This Proxy Statement is furnished to shareholders of The Gorman-Rupp Company in connection with the solicitation by the Board of Directors of the Company of proxies for use at the Annual Meeting of the Shareholders to be held at the Company’s Corporate Headquarters, 600 South Airport Road, Mansfield, Ohio, at 10:00 a.m., Eastern Daylight Time, on Thursday, April 28, 2011.25, 2013. Holders of Common Shares of record at the close of business on March 9, 20118, 2013 are the only shareholders entitled to notice of and to vote at the Meeting.

A shareholder, without affecting any vote previously taken, may revoke histheir proxy by the execution and delivery to the Company of a later dated proxy with respect to the same shares, or by giving notice of revocation to the Company in writing or in open meeting.at the Meeting. The presence at the Meeting of the person appointing a proxy does not in and of itself revoke the appointment.

As of March 9, 2011,8, 2013, the record date for the determination of persons entitled to vote at the Meeting, there were 16,788,53520,996,893 Common Shares outstanding. Each Common Share is entitled to one vote.

The mailing address of the principal executive offices of the Company is 600 South Airport Road,PO Box 1217, Mansfield, Ohio 44903.44901-1217. This Proxy Statement and accompanying proxy are being mailed to shareholders on or about March 24, 2011.

A quorum will be present at the Meeting if there is present, in person or by proxy, shareholders of record entitled to exercise at least 50% of the voting power of the Company with respect to at least one of the purposes for which the Meeting was called.

With respect to the election of Directors (Proposal No. 1), the eight nominees receiving the greatest number of votes will be elected. Abstentions and broker non-votes will not be voted for or withheld from the election of directors and thus will have no effect on the election of directors.

If notice in writing is given by any shareholder to the President, a Vice President or the Secretary of the Company, not less than 48 hours before the time fixed for the holding of the Meeting, that such shareholder desires that the voting for the election of Directors be cumulative, and if announcement of the giving of such notice is made upon the convening of the Meeting by the Chairman or Secretary or by or on behalf of the shareholder giving such notice, each shareholder shall have the right to cumulate such voting power as he possessesthey possess at such election. Under cumulative voting, a shareholder controls voting power equal to the number of votes which hethey otherwise would have been entitled to cast multiplied by the number of Directors to be elected. All of such votes may be cast for a single nominee or may be distributed among any two or more nominees as hethey may desire. If cumulative voting is invoked, and unless contrary instructions are given by a shareholder who signs a proxy, all votes represented by such proxy will be divided evenly among the candidates nominated by the Board of Directors, except that if sosuch voting should for any reason not be effective to elect all of the nominees named in this Proxy Statement, then such votes will be cast so as to maximize the number of the Board of Directors’ nominees elected to the Board.

All Directors will be elected to hold office until the next Annual Meeting of Shareholders and until their successors are elected and qualified. Proxies received will be voted in the manner directed therein. If no such direction is provided, proxies received are intended to be voted in favor of fixing the number of Directors at eight and for the election of the nominees named below. Each of the nominees is presently a Director of the Company. Mr. Jeffrey S. Gorman is the son of Mr. James C. Gorman, and Mr. Christopher H. Lake is the son of Dr. Peter B. Lake.

In the event that any of the nominees should become unavailable, which the Board of Directors does not anticipate, proxies are intended to be voted in favor of fixing the number of Directors at a lesser number or for a substitute nominee or nominees designated by the Board of Directors, in the discretion of the persons appointed as proxy holders. TheIf cumulative voting in the election of directors is invoked, the proxies may be voted cumulatively for less than the entire number of nominees if any situation arises which, in the opinion of the proxy holders, makes such action necessary or desirable.

The nominees for Director are as follows:

James C. Gormanis Chairman of the Board and son of J.C. Gorman, co-founder of the Company. Mr. Gorman has been Chairman of the Board since 1989 and served as the Company’s President from 1964 until 1989, and as Chief Executive Officer from 1964 until 1996. Mr. Gorman also served on the Board of Directors of United Telephone Company of Ohio for 20 years and was Treasurer of a multi-million dollar internationalnot-for-profit entity for 35 years. Mr. Gorman, age 86,88, has served as a Director of the Company since 1946.

Mr. Gorman was instrumental in the Company’s development and growth for more than 30 years as President and Chief Executive Officer and 11 years in sales, and therefore is highly knowledgeable about the pump industry and the Company’s products, customers and competitors.

Jeffrey S. Gormanis President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company. He was elected to these offices on May 1, 1998, after having served as Senior Vice President since 1996. He also served as General Manager of the Mansfield Division from 1989 through 2005 after service as Assistant General Manager from 1986 to 1988. Additionally, he held the office of Corporate Secretary from 1982 to 1990. Mr. Gorman is a member of the Board of Directors of Mechanics Savings Bank, Mansfield, Ohio and isformer Chairman of the Ohio Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Gorman, age 58,60, has served as a Director of the Company since 1989.

Mr. Gorman has been instrumental in continuing the Company’s development and growth for more than 30 years, especially with respect to its international growth. He also is highly knowledgeable about all significant aspects of the pump industry and the Company’s products, customers and competitors.

Ms. Harlan has more than 12 years of experience as senior legal counsel at Smucker, which has significant family ownership and family senior management generally comparable to the ownership structure of the Company. She has extensive mergers and acquisition experience with Smucker and 15 years prior related experience with a major law firm. She also has broad experience with compensation and equity compensation plan development and administration.

Thomas E. Hoaglinis the retired Chief Executive Officer and Director of Huntington Bancshares, a publicly-traded financial institution. Mr. Hoaglin is currently a Director of American Electric Power Company, Inc. (NYSE), where he is the ChairmanLead Independent Director, Chair of the Committee on Directors and Corporate Governance Committee and also serves on the Human Resources (Compensation) Committee. In addition, Mr. Hoaglin is a Director of The Jeffrey Company and serves as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Denison University. Mr. Hoaglin, age 61,63, has served as a Director of the Company since 1993 and had previously served as a Director from 1986 to 1989.

Mr. Hoaglin qualifies as a financial expert for service as Chair of the Audit Committee. He has extensive major-corporation executive management experience and extensive board of directors’ experience in governance and executive compensation matters of publicly-held companies.

Christopher H. Lakeishas been President and Chief Operating Officer of SRI Quality System Registrar, an international third party ISO registrar and certification audit firm, since December 2005, after having served as Vice President from July to December 2005. The firm has operations in the United States, Asia and the European Union. Mr. Lake served as President of Dean & Lake Consulting, Inc,Inc., a regional consulting group that focused on operations and product development from 2001 to July 2005. Previously, Mr. Lake was Principal and Industry Executive for aFortune 500global consulting company. Mr. Lake, age 46,48, has served as a Director of the Company since 2000.

Mr. Lake has major corporate service and operations experience with large service, banking and telecommunications clients. He also has majorextensive experience providing information technology services to large domestic and international companies.

Dr. Peter B. Lakeis Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and founder of SRI Quality System Registrar (SRI), an international third party ISO registrar and certification audit firm. He has been an officer of the company since its inception in 1991, serving as President through 2005. SRI is one of the top five U.S. owned and operated ISO registrars and an industry leader serving metals, processing and manufacturing companies worldwide. The firm has operations in Asia and the European Union.

Before founding SRI, Dr. Lake spent his early career in the steel industry with Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company and National Steel Corporation holding a variety of management positions, including Director — R&D and Corporate Quality Manager, before founding SRI.Manager. He has a Ph.D. degree in Metallurgical Engineering and has international quality management systems experience. His financial experience and analytical expertise also are applicable to benefits plan investment management.

3

Rick R. Taylorishas been President of Jay Industries, Inc., a Tier 1 automotive parts manufacturer.manufacturer, since 1985. Jay Industries also is a Tier 2 parts manufacturer for several other industrial companies. In addition, Mr. Taylor is President of Longview Steel Corporation, a steel wholesaler. Mr. Taylor has been a Director of Park National Corporation, a NYSE publicly traded regional bank holding company, since 1995;1995, where he serves on the Investment Committee. Mr. Taylor, age 63,65, has served as a Director of the Company since 2003.

Mr. Taylor’s major company manufacturing experience spans 40 years. He has extensive international supply chain experience, and board of directors’ experience, including investment management.

W. Wayne Walstonhas been a partneris Senior Counsel in the Warsaw, Indiana office of Beers Mallers Backs & Salin, LLP (attorneys) since January 2013, after having served as Partner since November 2008. Prior to that, Mr. Walston was a partner in Miner Lemon & Walston, LLP from January 2007, and owner of the Walston Elder Law Office from July 2003 through December 2006. Mr. Walston previously was an officer of Sprint Corporation for 14 years as Legal and External Affairs officer; he also served as Secretary to the Board of Directors of five separate state operating entities. Mr. Walston, age 68,70, has served as a Director of the Company since 1999.

Mr. Walston has extensive experience with labor and employment relations, antitrust compliance, Securities and Exchange CommissionSEC compliance, state regulatory compliance for public utilities, legislative and regulatory advocacy, real estate contracts and transactions, corporate communications and corporate litigation. He also has extensive major publicly-held company board of directors’ experience, including corporate governance.

Involvement by Mr. Hoaglin in Certain Legal Proceedings —On June 2, 2005, Huntington Bancshares, Inc. (“Huntington”) announced that the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”)SEC approved the settlement of the Commission’sSEC’s previously announced formal investigation into certain financial accounting matters relating to Huntington’s fiscal years 2002 and earlier and certain related disclosure matters. As a part of the settlement, the CommissionSEC instituted a cease and desist administrative proceeding and entered a cease and desist order, as well as filed a civil action in federal

The Company requires that a majority of its Directors must be “independent” as required by the listing standards of the NYSE AmexMKT Exchange and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)SEC rules, or by other regulatory or legislative bodies as may be established.applicable to the Company. The Board, on an annual basis, makes a determination as to the independence of each Director in accordance with these prescribed rules or regulations. In general, “independent” means that a Director has no material relationship“material relationship” with the Company or any of its subsidiaries. The existence of a “material”material relationship must be determined upon a review of all relevant facts and circumstances, and generally is a relationship that might reasonably be expected to compromise the Director’s ability to maintain his or her independence from management.

Based on itsan annual review by the Board of DirectorsGovernance and Nominating Committee, the Committee affirmatively determined, after considering all relevant facts and circumstances known to it, that no Non-Employee Director

4

has a material relationship with the Company and that all Non-Employee Directors meet the independence standards of the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines as well as the independence standards of the current NYSE AmexMKT Exchange and SEC corporate governance requirements for listed companies.

During 2010,2012, a total of five regularly scheduled meetings of the Board of Directors (at least one each quarter), twothree special meetings of the Board of Directors, and a total of 2019 meetings of all standing Directors’ Committees were held. All Directors attended at least 75% of the aggregate of the total number of meetings held by the Board of Directors and of the total number of meetings held by the respective committees on which they served. In 2010,2012, the “independent” Directors met at four of the fiveevery regularly scheduled meetingsmeeting of the Board of Directors in executive session without the presence of the non-independent Directors and any members of the Company’s management.

At the April 26, 2012 annual reorganizational meeting of the Board of Directors, Thomas E. Hoaglin was re-elected by the independent directors to serve as lead independent director for another one year term. The lead independent director is responsible for coordinating the activities of the other independent directors and has the authority to preside at all meetings of the Board of Directors at which the Chairman of the Board is not present. The lead independent director serves as principal liaison on Board-wide issues between the independent directors and the Chairman of the Board, approves meeting schedules and agendas and monitors the quality of information sent to the Board. The lead independent director also may recommend the retention of outside advisors and consultants who report directly to the Board of Directors. If requested by shareholders, when appropriate, the lead independent director also will be available for consultation and direct communication.

The Board of Directors has four separately designated standing committees: (1) Audit Committee, whose present members are Thomas E. Hoaglin (Chair and “independent audit committee financial

The Audit Committee held six meetings in 2010.2012. Its principal functions include reviewing the arrangement and scope of the audit of the Company’s consolidated financial statements, considering comments made by the independent registered public accountants with respect to internal controls and financial reporting, considering related actions taken by management, reviewing internal accounting systems, procedures and controls with the Company’s internal auditor and financial staff, reviewing non-audit services provided by the independent registered public accountants, and organizational oversight of the Company’s enterprise risk management plan.

The Compensation Committee held eightfour meetings during 2010.2012. Its principal functions are, subject to approval by the Board of Directors, to evaluate, develop and monitor compensation policies and programs for the Company’s officers and Directors, and to recommend the salaries and profit sharing for the officers. A more comprehensive description of the Compensation Committee’s functions is set forth under the caption “Compensation Discussion and Analysis”.

The Pension Committee held four meetings in 2010.2012. Its principal functions are to monitor the investment of the assets associated with the Company’s defined benefit pension plan and 401(k) defined contribution plan and to assist in evaluating recommended changes in such investments.

The Governance and Nominating Committee during 2010. The Governance and Nominating Committee

The Governance and Nominating Committee charter incorporates the Company’s policies and procedures by which to consider recommendations from shareholders for Director nominees. Any shareholder wishing to propose a candidate should delivermay do so by delivering a typewritten or legible hand-written communication to the Company’s Corporate Secretary. The submission should provide detailed business and personal biographical data about the candidate, and include a brief analysis explaining why the individual is well-qualified to become a Director nominee. All recommendations will be acknowledged by the Corporate Secretary and promptly referred to the Governance and Nominating Committee for evaluation.

The Governance and Nominating Committee does not believe that any particular set of skills, qualities or diversities is most appropriate for a Director candidate. All Director candidates, including any recommended by shareholders, are first evaluated based upon their (i) integrity, strength of character, practical wisdom and mature judgment; (ii) business and financial expertise and experience; (iii) intellect to comprehend the issues confronting the Company; and (iv) availability of adequate time to devote to the affairs of the Company and attend Board and Committee meetings. The Governance and Nominating Committee also focuses on issues of diversity, such as diversity of gender, race and national origin, education, professional experience and differences in viewpoints and skills. New Director candidates are subject to a background check performed by the Committee. In addition, the candidate will be personally interviewed by one or more Committee members before he or she is nominated for election to the Board of Directors. In considering candidates for the Board, the Governance and Nominating Committee considers the entirety of each candidate’s credentials in the context of their skills, qualities or diversities. With respect to the nomination of continuing Directors for re-election, the individual’s historical contributions to the Board are also considered.

The Board of Directors believes that control and management of risk are primary responsibilities of senior management of the Company. As a general matter, the entire Board of Directors is responsible for oversight of this important senior management function. The Audit Committee is responsible to the Board for the organizational oversight of the Company’s comprehensive enterprise risk management plan. Additional oversight of some risks is performed by specific Board committees, e.g., financial reporting risks are overseen by the Audit Committee, benefit plan investment risks are overseen by the

Upon election of Mr. J.S. Gorman as Chief Executive Officer of the Company May 1, 1998, the Company separated the offices of Board Chairman and Chief Executive Officer because it believed this division more clearly delineated their respective responsibilities. This separation currently provides for the Chairman to focus on Board of Director responsibilities and for the Chief Executive Officer to focus on the Company’s executive, administrative and operating responsibilities. Given their respective service years with the Company, the Company believes this structure is most appropriate currently for conducting its business and its responsibilities to its employees, customers and suppliers, to its shareholders and Directors, and to its community and regulatory agencies.

The Audit Committee has submitted the following report to the Board of Directors:

During 2012, the Audit Committee reviewed and discussedAuditing Standard No. 16, Communications with Audit Committees, with the Company’s management and the Company’s independent registered public accountants. The new standard will be effective for audits and quarterly reviews for fiscal years beginning on or after December 15, 2012.

Members of the Audit Committee are also “independent” in accordance with the additional listing standards of the NYSE AmexMKT Exchange, and the Chairman is an “independent audit committee financial expert” in accordance with Securities and Exchange CommissionSEC rules.

The foregoing report has been furnished by members of the Audit Committee.

The Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board of Directors is authorized (i) to review and evaluate the compensation policies and programs for the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and its other officers (collectively, the “Officers”); (ii) to review, at least annually, the Chief Executive Officer’s progress assessments of the other Officers and to evaluate the Chief Executive Officer’s progress assessment; and (iii) to review and recommend the annual salaries and profit sharing determinations for the Officers to the Board of Directors.

Three independent Directors comprise the Committee. Their responsibilities are carried out pursuant to authority delegated by the Board of Directors and in accordance with the federal securities laws and other applicable laws and regulations.

Under the Committee’s supervision, the Company has formulated a compensation philosophy that assuresis intended to assure the provision of fair, competitive and performance-based compensation to the Officers. The philosophy reflects the belief that compensation of the Officers and the Non-Employee Directors should be aligned with the Company’s historical compensation practices, its culture, and its profitability.

The implementation of the Company’s philosophy seeks (i) to attract and retain a group of talented individuals with the education, experience, skill sets and professional presence deemed best suited for the respective Officer and Non-Employee Director positions; and (ii) to continually motivate those individuals to help the Company achieve its strategic goals and enhance profitability by offering them incentive compensation in the form of profit sharing, in addition to their salaries, driven by their individual progress assessments and the Company’s results of operations.

In devising and maintaining the Company’s Officer and Non-Employee Director compensation program, the Committee from time to time reviews generally available published data relevant to the compensation of officers and directors in competitor companies that manufacture pumps and related fluid control equipment. The Committee also regularly consults with executive management and periodically with outside accounting, legal and legalconsulting advisors as appropriate in arriving at compensation recommendations, subject to approval by the Board of Directors.

The Committee, working with Watson, obtained public data from a peer group of approximately 10 publicly-traded industrial manufacturing companies identified as applicable benchmark companies for comparative compensation analysis, ranked for relevance to the Company based on the following criteria:

The Committee received a draft reportreports from Watson and made several observations and recommendations regarding the selected peer group data. Watson then completed their report for their 2007 and 2010 reviewreviews and the Committee reviewed the compensation details of each of the peer group companies for their respective officer and, beginning in 2010, Board Non-Employee Director positions. Based on its reviews, the Committee made recommendations to the Board regarding compensation considerations for these groups.

During 2011, the Compensation Committee approved management’s recommendation to purchase computer software and related services from Equilar, a leading independent third-party provider of financial, executive and director compensation data, for the purpose of securing access to its extensive, industry-leading database of compensation data on publicly-traded companies. The decision to utilize the Equilar software and related services was based on the Committee’s desire to have more control and insight into the selection of the comparable peer group of companies and to enable a more robust analysis thereof. Additionally, the Equilar software and related services are utilized by most public company compensation consulting firms as their primary data source.

The scope of Equilar’s services is limited to providing access to its database, providing education on the effective use of the software and discussing database issues with its representatives. Equilar has not advised management or the Compensation Committee on its executive compensation programs or decisions. The Committee’s objectives in using data from Equilar were to establish an appropriate peer group for evaluating Officer and Non-Employee Director compensation generally; complete a competitive assessment of pay levels for the Executive Officers and the Non-Employee Directors; and develop a recommended structure and implementation plan for the compensation for these positions including annual incentive opportunities and long-term incentive arrangements, if any.

Pursuant to the Committee’s objectives and request, in 2011 management compiled comparative peer information regarding executive and Non-Employee Directors compensation details from 20 other capital goods manufacturing companies reflecting similar size (median revenue of approximately $330 million ranging from approximately $100 million to $750 million in revenue) for the Committee’s review and consideration. The Committee subsequentlyused this information as a general reference to low, mean, median and high compensation ranges and for correlation to similar measures of operating profitability, including total shareholder return. The Committee additionally evaluated the Officers’ progress assessments and the Company’s financial performance in making its compensation decisions. The Committee also took into account the favorable outcome of the shareholders advisory vote on executive compensation at the Company’s 2011 Annual Meeting of Shareholders. In 2011 the Board, based on the Committee’s recommendations, approved implementation plans for revisions of the compensation components of the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer, and for the Non-Employee Directors, with an objective over time to reach the 25^th percentile of comparable capital goods manufacturing companies described above.

During 2012, the Committee reviewed updated peer information and determined that the compensation decisions made in 2011 were consistent with the updated market data. Based on this determination and reported its recommendations for near-term and long-term adjustments forin consideration of the favorable outcome of the shareholders advisory vote on executive compensation at the Company’s 2012 Annual Meeting of eachShareholders, the Committee did not make any changes to the salaries of the Company’s officer positions to the Board. The Committee also determined that Non-Employee Director compensation would not be changedOfficers during 2010.

Prior to the Company’s Annual Meeting of Shareholders, the Committee reviews with the Chief Executive Officer the recommended annual base salary for each of the Officers (other than the Chief Executive Officer). The Committee independently reviews the base salary for the Chief Executive Officer and develops a recommendation therefor. These salary reviews include consideration of updated compensation advisor datadata; the fact that a significant component of total compensation is variable, performance-based profit sharing and other

10

relevant information in arriving at the Committee’s

Following the end of each year and the conclusionfinal preparation of the Company’s audited financial statements, results, management calculates the total amount of profit sharing available for awarding to the Officers based on the Company’s achieved operating income and the award percentage determined at the beginning of the year. The Chief Executive Officer then determines a recommended allocation of the available profit sharing award pool among the Officers based on the respective Officer’s prior profit sharing award history and their current year progress assessment.

The Committee reviews with the Chief Executive Officer the recommended profit sharing award for each of the Officers (other than the Chief Executive Officer). The Committee independently reviews the profit sharing award for the Chief Executive Officer and develops a recommendation therefor. These profit sharing reviews include consideration of the Chief Executive Officer’s progress assessments of the other Officers, and the Committee’s independent progress assessment of the Chief Executive Officer. The Committee then reports the results of its profit sharing reviews and recommendations to the Board of Directors.

The Company’s Officer compensation program is designed to reward leadership, initiative, teamwork and top-quality performances amongby the Officers. The program consists of three elements: base salary; profit sharing; and a component of modest miscellaneous benefits. Incentive stock or option awards and non-equity incentive plan compensation have never been a part of the Company’s Officer compensation program. In addition, the Company has not entered into employment contracts with any of the Officers.

Although not an element of Officer compensation, ownership of the Company’s Common Shares by the Officers has continually been considered a worthy goal within the Company.Company so as to further align Officers’ interests with those of Shareholders. The Company has paid increased dividends on its Common Shares for 3840 consecutive years and paid such quarterly dividends regularly for over 60more than 62 years. Toward that end, the Company sponsors purchase opportunities, including a partial Company match, aimed at encouraging the Officers, and substantially all other employees, to voluntarily invest in the Common Shares.

Base Salary and Profit Sharing —Base salaries are premised upon the relative responsibilities of the given Officers and industry surveys and related data. Initial salaries generally are set below competitive levels paid to comparable officers at other entities engaged in the same or similar businesses as the Company. UponFollowing their hire, actual salaries are adjusted based on performance judgments of each person’s qualifications, prior accomplishments and expected future contributions in his or her Officer role.

Other Compensation —The Officers receive a variety of modest miscellaneous benefits, the value of which is represented for the named Executive Officers under the caption “All Other Compensation” in the Summary Compensation Table. These benefits include taxable life insurance, and Company contributions to the Christmas Savings Plan, the 401(k) Plan and certain partial matching contribution opportunities under the Employee Stock Purchase Plan.

Stock Ownership —The Company has long encouraged the Officers to voluntarily invest in the Company’s Common Shares. As a consequence, the Company makes the purchase of its Common Shares convenient, in some cases with Company partial cash matching contributions, and in all cases without brokers’

11

fees or commissions, under an Employee Stock Purchase Plan, a 401(k) Plan and a Dividend Reinvestment Plan. Although the purchase opportunities available through these plans do not constitute elements of Officer compensation, all of the current Officers are shareholders and participate in one or more of the foregoing plans.

The pension plan in which three of the Company’s Executive Officers participate is a defined benefit plan covering substantially all U.S. employees of the Company for which new entry terminated as of December 31, 2007. Effective January 1, 2008, a new and enhanced 401(k) Plan was adopted for new employees hired thereafter.

The pension plan offers participants upon retirement, the option to choose between monthly benefits or a single sum payment. The monthly pension benefits are equal to the product of 1.1% of the participant’s final average monthly earnings (based on compensation during the final ten years of service) and the number of years of credited service. A single sum amount is equal to the present value of the final monthly pension benefit multiplied by a single premium immediate annuity rate as defined by the plan. Historically, nearly all participants in the plan elect the single sum amount at retirement. The single sum payment option is used for financial reporting purposes for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010,2012, computed as of the plan measurement date of December 31, 2010.2012. Actuarial assumptions used by the Company in determining the present value of the accumulated benefit amount consist of a 5%2.5% interest rate for 2012-2015 with a 5%4.5% interest rate thereafter, a 3.4% discount rate and Thethe IRS 2008+ Applicable2013 IRS Static Mortality Table. Base compensation in excess of $225,000 is not taken into account under the plan. Vesting occurs after five years of credited service.

The table below summarizes the number of years of credited service and the present value of accumulated pension benefit for each of the named Executive Officers of the Company at December 31, 2010.

The table below contains information pertaining to the annual compensation of the Company’s principal executive officer, its principal financial officer, and its other named executive officers.

Non-Employee Directors are compensated by the Company for their services as Directors. As described in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section above, the Compensation Committee is charged with oversight and periodic review of such compensation for comparative evaluation with comparable companies and for recommending any changes to the entire Board of Directors.

Beginning in 2010 and during 2011, the Compensation Committee reviewed the compensation of the Non-Employee Directors using the same process it used in reviewing the compensation of the Officers, but with a more focused look at the structure of the compensation of Non-Employees Directors among selected peer companies. The only change during 2011 from 2010 was an additional award of 500 shares per Non-Employee Director each on August 1, 2011. Additional recommendations were made and approved for implementation beginning in 2012 with an objective over time to reach the 25^th percentile of comparable capital goods manufacturing companies described above. Beginning in 2012 and thereafter, Non-Employee Directors are compensated through a combination of annual cash retainers and stock awards of 1,000 shares each on July 1 of every year.

Directors who are employees of the Company (Messrs. J. C. Gorman and J. S. Gorman) do not receive any compensation for service as Directors.

The table below summarizes the total compensation paid for service of each of the named Non-Employee Directors of the Company for the calendar year ended December 31, 2010.

Members of the Board of Directors are encouraged to attend the Company’s Annual Meeting of Shareholders. All Directors were in attendance at the Annual Meeting in 2010.

The Compensation Committee has submitted the following report to the Board of Directors:

The foregoing report has been furnished by members of the Compensation Committee.

The following table sets forth information pertaining to the beneficial ownership of the Company’s Common Shares as of February 1, 2011,2013, except as otherwise noted, by (i) each person nominated for election as a Director, (ii) each Officer named in the summary compensation table, (iii) nominees for Director and Executive Officers of the Company as a group, and (iv) any person who is known to the Company to be a beneficial owner of more than five percent of the outstanding shares of Common Stock.

This newly required proposal is for a non-binding, advisory vote to approve the compensation of the Company’s named Executive Officers. This vote is not intended to address any specific item of compensation, but rather the overall compensation of the named Executive Officers and the compensation philosophy, policies and practices as described in the Executive Compensation — Compensation Discussion and Analysis narrative discussion and Summary Compensation Table of this proxy statement. As detailed therein, the directorsDirectors are focused on compensating the Executive Officers fairly and in a manner that promotes the Company’s compensation

18

philosophy that compensation of the Executive Officers should be aligned with the Company’s historical compensation, its culture, and its profitability for the continued achievement of long-term shareholder value. Accordingly, the Company is asking shareholders to vote “FOR” the adoption of the following resolution:

“RESOLVED, that the shareholders of The Gorman-Rupp Company approve, on an advisory basis, the compensation of the Company’s named Executive Officers, as disclosed in the Executive Compensation -Compensation— Compensation Discussion and Analysis narrative discussion and Summary Compensation Table of this 20112013 Proxy Statement.”

While not binding on the Company, the Board of Directors or the Compensation Committee, the failureresults of the shareholders to approve the compensation of the Company’s named Executive Officers wouldshareholder voting on this proposal will be considered by the Board and Compensation Committee when making future compensation decisions for the Company’s named Executive Officers.

The Directors recommend a vote FOR Proposal No. 2 to approve the advisory resolution on the compensation of the Company’s named Executive Officers.

The Company paid Ernst & Young LLP the following fees in connection with the Company’s fiscal years ending December 31, 20102012 and 2009:

Audit-Related Fees — $47,000 (2010)$97,300 (2012); $47,000 (2009)(2011). Audit-related fees consist of the aggregate fees billed for assurance and related services that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit or review of the Company’s financial statements and are not reported under the caption “Audit Fees.” The audit-related fees were paid for the following services: benefit plan audits.

All Other Fees — $0 (2010)(2012); $0 (2009)(2011). The “all other fees” category consists of the aggregate fees billed for products and services provided, other than the services reported in the foregoing three paragraphs.

19

Under its Charter, the Audit Committee is directly responsible for the oversight of the work of Ernst & Young LLP and has the sole authority to (i) appoint, retain and terminate Ernst & Young LLP, (ii) pre-approve all audit engagement fees, terms and services, and (iii) pre-approve scope and fees for any non-audit engagements with Ernst & Young LLP. The Committee exercises this authority in a manner consistent with applicable law and the rules of the Securities and Exchange CommissionSEC and the NYSE AmexMKT Exchange, and Ernst & Young LLP reports directly to the Committee. In addition, the Committee has determined to delegate its authority to grant any pre-approvals to its Chairman, subject to the report of any such pre-approvals to the Committee at its next scheduled meeting.meeting for ratification. With respect to certain of the services categorized above, the following percentage of servicespercentage-of-services were rendered by Ernst & Young LLP in accordance with the annualde minimusexception to the pre-approval requirement: Audit-Related Fees — 0%; Tax Fees — 0%; All Other Fees — 0%.

Ratification by the shareholders of the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP is not required by law. However, the Board of Directors believes that shareholders should be given this opportunity to express their views on the subject. While not binding on the Audit Committee, the failure of the shareholders to ratify the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accountants would be considered by the Audit Committee in determining whether to continue the engagement of Ernst & Young LLP. Even if the appointment is ratified, the Audit Committee may, in its discretion, select a different firm of independent registered public accountants for the Company at any time during the year if it determines that such a change would be in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders.

The Company’s 20102012 Annual Report to Shareholders, including financial statements, is being mailed concurrently with this Proxy Statement to all shareholders of the Company.

The cost of soliciting proxies will be paid by the Company. In addition to the use of the mails, proxies may be solicited personally or by telephone, telecopyfacsimile or other means of communication by employees of the Company. No separate compensation will be paid for the solicitation of proxies, although the Company may reimburse brokers and other persons holding Common Shares in their names or in the names of nominees for their expenses in sending proxy material to the beneficial owners of such Common Shares.

Any proposal by a shareholder intended to be presented atincluded in the 2012proxy materials to be distributed by the Company in connection with the 2014 Annual Meeting of Shareholders must be received by the Company for inclusion in the proxy statement and form of proxy ballot of the Company relating to such Meeting on or before November 27, 2011.21, 2013. If a shareholder proposal is received after February 17, 2012,4, 2014, it will be considered untimely and the proxy holders may use their discretionary voting authority if and when the proposal is raised at such Annual Meeting, without any discussion of the matter in the proxy statement. The Board of Directors’ proxy for the 20122014 Annual Meeting of Shareholders willis expected to grant discretionary voting authority to the proxy holders with respect to any such proposal received after February 17, 2012.

Financial and other reports will be submitted to the Meeting, but it is not intended that any action will be taken in respect thereof. The Company did not receive notice by February 21, 201117, 2013 of, and the Board of Directors is not aware of, any matters other than those referred to in this Proxy Statement which might be brought before the Meeting for action. Therefore, if any such other matters should arise, it is intended that the persons appointed as proxy holders will vote or act thereon in accordance with their own judgment.