Mitsubishi UE and UEC Two-Stroke Marine Engines

The Mitsubishi UE engine is Japan’s only home-grown low-speed two-stroke marine diesel design, and the UEC series is its modern crosshead form. Where most Japanese builders made their living assembling Burmeister & Wain or Sulzer engines under license, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) drew its own two-stroke from the 1950s onward. That design now belongs to Japan Engine Corporation (J-ENG), the company formed on 1 October 2017 to carry the UE line forward. This article covers the whole story: the origin of the UE at MHI, the UEC families and their bore range, the move to electronic control and dual fuel, the 2017 reorganization, and where the line sits against MAN Energy Solutions and WinGD.

Why a Japanese two-stroke matters

There are very few independent low-speed two-stroke designs in the world. The slow-speed crosshead engine that drives almost every large merchant ship comes from a short list of design owners: MAN Energy Solutions (the B&W lineage), WinGD (the Sulzer lineage), and Mitsubishi/J-ENG (the UE lineage). Everyone else who builds these engines does so under license from one of those three. Hyundai, Doosan, Mitsui E&S, Kawasaki, and the major Chinese builders are licensees, not design owners.

That distinction sets MHI apart. A licensee pays a royalty per engine, builds to a frozen drawing set, and waits for the design owner to release the next rating or fuel option. A design owner controls the combustion chamber, the scavenging geometry, the fuel-injection timing, and the development roadmap. Japan held one of only three such design seats, and it chose to keep it. The UE line is the reason a Japanese yard can specify a wholly Japanese propulsion package, royalty-free, from a domestic design owner. For comparison, see Mitsui E&S marine engines and Kawasaki Heavy Industries marine engines, both long-standing MAN B&W licensees rather than design owners.

The strategic value is national as much as commercial. Japan’s merchant fleet, its shipbuilders, and its naval auxiliary program all gain from a sovereign two-stroke capability that doesn’t depend on a European royalty holder. That logic shaped both the original 1950s development decision and the 2017 reorganization that preserved the line under J-ENG.

Origins at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries

Mitsubishi entered marine diesel work in the 1920s the same way its peers did: through licenses. The company built Sulzer and Burmeister & Wain two-strokes for the Japanese merchant fleet and the Imperial Japanese Navy through the 1930s and 1940s. License-building taught the engineering, but it left the intellectual property abroad. After 1945 MHI kept building licensed engines while it grew its own design staff.

The first wholly Japanese-designed two-stroke came in the 1950s. MHI’s engineers wanted to cut the license-fee dependence and own a competitive Japanese design outright. The result was the UE, short for “universal engine,” a name picked to signal a broad span of marine and stationary uses. J-ENG dates the UE business to 1955, when the first 9UEC75/150 engine was installed on NYK’s Sanuki Maru. The “75/150” reads as a 750 mm bore and a 1,500 mm stroke in the early designation style, with nine cylinders.

Through the 1960s and 1970s the UE matured from a first design into a full product line. By the 1980s it was a fully indigenous Japanese engine with its own power range, its own combustion development, and its own license network in Asia. Cumulative UE production passed 40 million horsepower in 2022, a figure J-ENG cites as the running total across more than six decades of the line.

The shift from licensee to design owner wasn’t a single event. It ran through the 1950s and 1960s as MHI built its own test program, its own combustion research, and its own bore-and-stroke matrix rather than copying a European drawing set. The early naming style, with bore and stroke both in millimeters (the 75/150 of the first 9UEC75/150), gave way over time to the bore-only model numbers used today. By the time the UEC designation settled into continuous use in the 1970s, the design owed its layout to MHI’s own decisions on scavenging, valve cooling, and crosshead running gear rather than to any licensor.

Key dates in the UE lineage

The line’s history compresses into a short set of documented dates. They anchor the rest of this article.

• 1955: MHI installs the first UE engine, a 9UEC75/150, on NYK’s Sanuki Maru.
• 1957: Kobe Diesel becomes a UE licensee, beginning the second main production stream.
• 1 July 2016: MHIET is established to hold MHI’s medium-speed, high-speed, and turbocharger business.
• 1 October 2017: J-ENG is formed from Kobe Diesel and MHI’s Marine Machinery & Engine Division, taking the UE two-stroke line.
• 2022: cumulative UE production passes 40 million horsepower.
• 2024 to 2025: J-ENG announces ammonia-ready and methanol-ready UEC variants.

What UEC stands for

The bulk of the modern UE family carries the UEC designation. The letters describe the engine’s defining architecture: U for uniflow scavenge, E for an exhaust valve cooled by water, and C for crosshead. That spells out the standard slow-speed two-stroke layout. Air enters through ports near the bottom of the liner, sweeps up the cylinder, and leaves through a single hydraulically actuated exhaust valve in the cylinder head. The crosshead separates the piston rod’s side thrust from the running gear, which is what lets a two-stroke run on heavy fuel for tens of thousands of hours between overhauls. The fundamentals of this layout are covered in two-stroke marine diesel engine fundamentals.

Uniflow scavenging is the same air-handling principle MAN B&W and modern WinGD engines use. It moves the charge in one direction, bottom to top, rather than the loop path of older designs, which gives cleaner cylinder filling and lower residual exhaust gas at the start of compression. The UEC adopted uniflow as its scavenging method, and the “U” in the name records that choice rather than the loop scavenging some early two-strokes used.

The model number carries the bore. UEC50 means a 500 mm bore; UEC60 means 600 mm. The letters after the bore mark the generation and the variant: LS for long stroke, E for electronic control, Eco for the fuel-economy series. So a UEC50LSE-Eco reads as a 500 mm bore, long-stroke, electronically controlled, fuel-economy engine. Reading these strings is what the marine engine model decoder does for any maker’s designation.

The UEC families and their evolution

The UE line moved through several named generations, each one adding to the combustion, scavenging, and control of the one before. The early UE engines of the 1950s through the 1970s set the lineage. The UEC designation then carried the modern crosshead form from the 1970s onward, and it has stayed in continuous use across every later generation.

Long-stroke generations

The long-stroke series stretched the stroke relative to the bore to bring down piston speed and engine rpm, matching the engine to the larger, slower propellers that improve propulsive efficiency. The UEC-LSII was the second-generation long-stroke design. The UEC-LSE added electronic control to the long-stroke platform. The UEC-Eco generations focused on fuel consumption, and the latest UEC-LSH-Eco engines push the long-stroke geometry further still.

Real type designations across the family include the UEC33LSE through UEC60LSE medium-bore series, with bore in centimeters in the model number, and their UEC33LSE-Eco through UEC60LSE-Eco electronic counterparts. Earlier long-stroke variants carried designations such as UEC42LA and UEC52LA. Second-generation long-stroke designs included the UEC50LSII and UEC60LSII. The current generation in 2026 includes the UEC50LSH-Eco-D2, UEC50LSE-Eco-D, and UEC60LSH-Eco-D2, plus small dual-fuel variants.

Bore range

The UE family covers bores from roughly 330 mm to 680 mm, written in the model number as 33, 37, 43, 45, 50, 52, 60, and 68. The small end sits below what MAN B&W and WinGD usually offer in a two-stroke, which is exactly where the UE has always been strongest. The line was built for small and medium chemical tankers, cement carriers, bulk carriers up to about Handymax, container feeders, ro-ro vessels, coastal tankers, and specialty cargo ships. Stroke runs from roughly 0.96 m to 2.4 m, with stroke-to-bore ratios of about 2.6 to 3.5 in standard variants and up to 4.0 in the long-stroke designs.

The small-bore strength is a deliberate market position, not an accident of the design. A ship of 10,000 to 50,000 dwt needs a few thousand to a few tens of thousands of kilowatts, which a 330 to 680 mm bore two-stroke delivers at the propeller speed a smaller hull wants. MAN and WinGD price their two-stroke development around the high-volume deep-sea trades, so their smallest bores carry less of their attention. The UE filled that gap for decades, and the result is a fleet of chemical tankers, cement carriers, and feeders across Asia running UE power where a European two-stroke would be an awkward fit.

Reading a UEC designation

The model string packs the engine’s main facts into a few characters. Take UEC50LSH-Eco-D2: UEC marks the uniflow, water-cooled exhaust valve, crosshead architecture; 50 is the 500 mm bore; LS is long stroke; H marks the further-stretched long-stroke generation; Eco marks the fuel-economy series; and the D suffix marks a dual-fuel-capable build. A UEC60LSII reads as a 600 mm bore, long-stroke, second-generation engine. The number of cylinders sits at the front, so a 6UEC50LSE is the six-cylinder build of that 500 mm engine. The marine engine model decoder parses these strings for any maker, which matters when a vessel’s papers list an engine type without spelling out what each character means.

Design features that set the UE apart

Combustion and scavenging

The UEC uses uniflow scavenging through bottom liner ports and a single central exhaust valve, the same principle as the other modern two-strokes but with MHI’s own port timing, swirl, and combustion-chamber development behind it. Long-stroke geometry lowers mean piston speed for a given power, which extends liner and ring life and suits the slow propeller speeds that lift propulsive efficiency. Mean piston speed at the maximum continuous rating typically runs in the 7.0 to 8.5 m/s band for the family.

Turbocharging carries much of the air-handling load. A modern two-stroke draws far more air than its own pistons could pump, so an exhaust-gas turbocharger raises the scavenge-air pressure above atmospheric and forces the charge through the liner ports. The scavenge pressure sets how much air mass reaches the cylinder, which in turn caps how much fuel can burn cleanly and how much power the cylinder can make. The scavenge air pressure estimate gives the working number for a given engine and load. UEC engines moved up the boost ladder across generations the same way the European designs did, trading higher firing pressures for lower fuel consumption within the limits the running gear and the liner can take.

Brake mean effective pressure measures how hard each cylinder works per cycle, independent of size. Modern UEC engines sit in the same loading band as their European peers, in the region of 16 to 20 bar at the rated point, which is what you expect from a current heavy-fuel two-stroke. The figure rises across generations as turbocharging and combustion control improve, and it’s the cleanest single number for comparing engine families on equal terms.

Fuel injection and the move to electronic control

Early UEC engines used a camshaft to drive the fuel pumps and the exhaust-valve actuation, with injection timing fixed by the cam profile. The Eco generation replaced the camshaft with electronic control. The Eco engines run common-rail fuel injection on the two-stroke, hydraulic exhaust-valve actuation, and software-driven cylinder balancing. That gives variable injection timing, cylinder-by-cylinder optimization, and adaptive operation across loads and ambient conditions, in the same way MAN B&W’s ME-C series and WinGD’s electronically controlled engines do.

The payoff is in part-load fuel consumption and emissions tuning. A camshaft engine has one timing map, frozen by the cam grind. An electronic engine retimes injection at every load point, which lets it hold low specific fuel oil consumption across a wider operating band and trim NOx to the IMO Tier limit in force. The relationship between fuel consumption and brake thermal efficiency is direct:

Specific fuel oil consumption and brake thermal efficiency are two readings of the same physics. A lower SFOC means more of the fuel’s energy reaches the crankshaft. The conversion runs through the lower heating value of the fuel, so the same gram-per-kilowatt-hour figure maps to a different efficiency for heavy fuel oil, marine gas oil, or methanol. The electronic UEC engines chase a lower SFOC across the load range, not just at the single rated point that the camshaft engines were optimized for.

Ambient air conditions move the number too. Scavenge-air temperature changes the mass of charge in the cylinder and shifts the achievable SFOC, which is why sea-trial figures get corrected to a reference air state before they’re compared to the guarantee.

Dual fuel and the low-carbon direction

Methanol: the UEC-LSGI

Mitsubishi offered a methanol-capable UEC well before most of the market. The UEC-LSGI family is the dual-fuel variant, where LGI stands for liquid gas injection. The architecture parallels MAN B&W’s ME-LGI: high-pressure methanol injected into the cylinder with a diesel pilot to start ignition, since methanol’s cetane number is too low to compression-ignite on its own. The first commercial orders date from the late 2010s, ahead of much of the methanol-fueled segment. The broader picture of methanol as a marine fuel sits in methanol marine engines overview.

Methanol’s appeal is its handling. It’s a liquid at ambient temperature and pressure, so it doesn’t need the cryogenic tanks and pressure vessels that LNG does, and the bunkering chain is closer to conventional oil bunkering. Burned methanol made from renewable or recovered carbon can cut well-to-wake carbon dioxide sharply, though the fuel carries only about half the energy per liter of marine gas oil, so tank volume roughly doubles for the same range.

LNG and ammonia

UE engines haven’t entered widespread LNG operation, though prototype LNG-capable variants have been demonstrated. The bigger move under J-ENG is toward ammonia. The company announced ammonia-ready and methanol-ready UEC variants across 2024 and 2025, lining the product up with the post-2030 alternative-fuel transition. Ammonia carries no carbon at all, so it sidesteps the carbon dioxide problem entirely, but it brings toxicity, a low flame speed, and nitrous-oxide slip to manage. The design and safety picture for ammonia sits in ammonia marine engines overview.

Carbon dioxide per unit of work is the metric these fuel switches turn on. It ties the fuel’s carbon content to the engine’s efficiency in a single number:

That figure is what the IMO carbon intensity rules work from. The Energy Efficiency Design Index sets a carbon-dioxide-per-transport-work ceiling on new ships, and the Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index, covered in what is EEXI, applies a parallel limit to ships already trading. A UEC engine on a carbon-free or low-carbon fuel changes the carbon term in those formulas directly, which is the commercial reason J-ENG is steering the line toward ammonia and methanol rather than chasing further thermal-efficiency gains on heavy fuel oil alone.

The transfer to Japan Engine Corporation

The UE/UEC two-stroke business no longer sits inside MHI. It belongs to Japan Engine Corporation, and getting that history right matters because the line is often still called “Mitsubishi” out of habit.

J-ENG was established on 1 October 2017 through the consolidation of two companies. One was Kobe Diesel Co., Ltd., founded in 1910 and a UE licensee from 1957. The other was the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Marine Machinery & Engine Division, which had run the UE business since 1955. The merger pulled the UE design and its main builder into a single company, headquartered in Akashi, Hyogo, with production in Kobe, Akashi, and Imabari. J-ENG describes itself as the only Japan-domiciled designer of slow-speed two-stroke marine engines, which is the design-owner seat MHI originated and the merger preserved.

A separate 2016 step split off the rest of MHI’s engine work. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Engine & Turbocharger Ltd. (MHIET) was established on 1 July 2016 to take MHI’s medium-speed and high-speed engines and the turbocharger business. So the reorganization ran on two tracks: MHIET (July 2016) for the four-stroke and turbocharger lines, and J-ENG (October 2017) for the low-speed two-stroke UE line. Both companies sit under the broader MHI corporate umbrella, but the UE design owner today is J-ENG, not MHI.

J-ENG continues to develop and produce UEC engines under its own corporate brand. It also builds MAN B&W licensed engines under the legacy MHI license, so the company is both a design owner of its own line and a licensee of MAN’s, the same dual role several Asian builders occupy. The accurate framing is that MHI originated the UE in 1955 and developed it for six decades, and J-ENG has carried it since 2017.

The merger that formed J-ENG joined two companies with deep separate histories. Kobe Diesel traced back to 1910 and had built UE engines as a licensee since 1957, so it brought a half-century of UE production experience. MHI’s Marine Machinery & Engine Division brought the design ownership and the development program. Pulling both into one company put the design and its main builder under a single roof, which is a stronger position for funding the next generation than a split design-owner-and-licensee arrangement would have been. The Akashi headquarters and the Kobe, Akashi, and Imabari plants give J-ENG a concentrated Japanese manufacturing base for the line.

Calling the engines “Mitsubishi UE” remains common in the trade because the design ran under the MHI name for over sixty years, and the model strings still carry the UE/UEC letters MHI chose. The precise current statement is that J-ENG owns and develops the line, MHI originated and matured it, and the two companies sit under the same broad MHI corporate group through the ownership ties the 2016 and 2017 reorganizations left in place. For any contractual or class purpose, the engine maker of record on a new UE engine is J-ENG.

Cross-licensing and where the engines get built

UEC engines have been built under license by partners outside Japan, including Korean and Chinese builders, in addition to the engines that J-ENG builds directly. The volume of cross-licensed UEC production is far smaller than MAN B&W or WinGD licensed production, but it puts a non-trivial share of UE engines into the world fleet beyond what the Japanese plants ship.

Quality across licensee builds varies more than for factory-direct engines, which is a normal feature of any licensed two-stroke program. Engines built directly by J-ENG meet the design specification as a baseline; licensee output depends on the individual builder’s process control. Class survey of UE engines follows the same regime as any other two-stroke, with ClassNK and the other major societies surveying construction and in-service condition against their rules.

The economics of being a design owner rather than a licensee run in J-ENG’s favor on its own engines and against it on the MAN B&W engines it also builds. On a UE engine, J-ENG keeps the design value and pays no outside royalty; on a licensed MAN B&W engine, it pays MAN per cylinder and builds to MAN’s frozen drawings. That dual role is common among Asian builders, but the UE line is what lets J-ENG capture full design value on part of its output instead of being a pure licensee like most of its neighbors. The trade-off is scale: J-ENG funds UE development from a fraction of the volume MAN and WinGD spread their development cost across, which is the structural pressure behind every decision on how far and how fast to push the next UE variant.

For the customer, the design-owner status changes the relationship. A yard that wants a change to the engine, a new rating, or a custom fuel arrangement deals with J-ENG as the source of the design, not as a builder waiting on a European licensor. For a Japanese yard or owner, that domestic design ownership shortens the loop and keeps the engineering conversation in one country and one language.

Per-cylinder output and engine sizing

Per-cylinder power for the family runs roughly 800 kW to 4,200 kW at the maximum continuous rating, set by bore, stroke, and the chosen rating point. Engines are usually built with 5 to 8 cylinders, which puts total output in the region of 4,000 kW to 33,000 kW across the range. Design speeds run about 90 to 150 rpm depending on bore and stroke, with smaller bores turning faster and larger bores slower. That’s a higher speed band than MAN B&W’s largest G-series engines, which run nearer 75 rpm, and it reflects the smaller propellers fitted to the smaller ships the UE serves.

Fuel demand scales steeply with ship speed, which is the single biggest lever on a UE-powered ship’s operating cost. The relationship is close to cubic:

Power demand at the propeller rises with roughly the cube of speed, so a ship that drops from 15 to 12 knots cuts shaft power by about half. That cube law is why slow steaming saves so much fuel on long-haul routes. It bites less on the UE fleet than on the deep-sea container fleet, because the smaller chemical tankers, cement carriers, and feeders that the UE drives spend fewer days at sea per year, so fuel is a smaller slice of their total cost and the incentive to slow down is weaker. For a full propulsion estimate, the slow-speed two-stroke main engine system calculator ties power, speed, and fuel together.

Market position against MAN B&W and WinGD

The UE family holds a small, stable, specialized share of the low-speed two-stroke market. Annual UE/UEC output is far below MAN B&W or WinGD volume, which follows from the smaller ship segment the line serves. The market concentrates in Asia, in Japan, South Korea, and China, reflecting both the fleet there and the license relationships with Asian yards.

The line complements the European designs more than it fights them head-on. MAN and WinGD own the very-large-bore segment for VLCCs, large container ships, and Capesize bulkers, where bores run past 900 mm. The UE owns the small end, below 500 mm bore, where the European matrices thin out. In the overlapping medium-bore band the choice often comes down to the yard’s existing license relationship and the owner’s service-network preference rather than a clear technical edge either way. The table sets the families side by side.

The service network is the clearest commercial difference. MAN B&W and WinGD run global service organizations. The UE network concentrates in Japan, South Korea, and China, with thinner coverage elsewhere. An owner running UE engines in Europe or the Americas plans for longer parts lead times and may carry a larger onboard spares inventory than is standard for the bigger families. Major overhauls outside Asia can mean flying in specialists or routing the ship to an Asian service center.

In the small-ship segment the real alternative to a UE two-stroke often isn’t a MAN or WinGD two-stroke at all; it’s a medium-speed four-stroke. The two-stroke wins on fuel consumption and overhaul interval for ships with high sea-time fractions, which is what keeps the UE in that segment despite its narrower service reach.

Where the alternative-fuel race leaves the UE

The three design owners are running the same race toward low-carbon fuel, but at different scales. MAN’s two-stroke dual-fuel program ships LNG, methanol, and LPG engines in volume across the deep-sea fleet, and its ammonia engine is the most advanced of the three. WinGD’s X-DF LNG platform is widely deployed, with methanol and ammonia following. J-ENG runs the same fuel set, methanol now and ammonia in development, on a smaller base of orders.

Scale matters here more than anywhere else in the comparison. A dual-fuel engine needs a fuel-supply system, a control system, and a safety case for each new fuel, and the cost of developing those gets spread across the order book. J-ENG’s order book is thinner, so its ammonia and methanol commercialization timing leans on close work with Japanese owners and yards who’ll take the early engines. The strategic case for keeping a Japanese two-stroke design owner is partly this: it gives Japanese shipping a domestic partner for the fuel transition rather than waiting in line behind the deep-sea trades for a European maker’s attention.

The early methanol move is the clearest evidence the smaller maker can still lead on a specific fuel. Mitsubishi had a methanol-capable UEC-LSGI in commercial orders from the late 2010s, ahead of much of the segment, because methanol’s liquid handling and modest tank penalty suited the trades the UE already served. Ammonia is the harder target, and the 2024 to 2025 ready-variant announcements put J-ENG on the same timeline as the larger makers even if the volume behind it is smaller.

Maintenance and operating profile

UE overhaul intervals match other modern slow-speed two-strokes. Top overhaul, covering the piston, rings, and exhaust valve, falls in the 16,000 to 24,000-hour band. Major overhaul, covering the liner, bearings, and crankshaft, falls in the 30,000 to 40,000-hour band. Spare parts come from J-ENG or from the Asian license-builders, and lead times outside Asia run longer than for MAN or WinGD, which feeds back into the larger spares inventories UE operators carry.

The typical UE ship runs a mix of intermediate and full-load operation with frequent port calls and shorter passages than the long-haul container trades. Most UE engines burn heavy fuel oil, low-sulfur fuel oil, or marine gas oil depending on the regulatory regime in the trading area, while the UEC-LSGI engines burn methanol with a diesel pilot. The fleet’s fuel choices are now shaped as much by the IMO carbon rules and emission-control-area sulfur limits as by price.

The shorter-passage profile also shapes how the engine gets run. A feeder or chemical tanker on a regional route hits more maneuvering cycles per year than a deep-sea ship, so the engine spends more of its life away from the steady rated point and more time at part load and in transient operation. Electronic control helps here, because the Eco engines retime injection at every load rather than running a single cam-fixed map, which holds part-load fuel consumption and emissions closer to target across the duty cycle. A camshaft UEC is optimized at one point and drifts off it at others; an electronic UEC tracks the whole profile.

Slow steaming, the practice that cut deep-sea fuel bills sharply after 2008, applies less to the UE fleet for the same reason the cube law bites less there. A chemical tanker spending 120 days a year at sea saves far less in absolute fuel by slowing down than a container ship at sea 250 days a year, and the smaller ship’s schedule often won’t allow the slower speed in the first place. So the UE operating case rests more on a low SFOC across a realistic part-load band than on the deep-sea slow-steaming math.

Limitations

The power, consumption, BMEP, and speed figures here are typical ranges for the UE/UEC family, not guaranteed values for any specific engine. A given engine’s shop-test and sea-trial numbers come from its own type-approval test report and the maker’s project guide, corrected to the agreed reference ambient conditions. Use the maker’s documents, not these ranges, for any contractual or design calculation.

Type designations and the named generations move over time as J-ENG releases and retires variants. The model strings cited here were current to the family’s published history through 2026; check the current J-ENG product range for the engines on offer for a new project, because the Eco and dual-fuel designations in particular keep evolving.

The 2017 J-ENG formation and the 2016 MHIET split are documented corporate events, but the running split of design responsibility, licensing income, and service support among J-ENG, MHI, and the Asian license-builders is more detailed than a single article can map. The frontmatter citations point to the primary J-ENG and MHI corporate sources for the dates and structure stated here. Engine survey and type-test requirements follow IACS unified requirements and individual class-society rules, which carry the binding detail.

The formula cards on this page give the standard engineering relationships for BMEP, brake thermal efficiency, fuel-speed dependence, and carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour. They’re general two-stroke relationships, not UE-specific correlations, and they assume steady-state operation at a defined rating point. Transient operation, fouling, and off-design ambient conditions all shift the real numbers.

See also

• Japan Engine Corporation (J-ENG) overview: the current owner and builder of the UE/UEC line
• MAN Energy Solutions corporate history: the B&W two-stroke design owner
• WinGD corporate history: the Sulzer two-stroke design owner
• Mitsui E&S marine engines: a Japanese MAN B&W licensee
• Kawasaki Heavy Industries marine engines: another Japanese MAN B&W licensee
• Two-stroke marine diesel engine fundamentals: how the crosshead two-stroke works
• Common-rail fuel injection on two-stroke engines: the injection technology behind the Eco engines
• Methanol marine engines overview: the fuel behind the UEC-LSGI
• Ammonia marine engines overview: the next dual-fuel direction
• What is EEDI and what is EEXI: the carbon-intensity rules driving fuel choice
• Marine engine makers: the full set of builders and design owners

Related calculators

• Slow-speed two-stroke main engine system
• Marine engine model decoder
• Engine brake thermal efficiency from SFOC
• Brake mean effective pressure
• Mean piston speed
• Carbon dioxide emission per kWh
• Scavenge air pressure estimate