Super II Pump Replacment Decision

[mas985]

I am not entirely sure what data you are looking at but the data Ben showed, shows the two pumps as being identical. The charts are difficult to compare if they are not directly overlaid so I would go by the tables.

But I really wouldn't worry so much about pump sizing. You could go with a much smaller pump if you wanted and still have everything work fine. As an example, I have a 20k IG pool with solar on a two story house, a suction side cleaner all running on a 1/2 HP two speed pump. There really is no need for such a large pump. The small pumps do just fine. The flow rate is reduced only by a little but the power use is reduced by a lot.

Also, solar really doesn't need a large pump either. It is true that you will be running solar on high speed but about half the time my pump runs on low speed because I don't need the heat gain from solar so it is still nice to have and will still save lots of money.

[versstef1]

I was looking at the Hayward table and charts. They do look identical on the table, but not on the chart. I will assume they are identical. I guess I'm seriously oversized is what you're saying. I should have probably done a lot more reading on pump sizing, but instead simply assumed what was there what was needed. I have only 10.5 gallon, a Hayward Pooll Vac Ultra, and 6 solar panels 2nd story. What I would need is a competent pool man locally, though, if I really wanted to redesign everything.

[PoolDoc]

@Mark: if you'll look at my earlier post, I'd merged the 2 Inyo tables, and set them side by side on a Google sites page. Their data reports a higher efficiency motor in the EE pumps . . . but the data looks like it contains errors.

@Mark & Versteff: the reason I asked about a drawing, and also the presence of vacuum relief, is that if there is NO vacuum relief, than the solar system CAN be run on low, once it's primed' on high

[mas985]

Ben, how did you calculate delta efficiency? If you are using the columns labeled "Amp Draw", I don't believe they are actual measurements but instead are probably label ratings. I doubt Inyo did any measurements on those pumps. Also, the power draw of a pump is dependent on the plumbing it is attached to so there is no single power draw but a curve depending on operating point. The only data I trust for actual power draw of a pump is the CEC measurement data. For those pumps, they measured Curve-A and Curve-B. Curve-A is representative of 1.5" high head loss type of plumbing system and here is what they list as an operating point for each pump:

SP3010EECZ: 62 GPM, 1643 watts, 2.26 gallons/watt-hr

SP3010X15AX:62 GPM, 1725 watts, 2.16 gallons/watt-hr

I would believe these numbers over any other source.

Also, there are much better pumps than the Super II. I would look into the Whisperflo line of pumps if you want something that will produce about the same flow rate but with better efficiency. For the same Curve-A:

WFDS-24 & WFDS-3: 61 GPM, 1571 watts, 2.33 gallons/watt-hr

[versstef1]

It all started because I wanted to save money by keeping my existing motor and put it back on when this one burns up... I only really needed a new housing, so that led me thinking it's cheaper to get a new pump and keep the motor. I was trying to think far ahead, but not far enough....

[versstef1]

Hi there. I hope I'm not reviving a thread no one cares about, but I thought I should update you, as I received my pump today. A lot of what we discusses was wrong. It turns out Hayward gave me wrong answers, too. Only the Inyo chart I linked (and used to make my hasty purchase decision) was right after all. The pump I received is a SP3010EEAZ. 1 HP, SF 1.5, THP 1.5. The motor model is SP1610Z1BE. Max amps is 14.6/7.3 after all. Now, all the charts and tables say this will give me the same performance as the 1.5HP/1.0SF SP3010X15AZ (motor UST 1152; max amps 18.6/9.3) at a lower amp draw. In theory, wouldn't that save about 25% energy (that's what I thought when I pushed the "buy" button)? Anyway, no matter who I asked except Inyo said max amp draw was identical, and it's not. I'm going to email you pictures of the old and new motor labels. If I could have one more minute of your time, before I have it installed, I would appreciate it if you could confirm that I will be OK using this new pump and also whether I can still put my old motor back on later (if I still choose to do so.) Reason for asking is that there are 3 other numbers different on the label, and I don't know if they mean anything or not. First, the "kW" number is .75 on the new motor, not listed on old, but online found it might be 1.1. Second, the new motor says "CODE L", the old one "CODE H". And third, the new one says "Thermal Protected CET50ABN" and the old one "CET40ABM". Thanks, appreciate it, and hopefully contributed something by sharing the actual label!

[PoolDoc]

Here's the rule I found on the AO Smith site: if the old motor's HP x it's Service Factor (SF) equals OR is less than the NEW motor's HP x SF, you're OK. If the new motor's multiple is LESS than the old motor's, you are NOT OK, and will need to replace the impeller.

Looking at the photos you sent, what I'm seeing is:
OLD => 1.5hp x 1.0 SF = 1.5
NEW => 1.0hp x 1.5 SF = 1.5

So, I think you'll be OK. About any of the other, I'm not sure.