http://www.backofthesiteindex.com/deluxe-electric-range-top-burner-6/ Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:48:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 http://www.backofthesiteindex.com/deluxe-electric-range-top-burner-6/comment-page-1/#comment-493 G. McNeal-Smith Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:20:25 +0000 http://www.backofthesiteindex.com/deluxe-electric-range-top-burner-6/#comment-493 The product is satisfactory. The burner has the exact same configuration and markings as the broken one it replaced except where the model number was etched into the "y" frame of the original burner there is a gind-off mark on the new one as if the model number was erased. It seems as if this Camco brand is just the Chromalox brand repackaged with the trade marks removed. I was a bit disappointed because Camco's web page explained that their burners had more coil turns than some other brands, and that is what made it "deluxe". When the new burner arrived it had the same number of turns (5) as the original. The picture is not accurate for this item because it clearly depicts 6 turns. Maybe the picture corresponds to the large size 8 inch burners. In any case, the quality is equal to the original and it is functional. I do not perceive anything about it that merits the "deluxe" adjective. The product is satisfactory. The burner has the exact same configuration and markings as the broken one it replaced except where the model number was etched into the “y” frame of the original burner there is a gind-off mark on the new one as if the model number was erased. It seems as if this Camco brand is just the Chromalox brand repackaged with the trade marks removed. I was a bit disappointed because Camco’s web page explained that their burners had more coil turns than some other brands, and that is what made it “deluxe”. When the new burner arrived it had the same number of turns (5) as the original. The picture is not accurate for this item because it clearly depicts 6 turns. Maybe the picture corresponds to the large size 8 inch burners. In any case, the quality is equal to the original and it is functional. I do not perceive anything about it that merits the “deluxe” adjective.

]]>