Horsepower Ratings vs. Actual Consumption

[gpnyv]

Thanks for the information and the california energy comission link. It was very interesting.

I had the Hayward Super Pumps in 1hp, 1.5hp, and 2.0hp, as well as the hayward Tristar 1hp tested for flow vs. Amp draw.
The 1.0 hp Super pump was drawing 1600 watts at about 50ft of Head flow rate, the 1.5hp -2040 watts at 50ft of head, and the 2.0 hp 2400 watts at 50ft. The 1.0hp Tristar was Drawing around 1750w. THis was all on the same setup and using a valve and flow meter to vary restriction in the piping.
The 1.0hp tristar flowed more than the 2.0hp Super Pump for much less energy, but all of the pumps, regardless of the Hayward HP ratings consumed a lot more wattage than their nameplates.

[mas985]

Who did you have test the pumps because those numbers do not look correct?

[gpnyv]

Tested them in the lab at one of my clients. They make heat pumps, so the equipment is quite precise. The wattages above are rough averages of what we datalogged. We reduced flow to several GPM increments and kept datalogs of the amperage draws for each of the pumps.

[mas985]

The CEC measurements for the Superpump are well below what you measured so something is wrong. Are you sure the pumps weren't Super IIs instead of the Superpump? There is a big difference between the two.

The full rate 1 HP Tristar is within operating limits so that one I believe.