Municipality of Frederikshavn — Denmark
On a Scania truck operated by the Municipality of Frederikshavn, the two measurement periods cannot 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. This is a model-based correction, not a directly measured saving.
| Operator | Municipality of Frederikshavn, Denmark |
|---|---|
| Vehicle | 1 Scania truck |
| Carried out with | Scania — drive-mode assessment supported by dialogue with the Scania Driver Academy |
| Reference period | 4,190 km without NanoEFX |
| Test period | 1,484 km with NanoEFX |
| Raw comparison | The NanoEFX period appears marginally worse — and is not a valid comparison |
| Corrected result | 39.3 → 37.2 l/100 km ≈ 2.1 l/100 km, about 5.3% |
| Status | Model-based correction — explicitly not final documentation of effect |
Every measurement, not just the best one
| Drive mode | Reference period (without) | Test period (with NanoEFX) | Effect on fuel use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 4% | 21% | Assumed +15% vs Standard |
| Economy | 48% | 4% | Assumed −10% vs Standard |
| Standard | 48% | 76% | Baseline |
| Result after normalising both periods to the reference distribution | 39.3 l/100 km | 37.2 l/100 km | ≈ −5.3% |
Method before result
The vehicle was driven normally in municipal service across both periods. Fuel and distance were taken from the operator’s records, and the analysis was carried out together with Scania.
The raw numbers alone would have been misleading in our own disfavour: during the NanoEFX period the truck spent five times more of its time in Power mode and almost none in Economy mode. Power mode holds gears longer and runs to higher engine speeds; Economy mode does the opposite. Comparing the two periods without accounting for that would compare two different jobs.
The correction normalises the NanoEFX period back to the reference period’s mode distribution, using an assumed +15% fuel use for Power mode and −10% for Economy mode relative to Standard. The Scania Driver Academy confirmed the direction and rough magnitude of those mode effects — that Standard versus Economy is normally a small difference, while Standard versus Power can be significant.
The limits of this trial
We publish these next to the result rather than in a footnote. If a limitation would change how you read the number, you should read it at the same time as the number.
Known limitations
- The raw data does not show a saving. Taken at face value, the NanoEFX period looks marginally worse than the reference period. The result exists only after the mode correction.
- The correction is a model, and the assumptions drive the outcome. Scania supported the direction of the mode effects, not the specific +15% / −10% figures used in the calculation.
- The test period covers 1,484 km against a 4,190 km reference — a short sample for a heavy vehicle.
- It is a single vehicle, with no control vehicle running in parallel.
- The analysis was produced by ECO EFX Solutions, not by the municipality or by Scania.
- The source document states its own conclusion plainly: the figure should be read as a model-based correction and not as final documentation of effect. We repeat that here rather than quietly dropping it.
Reading this evidence in context
This trial is worth publishing precisely because the raw result was unfavourable. Correcting for how a vehicle was actually driven is standard practice in fleet analysis, and skipping the correction would have understated the product just as much as skipping the caveat would overstate it.
What it demonstrates well is a method: if the operating pattern changes between periods, a before-and-after fuel comparison alone is not evidence — in either direction.
What would settle it: the raw fuel and mode data, so the sensitivity of the result to the assumptions can be tested, plus a written confirmation of the mode factors from Scania.
Questions operators ask about this trial
Did the truck actually use less fuel?
What was Scania’s role?
Why publish a result that needs this much explanation?
How should we read this compared with the Waste Services trial?
Provenance
- Operator
- Municipality of Frederikshavn, Denmark
- Carried out with
- Scania; drive-mode assessment supported by the Scania Driver Academy
- Analysis by
- ECO EFX Solutions GmbH
- Document
- Case study — Municipality of Frederikshavn, Denmark: a realistic scenario for a Scania truck, mode-corrected methodology
- Measurement periods
- February to April 2026
- Last checked
- 15 August 2026
The only baseline that matters is yours
Every trial on this site was run on someone else’s vehicles, duty cycle and baseline. A NanoEFX pilot measures yours — and we will help you design it with a control group so the result stands up.