Talk:Fuel injection/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.166.144.32 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 2006 June 20.

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 an animated bastardisation of one of my diagrams: . There seems to be confussion 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 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 An editor has nominated the above file for discussion of its purpose and/or potential deletion. You are welcome to participate in the discussion and help reach a consensus. 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)

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? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.166.144.32 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 2006 June 20.

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 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.174.153.29 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 2006 July 15.

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)

Indeed; as an explanation of the original "1990" claim, it's possibly from a european perspective - the majority of euro cars from 1990~92 onwards seem to have undergone a mass conversion to fuel injection from carbs, probably from a need to comply with tightening emissions regulations (introduction of catalytic converters, rapid phasing-out of lead-doped fuel and a similar explosion of ECU use came along at the same time), even if it meant swapping out the carb for a CFi unit, wedging a cat onto the front part of the exhaust pipe (and inflicting a loss of power), drilling a hole somewhere on the downpipe for a lambda sensor and holding the lot together with some kind of processor better suited to controlling the timer on a microwave oven. Not even sure if they bothered to use electronic ignition on the very early (late '90) example I had of this practice. When pushed, car manufacturers will go with the simplest, cheapest option - for once, the USA was ahead of the game in this department with 80s emissions regulations, hence the earlier uptake of fuel injection etc - even if the cars still drank gasoline like coca-cola and produced a lot of CO2, at least now they weren't pumping out mass quantities of CO, sulphur dioxide, lead, nitrous oxides, and all the other things that electronic injection plus catalysers cut down on. Europe didn't cotton on to this til later, so the (at the time far cheaper) carburettor held firm except for in more prestigious cars. In some parts of the world, which are lax on regulation and prefer instead just to have transport as cheap as possible rather than luxury and performance, they are still being sold (certainly it was an option on mid-late 90s cars, such as my current Vauxhall, which had a 1.4L Carb engine (with atrocious performance and economy figures) "in some markets", i.e. the "third world"). Given that European makers are still fairly big players on the world stage (under threat from japan, korea, even indonesia and the USA itself), this could seem to have a bigger impact universally than it might actually have done, if the writer wasn't completely familiar with how vehicles and engines are extensively localised depending on the tastes and laws of the target market.

Useless info now I know, but it may clear things up for some people without being worthy of the main article. 82.46.180.56 (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2008 (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)

OK, there seems to be some involved debate here that I'm not overly interested in joining right now. All I want to ask - as it was my minor additional section you removed, about there being safe ways of dispersing the pressure (so working on fuel injectors isn't automatically hazardous, after all I survived it and I'm a clot), can you explain to me how it was WP:NOT? I tried to keep it short and general rather than being a specific manual for any particular car or injection system (nothwithstanding the two manuals already covering fuel system types used by GM and VAG, two very large manufacturers), and it referenced the published work where the original information came from and where the full details could be read. That fits in with it not being "original research" or a specific instruction manual under the guidelines as I take it. I'll be going back to copy 'n' paste it back in if I don't get a decent refutation by the next time I randomly stumble onto this page again, as I put some work into that (as could be followed from my multiple re-edits) including digging out the books to double-check the advice and get the appropriate referencing info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.180.56 (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

PS I identify with your prejudice of Haynes being the Big Book Of Lies, some of their info is a/ unclear, b/ out of date, c/ just plain wrong in certain instances, but they don't mess around when it comes to safety precautions and safe working practices / avoiding hazards sensibly and pragmatically (e.g. depressurising the fuel system by cranking the motor with the pump fuse removed), and the information within - plus a little bit of collaboration with (very slightly) more experienced tinkerers over the internet - enabled a almost complete novice like myself to perform two different courses of moderate-major engine work on two different cars without overbearing difficulty. 82.46.180.56 (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Residual fuel pressure is hazardous in two ways: flammability if fuel is spilled, and skin damage if a person is hit by spray (especially diesel). Two alternative precautions available are to bleed-off or run-off the fuel. Both are notable and verifiable by reputable published sources. Haynes books such as those on european fuel-injected cars that Anonymous 82.46.180.56 used as references are as authoritative as the manufacturer's manuals and procedures from which they are derived. I support Anonymous 82.46.180.56 in trying to get this information into the Fuel injection article. I hope this prolific contributor will get a name with which to sign. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that per WP:NOT#MANUAL, this "how to avoid hazards while working on your car's fuel injection system" information really doesn't belong. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The above invented text or scare quote (a neologism which he has laboured to introduce and promote on this page) by Scheinwerfermann superficially resembles our actual view in a way that is easier to refute. That rhetoric device is called a straw man argument. Both notable advantages and disadvantages of the technology fuel injection are material for Wikipedia. That information is not a how-to guide, nor is it specific to engines in cars, even less is it specific to "your" or anyone's vehicle. For that you really do need a manual, which of course WP is not. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Cuddly, scare quote is not a neologism, I didn't create it, and I'm neither labouring nor interested in promoting it, here or elsewhere. I still have no interest in a pissing contest with you. Thank you for being mature, thoughtful, and coöperative in your contributions to Wikipedia. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Scheinwerfermann you have not been credited with creating the peculiar and exclusively american term of very recent origin, and hence a neologism, scare quote. You are too modest about your promotion effort here which includes <quote> "be advised your scarequotes don't help your credibility...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." --Scheinwerfermann 19-20 Aug 2007</quote> Your repeated concern about competitive urination is again noted; you may be reassured that nobody is interested in contesting your prowess in that respect. Since WP:OWN applies to you and this page as much as to anyone else, I suggest you confine your future comments to the subject of the page and spare us all your ad hominem interjections. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 06:18, 14 May 2008 (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. A crank position sensor gets more direct, and therefore more accurate, indication of the piston movements. However on a 4-stroke engine the crank angle alone is ambiguous information that does not distinguish between compression and exhaust strokes. - Updated by Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2008 (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

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, pull up a chair; it seems we could both do with a nice cup of tea. 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)

It seems cuddlyable3 is at it again with the WP:RPA talk page deletions. I'm now considering this as vandalism as we must have talked about 15-25 times now, each time pointing out that refactoring talk pages is against policy. I'm not going to get into a revert war over this, it got close to that last month and I don't want to go there again. So basically if he carries on refactoring talk pages we will have to try to get administrative intervention or even go as far as taking the mater to the arbitration comittee to get a clear answer which can be enforced. I had hoped we could discuss the WP:RPA matter at mediation but the problem is, as soon as it became clear that mediation was not about making one person right and the other wrong cuddlyable3 backed straight out of it. I should have seen this coming really as oddly cuddlyable3 didn't want to talk about the copyright issues but was happy to talk about the diagram, probably because this was a rare case in mediation where one person would be right (probably myself) and the other wrong, because copyright law and policy is pretty clear on the issue of crediting the original author of an image. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 10:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As I stated I would do I raised this over at the administrators noticeboard. I believe action has now been taken to stop the use of WP:RPA as a proxy method of removing article talkspace content. Hopefully we can now drop the whole matter and move on with normal peaceful editing.WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 19:56, 21 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)

"Types of fuel" section

I have (twice now) removed this section. It contained one good, solid, informative, encyclopædic, and link-laden paragraph which really belonged near the top of the article, and has been moved there. The rest of the section contained only redundancy, statements and links already present in better detail and with better elucidation in the appropriate sections of the article. Furthermore, these redundancies were presented in grocery list format, rather than in proper prose. If the list had comprised content not already present in the article, it would've been worth rewriting, but since the list did not contain anything not already written — in proper format — in the article, there was no point to doing so. --Scheinwerfermann 14:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"Direct Injection"

Types of Direct Injection put into alphabetical order to prevent biasing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.158.228 (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Pennington fuel injection

I added the original bit about Pennington's early use of fuel injection. I may remove it as not being important enough to warrant mention, or lacking proper documentation. Only one article I can find online mentions his fuel system as "fuel injection" though several of his patents can be found online which illustrate and describe his system, none specifically refer to it as fuel injection (however as illustrated and described, it takes the form of a fuel nozzle located within the intake port of an engine) and I don't want to jump into the realm of "original research" over a minor footnote in FI history. Patent number: 570439 [2] Patent number: 570440 [3] This patent giving the clearest description and illustration, though the design varies slightly between all patents. Patent number: 574262 [4]

Opinions? K-111 (talk)

It looks like Pennington used gravity drip feeding of fuel with no fuel pump and no fuel pressurisation.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

need help

hi to all , friends i,m engineering student and working on a project related to automobile .ecu is one of the main componenent i need to work on.but i dont have enough knoledge about ECU.i need to know that can we calculate ammount of fuel is being used or injectd by ECU.can we use any output from ECU to calculate ammount of fuel being injected.

             is there anyone who can help me ,plz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

mail me:-knevin22@live.in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.98.93.46 (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

need help

hi to all , friends i,m engineering student and working on a project related to automobile .ecu is one of the main componenent i need to work on.but i dont have enough knoledge about ECU.i need to know that can we calculate ammount of fuel is being used or injectd by ECU.can we use any output from ECU to calculate ammount of fuel being injected.

             is there anyone who can help me ,plz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

mail me:-knevin22@live.in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.98.93.46 (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

SEFI?

The wiki page SEFI redirects here, but I see nothing on the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xvi (talk • contribs) 10:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

SEFI just stands for Sequential efi...as opposed to batch-fired. Just means injectors fire sequentially instead of in batches of 2 or more (commonly in bank counts...an 8 cylinder engine would fire 4 injectors in one bank of cylinders at once, then the other bank's injectors).

What were you looking for? 20:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

CPI "high failure rate"?

This is the first I've heard of Central Port Injection having a "high failure rate". It is inefficient, which is stated and explained, but as for it "failing", I have not heard or seen any evidence anywhere to support this claim. Zchris87v 05:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2