FABRICATED EER, EER2, CEER, SEER2, AND CAPACITIES
Cooling and heating performance is where the cooling fraud is easiest to prove. Often, the same physical machine from Nordica or Zymbo, with identical compressors, coils, refrigerant design, fan system, airflow path, PCB control, chassis, and geometry, is sold with completely different BTU, input wattage, EER/EER2, and SEER/SEER2 ratings. These contradictions appear across the brands’ websites and catalogs for the same product line and violate DOE and NRCan definitions, AHRI 210/240 testing logic, and basic thermodynamics.
The most evident pattern is that copycat brands assign capacities ranging from 7,800 BTU to 12,000 BTU while using the same hardware. Ice Air lists the unit at 7,800 BTU; other private-label brands list it at 9,000 BTU; several list it at 10,000 BTU; DesignLine lists it at 12,000 BTU. A single machine cannot legitimately deliver this range of capacities under DOE or NRCan test conditions with similar efficiencies unless the compressor, coil dimensions, airflow rates, refrigerant charge, motor configuration, mechanical geometry, and control firmware are changed. None of those changes exist. Every capacity number is manipulated for marketing.
Efficiency manipulation is equally apparent. The same hardware is published with EER/EER2 ratings of 8.9, 10.5, and 11.2; a CEER of 12.26; and SEER/SEER2 ratings of 15.5, 16, and 17. These values cannot all describe the same machine, even if the capacity differences were real. They contradict the brands’ own watt inputs and violate the laws of inverter physics. Increasing capacity always reduces efficiency, and reducing capacity always increases efficiency under the AHRI 210/240 methodology. The copycat data shows the opposite, which is physically impossible for any inverter system to achieve.
The direct math exposes the fabrication:
- Applied Comfort publishes 10,000 BTU, 535 W, and 8.9 EER, but 10,000 ÷ 535 = 18.7 EER, which this hardware cannot achieve. This proves that both the BTU and the wattage are fake.
- Islandaire publishes a 10,000-BTU rating, 9.9 EER2, and an input wattage of 1,020 to 1,050 W. In reality, 10,000 ÷ 1,050 = 9.52 and 10,000 ÷ 1,020 = 9.8 — neither matches 9.9.
- Nordica, the actual OEM, claims 10,000 BTU, 9.9 EER2, and 16 SEER2, with wattages ranging from 1,020 to 1,080 W. The real math yields 9.26 to 9.8, never 9.9.
- Dubbll takes the same unit and claims 10,000 BTU at a CEER of 12.26, but the EER is only 9.9, and CEER can never be higher than EER.
- Nordica publishes a 16 SEER2 at 10,000 BTU, which is technically impossible for this coil, compressor, and airflow configuration, especially when Ice Air claims a 17 SEER2 with only 7,800 BTU.
- Zymbo publishes a 10.6 EER; however, 8,831 ÷ 750 = 11.77 EER. Did Zymbo not notice their EER was far more efficient than they published, or are the numbers so fabricated that it doesn’t matter?
- Inspiron Air claims a 16.95 SEER for 12,000 BTU with an 11.3 EER, yet 12,000 ÷ 1,150 = 10.43, not 11.3.
When the OEM’s numbers are fabricated, every private-label version based on that data is automatically fraudulent. The 7,800 BTU versus 12,000 BTU discrepancy is the most conclusive proof: Ice Air lists 7,800 BTU at 703 W, yielding an EER2 of 11.1, while DesignLine lists 12,000 BTU at 9.8 EER — a 54% capacity increase with only an 11.7% drop in efficiency. This cannot occur with the same compressor, coil, airflow, and expansion control. Multi MFG lists only 9,600 BTU on the same Wuxi Hammer unit that Inspiron Air claims has 12,000 BTU, while also claiming a jump from 14.8 SEER to 16.95 SEER — 25% higher capacity and more than 12% better efficiency on the same unit. Impossible.
The fraud becomes undeniable when the data is organized. The tables below sort ratings and capacities in different orders to expose the inconsistencies and reveal the full scale of misrepresentation. In real-world data, capacity and efficiency are related. Here, there is no relationship whatsoever.
Sorted by Capacity
Capacity and efficiency are related in real-world data. Of course, there is no relationship whatsoever here.
If the data were real, the more efficient units would show lower capacity. Here, where fake data rules, the trend is reversed: the higher-capacity units are more efficient. Note that this table ignores the brand’s efficiency ratings and instead uses the calculated efficiency based on the capacity and wattage input they publish. While EER is not a legal metric to rate these units, it can be used to measure efficiency and compare units.
Calculated EER compared to published EER
Here, you can see that almost none of the EERs’ claimed values match the efficiency calculated from the brands’ own published data. It is hard to overstate how sloppy these fabricated ratings are!
The only three brands that publish an SEER2 have conflicting data. Does it make sense that Nordica, the manufacturer, claims a 16 SEER2 rating based on 10,000 BTU, while Dubbll has a 17.0 SEER2 rating with the same 10,000 BTU? Or that Ortech has a 15.5 SEER2 at over 12,000 BTU?
This table demonstrates that every published value is incompatible with the brands’ own numbers. Their own math exposes the fraud. None of these results could originate from certified AHRI 210/240 laboratory testing. None comply with NRCan requirements in Energy Efficiency Regulations, 2016, CSA C744, ASHRAE 37, or the Competition Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-34), or DOE Regulations.
All CEER, EER, SEER2, and BTU values published for these copycat models are fabricated. All underlying watt inputs are manipulated. These are structural violations, not clerical errors. These products are non-compliant, illegally rated, and the published data is demonstrably false.
