Talk:Fuel injection

Cleanup

I revised the whole page based on my 27 years of designing and calibrating fuel injection systems. I changed many of the previous contributor's content, but only if that content was untrue or grossly misleading. I did not alter previous contributor's edits regarding the specifics of the various manufacturers' EFI systems. Sometimes I reworded other's contributions to better convey the message, but I didn't remove any ideas.

For better or worse, I had to re-outline the whole page as these dramatic revisions rendered the old outline obsolete or incompatible.

My goal was to "clean it up" from a technical perspective, while still including all previous contributions.

I am a novice using Wikipedia so my formatting might be less than ideal, and I know I added links that don't have entries, but in time they will I hope.

Sattyam Sattyam 19:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Cleaned Up Distribution Effects

Explained in more detail power, efficiency, emission benefits. Sattyam 14:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

January 2006

I tried to clean up that edit of 05:47, 2 January 2006, but it's still of poor quality when compared to the rest of the article and should probably just be deleted. Mexcellent 06:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

US-centric

This page is great as far as it goes, but uses US-centric terms and examples throughout. More international balance would be of benefit Andrewferrier 16:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Apologies to the non US readers, but I don't posess a detailed knowledge of non-US regulations and evolutionary influences in sufficient detail to balance the article from a global perspective. Please feel free to add.

Someday this could be divided into a two articles. One could be "fuel injection" function, which is my primary contribution, and the second could be "EFI history".

Sattyam 19:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Illustrations requested

This article would greatly benefit from illustrations. Also, are the injectors ever mounted directly over the cylinder head (replacing intake valves)? What is their injection pressure? What does an injector look like? Does it have a single or multiple outlet holes? I assume the output is an atomized mist, right?

As per your request I have drawn and uploaded a diagram to the front page of the article. An injector looks like a small syringe made of tough metal about 80mm long with a single outlet although theres a device in it so when it sprays the fuel comes out in tiny atomised globules rather than one continous stream of fluid. If there are any issues with the diagram please let me know here, I will be watching the page for approximately one month. ta --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 18:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please replace the label "GAS" with "FUEL". Objections to "GAS" have been thoroughly discussed in connection with the diagram of the Carburetor and they apply equally to the Fuel injector.Cuddlyable3 18:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• I agree wholeheartedly. That has been bugging me for some time. The fual will not necessarily be petrol (gasoline). The intro of the autogas article also gives some background to why this is a problem. --Athol Mullen 21:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the diagram with an animated one that receives FUEL, shows the solenoid winding and has removed unhelpful lines and legends.Cuddlyable3 15:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's an excellent diagram you've put up, but I fear it will probably be deleted unless you re-upload it with proper copyright tagging. Just a note in the comment section saying you created it generally isn't sufficient to prevent such deletion, and it'd be a shame to lose this and the other images you've put together. It looks as if you've been alerted to this issue on your talk page, for pretty much every image you've uploaded. What is the difficulty you're experiencing selecting the applicable copyright tag from the dropdown menu on the upload screen...? --Scheinwerfermann 19:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I am not happy about some white spots that became evident to me after the animation was uploaded and resized. For each diagram I have loaded, I have checked "Public domain" but that has not prevented the automatic "untagged" warning that appears a little later. I am willing to try again. Cuddlyable3 21:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the new animated diagram to the older static one. Please disregard the animated diagram until such a time as the mechanism it shows is more detailed and correct, if it is a point of contention then I shall do it myself. At the moment its[sic] an animated bastardisation of one of my diagrams: . There seems to be confussion[sic] about where compression occurs and the complex solenoid system is rather simplified. (WP:RPA) Even under the free license agreement I should still be credited on the images page for creating it, not just 'an improvement on another wikipedia diagram', the free license agreement allows one to edit my work shamelessly, but it doesn't permit one to take work without proper credit. I was unhappy with the quality of the two new diagrams, which I do not feel is up to wikipedia's standards. As a result I have redrawn them myself, Gas has been changed to Fuel by popular demand. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 02:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia warns anyone submitting work that it may be viewed critically and edited by anyone. I don't think a reversion becomes justified by the kind of language that WikipedianProlific is using here - words like "shamelessly" and "bastardisation" are ad hominem. Wikipedia provides traceability of contributions but is not the place to build a gallery of anyone's own art. I consider neither File:FuelInjector2.gif nor as beyond improvement and it may become necessary to ask for arbitration between them. I intend to wait a few days, and then possibly revert to whichever diagram gets more consensus. There is nothing to say here about "some rather unpleasent postings" that WP has since withdrawn from his user page.Cuddlyable3 15:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

First off I mean no offense by use of words like bastardisation, it just means something thats the product of many different sources. Also I hope you don't mind but I resized those two images above just to save scrolling space and load times. I wish to point out that this isn't a revert war case. There was my original diagram. Then there was your animated version. Then there was my second diagram which was revised from the first diagram to resolve the issues that you had with it. The main reason I did this was because I had a few problems with your animation; 1.) There appears to be explusion of fuel from the nozzle prior to the spring moving forward, this isn't mechanically the case. 2.) I felt that the animation was not of a high enough level of quality compared with the static diagram to warrant is placement in the article. 3.) I was unhappy that although my work was submited under a free license agreement that it was not probably cited in your version. I am still entitled to be credited for its inception. However I realised at the time that you probably didn't know this and so let it slide, in future please be careful though.

I wish to find a mutual resolution to this as I feel the need to point out that I really have no personal interest in it, I simply wish the article to be the best it can be, and I have no wish nor intention to upset you in that process. How would you feel about using both a corrected animated version and the static version? I Think they both add something to the article in there own way and that this may be a good solution?

As for what has been said on my user page, (WP:RPA) I do not use wikipedia as an art gallery. I use deviantart.com and my own website as a gallery and none of these images are on either. What I do for wikipedia I do for free. The gallery on my userpage isn't a pompous exhibition of my 'skill', but rather a way for me to rapidly click on and access diagrams I've uploaded. It's like a list of quick links. It also serves as examples to people looking to request that I draw diagrams. Most of the work I do is by request, generally I don't seek out pages in need of art. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 16:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Electrical specifications

I would like to see specifications of injectors, for example, what voltage/current do they run at? What are their impedances? How about oscilloscope photos of the driving waveforms?

L-Jetronic: Porsche 914 was not the first

Hi there,

The 1974 Porsche 914 was among the first to get the L-Jetronic, but only because it used an engine that was devised for the VW 412. So the VW 412 should be listed as the "first", the 914 only re-used that engine (1.8 liter, engine code EC).

jens

Piezoelectric injectors

Can somebody add some information on piezoelectric injectors? They are used in many modern common rail diesel engines, as they can inject fuel more times per cycle at higher pressures. -- NaBUru38 20:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. Be bold and go do it yourself! --Scheinwerfermann 15:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

See US Patent 7 066 399 assigned to Bosch.Cuddlyable3 13:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Where did the 1990 date come from?

The article states that since 1990, almost all cars sold in first world countries use fuel injection. Seems like a rather arbitrary year to me. Fuel injection was phased in gradually rather than suddenly. For instance, Honda sold a carburetted Civic up until 1993. Mazda sold its 323 sedan with a carburetted 1.6L until 1996. Toyota did not offer ANY fuel injection in its pickups until 1997, and Mitsubishi continued to offer a carburetted engine in its Express van up until 2003! I will change the article to read "since the 1990s". Davez621 13:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You've got a good point, certainly in 1990 we didn't see a sudden shift to fuel injection. But, the examples you cite are distinct minority cases. Also, there is the effect of market location upon timeline. The UK and certain other Commonwealth countries have tended to lag behind the rest of the first world in the regulation of auto exhaust emissions, so carburetted vehicles were sold in the UK for several years after they'd gone from other first-world markets. The last carbureted Civic in the US, for example, was a 1987 1.3 model. And the first Toyota truck with EFI was sold in North America in the 1986 model year. Mazda's 323s all got fuel injection in North America starting from 1987. So, while it's far too specific to claim that 1990 was D-date, it's also too general to say "since the 1990s". I've amended the article to convey the timeline more specifically. --Scheinwerfermann 18:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hypodermic injection accidents

Certainly there have been accidents involving hypodermic injection of fuel via high-pressure diesel injectors when careless people working on the fuel injection system fail to follow appropriate repair protocols. There have also been accidents involving fires when careless people working on carburetors fail to follow appropriate repair procedures, and accidents involving broken bones when careless people cleaning their house gutters fail to use ladders properly. So what? This really does not belong in an encyclopædic article on fuel injection—certainly not under its own subheading—for it is a hazard of carelessness, not of fuel injection. One cannot get injected with fuel while casually poking around the engine compartment; one must deliberately remove the injector and power it up in order for the hazard to exist. The injectors are not just sitting there waiting to inject someone with fuel. Moreover, the hypodermic injection hazard exists only with the high-pressure injectors found on diesel engines, while this article is overwhelmingly about fuel injection on spark-ignition engines. Therefore, a more appropriate place for a comment on the hypodermic injection hazard is in the diesel engine article's fuel injection section. --Scheinwerfermann 20:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Fuel injection introduces a hazard in engine maintenance that can surprise even a careful person accustomed to carburetors. It is not true that "one must deliberately remove the injector and power it up in order for the hazard to exist." A Haynes workshop manual gives this warning: Residual pressure will remain in the fuel lines long after the car has last been used, therefore extra care must be taken when disconnecting a fuel line hose. Loosen any fuel hose slowly to avoid a sudden release of pressure which may cause fuel spray. As an added precaution place a rag over each union as it is disconnected to catch any fuel which is forcibly expelled...Petrol is a highly dangerous and volatile liquid and the precautions necessary when handling it cannot be overstressed. Cuddlyable3 13:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The residual-pressure issue does exist, true, notwithstanding Haynes manuals' reputation for poor information quality. Again, I ask...so what? Wikipedia is not an online service manual. And the example you point out is still an example of the hazards of carelessness and ignorance. --Scheinwerfermann 14:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Scheinwerfermann regardless whether you choose to label their victims as careless and/or ignorant, identifiable hazards are notable. Do you have notable information about Haynes "publisher of the world's leading car and motorcycle manuals" to add? In my experience, Haynes manuals for my cars have proved their worth, and petrol (gasoline) was harmful to my health when I spilled some when doing a roadside repair in a freezing gale: frostbite. Nobody warned me about that! Cuddlyable3 18:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If we're going by your logic, then I suppose we'd better include an exhaustive list of identifiable hazards of underbonnet work. We'll need to include electrocution from ignition systems, lacerations and other mutillations from drive belts, burns from hot exhaust components and battery acid, poisoning by ingestion of attractively-coloured but toxic underhood fluids...I'm sure there are dozens more. Bottom line is that if you don't know what you're doing in the engine bay, you shouldn't be doing it. This discussion already contains my notable information about Haynes manuals. They may or may not be the world sales leaders, but sales volume does not imply high quality; viz McDonalds. --Scheinwerfermann 20:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's stick to hazards that are notable about Fuel Injection (though your wide-ranging humanitarian concerns do you credit). I look forward to seeing your bold contribution to Haynes Manuals and if it meets Wikipedia standards I shall treat you to a Happy Meal at McDonalds.Cuddlyable3 20:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Flexible Fuel vs. Dual-Fuel

I have reverted LMB's deletion of the assertion regarding Flexible-fuel vehicles virtually all being equipped with EFI, because the assertion is correct. The carbureted gaseous-fuel setups LMB has in mind are found almost exclusively in field retrofitments, rather than as factory equipment, and vehicles so equipped are generally known as dual-fuel vehicles. The FFV terminology refers specifically to vehicles factory-equipped to run on gasoline, or on one or more of several alcohols, or on a mix of gasoline and one or more of several alcohols. --Scheinwerfermann 21:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. Vehicles that run on either petrol or autogas (LPG) are not FFVs. They are referred to as either dual-fuel or bi-fuel. The latter term seems to be popular in Europe. They used to be predominantly aftermarket installations but, as you'll note in the autogas article, many manufacturers now offer them as factory installations. The moral of the story, I believe, is that one should read and understand the related articles before making edits that would be obviously incorrect with just a few minutes of reading. --Athol Mullen 22:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Crank/Cam Position

"Crank/Cam Position: Hall effect sensor"
Are Crank Position Sensor and Cam Position Sensor the same? If different, do some cars have both? Do all cars have both? Are the both abbreviated CPS?-69.87.199.144 01:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The camshaft(s) of an engine are turned via chains, belts or gears by the crankshaft so in principle a sensor for either crank or camshaft obtains the same information. However a crank position sensor gets more direct, and therefore more accurate, indication of the piston movements.Cuddlyable3 20:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Multi-Port Fuel Injected vs Sequential Electronic Fuel Injected

Manufactures are using these two words to describe some systems. Can this article adress the differences between the two? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartmlp (talk • contribs) 14:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to add it if you understand what they are. --Athol Mullen 14:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, I don't, and i'm interested in knowing :-P 08:28, 23 May 2007 User:Smartmlp

Evolution/global perspective

I have removed the US/globalise tag, because it is not warranted. The evolution section presently does a good job of elucidating the worldwide chronology, particularly the fact that while US emissions regulations were more stringent earlier than other nations' rules, European suppliers and automakers were first to market with viable volume-production fuel injection systems. The section may benefit from some additional chronological detail regarding those vehicles equipped with fuel injection in North America but carburettors elsewhere in the world, but it does not appear to be unduly US-centric, therefore the tag is not applicable. --Scheinwerfermann 00:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

On second reading...

There was a great deal of extraneous material in the "emissions era" subsection. Catalytic converter theory, O2 sensor theory, and other material covered more thoroughly in the respective (now linked) articles. There was also some incorrect info (e.g. GM having invented the catalytic converter). I have removed the extraneous and incorrect material and added inline links to relevant tangentials. Still don't see any significant US bias. --Scheinwerfermann 00:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Injector function illustration

Welcome Scheinwerfermann with your edit to our diagram to show the fuel flow. Have you considered how the fuel flows past the solid moving part which is labelled "Plunger" and seems to stand in its way?Cuddlyable3 07:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, but I've actually been contributing to this article for over a year. Fuel flows over and around the solid plunger when it is open. The plunger's cylinder is sufficiently larger than the plunger itself to ensure adequate fuel flow past the plunger en route to the nozzle. On the other side of the cylinder wall are the solenoid windings, which are kept cool by the flow of fuel.--Scheinwerfermann 14:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Scheinwerfermann have you a source that shows what you describe? While the cooling effect of the fuel is interesting, making the gap in the magnetic path between the solenoid winding and the moving part any longer than the minimum needed for insulation and mechanical support means more current will be needed to achieve the same force. Electric heating is proportional to the current squared.Cuddlyable3 08:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I do, in fact. It's in a technical service manual released by Volvo in 1970 to explain the then-new Bosch D-Jetronic fuel injection to Volvo service techs. I'll toss a citation up here when I get back to my office. --Scheinwerfermann 18:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

When will that be? Cuddlyable3 14:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Later. I'm on vacation. --Scheinwerfermann 14:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, here y'go: Volvo Fuel Injection Fault Tracing. Published by Volvo of America National Service School, ©1973, Volvo P/N 7777920-5. Page 2-65: "When the [fuel injector's] magnetic winding receives current from the control unit, it attracts the rear section of the magnetic armature, which also serves as a sealing needle. This lifts the needle about 0.5mm from the seat and allows fuel to pass. Remember, fuel flow through the injector normally helps to cool the magnetic winding, but if the winding draws excessive current, it can heat up the injector. This heat will be transferred to the fuel, and under certain conditions cause starting and running problems." Just to clarify, what we here are calling the "plunger" is what is called the "magnetic armature" in the Volvo service material. That said, this information is not necessarily applicable to all fuel injector designs. --Scheinwerfermann 20:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Scheinwerfermann thank you for that quotation. It says nothing about "Fuel flows over and around the solid plunger". We are talking about the Bosch D-Jetronic so look at [1] Bild 8: Einspritzventil. The dashed lines show a fuel passage through the center of the magnet armature (magnetanker, solid moving part, plunger) with side outlet in the jet needle (düsennadel).Cuddlyable3 07:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The cutaway diagram accompanying the text I posted agrees with my earlier assertion. I'm familiar with the rennlist.com D-jet material. A great deal of it is highly accurate and very useful. Unfortunately, some of it is not.--Scheinwerfermann 16:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Scheinwerfermann you refer to your interpretation of a diagram that we cannot see unless you upload a scan. Is that difficult? The diagram I referenced is issued in a technical report by Bosch, the developers of the D-Jetronic, who must be a reputable source. Please consider the possibility that you may be wrong about the fuel flow and that your unspecific disparagement of Bosch's published material, echoing your earlier disparagement of Haynes publications, helps no one.Cuddlyable3 08:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't got a working scanner at the moment, I'm entirely open to the possibility of being incorrect, the actual case is probably that both fuel paths have been used in various injector designs over the decades, I've experienced inaccuracies not in Bosch's material but in the interpretive discussion of that material on the rennlist site, and there is a great deal of support for my dim opinion of Haynes' manuals. --Scheinwerfermann 03:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do what you can to verify what you say is "probable". The present diagram is drawn by ProlificWikipedian who does not acknowledge any source but himself. Cuddlyable3 15:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

We've been through this a million times before, the diagram is representative of a generalised injector. Having a diagram of one very specific design is not useful for us as the topic is too small, we're really aiming at informing the lay person here what an injector is all about. If I acknowledged any source other than myself then the diagram wouldn't be copyfree would it?! and it would infact be a redrawing or hybrid of someone elses copyrighted work. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 18:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with WikipedianProlific. The diagram is quite satisfactory. If you, cuddlyable3, think there's a problem with it, then you may spend whatever time and effort you wish to verify that there is indeed such a problem, and then we can talk about changing the diagram. Until then, be advised your scarequotes don't help your credibility at all, nor do they endear you to anyone; you are at risk of being perceived as a pest. --Scheinwerfermann 21:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

1) Scheinwerfermann I have no intention to scare you. I give you 48 hours to identify what you call my "scarequotes". Imagined fears are best confronted properly. If this fails to get a sensible answer I shall delete your last sentence "Until...pest." applying WP:RPA.Cuddlyable3 08:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

H'mm. It seems you are unfamiliar with the term scarequotes (or scare quotes, as it is sometimes found). There's no actual fright involved; it's sort of like carpet, which involves neither cars nor pets. Here, for your edification, is the definition of the term. Please keep in mind WP:RPA applies to personal attacks, and while it is regrettable you feel attacked, in fact no such attack was made. No namecalling, no questioning your ancestry or anything of the sort, and I've no intention of getting in a pissing contest with you. I merely noted that you were at risk of being perceived as a pest, even though you may well have no intention of being one. The risk of being considered a pest here—again, even if you don't intend to be one—is that those perceived as pests generally get disregarded at best. At worst, their contributions and comments are subjected to increased prejudice. It'd be a terrible shame, I think, for your contributions to meet such a fate. My note was intended as a gentle and friendly reminder that sometimes it's necessary to step back, take a deep breath, decide whether the battle you're fighting is really worthwhile, and think carefully about how others might perceive your behaviour. --Scheinwerfermann 14:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Scheinwerfermann thank you for defining the term "scarequotes" that you used. It is not found in any established British english dictionary, nor, it seems, in any dictionary at all the way you spaced it. In this respect you have provided a sensible reply. I see the need to "cut you some slack" because of your america-centric background and hope we can avoid vernacular expressions that don't contribute to understanding. I do however understand well the words "used to express especially skepticism or derision" in the Merriam-Webster definition that you have chosen to introduce. They suggest that you will continue to have difficulty discussing anything with me since I routinely use quote marks when citing text. The foregoing sentences serve as examples. Finding that sometimes your own words may be quoted gives a good reason to use them carefully. I don't propose to spend more of my words dealing with what seem to be emotional perceptions on your part. The subject is the injector function. Wikipedia verification policy is based on reputable sources and not just what Scheinwerfermann thinks "probably" happens. You made a claim that makes poor engineering sense, effectively saying the fuel flows through a gap crossed by the solenoid magnetic field. That is hardly credible in this electromechanical device designed for millisecond response time and low driving power, unless the designer were incompetent. The Bosch design is competent and, in common with US device drawings, shows clearly a fuel channel through the armature. This page needs sources that are reputable and unless you care to provide them, I suggest you withdraw instead of adding to the disparagements that now seem to be your only dialog on this subject. You are not invited to competitive urination. Cuddlyable3 18:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3, I am most humbly pleased to have been able to contribute to your knowledge of English idiom, and deeply grateful and relieved that you have charitably chosen to cut me some slack this time. One can only imagine the grievous carnage that would surely have resulted had you been disinclined to exercise your good humour in this case! A thousand thanks. Nevertheless, despite the profound depths of my gratitude for your lenience, I regret I will not be able to comply with your suggestion that I withdraw until you elucidate how you came to be selected as this article's supreme arbiter and agent of authority for issuing permission to contribute. I hate to put you to the trouble; I'm sure it's just my faulty memory, but I do not recall voting for you or any other candidate in any such election. Unless and until such elucidation is forthcoming — I'll be generous and give you 96 hours, which is double what you gave me when you were labouring under the notion I am frightened of you — I'll carry on contributing to this and other articles when and where I see fit, in conformance with Wikipedia policies. If the 96 hours pass and you have failed to elucidate, I fear the same thing will happen as would've happened had I missed your 48-hour deadline: Precisely nothing. As to competitive urination, invitation doesn't enter into it. It's sort of like a spontaneous orgy: Nobody's invited, everyone just knows to come! Here, have some loo roll. You appear to need it. Friendly greetings from someplace that is not America! --Scheinwerfermann 20:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

2) WikipedianProlific has copyright concerns one of which at his own request and my acceptance is currently in formal mediation. I make no comment on that here.,Cuddlyable3 13:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation is over? you backed out of it? Additionally we've been through this RPA thing, it is just an essay. It isn't policy and it doesn't justify the removal of anything. Refactoring Talk Pages however IS policy and it states that talk page comments should not be removed unless there is consent from both parties. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 10:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, lookit there. Right smack in front of my face, the very first words in RPA state "This is not official policy", and I managed to overlook it! Must've been my male-pattern blindness kicking in. This explains Cuddlyable3's numerous (and much-reverted) RPA conflicts of last month, as it seems. Thanks for the pointer, eh! --Scheinwerfermann 16:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have just reuploaded a cleaner version of Scheinwerfermann modifications, I hope thats okay. I can make changes quickly and easily to the diagram as I have the layered photoshop masterfiles for it. We have to ensure image quality stays crisp here else the image will end up in category:Bad Images. If we can keep the quality on the level it is then the diagram will have a shot a Featured Picture status, which if we ever want to get this article featured will help alot.WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 08:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea keeping image quality as high as possible, but I fear you haven't properly illustrated the fuel flow through the injector. This is what led me to modify your diagram originally; the only difference is you've made most all the core tan now, rather than blue. This won't do. Please carefully study the modification I made with respect to the portions of the injector that are tan (indicating significant presence of fuel) and blue (indicating no significant presence of fuel) for the solenoid-on and solenoid-off conditions, and rework your illustration to match. --Scheinwerfermann 14:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Reworked, apologies, I missed that front part when I redrew the original. If your seeing the old version you may need to press F5 to re-cache the new version in Internet Explorer. I have left the 3D parts of the fuel filter and plunger orange for consistancy but otherwise its the same as your modification. Any other changes let me know and i'll make them asap. Thanks. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 15:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Very much better! The only remaining quibble I have is that the bottom cone of the plunger ought to be blue (no fuel) in the "solenoid off" condition, tan (fuel present) in the "solenoid on" condition. The circumference of the plunger's lower end seats to block the flow of fuel when the solenoid is not energised, so everything from that point downward is in a "no fuel" condition until the solenoid is energised. --Scheinwerfermann 15:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)