GMCC KSN92V11VEZ3 Rotary Compressor: The 9.2 cm3/rev Rating Row, COP 4.04 and the Ladder It Belongs To

KSN92V11VEZ3 is a printed model in the GMCC rotary compressor catalogue, not a reconstruction. Its own row gives 9.2 cm3/rev displacement, 2780 W and 9485 Btu/h of cooling capacity, 688 W input and a coefficient of performance of 4.04 on R 32 at single phase 50 Hz. It is one of three displacements sharing the identical VEZ3 build string.

Key facts at a glance

What does the KSN92V11VEZ3 designation decode to?

The catalogue carries a naming rule that fixes what each field means, and the string resolves against it without any element left unexplained except the build tail. The rule is printed as a worked example and a set of lookup tables rather than as prose, so the fastest way to read it is to lay the target string beside the example and match the fields position by position. Doing that produces seven resolved fields and one tail that the rule does not fix positionally.

The first three characters are not a brand prefix. The leading letter is a refrigerant code, the second marks the cylinder arrangement and the third selects the series within that arrangement. The rule prints the letter K against the refrigerant pair R 32 and R 410A, and the band header above this row prints R 32, so the refrigerant reading is confirmed twice. The letter S is printed against the single-cylinder configuration, which places the model in the single-cylinder group rather than the twin-cylinder group.

The two-digit field that follows the three letters carries displacement, and the rule states it as the swept volume in cm3/rev multiplied by ten. The field 92 therefore maps to 9.2 cm3/rev. That mapping does not rest on the rule alone, because the same row prints 9.2 in its own displacement column, which gives a second and independent confirmation of the same value from a different part of the page.

The letter immediately after the displacement field is a supply code. The rule lists V against the supply single phase, 50 Hz, 220/230/240 V, and the band header above the row reads single phase, 50 Hz, 220/240 V. Two printed statements therefore agree on the electrical class, and neither requires the reader to assume anything about the motor winding or the starting method, which the row does not describe.

The two digits that follow, 11, form a block that the rule prints between the supply field and the conditions field. Every one of the eight rows in this ladder carries the same block, which makes it a family constant rather than a discriminator between neighbouring displacements. Its presence is useful for a different reason: it confirms that the rows being compared belong to one design family, which is the precondition for reading any difference between them as a difference of size rather than of architecture.

The letter after that block is a conditions-of-use code, and the rule prints V against the low load type in the high efficiency group. This is the only qualitative claim the designation makes about the row, and it is consistent with what the numbers show, since the model returns 4.04 on 688 W of input. The final three characters, EZ3, are drawn from the structure-change, accumulator-caliber and minor-modification code families, but the rule does not print a positional template that would let each character be assigned to one family with certainty, so no per-character claim is made here.

What does the printed rating row say?

The row itself is compact, and reading it correctly depends on knowing which column is which. The catalogue prints the model, then displacement, then cooling capacity in watts, then cooling capacity in British thermal units per hour, then input power in watts, then the coefficient of performance. Applied to this model, the row reads 9.2, 2780, 9485, 688 and 4.04 in that order, with the model string first.

That ordering is verifiable from the numbers themselves rather than only from the header. Dividing 2780 by 688 gives 4.041, which rounds to the printed 4.04, so the fifth numeric field must be input power and the sixth must be the coefficient of performance. Multiplying 2780 by 3.412 gives 9485, so the fourth field is the same capacity expressed in British thermal units per hour. Both checks close on the printed figures without any external data, which matters because it means the row can be trusted as a set rather than field by field.

Four further fields follow the coefficient of performance on this row, printed as 25/400, 280, 8.1 and 9.8. Their column headers in the source catalogue are drawn as graphics and were not recoverable from a text extraction of the file, so this article does not name them and does not quote a noise figure, a weight or an oil charge for the model. That restraint is deliberate: a named field with a wrong label is worse than an unnamed field with an honest one.

The same four fields are still useful as a comparability marker, even unnamed. Two rows that print the same block are being quoted at the same set of conditions, so a comparison between them is legitimate, while two rows that print different blocks are not directly comparable without a correction this article cannot perform. The block therefore does real work in the analysis below, as a gate on which comparisons are permitted rather than as a source of specification values.

The same reading method, applied to another GMCC rotary model and worked through field by field, is set out on the KSK82D22UEZA31 page, which is the closest published example of the treatment this article gives to the 9.2 row. A reader who wants to test the method before applying it to a new designation should open a second worked decode rather than rely on the summary tables above, because the page shows the printed row and the field-by-field reading side by side.

Where does this model sit in the R32 single-phase band?

The row belongs to a band headed with the green refrigerant compressor label, refrigerant R 32, supply of single phase, 50 Hz, 220/240 V and the GX test condition. Inside that band the catalogue prints a column of KSN models that steps through displacement in small increments, and this model occupies the 9.2 position between an 8.9 row and a 9.8 row. Both neighbours carry the identical VEZ3 build string, so the three rows describe one build offered at three swept volumes.

Reading the ladder as a whole is more useful than reading the single row, because the neighbours show what the 9.2 step buys and what it costs. The eight rows span 4.0 to 9.8 cm3/rev, capacity from 1150 W to 3020 W, input power from 298 W to 722 W, and the coefficient of performance from 3.85 to 4.18. Capacity per unit of displacement also drifts upward across the ladder, from 287.5 W per cm3 at the smallest row to 308.2 W per cm3 at the largest.

Seven of the eight rows return a coefficient of performance that matches the printed figure to within six thousandths when capacity is divided by input power. The smallest row is the single exception, printing 3.85 against a computed 3.859, which is a rounding artefact of one hundredth rather than a data conflict. The 9.2 row is among the seven that close, at 4.041 against a printed 4.04.

How does COP 4.04 compare with the rows beside it?

The three rows that share the VEZ3 build string also share the identical four-field block after the coefficient of performance, printed on each of them as 25/400, 280, 8.1 and 9.8. Whatever those four fields encode, they encode the same thing on all three rows, which means the comparison between 8.9, 9.2 and 9.8 is like for like at the level of what the catalogue actually prints. That is the condition under which a step comparison is legitimate, and it is met here.

Between 8.9 and 9.2 the sweep volume rises by 0.3 cm3/rev, or 3.37 per cent, capacity rises by 105 W, or 3.93 per cent, and input power rises by 33 W, or 5.04 per cent. Because input power climbs faster than capacity, the coefficient of performance falls by 0.04, from 4.08 to 4.04, a drop of 0.98 per cent. The 9.2 row therefore buys its extra capacity at a small efficiency cost relative to the row below it.

The step above behaves in the opposite way. From 9.2 to 9.8 the sweep volume rises by 0.6 cm3/rev, or 6.52 per cent, capacity rises by 240 W, or 8.63 per cent, and input power rises by only 34 W, or 4.94 per cent. Capacity now grows faster than input, so the coefficient of performance rises by 0.14, from 4.04 to 4.18, an improvement of 3.47 per cent. The two steps together mean the ladder is not monotonic in efficiency: 9.2 sits at a local minimum between a 4.08 row below and a 4.18 row above.

That shape is the most useful single fact in this article for a buyer, because it removes an intuitive but wrong assumption. It would be natural to expect the middle displacement to sit mid-way between its neighbours on efficiency as well as on capacity. It does not. The 9.2 row carries 105 W more capacity than the 8.9 row while running 0.04 lower on coefficient of performance, and it carries 240 W less capacity than the 9.8 row while running 0.14 lower. On the printed figures, the 9.8 row is stronger on both counts within the same build string.

Why are there two different 9.2 cm3/rev rows?

The catalogue prints a second row at the same 9.2 cm3/rev displacement, under a KSM prefix rather than a KSN prefix, and the two rows are not the same compressor. The second row, KSM93V05VDZE3, gives 2775 W and 9468 Btu/h of cooling capacity, 698 W of input power and a coefficient of performance of 3.98. Set against this model, capacity is 5 W lower, input power is 10 W higher and the coefficient of performance is 0.06 lower.

The capacity figures are within 5 W of each other, which is 0.18 per cent, and yet the printed field blocks differ in all four positions. A displacement value on its own therefore cannot identify a compressor in this catalogue. Two rows can share a swept volume to one decimal place and still differ in build, in efficiency and in every entry of the trailing block, and the difference shows up in the input power rather than in the capacity.

The practical consequence is a naming rule for purchase requests rather than a technical one. A buyer who asks for a 9.2 cm3/rev GMCC rotary compressor has not specified a product, because at least two printed rows answer to that description with different ratings. The full string has to travel with the request, together with the capacity and the coefficient of performance that the system was designed around, so that the supplier can confirm the exact row rather than the nearest one by displacement.

How does the KSM ladder compare at the same displacement?

A second ladder sits in the same band under the SM column, and it reaches the same 9.2 cm3/rev point with a different progression. Its three rows step from 8.5 to 8.9 to 9.2 cm3/rev, and the third of them is the KSM93V05VDZE3 row compared above. Reading the three together shows how a family behaves when its rows are closer together than the KSN ladder's rows are, and it gives a second independent test of whether the efficiency dip at 9.2 is a property of the displacement or of the build.

The KSM ladder falls from 4.02 to 3.98 across the top step while the KSN ladder falls from 4.08 to 4.04 across its 8.9 to 9.2 step. Both ladders therefore lose efficiency at the same displacement point, by 0.04 and 0.04 respectively, which suggests the dip belongs to the displacement rather than to one build. The two 9.2 rows also land within 0.2 per cent of each other on capacity density, at 302.2 and 301.6 W per cm3, while differing by 0.06 on coefficient of performance.

That convergence is the strongest evidence available from the printed pages that the 9.2 position is a genuine step in this catalogue rather than an artefact of how one column was laid out. Two independent families, with different prefixes, different capacities and different trailing blocks, arrive at the same displacement with the same small efficiency penalty against the row below. A reader who doubted the single KSN row on grounds of provenance has a second, structurally independent row that behaves the same way.

What applications does a 2780 W single-phase R32 compressor fit?

The rating places the model in the small air-conditioning class. A capacity of 2780 W is 9485 Btu/h, and one nominal refrigeration ton is 12,000 Btu/h, so the row sits at 0.79 of a ton. Equipment built around it therefore lands in the 9,000 to 9,500 Btu/h bracket, which is the lower end of the residential split range and the smallest end of light-commercial single-phase work, a segment that falls inside the growth in global cooling demand described by the International Energy Agency's Future of Cooling report.

Two printed attributes narrow the fit further. The band header specifies R 32 as the refrigerant, which is a single-component refrigerant with a low global warming potential relative to the R 410A it largely replaced in new residential equipment. The supply is single phase at 50 Hz and 220 to 240 V, so the model suits markets and installations wired for that supply rather than for three-phase or for 60 Hz networks.

Within those limits the duty is air conditioning. The band is headed green refrigerant compressor and the naming rule treats the application field as air conditioning where no other application letter is printed, so the row is a comfort cooling component. It is not a refrigeration or freezing compressor: the catalogue prints those duties as separate application codes on separate rows, and nothing on this row claims a freezing evaporating temperature.

Three specification points should travel with any enquiry. The first is the exact model string, because a displacement-only request is ambiguous as shown above. The second is the capacity at the GX test condition, because capacity figures are only comparable at the same conditions. The third is the supply, because the same nominal displacement is printed under other supply codes for other markets, and those rows are different products rather than regional labels on one product.

What selection advantages does the 9.2 step carry?

Its first advantage is granularity. The ladder steps by 3.37 per cent in displacement from 8.9 to 9.2 and by 6.52 per cent from 9.2 to 9.8, so a system whose load calculation lands between the two larger rows has a printed option rather than a forced jump. Where the calculated requirement is 2.78 kW, this row meets it without the 240 W of overshoot that the 9.8 row would carry, and overshoot is paid for in condenser size, refrigerant charge and cycling behaviour.

Its second advantage is build continuity. The 8.9, 9.2 and 9.8 rows share the identical VEZ3 tail and the identical four-field block, so the three displacements describe one build at three sizes. A platform designed around one of them can move to another with the mounting, the piping envelope and the charge strategy left in place, and only the capacity and the electrical figures change across the step.

Its third advantage is capacity density. At 302.2 W per cm3/rev the row extracts more cooling per unit of swept volume than the 8.9 row at 300.6, and it does so on 688 W of input. Measured against the 8.9 row it converts 3.37 per cent more displacement into 3.93 per cent more capacity, which is the kind of ratio that matters when the envelope for the compressor shell is fixed by an existing chassis.

Selection across the whole rotary range, including the twin-cylinder and three-phase families that this row does not cover, is set out on the rotary compressor selection page, which is the right starting point when a load calculation does not resolve to a single-phase air-conditioning duty. The table below summarises only what this row answers; anything outside those five questions belongs to the wider range rather than to this designation.

The fourth advantage is documentary rather than mechanical. Because the row is printed in the manufacturer's own catalogue with a complete set of related figures, a buyer can quote it without inventing a specification, and can state the source of every number in a tender document. That is worth more than it sounds in export work, where a capacity claim that cannot be traced to a printed line is the first thing a technical reviewer removes from a quotation.

What the row does not tell you

Four limits deserve to be stated plainly, because each one changes what a buyer can conclude. The first is that the four fields printed after the coefficient of performance are not named in the text extraction, so this article quotes no sound level, no weight, no oil charge and no vibration figure for the model. Those values exist in the source document as graphics, and a buyer should obtain them from a supplier datasheet rather than from an unnamed column.

The second is that the row is attested in one edition only. Full-text searches of the official 2024 extraction, the Famco edition, the Totaline edition and a distributor catalogue mirror return the string once in the official file and zero times in the other three. The entire VEZ3 ladder behaves the same way, with the 8.9 and 9.8 rows also absent from the other editions, so this is a property of the edition rather than a defect of this model.

The third is that the GX test condition is named but not numerically defined beside the row. The catalogue prints the label and does not print the evaporating and condensing temperatures next to it in the extracted text, so a capacity quoted at GX cannot be compared with a capacity quoted at another condition without the underlying rating sheet. Any comparison with a competitor's figure has to begin by establishing that both numbers rest on the same conditions.

The fourth is that the model has no page on the supplier site examined for this article. The site sitemap lists 6,108 URLs and none of them carries the string, and a direct probe of the obvious product URL returns a 404. Availability therefore has to be confirmed against the manufacturer or a distributor rather than assumed from a web listing, and the adjacent displacements that are published on that site are a separate question from this row.

What the supplier site does publish is a set of adjacent designations, each on its own page, and those pages are useful for comparing shell families even though none of them is the row described here. The seven below were all requested during preparation and all answered with a 200 response. The displacement column records the digits carried in the designation itself, decoded by the same rule applied above, and not a rating taken from the page.

Which standards and rules apply to a single-phase R32 compressor?

A capacity figure carries meaning only inside a rating standard, and the standard that governs this class is EN 12900, the European standard for rating positive displacement refrigerant compressors. It fixes the reference conditions under which a capacity is declared, which is exactly what the GX label on this row does not do on its own. A buyer comparing 2780 W against a competitor's number should first establish that both numbers were produced under the same standard and the same condition set.

Inside the European Union the refrigerant side of the question is governed separately by Regulation (EU) 2024/573, which sets charge limits, leakage checks and certification duties for equipment containing fluorinated refrigerants. R 32 falls inside that framework, so the refrigerant choice on this row is not only a performance decision but also a compliance one, and the rules attach to the installed system rather than to the compressor alone.

The testing and rating standards themselves are maintained by the ISO committee responsible for testing and rating of refrigerant compressors, which is the body to consult when a quotation cites a standard that the buyer does not recognise. Reading the committee scope is usually enough to tell whether a cited standard covers compressors, systems or refrigerants, and that distinction decides which party owes the declaration.

Finally, the manufacturer's product site is the reference for whether a designation is current. It publishes the range rather than the individual rating rows, so it answers the availability question and not the capacity question. A buyer who needs both should use the site to confirm that the family exists and then ask the supplier for the row, which is the sequence this article follows.

How was this article checked?

Four primary sources were searched for the exact string before anything was written: the official 2024 catalogue as a table-mode extraction of 1,523 lines, the Famco edition at 1,384 lines, the Totaline edition at 1,351 lines and a distributor mirror at 1,457 lines. The string appears once, in the official file, and the article states that provenance rather than implying agreement across editions that does not exist.

The row was then tested arithmetically rather than read at face value. Capacity divided by input power reproduces the printed coefficient of performance to three decimal places, and capacity multiplied by 3.412 reproduces the printed British thermal unit figure exactly. Those two checks do not prove the test conditions, but they do prove that the numbers on the row belong together, which is what a reader needs before quoting any of them.

Finally, the supplier side was probed directly. The sitemap was parsed for the model string and for its neighbours, returning no published URL, and the plausible product address was requested and returned a 404 rather than a page. Every supplier page cited in this article was requested during preparation and answered with a 200 response, so no link rests on an assumption about what the site contains.

The EAPN150D33UFZ3 model page was read in the same pass, and it carries displacement, cooling capacity and coefficient of performance fields for its own designation, which makes it the closest on-site template for the datum a buyer should ask a distributor to return. Its presence also shows that the site does publish specification blocks for individual designations, which is why the absence of one for this row is worth reporting rather than glossing over.

Frequently asked questions

Is KSN92V11VEZ3 the same build as KSN89V11VEZ3?

Yes. Both rows carry the identical VEZ3 build string and the identical four-field block after the coefficient of performance, and they differ in displacement and in the ratings that follow from it. The 8.9 row gives 2675 W, 9127 Btu/h, 655 W and 4.08, while the 9.2 row gives 2780 W, 9485 Btu/h, 688 W and 4.04. The step adds 105 W of capacity for 33 W of extra input.

Should a buyer take the 9.8 row instead?

Only if the system needs 3020 W. On the printed figures the 9.8 row is stronger on both capacity and coefficient of performance, at 3020 W and 4.18 against 2780 W and 4.04, so it is the better row where the extra capacity is usable. The 9.2 row exists for the system whose load lands at 2.78 kW, where the 9.8 row would overshoot by 240 W.

Is the model printed in more than one catalogue edition?

No. The string appears once in the official 2024 extraction and zero times in the Famco edition, the Totaline edition and the distributor mirror. Its arithmetic still closes on the printed figures, with 2780 divided by 688 returning 4.041 against a printed 4.04, so single-edition attestation is a provenance note rather than a data integrity problem.

What refrigerant and supply does the row specify?

R 32, single phase, 50 Hz, 220/240 V, at the GX test condition. All four are printed in the band header above the row rather than on the row itself, and the supply is independently confirmed by the designation letter V, which the naming rule maps to single phase 50 Hz 220/230/240 V.

How should a purchase request for this model be written?

Name the full string KSN92V11VEZ3, then the capacity of 2780 W at the GX condition, the input of 688 W, the coefficient of performance of 4.04, the refrigerant R 32 and the supply of single phase 50 Hz 220/240 V. Ask the supplier for a rating sheet that prints the full string and states the evaporating and condensing temperatures behind the GX label.

Where can the family be compared with the models around it?

The GMCC rotary compressor category page groups the published designations by family and is the fastest way to see what sits above and below the 9.2 position without reading the catalogue one row at a time. It covers the family rather than a single rating row, so it answers the comparison question and not the specification question. For background on how these catalogue tables are read, including the reason a build string has to travel with a request, the news and technical index collects the longer notes behind the method used here.

What if the load does not resolve to a single-phase air-conditioning duty?

Then the choice leaves this band, because this row fixes the refrigerant, the supply and the application at once. The wider rotary selection guide covers the twin-cylinder and three-phase families alongside this one, and it is the correct next stop rather than a larger displacement inside the same column.

Does the row above the 9.2 position differ only in displacement?

No. It differs in displacement and in the three figures that follow from it, but it shares the build string and the trailing field block, which is what makes the step comparable at all. The 8.9 row gives 2675 W against 2780 W, 655 W of input against 688 W, and 4.08 against 4.04, so the difference is a genuine step in size rather than a change of architecture.

Sources