Downgrading Super II pump from 2HP/220V to 0.75HP/110V

Jump to latest Follow Reply
K

Kidney

0
Jul 8, 2014
28
Fort Worth, TX
Hi everyone,

I have a spare Hayward Super II pump (SP-3015X20 I believe) I'd like to use on a 110V pad. It has a 2HP Emerson K63CXERA-4768 motor (220V) that replaced the OEM Hayward, I think, C48J2N131B3 (also 220V).

Can I swap that 220V motor for a 3/4HP 110V equivalent compatible with the 3/4HP version of the Hayward Super II SP-3005X7 (I am thinking of a Century UCT1072V1, hoping this is a fit)? I understand that would lower GPMs but that is a non-issue in my use case.

I would change the impeller to match the new 3/4HP motor. Do I also need to change the diffuser?

The 2HP pump has 2" fittings but would have come with 1.5" fittings had it been 3/4HP. I assume the 2" pipes are fine with that 3/4HP motor. Am I overseeing something?

Thanks!
 
You can just replace the impeller without changing the motor. You will get most if not all of the energy savings.
 
Thanks!

The idea is for the new 110V motor to be able to run on a backup genset when needed (to avoid the pool turning green during an extended outage). The genset only delivers 110V so the motor has to change. In that case, the impeller has to also change (as I understand a 2HP impeller shall not be used together with a 3/4HP motor) but I am unsure about the diffuser (or any other needed part change for that matter).

Glad I need not worry about using 2" piping.

Side question: can I put a Jandy space saver valve directly at a 2HP pump outlet to replace a 90-degree 2"-diameter Sch. 40 PVC elbow fitting there? I.e. can this valve take the pressure so close to the pump outlet?
 
Those valves have very high pressure ratings so it shouldn't be an issue.

As for the diffuser, that depends on the age of the pump. The older version used the same impeller. Here is some additional info:

Hayward Super II SP3000 Series Parts - INYOPools.com

Hayward Super II SP3000 Series - INYOpools.com has the largest selection of swimming pool and spa replacement parts with over 70,000 parts in stock. Order today and save!
www.inyopools.com www.inyopools.com

1632176552542.png
 
Yes but purchase date is not the same as a manufacture date. The diffuser number should be on the diffuser so you can check which one you have to confirm.
 
Learned a lot disassembling. I confirmed I have a SP3015X20AZ pump with diffuser SP3021-B, impeller ring SP3021R, impeller SP3021-C, all of which match the original 2HP motor (which was replaced with the uprated Century version). I think these 3 parts need to be replaced in my use case.

The seal plate and motor mounting are the same whether one has the 3/4HP or 2HP versions of the pump. The pump housing also seems identical except for the 3/4HP pump using 1.5" water inlet/outlet while the 2HP uses 2" equivalents. As such, I believe (and hope to be correct) that the 3/4HP impeller assembly (consisting in the SPX3000BN diffuser, the SPX3005R impeller ring and the SPX3005C impeller) will fit in my SP3015X20AZ pump as a drop-in replacement.

I am planning to use a Century UCT1072V1 motor.
  1. This motor has a 56J frame: does that mean it should fit and I need not worry about any other motor dimensions?
  2. This motor's rotation is "Counterclockwise Pump End": does that work with the new 3/4HP impeller assembly? Not sure how to assess that.
 
Impellers are usually identified by their full rated HP. The SPX3005C is actually a 1/2 HP full rated impeller. That is why the part # is 3005. Is that what you really want?

1. Super II uses a 56J frame motor so that if fine
2. All pool pump motors rotate counterclockwise looking at the shaft.
 
Thanks on 1. and 2. this is good news, and yeah, I am not 100% sure on the impeller. Glad you noticed!

I was hesitating between SPX3005C and SPX3007C.

The Century UCT1072V1 motor is full rated (at 3/4HP) so I think would work with SPX3005C.

SPX3007C is compatible with full rated at 3/4HP but also with up rated at 1HP according to the embedded links. We wouldn't want a 1HP impeller on a 3/4HP motor, based on my understanding, right?

I went to Hayward's website and found https://www.hayward-pool.com/assets/documents/pools/pdf/parts-diagrams/super-ii-diagram.pdf where page 2 applying to my pump shows SPX3005C for 3/4HP (and SPX3007C for 1HP). Hayward also has Super II | Pumps | In Ground Pool Pumps - Hayward Pool Products where the 'Parts' tab shows SPX3005C as '1/2 Hp Impeller' matched to SPX1605Z1M '3/4 Hp Maxrate Motor'. Based on all this, it looks like I have the right impeller selected (SPX3005C).

Curiously, Super II | Pumps | In Ground Pool Pumps - Hayward Pool Products also shows
SPX3000ESeal Plate 3/4 Thru 2 Hp
SPX3020ESeal Plate 2-1/2 & 3 Hp
but the two seal plates physically seem to be the same and the same as the SPX3020E I already have.

If this is all correct, all I need to check is that the starting current or locked-rotor amperage of the Century UCT1072V1 motor is less than the max amperage supported by my genset and I then should be good to go with any power outage.
 

Enjoying this content?

Support TFP with a donation.

Give Support
The Century UCT1072V1 motor is full rated (at 3/4HP) so I think would work with SPX3005C.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, that motor is a 3/4 HP UP RATED motor (service factor = 1), not full rated as you stated. So it works with a 3/4 HP up rated or 1/2 HP full rated impeller impeller which is the SPX3005C.

That motor will NOT work with the SPX3007C impeller.

3/4 HP up rated is the same as 1/2 HP full rated.

1 HP up rated is the same as 3/4 HP full rated.
 
Glad to see you confirming my selection but I obviously need to learn the right terminology! I erroneously thought a motor with a service factor of 1 is full rated while one with a SF higher than 1 is up rated. It instead looks like a motor with a SF of 1 is up rated while one with a SF higher than 1 is full rated: do I have this correct?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mas985
Yes, that is correct although, the break point is really around 1.2 SF. There are some up rated motors with service factors of 1.1 or 1.15. Larger THP motors tend to have lower SF for full rated while lower THP motors, tend to have higher SF for full rated.
 
Kidney said:
I obviously need to learn the right terminology!
Click to expand...
The method of rating motors with Full Rated, Up Rated and Max Rated is no longer supposed to be used.

All pumps and motors are supposed to be rated by the total hp, which means that all pumps and motors sold are supposed to have a service factor of 1.0.

All new motors are supposed to have a S.F of 1.0.

The existing stock of motors that are labeled with a S.F greater than 1.0 can be sold until the stock is gone.

In any case, the only number that matters is the total hp.
 
Kidney said:
A beneficial simplification going forward in my view!!
Click to expand...
Agreed.

They finally decided to get rid of the S.F method, which was always really stupid, in my opinion.

I can't say for sure, but I choose to believe that the deciding factor was my thread addressing the matter.

Getting rid of "Service Factor" for motors.

Does service factor have any value? In my opinion, it has no value. In fact, I think that it only causes problems and confusion. The only number that really matters is the Total HP of the motor. Motor makers make two identical motors and label one as 1 hp with a 1.65 service factor and the...
www.troublefreepool.com www.troublefreepool.com
 
When you say "they" you mean? I would be surprised if "all" motors would be impacted equally. Pool pump motors sure, but not necessarily motors in other industries, presumably as that would require coordination beyond what is achievable among residential pool pump suppliers. Perhaps this is discussed in the linked article. Will review.
 

Enjoying this content?

Support TFP with a donation.

Give Support
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread Status
Hello , This thread has been inactive for over 60 days. New postings here are unlikely to be seen or responded to by other members. For better visibility, consider Starting A New Thread.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply