Talk:Fuel injection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Cleanup 2 Cleaned Up Distribution Effects 3 January 2006 4 US-centric 5 Illustrations requested 6 Electrical specifications 7 L-Jetronic: Porsche 914 was not the first 8 Piezoelectric injectors 9 Where did the 1990 date come from? 10 Hypodermic injection accidents 11 Flexible Fuel vs. Dual-Fuel

[edit] 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)

[edit] Cleaned Up Distribution Effects

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. This diagram and another () seem to have been edited as part of some kind of campaign against my work by [User:Cuddlyable3], as well as some rather unpleasent[sic] postings on my user page. They seem to be unaware of the correct procedure for tagging, replacing and crediting images. 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 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, it has some relevance to this. As you posted some rather malicious and personal attacks against me and my motives on my own user page, it supports my earlier comment that you seem to have launched something of a campaign aginst my work. I felt at the time it was tantamount to fairly agreesive vandalism. 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)

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)