Allen Matsumoto

If you were to log in, you'd be able to get more information on your fellow community member.

Static Page Comments

• May 29, 2008, on Kitchen Remodeling:

  Consumer Reports consistently regards Viking and other "showroom" ranges to be not only less reliable, but sort of mediocre in cooking ability. They look at evenness of heat, ability to regulate temps, etc., but my main interest is in getting enough fire to sear fish for 6 without the pan cooling so far that the fish turns to mush before it's done. Even in that regard, the Viking falls short: 15,000 btu vs. 18,000 for newer GE ranges. I know that heat isn't everything, and btu doesn't even accurately describe heat (just gas consumption), but I'm surprised that Viking doesn't at least try to win the specs war, just because it is important for perceptions. That tells me that they don't want to open up a discussion about performance at all, instead focusing on the "Professional" cachet. (Real professional stoves go from 24-32,000 btu, btw.) When I upgrade, I'm going to look closely at Blue Star, which seems to be one of the ranges of choice for people who are really into cooking. I'll p...