How Much Savings Does a Grill Change Provide? Field Test Showed Gas Consumption Dropped by Over 30%

In professional kitchen equipment investment, the purchase price is often the first figure seen. However, if a grill operates for 10-12 hours a day, the true cost of the equipment can be determined by the energy it consumes over the years, the heat it generates, the need for cleaning, and the preparation time before service.

A new field study commissioned by a British restaurant chain aimed to measure this exact difference.

The research conducted by Ki-Tech Solutions & Innovations compared the restaurant's existing grill system with the Synergy Grill in the same operational environment. The study examined gas consumption, time to reach operating temperature, energy use during peak service periods, ambient temperature, grease accumulation, and temperature distribution on the cooking surface.

The results show significant differences in favor of the Synergy model. However, since the detailed technical report of the study is not publicly available, it is more accurate to view the figures as a case study conducted under real operational conditions rather than sufficient evidence for device selection.

The Difference Between 45 Minutes and 70 Minutes

In the first part of the study, separate meters were attached to the gas lines of each grill to measure the energy used until the devices reached their operating temperature.

The Synergy Grill reached its operating temperature in 45 minutes, while the existing grill took 70 minutes.

During this process, the Synergy device consumed 2.7651 cubic meters of gas, while the compared grill consumed 4.8277 cubic meters of gas. Researchers calculated this difference as approximately 43% gas savings during the heating phase.

The 25-minute difference is significant not only in terms of energy in chain restaurant operations.

If the kitchen can start the grill later in the morning or at the beginning of a shift, the time the device is kept hot while idle can be reduced. When this logic is applied to hundreds of branches, small daily differences can create large totals in annual energy consumption.

However, the actual monetary equivalent of this should also be calculated based on the restaurant's gas tariff, how many days the device operates, and daily operating hours.

Over 30% Difference in a 12-Hour Shift

The research did not only measure initial consumption.

During peak cooking periods and the 12-hour operating time, it was reported that the gas consumption of the Synergy Grill was over 30% lower compared to the system being compared.

From a restaurant management perspective, this figure may be more significant than the initial 43% savings.

Because it is not just a few minutes of pre-heat that primarily determines the energy bill over the device's lifespan, but the service operation that is repeated every day.

Therefore, when purchasing equipment, it may yield healthier results to measure energy with real menu and real service intensity rather than just looking at the device's kilowatt or nominal gas consumption.

A steakhouse, burger chain, and hotel kitchen may use the same grill differently.

Significant Difference Measured in Heat Spread in the Kitchen

Another striking part of the study was the ambient temperature in the kitchen.

Researchers measured the temperature two meters away from the grill, in the hood area. According to the results reported by Catering Insight, the measurement during the use of the Synergy Grill reached up to 40°C, while a maximum of 128°C was recorded for the competing device.

Here, the figure needs to be read carefully.

These values do not directly mean "kitchen staff were working in 128°C conditions"; the measurement was taken in the hood area near the grill. Since details such as sensor type, measurement duration, and baseline ambient temperature were not provided in the public report, it would not be correct to draw further conclusions about workplace safety or overall kitchen temperature.

Nevertheless, the heat emitted by the equipment is significant for operations.

More radiant and waste heat can increase the load on hoods and HVAC systems. In this case, the energy cost that does not appear in the grill's gas bill may be transferred to the kitchen's ventilation and cooling systems.

Thus, the total energy cost of the equipment may not only be the consumption seen on the device meter.

Grease Accumulation Measured at Less Than Half

The Ki-Tech study also compared grease accumulation in the ductwork.

According to the results, the Synergy Grill produced less than half the grease accumulation of the existing grill. It was also reported that less grease was observed on and around the device.

This finding has a different implication for management than energy savings.

Less grease accumulation could potentially affect cleaning time and the need for hood/duct maintenance. However, the public study does not calculate how much this corresponds to savings in annual cleaning costs or changes in maintenance periods.

Therefore, it is not possible to conclude that it "reduces cleaning costs by 50%".

What was measured is the amount of grease accumulation, not financial savings.

Cooking Performance Was Also Checked

The study divided the grill surface into four cooking zones to measure temperature distribution.

According to Catering Insight, more consistent temperature values were observed between the zones in the Synergy Grill. It is reported that the observations of the staff using the grill also support this. However, employee feedback is described in the news as "anecdotal"; that is, no controlled blind sensory tests or independent product quality assessments were conducted.

This distinction is critical for the restaurant.

A grill may consume less energy; however, if the cooking time of the product is extended or capacity decreases, part of the energy advantage may be lost within the operation.

Therefore, in equipment testing, these three areas should be measured together:

Energy consumption + product quality + throughput.

Optimizing only one does not guarantee overall restaurant performance.

Small Differences in Chain Restaurants Turn into Big Numbers

The point emphasized by Ki-Tech's General Manager Richard Fordham is the scale of the chain.

Savings on a single device may seem small; however, when the same equipment is rolled out to hundreds of restaurants, the impact can multiply.

For example, if a restaurant chain with 100 branches has two grills in each branch, the decision affects 200 devices.

At this point, the total cost of ownership becomes more important than the purchase price.

In the business's investment file, at least energy consumption, maintenance, cleaning, equipment lifespan, pre-heat time, service capacity, spare parts, and expected payback period should be calculated together.

An expensive device may be more economical than a cheaper device if it creates lower operating costs over its lifespan.

The opposite is also possible.

How Can Restaurants in Turkey Apply This Test?

The most beneficial aspect of this study for chains in Turkey is not so much the Synergy brand itself but rather showing the purchasing method.

When investing in a new grill, fryer, or combi oven, instead of deciding based on the manufacturer's catalog values, a pilot A/B test can be applied in one of the existing branches.

The existing device and the candidate device can be measured under the same menu, similar sales volume, and similar service time.

Daily consumption can be obtained through gas or electricity meters. Pre-heat time can be recorded. Hourly production can be measured during peak hours. The minutes of labor required for cleaning can be tracked. Breakdown and maintenance needs can be recorded during the pilot period.

In the final stage, the calculation should return to this question:

How many months does the additional purchase cost of the new device pay back with real operational savings?

Without this calculation, simply stating "30% less energy" is not sufficient for a purchasing decision.

Stafflink's Opinion

In our view, the most valuable aspect of this research is not how much savings the Synergy Grill provides, but rather demonstrating that professional kitchen equipment should be purchased based on field data rather than catalog data.

In operations where energy costs are high, the device price is only the beginning of the total cost.

Heating time, 12-hour energy consumption, heat emitted to the environment, hood load, cleaning time, and cooking capacity are recurring costs for years.

However, it is also important to remember the methodological limitations of this study. Since the competing device and restaurant chain were not disclosed, and no complete technical report was published, it would not be correct to use the savings values between 30-43% as fixed rates applicable to every kitchen.

A stronger approach for businesses would be to repeat the same measurement model in their own kitchens.