Talk:Fuel injection

Archives of past discussion

Archive 1
Archive 2

"Air-blast" injection

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·_C22:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Citation still needed

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·_C20:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

refs

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)

Would you like to please share with us — in complete sentences — what you find pertinent about these links? Just dropping in a couple of URLs, in a section of their own, nonresponsive to two pending requests for citation on this page, is not especially coöperative or productive. Neither is dumping in large quantities of text presumably from some of these links, as you did (and I undid) twice today. Please try to engage in discussion; that's what the talk page is for. Thanks! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C05:05, 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)

Other fuel injectors

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)

Could you provide some more context for what you are talking about. Are you complaining about a specific part of the article or something on the talk page or something in the talk page archives? Thanks.  Stepho  (talk) 02:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Toyota two-stroke

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 you provide an online reference for this please. Also, Toyota have been using metric for over 70 years - why would they call it a 244 ci engine when they would normally call it a 3.9 or 4.0 litre engine ?  Stepho  (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Whats the differnce between Gasoline direct injection and Fuel injection

Can someone please tell me that? - 83.108.194.198 (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Fuel injection is when fuel (gasoline/petrol, diesel, LPG, kerosene, etc) is injected into the engine under pressure via an externally controlled pump - as oppose to carburettors in which the fuel is sucked in via the venturi effect. Fuel injection is a very broad term, covers many fuel types, injector types and many different placements of the injectors. Gasoline injection is one particular variation of fuel injection. It involves a specific fuel (gasoline/petrol) that is injected directly into the cylinders - it requires a hole in the cylinder head into which the injector works. Older gasoline injection systems injected the fuel into the inlet manifold (ie wet manifold), so it was easy to have a cylinder head that could have either a carburettor or injection system bolted to it (common to have both systems offered in different markets in the transition period during the 1980's. GDI gives much better response, economy, emissions, etc but requires an injector that can handle high temperatures.  Stepho  (talk)

Thanks, that cleared it. I thought EFI and all brands talking about fuel injection were talking about GDI, so I guess HPDI is GDI? 83.108.194.198 (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the term HPDI before, but a quick search on the web came up with only Yamaha outboard motors. My best guess is the same as yours - that it is just a variation of GDI using higher pressure than normal. http://www.yamaha-motor.com/outboard/benefits/hpdi_benefits/base.aspx has a nice picture of DI. The same page on the 'Six Individual Fuel Injectors' tab shows the higher pressure part (but doesn't mention the pressure of plain GDI)  Stepho  (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to outboard, I myself have a 2005 Tohatsu 2-stroke with carburetors. But lately EU regulations and USEPA have forced the outboard makers to create two-strokes with DI or FI. Tohatsu now use what they call direct fuel injection (or TLDI for Two stroke Low pressure Direct Injection), I guess thats the same as the Yamaha but with lower pressure. Yamaha also use EFI (Electric Fuel Injection) on some of their four-strokes (like F70), but I'm not really sure if thats DI, I guess that goes under FI. 83.108.193.121 (talk) 07:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Pre mandate models are exempt from low emission rules.--Timpicerilo (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Mechanical fuel injection

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)

Edit request from 12.238.8.30, 13 August 2010

{{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)

Anthony Appleyard has already taken care of this. Please consider creating an account; it carries many benefits including the ability to edit semi-protected pages, and is free, quick, and easy, requiring only a username and password. Intelligentsium 22:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Injectors used in 5.0L example are undersized for the engine

Substituting real variables for the 5.0 L engine at idle.

* $0.55{\frac {lb}{min}}\times {\frac {1min}{700rev}}\times {\frac {1revolution}{2strokes}}\times {\frac {1}{14.64}}\times 2.5{\frac {min}{lb}}=6.7\times 10^{-5}min=4ms$

Substituting real variables for the 5.0 L engine at maximum power.

* $28{\frac {lb}{min}}\times {\frac {1min}{5500rev}}\times {\frac {1revolution}{2strokes}}\times {\frac {1}{11.00}}\times 2.5{\frac {min}{lb}}=57.9\times 10^{-5}min=35ms$

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

There should be a large criticism section in this article, especially versus injected diesels!

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)

You need to find references (in books or respected magazines) showing that modern diesel engines don't last as long. You also need to show that it is because of the injection system rather than other pars of the engine.

What do you mean by "sucker" diesel blocks? Do you mean naturally aspirated as opposed to turbo? If so, then that is not relevant to an injection article.

What do you mean by non-injected diesels? Don't all diesel engines require injectors?

You need to find references showing that modern diesel injection systems allow more high power tuning when compared to older systems. Assuming modern diesels are more tunable for high power, it may be for other reasons than the type of injection they use.  Stepho  talk  23:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Also note a lot of Taxi operators are running their diesel powered modern cars for 450+k kilometers without needing to fix injectors.The biggest problem with a modern diesel is rather the particulate filter assembly, which often need to be replaced at a enormous cost after just 120k kilometers, although moste manufacturers are now starting with longer life filters which is supposed to last for the life of the car (but if they don't they are even more expensive) Sijambo (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2013 (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)

It's a view from above (ie bird's eye view). Inverting it would be just as bad.  Stepho  talk  23:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Supercritical fluid injection

Should be mentioned in the article, no?

Serketan (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 August 2012

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)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I'm afraid Wikipedia itself can't be used as a source. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 08:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Electronic injection

"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)

minor quibble

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)

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)