Test Results Matching your Search
Click here to start another test report search.
There are 5 documents that match your query. These 5 documents contain a total of 55 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:
- 5 locations
- 1 industry
- 2 different fuel types
- 5 different engine manufacturers
- 6 different engine types
- 1 test procedure
The aggregate results for the tests in this search criteria show:
- 9 Specific Fuel Consumption tests were performed with an average improvement of 2.887%
- 8 Carbon Mass Balance tests were performed with an average improvement of 6.254%
- 7 Smoke Spot tests were performed with an average improvement of 28.994%
- 3 NOx tests were performed with an average improvement of 1.777%
- 9 CO tests were performed with an average improvement of 22.603%
- 9 HC tests were performed with an average improvement of 11.973%
- 10 CO2 tests were performed with an average improvement of 8.260%
Result 1 of 5
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 5
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 5
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 4 of 5
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 5 of 5
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 |