This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fuel injection article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about fuel injection. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about fuel injection at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Wdl1961, you made this edit, which consists in part of gainsaying the previous assertion, without any support. For now, I've removed the text saying the air-blast system was inefficient (previous text) or efficient (your text). Do you have reliable support for your assertion that the air-blast injection system was more efficient than some other (which other?) system? Also, we needn't go into detail here about how Hesselman engines work; that's what the Hesselman engine article is for. This is the article about fuel injection. Thanks! — Scheinwerfermann T· C 22:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Wdl1961, this edit has been reverted, because the reference you provided did not support the tagged assertion and is of indeterminate reliability. Can you find a reliable source to support the tagged assertion? Thanks! — Scheinwerfermann T· C 20:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
www.freepatentsonline.com/5085189.html - Similar www.normanchigier.com/Fuel_Injection_email.html - Cached - Similar www.freepatentsonline.com/5085189.html - Similar www.normanchigier.com/Fuel_Injection_email.html - Cached - Similar
Wdl1961 ( talk) 03:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
quit your corrupting this page
Wdl1961 ( talk) 05:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Was this the reason for blocking the article? If so, isn't it time to unlock it?
ivaneduardo747 ( talk) 00:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
uh, what about other fuel injectors like in jet engines, rockets, etc? This title should not be reserved for gasoline and diesel injectors. That would be the largest subsection, but not even close to the whole thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.128.130 ( talk) 01:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
There's a big, complex and heavy conceptual automotive two-stroke designed by Toyota. The engine is one of the company’s dual-overhead cam, four-stroke engines converted to run a two-stroke cycle. The camshafts run at crankshaft speed then air is delivered to the intake valves through a supercharger. Fuel is then added through a high-pressure, direct-injection system. A straight six cylinder, 244 cubic-inch version of this engine is suppose to produce torque equal to GM’s 454 V8.-- Timpicerilo ( talk) 12:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please tell me that? - 83.108.194.198 ( talk) 20:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I redirected mechanical fuel injection here (electronic fuel injection already redirected here). The last version before changed to a redirection is at [1]. I copied one sentence here from that article. RJFJR ( talk) 13:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} This request applies to the section "Direct Injection", paragraph 1, sentence 3.
Change text from: "In a common rail system, the fuel from the fuel tank is supplied to the common header (called the acculmulator)." Change text to: "In a common rail system, the fuel from the fuel tank is supplied to the common header (called the accumulator)."
This change changes the word, "acculmulator" to "accumulator" because the word is spelled incorrectly in the existing text.
12.238.8.30 ( talk) 20:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Injector pulsewidth typically ranges from 4 ms/engine-cycle at idle, to 35 ms per engine-cycle at wide-open throttle. The pulsewidth accuracy is approximately 0.01 ms.
In the example for maximum power at 5500 rpm, the 24 lb./hr. injectors used require a 35 ms. injection pulse per cycle to deliver the required fuel for the 11:1 air fuel ratio. The problem is that two engine revolutions (a complete engine cycle)at 5500 rpm are completed in 21.8181 milliseconds, far less than the 35 milliseconds for the requisite fuel pulsewidth. It would be better to redo the calculations with a 40 lb./hr. injector. The 5500 rpm example would then require a just obtainable 21 millisecond fuel pulse while the idle pulse would drop to a 1.8 millisecond pulsewidth, at or below the absolute linearity minimum for most fuel injectors.
If greater dynamic range is required, than pressure across the injector must be varied to meet both low pulsewidth linearity as well as maximum high power flow capacity. Unfortunately, manifold pressures are low at idle and high at wide open throttle operation requiring an even larger range of fuel rail pressures to achieve a higher rail to manifold delta pressure at high speed and load operation. To make the tradeoffs even worse, pump capacity decreases with pressure, and at lower flows fuel remains in the hot fuel rail longer requiring a minimum absolute pressure to keep from vaporizing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.2.1.101 ( talk) 19:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I disagree w/ the above conclusion the injector is too small.
One problem w/ the formula is it does not account for multiple injectors, typically port injection uses one injector per cylinder. A 5.0L V8 w/ 8 24lb/hr injectors would generally be considered more than adequate.
Another issue is it seems to assume fuel can only be injected during the intake stroke, when it can actually be throughout all 4 strokes, for port or TB injection.
Third, it doesn't seem to account for turn on and turn off delays due to injector inductance.
-phil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.192.215.56 ( talk) 05:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC) <rathod>we can stop the fuel injection in other 3 strokes which are occuring exept than the intake stroke by taking a delay time in injection for three strokes
Modern diesel cars in Europe are usually sold by their first owner after 200-220k or even 150k kilometers, because they know there will soon be problems with injector tips and costs of replacement are scary / ridiculous. A single spare sprayer tip costs the price of a fine 21-speed mountain bike and usually we speak of inline 4/5 cyl engines, so costs can run to up to 4/5 tips and that would buy you a 125ccm scooter brand new!
Anyhow, these 1800-2000 bar high-pressure diesel injector systems are totally fragily and subpar or contaminated fuel will destroy them in as little time as 2 fuel tank fills. The sprinkler tip's holes are as small as 1/1000th of a millimeter in diameter (not a typo!) and as little as one grain of sand or dust makes them explode like a faulty cannon.
Modern european diesel engines haven't got the reliability of good old 1970s naturally aspirated "sucker" diesel blocs, which easily made it to 750k kilometers or more without overhaul. They were heavy, slow-revving, sluggish and underpowered, but low running costs, ample torque and indestructible reliability made them an icon, especially the old large "vertical headlamp housing style" Mercedes limos / station wagons with a diesel powerplant. Direct injected common-rail diesel engines are only there to make the car manufacturer affiliated repair shops blossom.
Furthermore it is very easy to illegally chip-tune commonrail diesels to excessive power level, most done to Audi and BMW cars, so that young wealthy sociopathic adults can play dragster racer at traffic lights. The result are really large puffs of black soot from unburned diesel fuel, that overwhelms the particulate filter assembly and spews carcinogenic micro-particulate pollution all over the street. Particulate pollution from the supposedly enviro-friendly diesel engines is a huge problem now all across Europe and aftermarket injected block-boosting is a big part of it.
In contrast, non-injected diesels were not suitable to excessive tuning, in fact alpha-male type avoided them due to sluggishness of 1970-80s diesel blocs. 87.97.106.110 ( talk) 22:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
== Image inverted ==
The image at top right (2.5 liter Jeep engine) is inverted. Would someone please correct this!
OldJohn1928 ( talk) 15:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Should be mentioned in the article, no?
Serketan ( talk) 20:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change This system used a normal gasoline fuel pump, to provide fuel to a mechanically driven injection pump, which had separate plungers per injector to deliver a very high injection pressure directly into the combustion chamber. to This system used a normal gasoline fuel pump, to provide fuel to a mechanically driven injection pump, which had separate plungers per injector to deliver a very high injection pressure directly into the combustion chamber. The cars showed very good performance and up to 30% less fuel consumption over the carburettor version. The vehicles had problems to start, however, when the engine was warm due to the vapor lock. because I read it in a German Wikipedia and this is a translation. I think the cars were made in Germany and they have better information. 86.49.45.25 ( talk) 07:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
"The first commercial electronic fuel injection (EFI) system was Electrojector" This statement is nonsense since, as the text explains, the system was never made available to the public.
The next paragraph continues "Chrysler offered Electrojector on the 1958" but once again states that only experimental vehicles were equipped with the system.
This article is about commercial fuel injection and these two paragraphs about purely experimental systems that never progressed have no place here. DesmondW ( talk) 14:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
It says in Chrysler 300 letter series#1958 300D that "thirty-five cars were built with fuel injection" but it also says that the Electrojector system "proved troublesome" and "most cars had it replaced with the dual four barrel carburetor setup." I think this is a good indication that the "Electrojected" 1958 Chrysler products did, in fact, make it into production. There just aren't too many still on the road.-- Kevjgav ( talk) 08:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The Chevrolet Corvette was available with fuel injection in the 1957-1965 model years, but the Rochester fuel injection was a mechanical system which also used a mechanical pump. Bosch made improved versions of both mechanical and electronic. The Bosch K- Jetronic "continuous injection" was a mechanical system with an electric pump (electro-mechanical fuel injection?) and provided a continuous flow of fuel into the engine. There was also the Bosch L-Jetronic "air-flow controlled injection" which was the first reliable electronic system (as far as I know) but this clearly isn't relevant. Nevertheless, with the first two comments, I did intend to have some relevance.-- Kevjgav ( talk) 08:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I found the site, which the guy doesn't actually own. It says in
http://www.allpar.com/cars/desoto/electrojector.html that this car is believed to be the only fuel injected DeSoto still on the road with the original fuel system. The Electrojector system was first used in the 1957
Rambler Rebel but the "Electrojected" Rebel never went beyond a
pre-production car. This is a website dedicated to the Chrysler company itself.--
Kevjgav (
talk)
14:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The use of the word "admitting" in the introductory sentence is unfortunate, I think. Admitted implies "allowed in;" apparently, some sort of gate is opened up and the fuel is allowed to wander in of its own accord. In actuality, the fuel is forced in by injection. A more forceful verb would be more accurate; "introducing," perhaps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.18.94 ( talk) 14:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Neither two mentions of 'fuel rail' in the article link to fuel rail, please fix this.
Artur Lira ( talk) 01:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Thanks,
Celestra (
talk)
05:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The following statement 'easily distinguishable from their prominent velocity stacks' needs to be changed to something like 'easily distinguishable because of their prominent velocity stacks'. The word 'from' in this context has two possible meanings that are complete opposites from each other. Changing 'from' to 'because of' confirms that the prominent velocity stacks are proof that mechanical injection exists and is present in this specific machine. The word 'by' would also be more appropriate, but 'because of' leaves no doubt what the authors means. The statement is in the fourth paragraph of the section 'Development in gasoline/petrol engines': 'Immediately following the war, hot rodder Stuart Hilborn started to offer mechanical injection for race cars, salt cars, and midgets,[9] well-known and easily distinguishable from their prominent velocity stacks projecting upwards from the engine they were used on.' Part of the pleasure of learning is from the reader not having to muddle through difficult-to-understand writing. Good articles absolutely must minimize how much time the reader wastes. Linstrum ( talk) 13:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Please, help me to understand the difference between direct- and indirect-injection. The Triumph TR5 has a mechanic indirect injection ? Thanks.
The spelling of the "Carburettor" in the introduction is mis-spelled as "Carburetor" - signed Vishnu494
Why is this article locked? Is fuel injection even remotely controvertial?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.91.78 ( talk) 02:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Time-line has gone wrong on Fuel_injection#History_and_development. The improvements that is attributed to Bosh was actually done by CAV in Acton because they had the advance tech skills to create a practical high pressure inline pump which delivered accurate fuelling throughout its speed and load range (and agree -it was in partnership with Bosh - Lucas_CAV#CAV). After the war, CAV licensed its technology to Bosh (which during the war, Bosh used without paying any royalties). This must be pretty evident to any industrial archaeologist as all Bosh inline pumps are identical to the original CAV pumps which preceded them (and of course there are the patents). Also, Cummins was an engine manufacture. They were not involved in developing FI that they fitted to their products which they sourced from CAV as an OEM. We need some RS to support this. Oil compression ignition engines last a long time and in the military they expect 25 years of service but we're going back 80 odd years. Where does one begin to get this time-line right?-- Aspro ( talk) 21:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Fuel injection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I saw no reason for the tag so I removed it. If you think it was there for a reason, feel free to revert my edit.
However I find no reason for it, text seems fine and it is referenced. Moreover, that tag is there since 2012 and it was improper for the purpose - referring to a whole article, instead of a section. -- Arny ( talk) 18:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
"Fuel rail" redirects to Common rail, which I believe is incorrect; it also refers to the "common" fuel rail for previous, non-direct injection systems, yet this is not mentioned there at all.
I propose creating an adequate section here and pointing the redirect to it.
The other possibility would be to correct the Common rail article to also include older variants, because the only real difference between Common rail / Direct injection and older gasoline/petrol injection systems is in the system pressure and injection timings.
-- Arny ( talk) 18:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following technical description to the section, Single point injection. Throttle body injection is based heavily on the design of carburetors in the fact that the fuel is sprayed into bowls and air flow is controlled by butterfly valves. The General motors version, produced by Rochester Products, is comprised of two cast pieces, the main body and the injector mount. The main body is modeled after a two-barrel carburetor. This component also houses the idle air-control valve and the throttle position senor. Unlike a carburetor there is no bowl and float assembly. The fuel is fed into the unit via a 3/8in. fuel line and returned to the tank via a 1/4in. line. This continuous flow maintains pressure to the injectors. The fuel passes through a permeable diaphragm, called a pressure regulator, which feeds into the injector mount. The injector mount is a cast component that secures the injectors in place over the fuel bowls at the necessary height to allow the correct fuel/air ratio to enter the intake manifold. This piece has fuel lines and wiring built into it to accommodate two injectors. The whole unit allows for a round air cleaner to mounted on top similar to that of a carburetor. [1] [2] [3] [4] Tdh6561 ( talk) 19:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following to the section "single port injection." There has recently been a rise in aftermarket fuel injection. Aftermarket refers to the market of auto parts available from third-party manufacturers that can be used to modify original equipment. As previously stated single port injection is often modeled after the carburetor. Companies such as Holley and FiTech have begun to produce single port injection systems to replace carburetors on classic and antique automobiles. These systems are modeled around the same concept of a carburetor but include the electronics and efficiency of modern fuel injection. Typically, these systems are built on a single cast piece designed to bolt in place of either two- or four-barrel carburetors. They include four barrels and a butterfly valve but that is where the similarities end. These systems mount injectors perpendicular to the barrel where a bowl and float assembly would be located. These systems are often customizable and allow the user to set their own air/fuel ratio. However, these systems require modifications to the fuel system. These systems require the installation of electric fuel pumps and return fuel lines. These systems also use electronics to monitor performance. These electronics have to be wired into a provided ECM. [1] [2] Tdh6561 ( talk) 22:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I need help with timing for Isuzu 320 Kgolagano machete ( talk) 09:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Along with a few other historical points. More mention should be made of the evolution of various injection systems, notably TBI, ITB injection, the totally absent J jetronic, etc. This page is missing quite a bit of history. 74.81.12.160 ( talk) 09:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello @ MrsSnoozyTurtle: Back in autumn of 2020, I tried making the fuel injection article as brief as possible because the term is – for good reason – not really used in scientific literature to describe certain systems; fuel injection is basically just a word that is used to express that an engine doesn't have a carburettor. I made a clade that describes mixture formation systems in "order" if you will ( Special:Diff/1123869184#Overview). Your very recent rewriting of the lead section made the article read as if it was limited to single-point injection (which is just one out of many "fuel injection" systems). The reason why the term "fuel injection" works in the first place is because it generally applied to car engines running on petrol, and because only manifold injection systems existed in significant quantities (we may ignore the Goliath, Gutbrod, and W 196/W 198 altogether). Thus, fuel injection could be interchangeably used with manifold injection, and that is especially true for regions in which Diesel cars are not frequently seen. In fact, the various fuel injection systems are so different from one another that there are monographs that focus on certain system (e. g., direction injection in internal combustion engines operating on the Otto principle). Wikipedia should depict topics from exactly that point of view. Best regards, -- Johannes ( Talk) ( Contribs) ( Articles) 10:35, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
First sentence of the lede:
Fuel injection is the introduction of fuel in an internal combustion engine, most commonly automotive engines, by the means of an injector.
The injector link is (at best) circular and adds nothing to this article. (The injector article does not deal with squirty injectors).
2A00:23C7:D29D:4E01:D476:4BFF:BE1:D6DE ( talk) 02:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fuel injection article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about fuel injection. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about fuel injection at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Wdl1961, you made this edit, which consists in part of gainsaying the previous assertion, without any support. For now, I've removed the text saying the air-blast system was inefficient (previous text) or efficient (your text). Do you have reliable support for your assertion that the air-blast injection system was more efficient than some other (which other?) system? Also, we needn't go into detail here about how Hesselman engines work; that's what the Hesselman engine article is for. This is the article about fuel injection. Thanks! — Scheinwerfermann T· C 22:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Wdl1961, this edit has been reverted, because the reference you provided did not support the tagged assertion and is of indeterminate reliability. Can you find a reliable source to support the tagged assertion? Thanks! — Scheinwerfermann T· C 20:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
www.freepatentsonline.com/5085189.html - Similar www.normanchigier.com/Fuel_Injection_email.html - Cached - Similar www.freepatentsonline.com/5085189.html - Similar www.normanchigier.com/Fuel_Injection_email.html - Cached - Similar
Wdl1961 ( talk) 03:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
quit your corrupting this page
Wdl1961 ( talk) 05:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Was this the reason for blocking the article? If so, isn't it time to unlock it?
ivaneduardo747 ( talk) 00:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
uh, what about other fuel injectors like in jet engines, rockets, etc? This title should not be reserved for gasoline and diesel injectors. That would be the largest subsection, but not even close to the whole thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.128.130 ( talk) 01:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
There's a big, complex and heavy conceptual automotive two-stroke designed by Toyota. The engine is one of the company’s dual-overhead cam, four-stroke engines converted to run a two-stroke cycle. The camshafts run at crankshaft speed then air is delivered to the intake valves through a supercharger. Fuel is then added through a high-pressure, direct-injection system. A straight six cylinder, 244 cubic-inch version of this engine is suppose to produce torque equal to GM’s 454 V8.-- Timpicerilo ( talk) 12:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please tell me that? - 83.108.194.198 ( talk) 20:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I redirected mechanical fuel injection here (electronic fuel injection already redirected here). The last version before changed to a redirection is at [1]. I copied one sentence here from that article. RJFJR ( talk) 13:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} This request applies to the section "Direct Injection", paragraph 1, sentence 3.
Change text from: "In a common rail system, the fuel from the fuel tank is supplied to the common header (called the acculmulator)." Change text to: "In a common rail system, the fuel from the fuel tank is supplied to the common header (called the accumulator)."
This change changes the word, "acculmulator" to "accumulator" because the word is spelled incorrectly in the existing text.
12.238.8.30 ( talk) 20:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Injector pulsewidth typically ranges from 4 ms/engine-cycle at idle, to 35 ms per engine-cycle at wide-open throttle. The pulsewidth accuracy is approximately 0.01 ms.
In the example for maximum power at 5500 rpm, the 24 lb./hr. injectors used require a 35 ms. injection pulse per cycle to deliver the required fuel for the 11:1 air fuel ratio. The problem is that two engine revolutions (a complete engine cycle)at 5500 rpm are completed in 21.8181 milliseconds, far less than the 35 milliseconds for the requisite fuel pulsewidth. It would be better to redo the calculations with a 40 lb./hr. injector. The 5500 rpm example would then require a just obtainable 21 millisecond fuel pulse while the idle pulse would drop to a 1.8 millisecond pulsewidth, at or below the absolute linearity minimum for most fuel injectors.
If greater dynamic range is required, than pressure across the injector must be varied to meet both low pulsewidth linearity as well as maximum high power flow capacity. Unfortunately, manifold pressures are low at idle and high at wide open throttle operation requiring an even larger range of fuel rail pressures to achieve a higher rail to manifold delta pressure at high speed and load operation. To make the tradeoffs even worse, pump capacity decreases with pressure, and at lower flows fuel remains in the hot fuel rail longer requiring a minimum absolute pressure to keep from vaporizing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.2.1.101 ( talk) 19:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I disagree w/ the above conclusion the injector is too small.
One problem w/ the formula is it does not account for multiple injectors, typically port injection uses one injector per cylinder. A 5.0L V8 w/ 8 24lb/hr injectors would generally be considered more than adequate.
Another issue is it seems to assume fuel can only be injected during the intake stroke, when it can actually be throughout all 4 strokes, for port or TB injection.
Third, it doesn't seem to account for turn on and turn off delays due to injector inductance.
-phil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.192.215.56 ( talk) 05:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC) <rathod>we can stop the fuel injection in other 3 strokes which are occuring exept than the intake stroke by taking a delay time in injection for three strokes
Modern diesel cars in Europe are usually sold by their first owner after 200-220k or even 150k kilometers, because they know there will soon be problems with injector tips and costs of replacement are scary / ridiculous. A single spare sprayer tip costs the price of a fine 21-speed mountain bike and usually we speak of inline 4/5 cyl engines, so costs can run to up to 4/5 tips and that would buy you a 125ccm scooter brand new!
Anyhow, these 1800-2000 bar high-pressure diesel injector systems are totally fragily and subpar or contaminated fuel will destroy them in as little time as 2 fuel tank fills. The sprinkler tip's holes are as small as 1/1000th of a millimeter in diameter (not a typo!) and as little as one grain of sand or dust makes them explode like a faulty cannon.
Modern european diesel engines haven't got the reliability of good old 1970s naturally aspirated "sucker" diesel blocs, which easily made it to 750k kilometers or more without overhaul. They were heavy, slow-revving, sluggish and underpowered, but low running costs, ample torque and indestructible reliability made them an icon, especially the old large "vertical headlamp housing style" Mercedes limos / station wagons with a diesel powerplant. Direct injected common-rail diesel engines are only there to make the car manufacturer affiliated repair shops blossom.
Furthermore it is very easy to illegally chip-tune commonrail diesels to excessive power level, most done to Audi and BMW cars, so that young wealthy sociopathic adults can play dragster racer at traffic lights. The result are really large puffs of black soot from unburned diesel fuel, that overwhelms the particulate filter assembly and spews carcinogenic micro-particulate pollution all over the street. Particulate pollution from the supposedly enviro-friendly diesel engines is a huge problem now all across Europe and aftermarket injected block-boosting is a big part of it.
In contrast, non-injected diesels were not suitable to excessive tuning, in fact alpha-male type avoided them due to sluggishness of 1970-80s diesel blocs. 87.97.106.110 ( talk) 22:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
== Image inverted ==
The image at top right (2.5 liter Jeep engine) is inverted. Would someone please correct this!
OldJohn1928 ( talk) 15:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Should be mentioned in the article, no?
Serketan ( talk) 20:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change This system used a normal gasoline fuel pump, to provide fuel to a mechanically driven injection pump, which had separate plungers per injector to deliver a very high injection pressure directly into the combustion chamber. to This system used a normal gasoline fuel pump, to provide fuel to a mechanically driven injection pump, which had separate plungers per injector to deliver a very high injection pressure directly into the combustion chamber. The cars showed very good performance and up to 30% less fuel consumption over the carburettor version. The vehicles had problems to start, however, when the engine was warm due to the vapor lock. because I read it in a German Wikipedia and this is a translation. I think the cars were made in Germany and they have better information. 86.49.45.25 ( talk) 07:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
"The first commercial electronic fuel injection (EFI) system was Electrojector" This statement is nonsense since, as the text explains, the system was never made available to the public.
The next paragraph continues "Chrysler offered Electrojector on the 1958" but once again states that only experimental vehicles were equipped with the system.
This article is about commercial fuel injection and these two paragraphs about purely experimental systems that never progressed have no place here. DesmondW ( talk) 14:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
It says in Chrysler 300 letter series#1958 300D that "thirty-five cars were built with fuel injection" but it also says that the Electrojector system "proved troublesome" and "most cars had it replaced with the dual four barrel carburetor setup." I think this is a good indication that the "Electrojected" 1958 Chrysler products did, in fact, make it into production. There just aren't too many still on the road.-- Kevjgav ( talk) 08:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The Chevrolet Corvette was available with fuel injection in the 1957-1965 model years, but the Rochester fuel injection was a mechanical system which also used a mechanical pump. Bosch made improved versions of both mechanical and electronic. The Bosch K- Jetronic "continuous injection" was a mechanical system with an electric pump (electro-mechanical fuel injection?) and provided a continuous flow of fuel into the engine. There was also the Bosch L-Jetronic "air-flow controlled injection" which was the first reliable electronic system (as far as I know) but this clearly isn't relevant. Nevertheless, with the first two comments, I did intend to have some relevance.-- Kevjgav ( talk) 08:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I found the site, which the guy doesn't actually own. It says in
http://www.allpar.com/cars/desoto/electrojector.html that this car is believed to be the only fuel injected DeSoto still on the road with the original fuel system. The Electrojector system was first used in the 1957
Rambler Rebel but the "Electrojected" Rebel never went beyond a
pre-production car. This is a website dedicated to the Chrysler company itself.--
Kevjgav (
talk)
14:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The use of the word "admitting" in the introductory sentence is unfortunate, I think. Admitted implies "allowed in;" apparently, some sort of gate is opened up and the fuel is allowed to wander in of its own accord. In actuality, the fuel is forced in by injection. A more forceful verb would be more accurate; "introducing," perhaps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.18.94 ( talk) 14:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Neither two mentions of 'fuel rail' in the article link to fuel rail, please fix this.
Artur Lira ( talk) 01:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Thanks,
Celestra (
talk)
05:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The following statement 'easily distinguishable from their prominent velocity stacks' needs to be changed to something like 'easily distinguishable because of their prominent velocity stacks'. The word 'from' in this context has two possible meanings that are complete opposites from each other. Changing 'from' to 'because of' confirms that the prominent velocity stacks are proof that mechanical injection exists and is present in this specific machine. The word 'by' would also be more appropriate, but 'because of' leaves no doubt what the authors means. The statement is in the fourth paragraph of the section 'Development in gasoline/petrol engines': 'Immediately following the war, hot rodder Stuart Hilborn started to offer mechanical injection for race cars, salt cars, and midgets,[9] well-known and easily distinguishable from their prominent velocity stacks projecting upwards from the engine they were used on.' Part of the pleasure of learning is from the reader not having to muddle through difficult-to-understand writing. Good articles absolutely must minimize how much time the reader wastes. Linstrum ( talk) 13:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Please, help me to understand the difference between direct- and indirect-injection. The Triumph TR5 has a mechanic indirect injection ? Thanks.
The spelling of the "Carburettor" in the introduction is mis-spelled as "Carburetor" - signed Vishnu494
Why is this article locked? Is fuel injection even remotely controvertial?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.91.78 ( talk) 02:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Time-line has gone wrong on Fuel_injection#History_and_development. The improvements that is attributed to Bosh was actually done by CAV in Acton because they had the advance tech skills to create a practical high pressure inline pump which delivered accurate fuelling throughout its speed and load range (and agree -it was in partnership with Bosh - Lucas_CAV#CAV). After the war, CAV licensed its technology to Bosh (which during the war, Bosh used without paying any royalties). This must be pretty evident to any industrial archaeologist as all Bosh inline pumps are identical to the original CAV pumps which preceded them (and of course there are the patents). Also, Cummins was an engine manufacture. They were not involved in developing FI that they fitted to their products which they sourced from CAV as an OEM. We need some RS to support this. Oil compression ignition engines last a long time and in the military they expect 25 years of service but we're going back 80 odd years. Where does one begin to get this time-line right?-- Aspro ( talk) 21:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Fuel injection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I saw no reason for the tag so I removed it. If you think it was there for a reason, feel free to revert my edit.
However I find no reason for it, text seems fine and it is referenced. Moreover, that tag is there since 2012 and it was improper for the purpose - referring to a whole article, instead of a section. -- Arny ( talk) 18:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
"Fuel rail" redirects to Common rail, which I believe is incorrect; it also refers to the "common" fuel rail for previous, non-direct injection systems, yet this is not mentioned there at all.
I propose creating an adequate section here and pointing the redirect to it.
The other possibility would be to correct the Common rail article to also include older variants, because the only real difference between Common rail / Direct injection and older gasoline/petrol injection systems is in the system pressure and injection timings.
-- Arny ( talk) 18:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following technical description to the section, Single point injection. Throttle body injection is based heavily on the design of carburetors in the fact that the fuel is sprayed into bowls and air flow is controlled by butterfly valves. The General motors version, produced by Rochester Products, is comprised of two cast pieces, the main body and the injector mount. The main body is modeled after a two-barrel carburetor. This component also houses the idle air-control valve and the throttle position senor. Unlike a carburetor there is no bowl and float assembly. The fuel is fed into the unit via a 3/8in. fuel line and returned to the tank via a 1/4in. line. This continuous flow maintains pressure to the injectors. The fuel passes through a permeable diaphragm, called a pressure regulator, which feeds into the injector mount. The injector mount is a cast component that secures the injectors in place over the fuel bowls at the necessary height to allow the correct fuel/air ratio to enter the intake manifold. This piece has fuel lines and wiring built into it to accommodate two injectors. The whole unit allows for a round air cleaner to mounted on top similar to that of a carburetor. [1] [2] [3] [4] Tdh6561 ( talk) 19:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following to the section "single port injection." There has recently been a rise in aftermarket fuel injection. Aftermarket refers to the market of auto parts available from third-party manufacturers that can be used to modify original equipment. As previously stated single port injection is often modeled after the carburetor. Companies such as Holley and FiTech have begun to produce single port injection systems to replace carburetors on classic and antique automobiles. These systems are modeled around the same concept of a carburetor but include the electronics and efficiency of modern fuel injection. Typically, these systems are built on a single cast piece designed to bolt in place of either two- or four-barrel carburetors. They include four barrels and a butterfly valve but that is where the similarities end. These systems mount injectors perpendicular to the barrel where a bowl and float assembly would be located. These systems are often customizable and allow the user to set their own air/fuel ratio. However, these systems require modifications to the fuel system. These systems require the installation of electric fuel pumps and return fuel lines. These systems also use electronics to monitor performance. These electronics have to be wired into a provided ECM. [1] [2] Tdh6561 ( talk) 22:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I need help with timing for Isuzu 320 Kgolagano machete ( talk) 09:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Along with a few other historical points. More mention should be made of the evolution of various injection systems, notably TBI, ITB injection, the totally absent J jetronic, etc. This page is missing quite a bit of history. 74.81.12.160 ( talk) 09:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello @ MrsSnoozyTurtle: Back in autumn of 2020, I tried making the fuel injection article as brief as possible because the term is – for good reason – not really used in scientific literature to describe certain systems; fuel injection is basically just a word that is used to express that an engine doesn't have a carburettor. I made a clade that describes mixture formation systems in "order" if you will ( Special:Diff/1123869184#Overview). Your very recent rewriting of the lead section made the article read as if it was limited to single-point injection (which is just one out of many "fuel injection" systems). The reason why the term "fuel injection" works in the first place is because it generally applied to car engines running on petrol, and because only manifold injection systems existed in significant quantities (we may ignore the Goliath, Gutbrod, and W 196/W 198 altogether). Thus, fuel injection could be interchangeably used with manifold injection, and that is especially true for regions in which Diesel cars are not frequently seen. In fact, the various fuel injection systems are so different from one another that there are monographs that focus on certain system (e. g., direction injection in internal combustion engines operating on the Otto principle). Wikipedia should depict topics from exactly that point of view. Best regards, -- Johannes ( Talk) ( Contribs) ( Articles) 10:35, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
First sentence of the lede:
Fuel injection is the introduction of fuel in an internal combustion engine, most commonly automotive engines, by the means of an injector.
The injector link is (at best) circular and adds nothing to this article. (The injector article does not deal with squirty injectors).
2A00:23C7:D29D:4E01:D476:4BFF:BE1:D6DE ( talk) 02:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)