Super II Pump Replacment Decision

[Watermom]

Hope it works out for you with your equipment. Sometimes it is hard to know what is what. They certainly confuse me! See ya around the forum!

[versstef1]

Well, I guess I messed this up. If you only know how much effort I put into this, stress and time, that is. Lesson learned, approach it more calmly next time. But on the two speed, you lost me when you asked for drawings. I ain't got no drawings (I also don't do no plumbing and electrical goes just to the point of changing my timer motor, which I accomplished with GREAT price last year). I have a solar guy who bascially told me to avoid the two and variable speed, and that sounded good to me, keep it simple. Well, no I have about 10 years to figure it out, I suppose. Again, thanks and sorry for wasting your time.

[PoolDoc]

It doesn't actually sound like it's messed up.

It sounds like you have gotten a pump that will work, pretty much like the one you had before. That may not be optimal, but it's pretty far from messed up.

[versstef1]

By messed up I meant my foray into this forum! I didn't use it to my best advantage and I annoyed you, so that's not cool. Secondly, if the pumps are identical, I spent about $100 too much. That's not small change. Just FYI, I AGAIN called Hayward this morning (because I'm obsessed). Get this, they insist 100% that these two pumps are not identical. Whoever told me this is flat wrong, they said. The EE uses less power, period. I guess I could just choose to believe, even just to sleep better tonight than last, lol. Thanks again, I'm still just starting out and trying to be perfect is my curse.

[PoolDoc]

I looked at the Inyopools data on those pumps, and merged it. You can see it here:
https://sites.google.com/site/poolfo...yward-super-ii

Look at the delta-efficiency column -- it's all over the place. Also, Inyopools SF (service factor) data doesn't match Hayward's SF data, here:
http://www.hayward-pool.com/pdf/lite...TSUPIIFR11.pdf

So all I'm really sure of, is that the data is not trustworthy. I don't know if it's been deliberately fudged, or whether someone's just been careless.

If you call Hayward again, ask them for the SF and amp draw numbers for your EE model pump, and for the corresponding Up-rate pump. If Inyo has misled you, you are entirely within your rights to ask for a fully paid return, based on the false data they supplied.

[versstef1]

FYI, I believe you in that they are identical. Inyo is wrong on the amp draw, I believe. Hayward stated that the amp draw on these 2 pumps is identical. But, and this is what's weird, that nevertheless the EE is more efficient for other reasons that they could not very clearly explain. Same amp draw, different efficiency - is that even theoretically possible?

[PoolDoc]

Hayward stated that the amp draw on these 2 pumps is identical. But, and this is what's weird, that nevertheless the EE is more efficient for other reasons that they could not very clearly explain. Same amp draw, different efficiency - is that even theoretically possible?

No, not possible.

I suspect that Hayward may be changing the product stream, and putting more efficient motors on the full rate pumps. But, how far along they are with this, I don't know. It may be plans; it may be happening; it may be wishful thinking. But, it's gone far enough to get into the level 1 tech scripts -- which is what you are hearing.

[mas985]

In most cases the up rated and full rated version of a pump have the same performance but in this case there is a slight difference. Although both the SP3010EECZ and a SP3010X15AX use the same wet end, the SP3010EECZ is using a high efficiency full rated motor where as the SP3010X15AX is using a standard efficiency up rated motor. The motor amp label rating on each motor is the maximum draw that a motor can support but it is NOT what the motor will actually draw when placed in the plumbing system. What Hayward may be referring to is the label AMP rating being the same on both motors which is possible and without seeing the labels myself, I can't confirm that.

But according to CEC measurements on both pumps, the high efficiency motor will actually draw about 5% less than the standard efficiency version of the same motor while delivering the same flow rate. So I think Hayward is misleading you on the actual amp draw of the motor.

Also, I have found that the Hayward reps are hit and miss. Some know a lot while others are clueless. You have to keep calling to get different reps before you find one that really knows what they are talking about.

When sizing a pump, it is better to compare head curves than it is to compare THP. The head curve determines the flow rate on the plumbing system. The motor is there to run the wet end and the motor label really doesn't give you all that much indication of how the pump will perform.

[PoolDoc]

Thanks Mark;

Just to extend that a bit . . . let's take your pump, which Inyopools shows as pulling around 9 amps @ 230V, or about 2KW if it runs at that load point.

Since your in Florida, let's assume an 8hours/day run time for 6 months, and a 2 hour /day run time for winter months. That's 1825 hours per year, or 3650 KWH. At around $0.10 / kwh, annual operating cost will be $365, and your savings (with a 5% reduction in electrical usage) will be about $19 per year.

On the other hand with a 2 speed pump, running on low 12 hours/day and 6hours/day at 1/6 the current used on high, your runtime KW would be about 0.35KW, and your annual hours would be 2920. That works out to about 1,000 KWH/year for a savings of $265 per year . . . and a MUCH quieter pump.

[versstef1]

Mark, thank you so much for the information. The distinction between max draw and actual draw is exactly what the reps were trying to explain to me. I just couldn't relay it well here, and I don't think I understood it anyway. You are right about the label amp draw being 18.6 on both of them. Mark, all that said, can I even be 100% sure that I can interchange these 2 pumps? The GPM is identical according to Hayward here http://www.hayward-pool.com/prd/In-G...1_14002__I.htm, but it doesn't appear that the head curve chart is totally 100% identical when you look at the actual chart - very close, slight differences. Seeing that I have this pump ordered and on the way, I'd rather not even put it in if there's a risk it's not strong enough. It'll be even harder to get rid of after installing it.

And all that said, Ben, this morning I woke up and wondered why the heck I wasn't listening to you about the 2-speed. Again, it was the "you need drawings" thing, i.e. just the fact that I don't have a trusted pool guy and didn't trust myself in doing it myself (even with forum help) to size the system right, especially with the 2-nd story solar panels. Also, that I just spent $100 on labor that was useless and he was going to put in this pump free of charge. Even my solar guy tried to dissuade me from going 2-speed, saying it's too complicated and you'd be running on high speed anyway most of the time, when using solar. In short, I was too lazy to bother, as I have a lot other things on my mind. THAT SAID, I woke up this morning and am reconsidering this now. Maybe I'll put the pump on Craig's List and if it sells, start all over...

Thanks again to y'all!

===================================

Oh, and it's reading things like this that kept me from considering 2-speed:"WHAT ABOUT SOLAR SYSTEMS? When a pool has a solar system mounted on the roof, a two speed pump may not be the answer. This is because the rise to the roof creates 10 ft or more of static lift, and that number does not change when you put a pump in low speed and reduce the flow through the system. With a solar system, it is often better to use a smaller single speed pump, such as a 3/4 HP pump that will give you adequate lift at all times."