Test results & case studies
Real data from engine test beds, independent laboratories and working fleets. Every figure below states its source. Customer and vessel names are anonymised.
lower fuel consumption, marine engine shop test
lower exhaust gas temperature after turbocharger
average fuel saving, truck fleet trial, China — 12 trucks
fuel saving on two quarry machines
Marine two-stroke engine shop test
Green Fuel Marine was tested on a MAN B&W-design two-stroke marine diesel engine (CMD 6S50ME-C8.2) at CSSC-MES Diesel Co., Ltd. (Shanghai), comparing the same fuel with and without the additive across the load range. The programme reports more than 1,000 hours of cumulative engine testing.
Report conclusions
- Fuel consumption decreased by about 1–1.5%.
- Exhaust gas temperature after the turbocharger decreased by 2–3 °C, not enough to affect exhaust boiler use on board.
- No change to the fuel's physical and chemical properties and no element that could harm an SCR catalyst.
- No significant change in measured NOx.
- Combustion chamber cleanliness improved.
The engine builder issued a no-objection statement for the use of the additive. Source: CSSC-MES shop test report and CMD statement (copies available on request).
Specific fuel oil consumption (g/kWh)
| Engine load | Without | With Green Fuel | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25% | 177.30 | 175.57 | −0.98% |
| 50% | 173.54 | 171.56 | −1.14% |
| 75% | 171.11 | 169.33 | −1.04% |
| 100% | 173.37 | 171.84 | −0.88% |
Navy bars: diesel fuel without additive; green: with Green Fuel. Bars start at 165 g/kWh. Values read from the shop-test chart.
SGS fuel analysis: HSFO and LSFO with and without Green Fuel Marine
Samples of the same fuels were tested by SGS on 27 February 2021, untreated and treated with Green Fuel Marine. Treated fuel showed higher gross calorific value and lower carbon residue and ash, with no change in metals content.
| Test property | HSFO without | HSFO with | Change | LSFO without | LSFO with | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gross calorific value (MJ/kg) | 42.37 | 44.29 | +4.53% | 44.3 | 46.07 | +4.00% |
| Kinematic viscosity at 50 °C (cSt) | 227.9 | 213.9 | −6.14% | 34.8 | 34.04 | −2.18% |
| Carbon residue, micro method (% m/m) | 12 | 11 | −8.33% | 3.37 | 3.13 | −7.12% |
| Ash (% m/m) | 0.029 | 0.026 | −10.34% | 0.016 | 0.014 | −12.50% |
| Total sulphur (% m/m) | 3.06 | 2.93 | −4.25% | 0.49 | 0.47 | −4.08% |
| Water content (% v/v) | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.00% | 0.05 | 0.04 | −20.00% |
| Density at 15 °C (kg/m³) | 972.6 | 972.4 | −0.02% | 918.4 | 918.6 | +0.02% |
| Metals by ICP (V, Al+Si, Zn, Ca, Na) | — | unchanged | 0% | — | unchanged | 0% |
Source: SGS test results, 27.02.2021, as tabulated by the manufacturer. Full SGS and Intertek reports available on request.
Truck fleet trial, China — 12 trucks
Twelve trucks were monitored through a baseline period, a transition period and a treated period, with about 800 ml of additive per truck (400 ml during transition, 400 ml during the treated period). Average distances per period were about 5,000–5,300 km per truck.
- Average consumption fell from 28.21 to 26.48 L/100 km.
- That is 1.73 L less per 100 km, an average fuel saving of 6.15%.
- On individual routes the average saving was 7.70% and 7.52%.
Source: fleet trial report; customer details withheld.
Average fuel consumption (L/100 km)
average fuel saving, 12 trucks
Quarry operator, Sabah, Malaysia (2018)
Green Fuel was trialled from 3 to 11 April 2018 on quarry equipment that refuels in the open, one machine from a rusty tank. Consumption was measured in litres per hour against a standard reading.
| Machine | Standard (L/h) | With Green Fuel (L/h) | Saving |
|---|---|---|---|
| Machine A (6 tank treatments) | 17.3 | 15.2 | 12.06% |
| Machine B (8 tank treatments) | 47.6 | 40.4 | 15.2% |
Source: trial report dated 22 May 2018 (customer name withheld). Short trial on two machines; results in your operation will differ.
What the numbers mean
Equipment that refuels in harsh conditions, with water and rust in the fuel, has the most to gain from a cleaner fuel system. Well-maintained engines on clean fuel typically see smaller gains. That is why we recommend a measured trial against your own baseline.
Plan a trialWhat operators typically report
Across engine tests, vessel trials and fleet tests summarised in the 2026 Green Fuel Marine brochure, the typical reported fuel consumption reduction is 3–6%, with exhaust temperature down 2–3 °C and noticeably cleaner engines.
Results vary with fuel quality, engine type, condition and operation. Break-even needs only about 1–1.5%: see the calculator.
typical fuel consumption reduction reported
lower exhaust temperature
AS/NZS ISO 9001:2008 quality assured production
& Intertek laboratory reports on request
Brochures, videos and full test reports
The public Green Fuel folder holds the 2026 brochures, product videos and test documents.