What we publish, and what we do not
This is a small newsroom, on purpose. The part that matters for a purchasing decision comes first: every document our evidence rests on, with what it shows and what it does not. Commentary is deliberately thin — two explainers, written only because they answer something the evidence pages do not. And where others have named us, we list that too, along with what it does and does not prove.
Reports & studies
12 documentsThe accredited emissions measurement, two university studies, the engine teardown, the operator trial reports and the 386-measurement dataset — each with its limits stated, and each linked to the page where we analyse it.
Open the library →Trial results
12 trialsDocumented fleet trials across Germany, Denmark, Japan and Nigeria — including the one with a small, inconclusive result, and the operator records we rank below them.
See all trials →Insights
2 explainersWhy a 20% gain in km/L is not a 20% cut in fuel, and where fuel-saving products actually intervene — fuel, oil or intake air. Both were written because we could not find honest answers elsewhere, and one because we had the conversion wrong ourselves first.
Read the explainers →Press
Where we are namedPublications that name NanoEFX — a shipyard retrofit programme reported across six countries, and Japanese coverage under the product’s original name. None of them attributes a figure to us, and the page says so before it lists them.
See where →One section we have not written
Rather than publish an empty page, we say what is missing. It appears when there is real material behind it.
Blog
Shorter, occasional pieces tied to something that has just happened — a trial finishing, a rule changing, a result we did not expect. Written when there is an occasion, not on a schedule.
Talk to us directly
If you are writing about fuel-saving technology and want the awkward questions answered — where our data is weak, which trial failed, what we withdrew and why — we would rather have that conversation than send a press kit.