Buying a St Lucia 2 v St Lucia 3 (Energy Sense) Hot Tub?

[Red Builder]

Been digging into the St Lucia models again and realised a lot of the confusion online is just naming.

I've got the newer one myself (box says St Lucia 3), and it's definitely the EnergySense version, so thought I'd redo this comparison properly for anyone else trying to figure it out.

Here's what I'm comparing:

Lay-Z-Spa St Lucia (Standard / older version)
Lay-Z-Spa St Lucia EnergySense

First thing to clear up:

"St Lucia 2" and "St Lucia 3" are basically the same thing in real terms. Both refer to the newer EnergySense version. Retailers just label them differently.

So this is really:

Old St Lucia (standard insulation)
New St Lucia (EnergySense insulated version)

Core specs are the same across both:

2-3 person capacity (realistically 2)
110 AirJets
Max temp 40°C
Same pump and heater system
Same size and shape

So don't expect any difference in power, bubbles, or heating speed.

Where things actually changed is insulation.

The newer EnergySense version (your St Lucia 3) has a multi-layer insulated liner and cover. It's designed to hold heat better and reduce how often the heater kicks in. From what Lay-Z-Spa claim, these can be significantly more efficient than the older style tubs. ()

In real-world terms that means:

Holds temperature better overnight
Less heat loss in colder weather
Lower running costs over time

That's the only meaningful upgrade. Everything else feels the same when you're actually using it.

The older St Lucia still works fine, but it loses heat faster, especially outside summer. So it ends up running the heater more often, which is where the extra cost comes in.

Build quality is similar overall. The EnergySense one might feel slightly more solid due to the layered material, but it's not a huge jump.

Noise is the same. Same pump, same bubble system.

So it really comes down to this:

If you already have the St Lucia 3 (EnergySense), you've basically got the better version. There isn't a newer "better performing" St Lucia beyond that, just bigger or different models.

If someone is choosing between them:

Standard St Lucia = cheaper upfront, higher heat loss
St Lucia 2 / 3 (EnergySense) = same experience, but better insulation and lower running costs

Honestly, once you realise the naming is messy, it's a simple choice. The EnergySense version is just the smarter buy unless the older one is massively discounted.

Anyone actually measured the difference in electric usage between the two? That's the only part I'm still curious about

[VB]

Is this the same one as Chris got?

[Matticus]

yes from Amazon or B&Q

[Aaron]

I want the better one. even though they had some in clearance of last years stock

[WaveFunction34]

yes those ex-display ones wont be any good

[Anchor99]

There is something true in that that is hard to articulate. Really good thread this

[DecentBloke]

Is that always true or just in some cases? Appreciate the detail

[NightHarbour]

Is this the same one as Chris got?

Completely agree, and it is frustrating that this is not more widely known. Task Manager tells you most of what you need to know if you know which columns to look at.

Happy to help further if you get stuck

[DarkLantern]

That is one way of looking at it. Legend.

[Jedi Stuart]

I looked at the St Lucia Energy Sense stuff earlier this year and the main thing that stood out was that the energy claims only really matter if you are using the tub a lot. If it is going to sit there half the week cold and unused, the savings are not going to feel dramatic. The cover and insulation matter just as much, if not more.

That said, I do think the newer version is worth considering if the price gap is not huge. Better efficiency, newer control system, and usually a bit less hassle with running costs is hard to ignore. The catch is always whether the actual build quality matches the marketing.

If you can, try to find owners talking about real winter bills rather than just the brochure numbers. That is where the honest answers tend to show up.

[NeutrinoX]

I would be a little cautious with the phrase "energy efficient" because hot tubs love to make that sound fancier than it is. All tubs use a lot of power once you start heating them regularly, so the real win is usually better insulation, a tighter lid, and smarter circulation.

If the St Lucia has improved those areas, then yes, it could be a good buy. If the savings are mostly coming from a new badge and a slicker app, I would not get too carried away.

Still, if you already like the model and want something easier to live with day to day, that counts for a lot. Convenience is part of value too, not just wattage numbers.

[FinnHalliday]

I nearly bought one of the older St Lucia versions, so I had a similar rabbit hole to go down. The energy sense feature sounded appealing, but in practice I was more interested in how well it held temperature overnight and whether the pump noise was tolerable.

Those are the things you notice every week. The fancy efficiency claims are nice, but if the tub feels flimsy or the controls are annoying, you stop caring pretty quickly.

If you are on the fence, I would compare the running costs against the extra upfront price and decide whether the payback is realistic for how often you will use it. That tends to cut through a lot of marketing fluff.

[Phoenix56]

I actually think people underestimate how much a small improvement in insulation can matter over a year. With hot tubs, even shaving a bit off heat loss can make the whole thing feel less punishing to run.

So in that sense, a more efficient St Lucia model is not just a gimmick if you are planning regular use. The bigger question is whether the rest of the tub is good enough to justify buying that specific version instead of shopping around.

If the layout, seating, and size work for you, that can be enough. A tub you enjoy using is more valuable than a theoretically cheaper one you barely touch.

[Sequence48]

Bit of a boring answer, but I would check the warranty and parts situation before getting too excited about the Energy Sense label. Hot tubs are very much one of those products where support matters when something small goes wrong.

A slightly better insulated tub is great, but a replacement panel or pump that takes weeks to sort out is not so great. I have seen people get very attached to the idea of efficiency and forget the practical side.

If the newer St Lucia has better support and easier access to parts, that may be the real upgrade. The rest is just icing.

[Luca76]

I am not totally sold on the idea that the newest version is automatically the best one. Sometimes manufacturers add a feature and quietly remove something else, and you only notice after you have paid for it.

That is why I would compare the exact spec sheet side by side, especially heater output, insulation thickness, and filter setup. Those are the details that actually affect daily use.

Still, if the price is close and the Energy Sense version is the one you would rather look at in your garden, that is a perfectly reasonable reason to buy it. Not everything has to be pure spreadsheet logic.

[FrostBear]

One thing I would say is make sure you are not comparing a sale price on the old model with a full price on the new one. That can make the newer tub look worse than it really is.

I have done that mistake before and convinced myself I was being very clever right up until I realised the comparison was nonsense. Retail pricing around hot tubs is weird enough without adding self-inflicted confusion.

If the St Lucia Energy Sense model is only a little more, I would lean toward it. If it is a big jump, then the older model or another brand might be the smarter play.

[Taker92]

I get why the Energy Sense version is tempting because the idea of lower bills is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Anything that makes an outdoor hot tub less expensive to run gets attention fast.

But I would still focus on how the tub behaves in real use. Does it recover temperature quickly after use, does the lid seal properly, and does it stay comfortable in colder weather? Those are the questions that decide whether you actually enjoy owning it.

If you can find someone local with one, even better. Real-world use always tells you more than the product page does.

[error.404]

I am probably in the minority, but I think the best purchase is often the one that gets used the most, not the one with the cleverest energy branding. If the St Lucia fits your space and is comfortable, that matters a lot.

Efficiency is great, but a tub that is awkward to use or too small will still end up feeling like an expensive garden ornament. You want something that makes you actually want to jump in after work.

That said, I do like the idea of the newer model if it has genuinely improved the running cost side. Hot water is lovely, but not at the price of a terrifying electric bill.

[PhilippeMercadal]

The other thing to remember is that "energy efficient" can mean several different things in practice. Sometimes it means better insulation, sometimes a smarter timer, and sometimes just marketing with a nice font.

If the new St Lucia really is better, the best evidence will be owner feedback after a few months of use. People are usually pretty honest once the novelty wears off.

So I would keep an eye on that rather than rushing. There is no harm in waiting for a few proper reviews if you are not in a hurry.

[Vanessa26]

I would honestly put more weight on cover quality than the model name itself. A good cover can make a bigger difference to running costs than people expect, and it helps keep the water cleaner too.

If the Energy Sense version includes a noticeably better cover or insulation package, then that is a meaningful upgrade. If not, I would be less impressed by the badge.

At the end of the day, a hot tub is one of those buys where the practical stuff matters most. The glamorous part is sitting in it, not reading the sales pitch.

[ClaudioHerrera]

My slightly cheeky take is that these tubs are sold on dreams and maintained on discipline. You buy it imagining evenings in steaming water under the stars, and then reality is water testing, filters, and electricity bills.

That is not a complaint, just the truth of it. So if the St Lucia Energy Sense version reduces the hassle a bit, that is genuinely worth something.

If you do go for it, I would love to hear whether the savings feel real after a few months. That is the sort of detail everyone wants, because the brochures are never going to tell you the awkward bits.

[SilverRider]

I was actually looking at this exact comparison last week and ended up leaning toward the St Lucia 3.

The energy efficiency improvements seem small on paper but add up if you use it regularly.

If you are planning long term ownership, it feels like the smarter pick.

[NightCrawler33]

From what I have seen, the St Lucia 2 is still a solid buy if you get it at a good discount.

You are basically trading a bit of efficiency and newer controls for a lower upfront cost.

If budget matters more than features, it is still very relevant.

[CosmicRay40]

I have not owned either yet but I tested the St Lucia 3 in a showroom and it felt noticeably quieter.

That alone would probably sway me if I was installing it near the house.

Nothing worse than a noisy pump ruining a relaxing soak.

[FinnHalliday]

Honestly I think people overthink the Energy Sense branding.

It is a nice idea, but the real difference is how often you use the thing and how well it is insulated.

Both models will cost money to run if you are in it every night anyway.

[Phoenix56]

We went through the same decision and ended up choosing the 3 mainly for the updated controls.

Being able to manage heating schedules more precisely is actually more useful than I expected.

It just feels more modern overall.

[Amber Tiger]

If you can find a St Lucia 2 with a decent warranty or bundle deal, I would seriously consider it.

The performance gap is not huge in real life use.

Sometimes the older model at a discount just makes more sense.

[Bussin]

One thing people forget is running cost over time.

Even a small efficiency improvement becomes noticeable over a couple of winters.

That is where the St Lucia 3 starts to justify itself for me.

[WhatUQuant]

I am still on the fence but leaning 3 just because I know I will regret not getting the newer one later.

Classic case of future self annoyance avoidance.

It is rarely about logic at that point, more about peace of mind.

[CaptainStatic56]

The naming mess around these tubs is almost impressive. It feels like the marketing department threw a few labels into a hat and called it a product range

For what it is worth, I would lean St Lucia 3 if the price difference is not painful. A hot tub is not something most people replace every couple of years, so getting the newer version makes sense.

That said, the St Lucia 2 is hardly some ancient relic dug out of a garden shed. If the deal is significantly better, the older model will still do the job perfectly well.

[Thomas]

I went through the same debate and nearly drove myself mad comparing tiny spec differences. At one point I was looking at heater details like I was choosing a spacecraft, not something to sit in with a drink after work

The St Lucia 3 seems like the safer choice for anyone planning to keep it long term. The little improvements add up, especially when you are using it regularly.

My only warning would be not to pay a silly premium just because it has a bigger number after the name. Retailers love making the latest version sound like it has discovered fire.

[RicFlair]

The future regret argument is actually pretty strong here. There is nothing worse than saving a bit now and then sitting in the tub thinking, "I should have bought the better one" every weekend.

I would still check what features matter to you though. If the Energy Sense upgrades are things you will actually notice, then go for it. If they are mostly brochure magic, the St Lucia 2 starts looking more attractive.

Either way, both are decent choices. This is one of those nice problems where the biggest danger is spending three weeks researching bubbles and jets before remembering the point is to relax

[Drift Vector]

Had a look at both and I think the St Lucia 3 wins, but not by some huge earth shattering margin. Nobody is going to jump into the St Lucia 2 and scream that technology has failed them

The newer model just gives a bit more peace of mind. Energy efficiency matters because running costs are the boring part nobody thinks about until the first electricity bill arrives.

A cheap hot tub that costs more to run can become a very expensive garden ornament. The extra upfront cost might be worth it.

[DeanAmbrose]

There is a dangerous rabbit hole with hot tubs where you start comparing details nobody will ever notice. Next thing you know you are measuring bubble patterns and writing a spreadsheet for relaxation

The practical answer is probably St Lucia 3 if your budget allows it. Newer equipment usually means more years before you start thinking about repairs or replacements.

But if the St Lucia 2 is heavily discounted, I would happily take one. Sitting in warm water is still sitting in warm water.

[Zoe]

The upgrade temptation is real. Manufacturers know exactly what they are doing when they release a newer version and give everyone a case of garden gadget envy.

I think your future self argument makes sense though. If you already know you will keep wondering about the St Lucia 3, you have probably answered your own question.

Sometimes paying extra removes the annoying little voice saying "you should have gone for the better one" every time you switch it on.

[Nova]

I am usually the person who says buy the older model when it is discounted, but this one is tempting me towards the newer version.

Energy use is one of those things where small improvements can become meaningful over time. Nobody gets excited about insulation and efficiency, but everyone notices when the bills arrive.

Still, I would not dismiss a bargain St Lucia 2. A good deal can beat a shiny badge, especially if the difference is only a handful of cosmetic changes.

[Diane82]

I chose the newer model in a similar situation and have no regrets. There is something satisfying about knowing you bought the current version rather than the one that was replaced last month.

Of course, there will always be someone saying the previous model was better value. The internet can turn choosing a hot tub into a full courtroom drama

If the price gap is reasonable, I would say go St Lucia 3 and enjoy it rather than endlessly comparing charts.

[BareMinimum]

One thing I would add is to look beyond the model number and compare the actual running costs. The cheapest purchase price does not always win after a year of heating water.

The St Lucia 3 appears aimed at people who want the more refined version rather than a basic upgrade. Whether that is worth it depends on your usage.

For someone using it several times a week, I would be much more interested in efficiency than saving a few pounds at checkout.

[Freddie_85]

The naming confusion deserves its own award. "St Lucia" followed by a number should be simple, but apparently we needed a detective investigation and a magnifying glass to work out the differences

I would ask yourself how long you expect to own it. Five years or more? Buy the St Lucia 3. Planning to upgrade again anyway? Save the money and enjoy the St Lucia 2.

The best hot tub is the one you actually use, not the one with the fanciest specifications sheet.

[Kevin]

The St Lucia 2 versus St Lucia 3 debate is a classic case of practical brain fighting gadget brain. Practical brain says save money. Gadget brain says shiny new thing wins.

Personally I think the newer one is the better fit if you are already leaning that way. The small improvements will matter more the longer you own it.

Just make sure you are not stretching the budget too far. A hot tub should be a source of relaxation, not a monthly reminder that your wallet needs a holiday too