Reduce Fleet Fuel Consumption
5 to 15% observed in most documented fleet trials
The fuel you don't burn is Scope 1 you never emit
A patented air-filter treatment for the filters you already have. Savings measured brim-to-brim at the pump, not estimated from telematics. Engine compatibility assessed through an independent teardown after 1,875 operating hours.
Results vary by vehicle and duty cycle. One documented generator duty cycle showed only a small, inconclusive result. See every result →
No hardware. No downtime. Nothing is added to the fuel or engine systems.
Example: one truck, 1,000 km a week. €2,600 less diesel a year at a 10% reduction. Treatment costs about €750. Run your own numbers →
Treat the air path. Improve the burn. Reduce waste.
NanoEFX is a passive, nanostructured treatment applied to your engine's air filter — or any suitable intake-filter medium. It is not a fuel additive, oil additive, ECU remap, mechanical retrofit or powered device. It's a water-based spray that dries into a thin, breathable nano-coating that conditions the intake air before combustion — for a cleaner, more complete burn.
What it is
- A passive nanostructured intake-air treatment
- Applied to the air filter or intake medium
- Water-based — dries to a thin, breathable coating
- Works before combustion, at the intake-air stage
- REACH compliant · water-based
What it isn't
- A fuel additive
- An oil additive
- An ECU remap or tuning
- A mechanical retrofit or powered device
Wherever an engine breathes through a filter
NanoEFX works on internal combustion engines where intake air passes through a treatable filter or intake-filter media — across diesel, petrol/gasoline, LPG/CNG, biofuel and many hybrid ICE applications.
Ten industries, one air-path treatment
Road transport · Marine · Power generation · Construction & heavy equipment · Agriculture · Mining & quarrying · Rail · Port, airport & logistics · Military, emergency & public sector · Small engines & specialty.
Documented savings, fleet by fleet
Real pilots with real operators, each with its own method and its own limits. A minus sign is a fall in fuel consumption; a plus sign is a gain in fuel efficiency in km/L — the two are not the same measurement. Every figure below links to the trial it comes from.
Fuel consumption, distance-weighted over 21,830 km
Five refuse collection vehicles running fixed routes with their regular drivers, measured against those same vehicles' own March–May baseline from Waste Services' own fleet management system — with the drivers not informed that the treatment had been applied.
Waste Services — 18.2% distance-weighted over 21,830 km →A modelled correction, not a directly measured saving
On one Scania truck the two measurement periods could not be compared directly — the vehicle was driven far harder during the NanoEFX period. After normalising both periods to the same drive-mode distribution, the analysis indicates roughly 5% lower fuel consumption.
Municipality of Frederikshavn — roughly 5% after normalising both periods →Fuel efficiency in km/L, against an untreated control group
Two service buses over three months, compared against untreated control vehicles running in the same period rather than against a historical baseline — the only dataset in our records with a genuine control group.
Sanden Kotsu — +7.8% km/L against a control group →Fuel efficiency in km/L, aggregate across the trial
One Hino truck measured after each of three applications over 66 days and 20,422 km: +7.7%, then +9.7%, then +19.0% against the same 2.48 km/L baseline. The rising pattern is the interesting part, not the peak value.
Toyama Transport — +13.1% km/L over 20,422 km →Don’t take our word for it. Measure it.
See how the results were measured. Review every documented trial — including weak and mixed outcomes. Then test NanoEFX against your own baseline.
See what fuel savings are worth to your fleet
A quick estimate. Most of our documented trials fall between 5% and 15% less fuel, with a median of 10.7% — and on one duty cycle the result was small and inconclusive. For a detailed euro figure including EU ETS carbon cost, open the full calculator.
Based on the range most of our documented trials fall into. Results depend on engine type and duty cycle, some fleets come in below it, and our telecom-generator trial produced only a small, inconclusive result. Indicative only — not a guarantee. See every trial.
One treatment, two balance sheets
The savings land where it matters — on operating cost and on your emissions reporting. For the CFO: lower fuel spend and lower exposure to EU ETS carbon cost (ETS2 from 2027), with no capex. For ESG: lower CO₂ calculated from your measured fuel use, and — in our one accredited measurement — 15.1% less NOx and 30.4% less CO. NanoEFX is listed on UNIDO’s Sustainable Technology Promotion Platform and aligned with the UN Sustainable Development Goals — treated vehicles can carry an SDG badge.
Backed by industry and public voices
“Optimized combustion — reduces fuel consumption and emissions. A credible, practical step for combustion engines already in operation, with no mechanical changes.” — Jakob Axel Nielsen, former Danish Minister of Transport and Energy. Alongside statements from UNIDO, JATA (Japan Automobile Transport Technology Association) and an Audi racing driver in Japan.
Prove it on your own fleet — pay only if it saves fuel.
Run a controlled pilot on 5–10 trucks or buses, or 1–3 vessels, measured against your own baseline — no engine modifications, no downtime, and nothing removed or replaced on the vehicle. You only pay if it proves fuel savings, backed by product-liability insurance active since 2014 with zero claims.
Have a question first?
Not ready for a pilot yet, or just want to ask something specific — engine compatibility, a country you operate in, anything? Send us a quick message and we'll get back to you.