Silktech EcoAuro (1.0)
and
EcoAuro 2.0is Illegal
and Non-Compliant
Ephoca’s $1,000,000 Challenge
How Silktech is Cheating
EcoAuro (1.0)
EcoAuro 2.0
Additionally, as published on the California Energy Commission MAEDBS website, note the changes in capacity for EcoAuro 1.0: from 8,000 BTU in cooling to 8,831 BTU, and from 8,000 BTU in heating to 8,800 BTU.
View Full Specifications:
Failure to Meet DOE Minimum Efficiency Requirements
Silktech EcoAuro (1.0) has a published rated capacity of 8,000 BTU in its brochure (note, however, the rated capacity Silktech publishes on the California Energy Commission Site is 10.4% higher at 8,831 BTU), and EcoAuro 2.0 has a rated capacity of 12,030 BTU.
Under federal law (10 C.F.R. Part 430 + AHRI 210/240), any 8,800 BTU heat pump in this class must meet:
13.4 SEER2 minimum to be legally sold, installed, or used in the United States.
Neither the Silktech EcoAuro (1.0) nor the EcoAuro 2.0 publishes a SEER2 value in their documentation because the unit cannot meet the required 13.4 SEER2 when tested in a certified lab.
Silktech, however, did upload fraudulent data to the California Energy Commission Site on Sept 16th and 17th to appear compliant in California. On the MAEDBS website, they claim that both units meet the minimum SEER2 and HSPF2 requirements of 13.4 and 6.7, respectively.
When a company uploads data to the MAEDS website, it must select the laboratory from which the data originates and certify that it is accurate. The data uploaded by Silktech is false; no lab can achieve these claimed numbers.
This alone renders the units illegal.
Illegal Rating
Silktech uses the wrong rating metric in their published documentation, EER instead of SEER2, COP2 instead of HSPF2.
Silktech only publishes an EER for cooling and a COP for heating.
Neither EER nor COP is a legal rating for this product category. For a heat pump, federal law requires:
- SEER2 and HSPF2
- Rated under AHRI 210/240
This alone renders the units illegal.
Illegal Misclassification
By using an EER instead of SEER2, Silktech is classifying EcoAuro (1.0) and EcoAuro 2.0 as PTHP, but EcoAuro (1.0) and EcoAuro 2.0 do not meet the PTHP definition under 10 C.F.R. § 430.2:
A lawful PTHP must have:
- A wall sleeve
- A separate unencased chassis
- Through-the-wall mounting
The Silktech EcoAuro (1.0) and EcoAuro 2.0 units lack these traits.
Misclassifying the EcoAuro (1.0) and EcoAuro 2.0 as PTHP by using EER is a direct violation of DOE rules and is illegal.
Even Though It Is Illegally Classified as PTHP, It Fails the PTHP Efficiency.
Federal minimum PTHP EER for EcoAuro (1.0) with 8,000 BTU is:
- 11.6 EER2 (10 C.F.R. Part 431, Table 7)
- Silktech claims: 10.9 EER
So even if the PTHP label were legal (it is not), the unit still fails DOE minimum standards and is illegal.
Silktech itself acknowledges that this is a Single single-package heat Pump, not a PHTP, when it lists it on the MAEDBS website. Yet, in their official documents, they are still illegally classified as PTHP, and they fail the PTHP Efficiency.
Miscalculated Performance Numbers
Silktech misrepresents even the fabricated numbers it publishes for Silktech EcoAuro (1.0) and EcoAuro 2.0 in both heating and cooling.
In Cooling
For the EcoAuro (1.0) model:
- Cooling Capacity: 8,000 BTU
- Power Input: 750 W
-
Using their own watt input:
8,000 ÷ 750 = EER 10.67
Yet, Silktech publishes 10.91 EER.
For the EcoAuro 2.0 model:
- Cooling Capacity: 12,030 BTU
- Power Input: 1,100 W
-
Using their own watt input:
12,030 ÷ 1,100 = EER 10.94
Yet, Silktech publishes 11.6 EER.
Fraudulently lists the cooling capacity at 8,000 BTU with 10.91 EER. When calculating the numbers, the EER of 10.67 is illegal. Can’t these cheaters do simple math??!!
In Heating
For the EcoAuro (1.0) model
- Heating Capacity: 8,000 BTU
- Power Input: 700 W
-
Using their own watt input:
8,000 ÷ 3.412 (BTU to W) ÷ 700 = 3.35 COP
Yet, Silktech fraudulently publishes 3.4 COP.
For the EcoAuro 2.0 model
- Heating Capacity: 11,970 BTU
- Power Input: 1,010 W
-
Using their own watt input:
11,970 ÷ 3.412 (BTU to W) ÷ 1,010 = 3.47 COP
Yet, Siktech fraudulently publishes 3.66 COP.
None of the numbers they publish is consistent with their own data.
Fraudulent and Fake Numbers
The 8,000 BTU capacity they claim in printed brochures and technical documents, along with the 10.91 EER rating for the EcoAuro (1.0) model, is fake and fraudulent. When tested in a lab, this unit will not produce 8,000 BTU and a 10.91 EER. So, even ignoring the misclassification and wrong ratings, the actual numbers they claim are fake.
Somehow, this claimed 8,000 BTU in cooling grows to 8,831 BTU when Silktech fraudulently publishes the data to the MAEDBS website. In heating, Silktech pulls the same fraud, increasing the capacity from 8,000 to 8,800 BTU. Both numbers are fabricated.
Here’s where it gets interesting. The manufacturer, Zymbo (China), lists very different numbers than Silktech’s brochure for the same unit.
Zymbo claims the same unit, called Clima Puro, has a higher capacity of 8,831 BTU and a different efficiency of 10.6 EER. What’s even more fascinating is that Zymbo’s own internal calculations are inconsistent.
Here’s what Zymbo publishes:
- Cooling Capacity: 8,831 BTU
- Power Input: 750 W
Using their own watt input:
- 8,831 ÷ 750 = EER 11.77
Yet, Zymbo, the manufacturer, publishes 10.6 EER.
- Heating Capacity: 8,800 BTU
- Power Input: 700 W
Using their own watt input:
- 8,800 ÷ 3.412 (BTU to W) ÷ 700 = 3.68 COP
Yet, Zymbo, the manufacturer, publishes 3.35 COP.
Zymbo is manipulating the numbers. The numbers they initially published were too good to be true, so they simply “dumbed down” the efficiency and presented lower efficiency values.
When Silktech published its own figures, it used the real (but still fake) numbers that Zymbo publishes when uploading data to the MAEDBS website, then set the minimum SEER2 to 13.4 to make the data appear compliant.
For the EcoAuro2, the claimed 12,030 BTU capacity and 11.6 EER rating are false. When tested in a lab, this unit will not produce 12,030 BTU and an EER of 11.6. So, even ignoring the misclassifications and incorrect ratings, the actual numbers they claim are fake and inconsistent with expected test results.
Summary of Violations
Siktech EcoAuro (1.0) and/or EcoAuro 2.0:
- Publish fabricated numbers in cooling
- Publish fabricated numbers in heating
- Use illegal rating metrics
- Violate DOE product classification rules
- Fail PTHP minimum efficiency requirements
- Fail SEER2 minimums
- Fail HSPF2 minimums
- Contradict basic mathematics
- Contradict AHRI 210/240
- Contradict ASHRAE 37
- Contradict DOE labeling requirements
- Violate the FTC Act prohibiting deceptive efficiency claims
Siktech EcoAuro (1.0) and EcoAuro 2.0: cannot legally be sold, installed, or used in the United States, and we back that statement with a $1,000,000 Guarantee.
Illegal to Distribute, Install, and Use
Siktech EcoAuro (1.0) and/or EcoAuro 2.0 are illegal to distribute, specify, install, or use because they do not meet the DOE heat pump energy efficiency requirements. To meet the DOE requirements, the EcoAuro (1.0) would need to have an SEER2 rating of at least 13.4 at 8,831 BTU and an HSPF2 rating of at least 6.7 at 8,800 BTU, and the EcoAuro 2.0 would need to have an SEER2 rating of at least 13.4 at 12,030 BTU and an HSPF2 rating of at least 6.7 at 11,970 BTU. These ratings cannot be made up; they must be tested in a genuine lab.
How Everyone Gets Hurt
Sellers
A salesperson promoting units with falsified or illegal performance data risks personal and professional consequences. Clients who suffer damages may hold the salesperson responsible for misrepresentation or fraud. Employers may terminate or refuse to defend sales staff who recommend illegal equipment. Commission chargebacks, civil claims, and reputational harm are all realistic outcomes. Only by selling certified, verifiable units can salespeople protect themselves from future liability.
Selling a non-compliant HVAC product is a direct violation of EPCA and DOE regulations. Sellers are exposed to:
Federal Civil Penalties
DOE may issue daily fines for every unit distributed in commerce. Penalties accumulate and can reach six-figure outcomes per model.
Product Seizure and Forced Recall
DOE can seize inventory, block further distribution, and mandate the recall or destruction of illegal equipment.
FTC Enforcement
Publishing fabricated ratings constitutes deceptive trade practices under the FTC Act §5. This exposes the seller to federal enforcement, mandatory corrective advertising, and civil penalties.
Breach of Contract and Indemnification Claims
Developers, contractors, and property owners can sue the seller for damages if the installed equipment fails inspection, fails commissioning, or causes code violations.
Class-Action Exposure
Tenants, condominium associations, and homeowner groups can sue for misrepresentation, damages, energy cost inflation, or unsafe equipment.
Loss of Manufacturer and Distributor Licenses
OEM partnerships and distribution channels can be terminated for selling illegal equipment.
Selling these units is legally and financially dangerous.
Distributors
Distributors can face federal enforcement for placing illegal equipment into commerce. If the DOE initiates an investigation, distributors can be fined per unit, may be required to recall inventory, or held responsible for downstream damages caused to installers, owners, and residents. Claims from contractors and engineers who relied on distributor representations can also arise. Stocking and selling non-certified equipment exposes the distributor to major financial loss and long-term harm to industry relationships.
Installers
Installing and selling non-compliant units places you on the hook and can cost you the expense of having to rip out these units and refund buyers.
Installing non-compliant equipment exposes the installer to direct professional and legal risk.
Violation of State and Local Mechanical Codes
Most jurisdictions require installed equipment to be listed, certified, and compliant with DOE minimums. Installing unlisted units violates the code.
Loss of Contractor License
State boards can suspend or revoke licenses for installing non-certified or illegally rated equipment.
Civil Liability for Damage
If the unit fails, performs below spec, overdrafts electrical circuits, leaks refrigerant, or causes mold or structural damage, the installer can be sued.
Professional Negligence Claims
Installing non-certified equipment is a breach of standard practice.
Insurance Denial
Work performed with illegal equipment can void contractor liability insurance coverage. Installers who choose these units are assuming direct legal and financial responsibility.
Engineers
Engineers who approve or specify units using falsified efficiency data face serious professional liability. Stamping plans that rely on illegal or noncompliant equipment can be grounds for claims of negligence, breach of duty, or malpractice. Projects may need redesigns or retrofitting at the engineer’s expense. Insurance carriers may deny coverage if the engineer failed to verify compliance. In extreme cases, specifying illegal equipment can jeopardize licensure and professional standing.
Engineers face a high risk of exposure if they specify or approve illegal equipment.
Professional Malpractice Exposure
Specifying equipment that is not SEER2 compliant, fails classification requirements, or is absent from AHRI/CCMS databases is a breach of engineering duty.
Loss of PE License
Stamping drawings with illegal, misclassified equipment creates direct disciplinary risk.
Design Liability
If the equipment fails to meet code, fails load calculations, causes tenant complaints, or drives excessive energy use, the engineer is liable for damages.
Insurance Exposure
Errors & Omissions insurers reject claims involving knowingly illegal equipment. Any engineer who signs off on these units is accepting personal liability.
Building Owners
Installing non-compliant units exposes you to tenant litigation. It also means the units many not be powerful enough in the summer, so residents will complain. In winter it will use more of the electric heat as the heat pump numbers are fake, inflating your residents' bills. You may also need to rip out and replace such units with code complaint ones.
Owning a building with illegal HVAC equipment exposes the owner to substantial financial and legal risks.
Code Violations and Failed Inspections
Buildings containing non-certified equipment can fail DOB/DBI/Local Authority inspections.
Forced Removal and Replacement
Authorities can mandate the removal of every installed unit, at the owner’s expense.
Insurance Cancellation or Claim Denial
If the equipment is not legal or not DOE-compliant, insurers may deny coverage or void property insurance policies.
Reduced Property Value
Buildings with illegal equipment face valuation reductions, impaired financing, and lender objections.
Tenant Lawsuits and Warranty Claims
Tenants can sue for non-performance, high heating/cooling costs.
Fines and Enforcement Actions
Owners can be fined for every illegal unit installed or operated within the building. Owning or operating these units exposes the property to material legal and financial damage.
End-Users
The units do not meet the minimum energy requirement set forth by the DOE. In plain English, this means the units use more power than is legally permitted, costing you more money every single hour!
Even the resident or end-user is exposed to risk when using non-compliant equipment.
High Energy Bills and Poor Performance
Because the published performance data is fake, real-world operation costs are substantially higher than the claimed ratings.
End-users bear financial and safety risks from equipment that cannot be trusted.
The Million Dollar Challenge
Ephoca guarantees that the performance numbers published by “Silktech” are fake.
Ephoca will pay $1,000,000 to any manufacturer, distributor, engineer, or entity that can produce a certified, independent laboratory test report corroborating the claimed capacity and efficiency when tested in accordance with DOE regulations.