0% found this document useful (0 votes)
48 views2 pages

Wärtsilä RT-flex vs MAN B&W ME Series Comparison

Yeah

Uploaded by

Maro 123
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
48 views2 pages

Wärtsilä RT-flex vs MAN B&W ME Series Comparison

Yeah

Uploaded by

Maro 123
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Comparison

Criteria Wärtsilä RT-flex (Sulzer) MAN B&W ME Series


Common rail fuel injection with fully Electronically controlled fuel injection,
Technology
electronic control, no camshaft. camshaft-less design.

Fuel Injection Common rail system ensures precise Electronic control enables precise fuel
System injection and optimal combustion. injection timing.
Exhaust Valve Electronic control of exhaust valves for Electronic actuation of exhaust valves for
Control better timing and efficiency. optimized flow.
Reduced mechanical components improve Advanced monitoring systems; fewer
Safety
reliability; integrated diagnostic system. mechanical failures.

High efficiency, specific fuel consumption High efficiency, specific fuel


Fuel Efficiency
around 160-170 g/kWh. consumption around 165-175 g/kWh.

Designed to meet IMO Tier III standards IMO Tier III compliant, optional dual-
Emissions
with reduced NOx and SOx emissions. fuel capability (ME-GI for LNG).

Compatible with low-sulfur fuels and ME-GI version can run on LNG and
Alternative Fuels
biofuels. LPG, lowering CO2 emissions.

Lower mechanical wear due to camshaft- Reduced wear with lower mechanical
Maintenance
less design; moderate electronic system complexity, but electronics require
Costs
maintenance cost. specialized support.
Higher upfront cost due to advanced High upfront cost due to electronic
Initial Cost
common rail technology. systems and dual-fuel options.
Total Cost of Lower over long term due to fuel savings Comparable long-term costs due to fuel
Ownership and reduced maintenance. efficiency and emission compliance.
Up to 84,000 kW for large container ships Up to 92,000 kW, suitable for a wide
Power Range
and tankers. range of vessel types.
Operational Can operate at very low load conditions Flexible load handling, especially with
Flexibility with good efficiency. dual-fuel versions.
Market Widely available, especially in European Global availability with strong support
Availability markets. from MAN Energy Solutions.

References
Diesel Duck. (n.d.). Sulzer RT Flex marine diesel engine. Retrieved from
[Link]

Marine Insight. (2021, March 14). The most popular marine propulsion engines in the
shipping industry. Retrieved from [Link]

World Liquid Gas Association (WLGA). (n.d.). LPG for marine engines: The marine
alternative fuel [PDF]. Retrieved from [Link]

Scribd. (n.d.). RT Flex vs ME engines [PDF]. Retrieved from [Link]

EPA Nepis. (n.d.). Costs of emission reduction technologies for Category 3 marine
engines. Retrieved from [Link]

YouTube. (n.d.). MAN B&W vs Wärtsilä Sulzer: Name of various series and comparison.
Retrieved from [Link]

YouTube. (n.d.). Difference in MC & ME engine: Wärtsilä Sulzer marine engine


comparison. Retrieved from [Link]

MDPI. (n.d.). Assessing the sustainability of the most prominent type of marine diesel
engines. Retrieved from [Link]

Reddit. (n.d.). Pistons for the Wärtsilä RT-flex96C, the world's largest engine. Retrieved
from [Link]

You might also like