted gas but agree on all of the good things that charcoal brings to the table.  I grill year round so gas is just easier.  If its a weekend cook out and I'm cooking a large piece of meat (ribs, pork shoulder or butt, brisket etc.)  I will go with charcoal.  Slow cooking on a gas grill isn't ideal in my book.  I use a Genesis Silver B like Greg, but also have a classic Weber Kettle.  Those kettle grills are one of the simplest, but most efficient grills on the market.  Not to mention that they are really cheap compared to most gas grills.


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 20, 2006)

Back in college we grilled quite a bit, on charcoal. We drank a lot of beer, too. Unfortunately, they often went hand in hand. There's something about swilling PBR that makes you want to grill. After 4-5 beers, the urge to grill would set in. 3 beers later, the charcoal would be ready, and the meat would go on. Chicken takes a beer a side, but that usually turned into 2-3 per side, with predictable results. Fortunately, by that time we'd had enough beer to not really care about the charred nature of our food, and teh charcoal we ate probably helped keep us from dying of alcohol poisoning.

All in all, a win-win situation.


----------



## MikeTrainor (Jun 20, 2006)

I have my charcoal Webber grill. Light it have a beer and it is ready to go. I get home an hour and a half before my GF so I would eat the same time anyways


----------



## andyzee (Jun 20, 2006)

Gotta luv the last two recipes, beer dependent. No better combo then beer and BBQ! :beer:


----------



## andyzee (Jun 22, 2006)

Well, suprised by the results. I expected far more gas than charcoal an it's now 50/50!


----------



## noski (Jun 22, 2006)

*Not sure how to vote*

I use gas since I grill on the porch year around, but when at the RV I use charcoal. I prefer charcoal for tastiness, but gas for convenient, quick cooking....so I didn't cast a vote.


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 22, 2006)

andyzee said:
			
		

> Well, suprised by the results. I expected far more gas than charcoal an it's now 50/50!


interestingly enough, since AZ'ers tend to have such great taste, i had expected more charcoal than gas and am also surprised by the results! :razz: :smile:


----------



## andyzee (Jun 22, 2006)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> interestingly enough, since AZ'ers tend to have such great taste, i had expected more charcoal than gas and am also surprised by the results! :razz: :smile:


 
I kind of figured the same thing, it's the audience. :lol: Good taste people!


----------



## Mike P. (Jun 22, 2006)

Gas, with two kids, a house, hobbies outside of eating & the ability to eat my own cooking, when am I not in a hurry??????

an hour to cook a meal or 25 minutes?   Maybe there is a taste difference but it's not as great a difference as say baking lasagna & microwaving it (or broiling a steak & nuking it, no one does that.

The difference is about the same IMO as that of air popping popcorn or the old fashion oil poppers.  Oil was better tasting, now with microwaves you only see big poppers in movie theatres & bars.


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 22, 2006)

if it takes someone an hour to cook a meal on a charcol grill it is either a really large meal or they are doing something wrong. i usually leave 30-40 minutes from start to finish. it only takes an extra 10 minutes to heat the coals properly when done right with the right equipment. i can understand the hectic lifestyle of families when every second counts. my family was very mobile and on the go when i was younger. sometimes you just gotta take a time out to enjoy a perfectly charred hunk o' meat  

while i can completely understand and relate to your time and hectic family schedule and desire for speed, i disagree with the popcorn analogy. the difference between charcol and gas is striking, the difference between bagged popcorn and old fashion oil poppers isn't significant to me. big difference between a cheap bag of popcorn and two $8-10 steaks though!


----------



## ALLSKIING (Jun 22, 2006)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> i disagree with the popcorn analogy. the difference between charcol and gas is striking, the difference between bagged popcorn and old fashion oil poppers isn't significant to me. big difference between a cheap bag of popcorn and two $8-10 steaks though!


Steaks are the only thing I see a difference with using charcol. Burgers to me don't taste any better on charcol...Now cooking with hardwood.... That is by far the best way to get good flavor.


----------



## andyzee (Jun 22, 2006)

ALLSKIING said:
			
		

> Steaks are the only thing I see a difference with using charcol. Burgers to me don't taste any better on charcol...Now cooking with hardwood.... That is by far the best way to get good flavor.


 
That's why I go with the lump charcoal, it's closer to wood.


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 22, 2006)

ALLSKIING said:
			
		

> Steaks are the only thing I see a difference with using charcol. Burgers to me don't taste any better on charcol...Now cooking with hardwood.... That is by far the best way to get good flavor.


i have different experiences, my weber kettle makes incredibly good burgers. i definitely notice a difference. actually, i think i notice more of a difference with burgers than steaks now that i stop and think about it.


----------



## ALLSKIING (Jun 22, 2006)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> i have different experiences, my weber kettle makes incredibly good burgers. i definitely notice a difference. actually, i think i notice more of a difference with burgers than steaks now that i stop and think about it.


Funny how we have had completely different experiences....Next Az outing I will cook the steak and you cook the burgers ;-)


----------



## SkiDog (Jun 23, 2006)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> i have different experiences, my weber kettle makes incredibly good burgers. i definitely notice a difference. actually, i think i notice more of a difference with burgers than steaks now that i stop and think about it.




Id be willing to bet this is closer to reality, but everyone tastes differently.

Id say that a burger would "accept" the smoke flavor more readily due to the fact that is is a ground meat, therefore has many "voids" the smoke can penetrate. A steak on the other hand is essentially "closed cell" and has to stay longer to absorb the same amount of smoke...and I like my steaks still practically mooing.....so they can't stay on long.

I do find though that if you use soaked hickory chips or mesquite chips onto the hot coals they REALLY impart the flavor onto ANY meat..

And for those of you still using propane...SWITCH...but if you dont want to they make these little metal boxes to put the wet wood chips into to get close to the same flavor as would with burning wood..they work really well too I have tested them.

Try grilling salmon on cedar planks too...SOAK THEM OVERNIGHT FIRST THOUGH..

M


----------



## Grassi21 (Jun 23, 2006)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> Id be willing to bet this is closer to reality, but everyone tastes differently.
> 
> And for those of you still using propane...SWITCH...but if you dont want to they make these little metal boxes to put the wet wood chips into to get close to the same flavor as would with burning wood..they work really well too I have tested them.
> 
> ...



I have one of those little metal boxes.  They do work nicely.  I've never tried using it on my gas grill for the slow and low cooking method.  But if I'm going for slow and low I typically use the kettle grill anyway.


----------



## Greg (Jun 23, 2006)

Grassi21 said:
			
		

> I have one of those little metal boxes.  They do work nicely.  I've never tried using it on my gas grill for the slow and low cooking method.  But if I'm going for slow and low I typically use the kettle grill anyway.


I might be intersted in trying this in my Weber (Genesis). Do you have a link to the one you use?


----------



## Grassi21 (Jun 23, 2006)

Greg said:
			
		

> I might be intersted in trying this in my Weber (Genesis). Do you have a link to the one you use?



My little bro gave it to me as a present so I don't know where he picked it up.  I just did a quick search and found these.  Mine is stamped steel but the cast iron ones at this site have to be more durable.

http://www.americasbestbbq.com/SearchResult.aspx?CategoryId=7213


----------



## SkiDog (Jun 23, 2006)

Grassi21 said:
			
		

> My little bro gave it to me as a present so I don't know where he picked it up.  I just did a quick search and found these.  Mine is stamped steel but the cast iron ones at this site have to be more durable.
> 
> http://www.americasbestbbq.com/SearchResult.aspx?CategoryId=7213



Mine looks similar....stainless any of those will work....put directly on the grates....just soak the chips first..I find with the boxes you can even sometimes get 2 uses out of the chips..which on a real fire wouldnt happen...

happy grilling..

M


----------



## Grassi21 (Jun 23, 2006)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> Mine looks similar....stainless any of those will work....put directly on the grates....just soak the chips first..I find with the boxes you can even sometimes get 2 uses out of the chips..which on a real fire wouldnt happen...
> 
> happy grilling..
> 
> M


They do work fine right on the grates.  The directions say to place it on the inverted V shaped metal under the grate.  But if you need to add more wood you need to remove the grate etc. etc.  It works just fine on the grate.  

The good/bad thing about experimenting with a smoker box is that you can really get hooked on smoking as opposed to grilling.  I would love to invest in a nice smoker but that would require an additional backyard cooking apparatus on top of the gas and charcoal grill I currently have.


----------



## SkiDog (Jun 23, 2006)

Grassi21 said:
			
		

> They do work fine right on the grates.  The directions say to place it on the inverted V shaped metal under the grate.  But if you need to add more wood you need to remove the grate etc. etc.  It works just fine on the grate.
> 
> The good/bad thing about experimenting with a smoker box is that you can really get hooked on smoking as opposed to grilling.  I would love to invest in a nice smoker but that would require an additional backyard cooking apparatus on top of the gas and charcoal grill I currently have.



I don't know if you noticed, but I just recieved as a gift a 50 gallon drum cut in half lengthwise and converted into a grill/smoker....I CANT WAIT FOR IT TO BE DELIVERED..

I currently use a grill pictured earlier in this thread.....Andy's 3rd post....I have the additional smoker box that attaches to the side of it...its a nice grill, but i've already outgrown it...too much upkeep when doing long smokes...like 12-15 hour briskets and whatnot...so its to the new one..

I think in going to paint it the colors of the Jamaican flag...

M


----------



## Greg (Jul 10, 2006)

My wife gave me a smoker box as a birthday gift this weekend. Our Weber Genesis Silver-B also got an upgrade: new stainless steel flavorizer bars to compliment the stainless grates. The old porcelain-enabled ones finally rusted through, after 4 years. I also power-washed the grates, catch basin, and the under side of the lid. Vacuumed out the rest of the crud (lots of rust chunks from the old flavorizer bars, actually) in the the grill body, and gave the outside a thorough Formula 409 cleaning. The grill is like new again and looking great, even after being outside for 4 years, 24/7. I expect with the all-stainless compenents now I should get another 10+ years out of it. The first meal on the cleaned grill was boneless pork chops. I just did a simple dry rub of garlic powder, black pepper, celery salt and sugar. I used the Weber mesquite "FireSpice" chips in the smoker box and they were the best tasting pork chops I've ever grilled! Plus the smoke smells great while cooking. A comment about slow cooking on a gas grill - I usually keep the front and back burners on low or medium-low and the center burner off. Cook on the center of the grill - works well for me.


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 10, 2006)

Greg said:
			
		

> I usually keep the front and back burners on low or medium-low and the center burner off. Cook on the center of the grill - works well for me.




Sweet welcome to the world of smoked meats...

By the way..the is exactly how its supposed to be done for the "slow cook" on propane..least so i've been told...

I'm a charcoal man myself..  and I too had boneless prokchops last night....however mine were hickory smoked...

M


----------



## ALLSKIING (Jul 10, 2006)

Greg said:
			
		

> My wife gave me a smoker box as a birthday gift this weekend. Our Weber Genesis Silver-B also got an upgrade: new stainless steel flavorizer bars to compliment the stainless grates. The old porcelain-enabled ones finally rusted through, after 4 years. I also power-washed the grates, catch basin, and the under side of the lid. Vacuumed out the rest of the crud (lots of rust chunks from the old flavorizer bars, actually) in the the grill body, and gave the outside a thorough Formula 409 cleaning. The grill is like new again and looking great, even after being outside for 4 years, 24/7. I expect with the all-stainless compenents now I should get another 10+ years out of it. The first meal on the cleaned grill was boneless pork chops. I just did a simple dry rub of garlic powder, black pepper, celery salt and sugar. I used the Weber mesquite "FireSpice" chips in the smoker box and they were the best tasting pork chops I've ever grilled! Plus the smoke smells great while cooking. A comment about slow cooking on a gas grill - I usually keep the front and back burners on low or medium-low and the center burner off. Cook on the center of the grill - works well for me.


Happy B-day Greg...I love smoked foods as well. Try a nice flank steak one of these days with the smoker box.


----------



## Greg (Jul 10, 2006)

The nice thing about the smoker box is you can control the level of smoke flavor by altering the number of chips.


----------



## skibum1321 (Jul 10, 2006)

Has anyone seen or heard anything about this woodflame grill? It seems like a pretty novel idea but is also pretty rare in the US.

http://37signals.com/svn/archives2/woodflame_grill_highly_recommended.php


----------



## ALLSKIING (Jul 10, 2006)

I really like that grill. A link for the US.

http://www.bar-b-que.com/


----------



## kickstand (Jul 10, 2006)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> By the way..the is exactly how its supposed to be done for the "slow cook" on propane..least so i've been told...



this is true.  I slow-cooked/smoked up some ribs yesterday and this is how I did it.  Took about 3 hours for a 2.6 pound rack of pork ribs.  I have a 4-burner Vermont Castings.  Two outside ones on as low as possible, two middle ones off, smoker box on the left (although I only did one round of chips).


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 10, 2006)

skibum1321 said:
			
		

> Has anyone seen or heard anything about this woodflame grill? It seems like a pretty novel idea but is also pretty rare in the US.
> 
> http://37signals.com/svn/archives2/woodflame_grill_highly_recommended.php




Interesting. I would never have thought of putting a Zip Stove in a grill.

http://www.monmouth.com/~johno/8ozZIP.htm


----------



## Greg (Jul 10, 2006)

kickstand said:
			
		

> this is true.  I slow-cooked/smoked up some ribs yesterday and this is how I did it.  Took about 3 hours for a 2.6 pound rack of pork ribs.  I have a 4-burner Vermont Castings.  Two outside ones on as low as possible, two middle ones off, *smoker box on the left* (although I only did one round of chips).


The instructions on the Weber FireSpice bag say to put the smoker box under the grates on the lower left (front/left, I guess?). Is there any specific reason for this? Others in this thread indicate it's fine to just put the box directly on top of the grates. Does it really even matter?


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 10, 2006)

Greg said:
			
		

> The instructions on the Weber FireSpice bag say to put the smoker box under the grates on the lower left (front/left, I guess?). Is there any specific reason for this? Others in this thread indicate it's fine to just put the box directly on top of the grates. Does it really even matter?



I personally believe it is NOT IMPORTANT...since you arent actually "burning" the chips and just "heating" them to smoke point they don't need to be that close to the flame..however if you do put them that close you'll get the "smoke point" much quicker...

M


----------



## Greg (Jul 10, 2006)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> I personally believe it is NOT IMPORTANT...since you arent actually "burning" the chips and just "heating" them to smoke point they don't need to be that close to the flame..however if you do put them that close you'll get the "smoke point" much quicker...
> 
> M


Makes sense. I did notice it takes a few minutes for the chips to start to smoke, but not that long. I'll try it on top next to see if the extra time is worth the ease of keeping it on top...


----------



## Marc (Jul 10, 2006)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> I personally believe it is NOT IMPORTANT...since you arent actually "burning" the chips and just "heating" them to smoke point they don't need to be that close to the flame..however if you do put them that close you'll get the "smoke point" much quicker...
> 
> M



No, you're still burning them.  It is a fuel controlled burn instead of an oxygen controlled burn.  It's the difference between smoldering combustion and flaming combustion.  There isn't enough radiative feedback to pyrolize fuel fast enough to create a diffusion flame mixing with oxygen.  Instead combustion only occurs at the oxygen - fuel interface.  Of course because you soak the chips a lot of the "smoke" is just steam.


Aren't you glad you have a fire protection engineer around the boards so you know these things?


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 10, 2006)

Marc said:
			
		

> Aren't you glad you have a fire protection engineer around the boards so you know these things?




Dork.


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 10, 2006)

Marc said:
			
		

> No, you're still burning them.  It is a fuel controlled burn instead of an oxygen controlled burn.  It's the difference between smoldering combustion and flaming combustion.  There isn't enough radiative feedback to pyrolize fuel fast enough to create a diffusion flame mixing with oxygen.  Instead combustion only occurs at the oxygen - fuel interface.  Of course because you soak the chips a lot of the "smoke" is just steam.
> 
> 
> Aren't you glad you have a fire protection engineer around the boards so you know these things?



Hmmm seems like it would take QUITE SOME TIME then to actually "burn" those chips up....ive used them on my old propane grill and they stay in the box and never go away until I empty them.......

I am a charcoal guy..so I KNOW my chips are "burning" cause they're ash when im done cooking..

M


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 10, 2006)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> Dork.



Pot calling the kettle??? ;-)

M


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 10, 2006)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> Pot calling the kettle??? ;-)
> 
> M



yup. Couldn't help it, though. When a chance like that comes along, you can't just pass it up. It'd be un-American.


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 10, 2006)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> yup. Couldn't help it, though. When a chance like that comes along, you can't just pass it up. It'd be un-American.




Whew glad you took it that way...I figured that could've gone either way.... 

thought it was funny though... ;-)

M


----------



## kickstand (Jul 10, 2006)

Greg said:
			
		

> The instructions on the Weber FireSpice bag say to put the smoker box under the grates on the lower left (front/left, I guess?). Is there any specific reason for this? Others in this thread indicate it's fine to just put the box directly on top of the grates. Does it really even matter?


as long as they are soaked in water (I do a minimum of 30 minutes) and placed over the heat source, that's fine.  I like to put my smoker box under the grates on top of the heat plate (the bent metal piece that sits directly above the flame).  I just find the wet wood smokes faster the closer to the heat it is.  I could have put them on the right or up on the grates, if I chose to do so.


----------

