Test Results Matching your Search
Click here to start another test report search.
There are 9 documents that match your query. These 9 documents contain a total of 111 individual tests. The documents are listed below. You can click the title of the report to bring up a PDF version of the report in a new browser window. You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view the documents.
Executive Summary for Document Search
This search included results from:
- 7 locations
- 1 industry
- 2 different fuel types
- 9 different engine manufacturers
- 12 different engine types
- 8 different test procedures
The aggregate results for the tests in this search criteria show:
- 11 Specific Fuel Consumption tests were performed with an average improvement of 3.005%
- 24 Carbon Mass Balance tests were performed with an average improvement of 31.927%
- 9 Smoke Spot tests were performed with an average improvement of 28.937%
- 3 NOx tests were performed with an average improvement of 1.777%
- 9 CO tests were performed with an average improvement of 22.603%
- 25 HC tests were performed with an average improvement of 28.659%
- 26 CO2 tests were performed with an average improvement of 34.137%
- 4 Wear Metals tests were performed with an average improvement of 46.350%
Result 1 of 9
| Test Id: | 17 |
|---|---|
| Title: | Customer Trial Evaluation Maritrans |
| File Size: | 5.262 MB |
| Industries: | Marine |
| Report Type: | Field Test |
| Benefits: | Emissions, Fuel economy, Maintenance/engine wear |
| Fuels: | 2D Diesel (Regular Diesel) |
| Report Date: | 26-Nov-1987 |
| Test Date: | 1-Sep-1987 |
| Test Location: | Pennsylvania, USA |
| Summary: | Fuel Economy Results: 5.5% average improvement on 2 Caterpillar 399 engines via Carbon Mass Balance testing 4.0% improvement on a EMD 567BC engine via Carbon Mass Balance testing 8.2% improvement on a EMD 645E engine via Carbon Mass Balance testing 3.6% improvement on a Caterpillar 399 engine via Specific Fuel Consumption testing 5.7% improvement on a EMD 567BC engine via Specific Fuel Consumption testing 5.0% improvement on a EMD 645E engine via Specific Fuel Consumption testing Engine Emissions Results: 21.7% improvement on a Caterpillar 399 engine via CO testing 5.4% improvement on a EMD 567BC engine via CO testing 45.5% improvement on a EMD 645E engine via CO testing 5.0% improvement on a Caterpillar 399 engine via CO2 testing 17.9% improvement on a EMD 567BC engine via CO2 testing 11.9% improvement on a EMD 645E engine via CO2 testing 6.7% improvement on a Caterpillar 399 engine via HC testing -34.3% improvement on a EMD 567BC engine via HC testing 7.1% improvement on a EMD 645E engine via HC testing |
Result 2 of 9
| Test Id: | 18 |
|---|---|
| Title: | Devall Diesel |
| File Size: | 5.236 MB |
| Industries: | Marine |
| Report Type: | Field Test |
| Benefits: | Biocide, Emissions, Fuel economy, Maintenance/engine wear |
| Fuels: | 2D Diesel (Regular Diesel) |
| Report Date: | 1-Aug-2000 |
| Test Date: | 5-Jun-2000 |
| Test Location: | Louisiana, USA |
| Summary: | Fuel Economy Results: 10.4% improvement on a Detroit 16V92 engine via Carbon Mass Balance testing Engine Emissions Results: 55.2% improvement on a Detroit 16V92 engine via CO testing 22.0% improvement on a Detroit 16V92 engine via CO2 testing -28.0% improvement on a Detroit 16V92 engine via HC testing 31.0% improvement on a Detroit 16V92 engine via Smoke Spot testing |
Result 3 of 9
| Test Id: | 155 |
|---|---|
| Title: | K.D. Perdana |
| File Size: | 15.724 MB |
| Industries: | Marine |
| Report Type: | Field Test |
| Benefits: | Emissions, Maintenance/engine wear |
| Fuels: | 4D Diesel (Bunker C, Heavy Fuel Oil, 380 centistoke) |
| Report Date: | 1-Feb-1993 |
| Test Date: | Not Given in Report |
| Test Location: | Western Australia, Australia |
| Summary: | Engine Emissions Results: 28.7% average improvement on 2 MTU 16V engines via Smoke Spot testing Engine Life/Maintenance Results: 66.1% average improvement on 2 Mercedes Genset engines via Wear Metals testing 26.6% average improvement on 2 MTU 16V engines via Wear Metals testing |
Result 4 of 9
| Test Id: | 68 |
|---|---|
| Title: | M.S.Conus |
| File Size: | 3.148 MB |
| Industries: | Boiler, Marine |
| Report Type: | Field Test |
| Benefits: | Carbon in engine, Emissions, Fuel economy, Maintenance/engine wear |
| Fuels: | 4D Diesel (Bunker C, Heavy Fuel Oil, 380 centistoke) |
| Report Date: | 1-Aug-1985 |
| Test Date: | 1-Sep-1984 |
| Test Location: | Eastern Australia, Australia |
| Summary: | Fuel Economy Results: 0.9% average improvement on 2 Sulzer 6RND 68M engines via Specific Fuel Consumption testing Engine Emissions Results: 12.7% average improvement on 3 Boiler engines via CO testing 3.6% average improvement on 3 Boiler engines via CO2 testing 35.6% average improvement on 3 Boiler engines via HC testing 1.8% average improvement on 3 Boiler engines via NOx testing |
Result 5 of 9
| Test Id: | 67 |
|---|---|
| Title: | MT Nivosa |
| File Size: | 0.054 MB |
| Industries: | Marine |
| Report Type: | Field Test |
| Benefits: | Emissions, Fuel economy |
| Fuels: | 4D Diesel (Bunker C, Heavy Fuel Oil, 380 centistoke) |
| Report Date: | 11-Nov-1986 |
| Test Date: | 1-Apr-1986 |
| Test Location: | Eastern Australia, Australia |
| Summary: | Fuel Economy Results: 3.1% improvement on a Sulzer 6 RTA 76 engine via Specific Fuel Consumption testing |
Result 6 of 9
| Test Id: | 66 |
|---|---|
| Title: | Neptune Marine |
| File Size: | 1.232 MB |
| Industries: | Marine |
| Report Type: | Field Test |
| Benefits: | Emissions, Fuel economy, Maintenance/engine wear |
| Fuels: | 4D Diesel (Bunker C, Heavy Fuel Oil, 380 centistoke) |
| Report Date: | 1-May-1988 |
| Test Date: | 6-Apr-1985 |
| Test Location: | Singapore, China |
| Summary: | Fuel Economy Results: 4.0% improvement on a Pielstick 8PC4-2L-570 engine via Specific Fuel Consumption testing |
Result 7 of 9
| Test Id: | 222 |
|---|---|
| Title: | Royal Caribbean |
| File Size: | 4.725 MB |
| Industries: | Marine |
| Report Type: | Field Test |
| Benefits: | Emissions, Fuel economy |
| Fuels: | 4D Diesel (Bunker C, Heavy Fuel Oil, 380 centistoke) |
| Report Date: | 14-May-2012 |
| Test Date: | 8-Apr-2012 |
| Test Location: | Florida, USA |
| Summary: | Fuel Economy Results: 4.5% improvement on a Wartsila 6X12V46C engine via Carbon Mass Balance testing 2.4% average improvement on 4 Wartsila 6X12V46C engines via Specific Fuel Consumption testing Engine Emissions Results: 16.0% improvement on a Wartsila 6X12V46C engine via CO testing 4.2% improvement on a Wartsila 6X12V46C engine via CO2 testing 20.4% improvement on a Wartsila 6X12V46C engine via HC testing 38.8% average improvement on 4 Wartsila 6X12V46C engines via Smoke Spot testing |
Result 8 of 9
| Test Id: | 16 |
|---|---|
| Title: | Tidewater Marine |
| File Size: | 19.169 MB |
| Industries: | Marine |
| Report Type: | Field Test |
| Benefits: | Emissions, Fuel economy |
| Fuels: | 2D Diesel (Regular Diesel) |
| Report Date: | 17-Aug-1982 |
| Test Date: | 23-Jul-1982 |
| Test Location: | Louisiana, USA |
| Summary: | Fuel Economy Results: 44.8% average improvement on 16 Detroit V871 engines via Carbon Mass Balance testing Engine Emissions Results: 50.3% average improvement on 16 Detroit V871 engines via CO2 testing 38.0% average improvement on 16 Detroit V871 engines via HC testing |
| Notes: | The extraordinary improvement numbers found in this test report are primarily due to the extreme carbon build up in the Brahma's engine. FPC was able to clean the engine resulting in improvement numbers that are much larger than the norm. Per the observations section of the report, the gas analyzer's filters were plugged during the baseline testing: this implies that the percent improvement for the Brahma may actually be larger than the numbers reported. |
Result 9 of 9
| Test Id: | 15 |
|---|---|
| Title: | Wepher Marine |
| File Size: | 6.407 MB |
| Industries: | Marine |
| Report Type: | Field Test |
| Benefits: | Emissions, Fuel economy |
| Fuels: | 2D Diesel (Regular Diesel) |
| Report Date: | 16-Sep-1993 |
| Test Date: | Not Given in Report |
| Test Location: | Tennessee, USA |
| Summary: | Fuel Economy Results: 6.0% average improvement on 2 Detroit 16V92 engines via Carbon Mass Balance testing Engine Emissions Results: 21.4% improvement on a Detroit 16V92 engine via CO testing 5.4% average improvement on 2 Detroit 16V92 engines via CO2 testing 29.1% improvement on a Detroit 16V92 engine via HC testing 8.3% average improvement on 2 Detroit 16V92 engines via Smoke Spot testing |