Talk:Fuel injection

message: 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)
thread_title: "Air-blast" injection

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citation still needed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  refs 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Other fuel injectors

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Toyota two-stroke

message: I redirected mechanical fuel injection here (electronic fuel injection already redirected here).  The last version before changed to a redirection is at .  I copied one sentence here from that article.  RJFJR (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mechanical fuel injection 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Edit request from 12.238.8.30, 13 August 2010 

message: :Substituting real variables for the 5.0 L engine at idle.
:: * 0.55 \frac{lb}{min} \times \frac{1 min}{700 rev} \times \frac{1 revolution}{2 strokes} \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{1 min}{5500 rev} \times \frac{1 revolution}{2 strokes} \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)
thread_title:  Injectors used in 5.0L example are undersized for the engine 

message: Should be mentioned in the article, no?
Serketan (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supercritical fluid injection 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Edit request on 7 August 2012 

message: "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)
replies: text: The particular section is called "History and development" and, as explained in the text, the Electrojector system was to be the first on the market. This fact has historical significance, although the Bendix-developed EFI did not see mass-market distribution (as is explained in the text). Similarly, various technologies may appear on prototype and racing cars (such as Mercedes-Benz F1 cars using Bosch's mechanical injection derived from Nazi airplane engines). Factory-backed auto racing and pre-production test mules are not commercial application, but these attempts at using technologies frequently leads to broad consumer markets. Removing information about the development and the first attempts at commercialization (the 1957 Rambler Owner's has a whole section on the operation and driving instructions for the optional EFI) in the interest of describing only "pure" commercial applications, would significantly limit the value of encyclopedia articles. For example, understanding the development of EFI is assisted by knowing that Bendix patents for the Electrojector system were purchased by Bosch. These early attempts at commercialization enhanced the technology and the wide acceptance of the Bosch EFI systems. Later on, even Bendix had to turn to Bosch for its return to supply modern EFI systems. CZmarlin (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

text: @DesmondW-Actually, there were some production 1958 Chrysler products with the Electrojector system. It was used on the Chrysler 300D, Plymouth Fury, Dodge D500 and DeSoto Adventurer. I stumbled upon a website run by an owner of an "Electrojeted" DeSoto Adventurer. If I can find the site, I'll see if I can use it as a reference, although it seems a bit irrelevant.--Kevjgav (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

text: The section on EFI simply states what model cars made use of this when.  It never explains what EFI is! 50.48.88.225 (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the suggestion. There is now a beginning paragraph to help explain what EFI is. I hope it is enough. CZmarlin (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Electronic injection

message: 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)
thread_title:  minor quibble 

message: 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)
replies: text: Please feel free to edit it yourself. Don't worry about making mistakes, we will correct it for. Have fun!  Stepho  talk  09:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request

message: The following statement 'easily distinguishable from their prominent velocity stacks' needs to be changed to something like 'easily distinguishable because of their prominent velocity stacks'. The word 'from' in this context has two possible meanings that are complete opposites from each other. Changing 'from' to 'because of' confirms that the prominent velocity stacks are proof that mechanical injection exists and is present in this specific machine. The word 'by' would also be more appropriate, but 'because of' leaves no doubt what the authors means. The statement is in the fourth paragraph of the section 'Development in gasoline/petrol engines': 'Immediately following the war, hot rodder Stuart Hilborn started to offer mechanical injection for race cars, salt cars, and midgets,[9] well-known and easily distinguishable from their prominent velocity stacks projecting upwards from the engine they were used on.' Part of the pleasure of learning is from the reader not having to muddle through difficult-to-understand writing. Good articles absolutely must minimize how much time the reader wastes. Linstrum (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia encourages readers to improve articles. Please feel free to edit the article as your suggested. Don't worry about making a mistake - one of the more experienced editors can clean up afterwards.  Stepho  talk  01:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor word choice, "from" needs to be changed to "because of" or possibly "by" 

message: Please, help me to understand the difference between direct- and indirect-injection. 
The Triumph TR5 has a mechanic indirect injection ? Thanks.
:Direct injection squirts the fuel directly into the cylinder, which requires the injector to take the full heat and pressure of the ignition process - ie the injector needs to be tough and more expensive and also needs a hole in the head to insert the injector.
:Indirect injection squirts fuel into the inlet manifold (same as a carburettor). The injector is cheaper to make and easier to install but the efficiency of the engine is a bit less (fuel doesn't stay fully vapourised in the air stream).  Stepho  talk  00:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whats the difference between direct- and indirect injection? 

message: The spelling of the "Carburettor" in the introduction is mis-spelled as "Carburetor" - signed 
:That's a US spelling vs British spelling issue. Wikipedia is international, so we don't favour either spelling. However, each article should consistently use only one variant within itself. This article happens to use the US spelling throughout.  Stepho  talk  02:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: Why is this article locked?  Is fuel injection even remotely controvertial??  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.91.78 (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article LOCKED??? 

message: Time-line has gone wrong on Fuel_injection#History_and_development. The improvements that is attributed to Bosh was actually done by CAV in Acton because they had the advance tech skills to create a practical high pressure inline pump which delivered accurate fuelling throughout its speed and load range  (and agree -it was in partnership with Bosh -Lucas_CAV#CAV). After the war, CAV licensed its technology to Bosh (which during the war, Bosh used without paying any  royalties). This must be pretty evident to any industrial archaeologist as all  Bosh inline pumps are identical to the original CAV pumps which  preceded them (and of course there are the patents). Also, Cummins was an engine manufacture. They were not involved in developing FI that they fitted to their products which they sourced from CAV as an OEM. We need some RS to support this. Oil compression ignition engines last a long time and in the military they expect 25 years of service but we're going back 80 odd years. Where does one begin to get this time-line right?--Aspro (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Calling all Industrial Archaeologists

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Fuel injection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201224457/http://www.autoserviceworld.com/news/nascar-moves-to-fuel-injection-bosch-first-approved-supplier/1000522267/ to http://www.autoserviceworld.com/news/nascar-moves-to-fuel-injection-bosch-first-approved-supplier/1000522267/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100809110201/http://members.rennlist.com/pbanders/djetfund.htm to http://members.rennlist.com/pbanders/djetfund.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I saw no reason for the tag so I removed it. If you think it was there for a reason, feel free to revert my edit.
However I find no reason for it, text seems fine and it is referenced. Moreover, that tag is there since 2012 and it was improper for the purpose - referring to a whole article, instead of a section. --Arny (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swirl injection - removed "essay-like" tag Comment 

message: "Fuel rail" redirects to Common rail, which I believe is incorrect; it also refers to the "common" fuel rail for previous, non-direct injection systems, yet this is not mentioned there at all.
I propose creating an adequate section here and pointing the redirect to it.
The other possibility would be to correct the Common rail article to also include older variants, because the only real difference between Common rail / Direct injection and older gasoline/petrol injection systems is in the system pressure and injection timings.
 --Arny (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuel Rail vs. Common Rail Comment Suggestion 

message: Please add the following technical description to the section, Single point injection. Throttle body injection is based heavily on the design of carburetors in the fact that the fuel is sprayed into bowls and air flow is controlled by butterfly valves.  The General motors version, produced by Rochester Products, is comprised of two cast pieces, the main body and the injector mount. The main body is modeled after a two-barrel carburetor. This component also houses the idle air-control valve and the throttle position senor.  Unlike a carburetor there is no bowl and float assembly. The fuel is fed into the unit via a 3/8in. fuel line and returned to the tank via a 1/4in. line. This continuous flow maintains pressure to the injectors. The fuel passes through a permeable diaphragm, called a pressure regulator, which feeds into the injector mount. The injector mount is a cast component that secures the injectors in place over the fuel bowls at the necessary height to allow the correct fuel/air ratio to enter the intake manifold. This piece has fuel lines and wiring built into it to accommodate two injectors. The whole unit allows for a round air cleaner to mounted on top similar to that of a carburetor.https://www.carsdirect.com/car-maintenance/tbi-fuel-injection---throttle-body-fuel-injection-systems-10-advantages-and-disadvantageshttp://constructionmanuals.tpub.com/14264/css/Throttle-Body-Injection-System-145.htm
https://itstillruns.com/throttle-body-injection-works-5395174.htmlhttps://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-injection.htm Tdh6561 (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Although you've supplied 4 sources, per: WP:INTEGRITY, you haven't identified which source goes with which claim statement.  Spintendo  12:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2019 

message: Please add the following to the section "single port injection."
There has recently been a rise in aftermarket fuel injection. Aftermarket refers to the market of auto parts available from third-party manufacturers that can be used to modify original equipment. As previously stated single port injection is often modeled after the carburetor. Companies such as Holley and FiTech have begun to produce single port injection systems to replace carburetors on classic and antique automobiles. These systems are modeled around the same concept of a carburetor but include the electronics and efficiency of modern fuel injection. Typically, these systems are built on a single cast piece designed to bolt in place of either two- or four-barrel carburetors. They include four barrels and a butterfly valve but that is where the similarities end. These systems mount injectors perpendicular to the barrel where a bowl and float assembly would be located. These systems are often customizable and allow the user to set their own air/fuel ratio. However, these systems require modifications to the fuel system. These systems require the installation of electric fuel pumps and return fuel lines. These systems also use electronics to monitor performance. These electronics have to be wired into a provided ECM. https://www.holley.com/products/fuel_systems/fuel_injection/
https://fitechefi.com/products/30003/ Tdh6561 (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Although you've supplied 2 sources, per: WP:INTEGRITY, you haven't identified which source goes with which claim statement.  Spintendo  12:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2019 

message: I need help with timing for Isuzu 320  Kgolagano machete (talk) 09:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately WP is not a general forum for helping users with their cars. See WP:ISNOT. The talk page is only for making the article better.  Stepho  talk  09:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help 

message: First sentence of the lede:
Fuel injection is the introduction of fuel in an internal combustion engine, most commonly automotive engines, by the means of an injector.
The injector link is (at best) circular and adds nothing to this article. (The injector article does not deal with squirty injectors).
2A00:23C7:D29D:4E01:D476:4BFF:BE1:D6DE (talk) 02:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circular link