FABRICATED EER, EER2, CEER, SEER2 AND CAPACITIES
Cooling and heating performance is where the 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 on the brand’s websites and catalog, all for the same product line. The differences violate NRCan definitions, AHRI 210/240 testing logic, and basic thermodynamics.
The most evident pattern is that copycat brands assign capacities ranging from 9,000 BTU to 12,000 BTU while using the same hardware. Some list 9,000 BTU; several list 10,000 BTU; DesignLine lists 11,200 BTU. A single machine cannot legitimately deliver this range of capacities under 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.
When the OEM’s numbers are fabricated, every private-label version based on that data is automatically fraudulent.
Multi MFG lists only 9,600 BTU on the same Wuxi Hammer unit that Inspiron Air claims has 12,000 BTU, a 25% capacity gain, and also an increase in efficiency, from 14.8 SEER to 16.95 SEER. This is not a typo. 25% Higher capacity, and more than 12% better efficiency… on the same unit. Impossible.
The fraud becomes undeniable when the data is organized. Below are tables that sort ratings and capacities in different orders to expose the inconsistencies and reveal the scale of misrepresentation.
Sorted by Capacity
Capacity and efficiency are related in real-world data. Of course, there is no relationship whatsoever here.
Nordica Units
Zymbo Clima Puro Units
Zymbo Dolphin 40 Units
Sorted by Efficiency
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.
Nordica Units
Zymbo Clima Puro Units
Zymbo Dolphin 40 Units
Wuxi-Hammer
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!
Nordica Units
Zymbo Clima Puro Units
Zymbo Dolphin 40 Units
Wuxi-Hammer
SEER2 Compare
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?
Nordica
Zymbo Clima Puro and Dolphin 40 Units
Note for the Silktech units, they do not publish the SEER2 in their documentation. The SEER2 is only found on the California Energy Commission MAEDBS website, and the capacity data is higher than what Silkech publishes in their brochure.
* Incorrectly listed as SEER, the correct rating is SEER2, which is not the same test method as SEER.
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).
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.
