Talk:Fuel injection

Archives of past discussion

Archive 1
Archive 2

"Air-blast" injection

Wdl1961, you made this edit, which consists in part of gainsaying the previous assertion, without any support. For now, I've removed the text saying the air-blast system was inefficient (previous text) or efficient (your text). Do you have reliable support for your assertion that the air-blast injection system was more efficient than some other (which other?) system? Also, we needn't go into detail here about how Hesselman engines work; that's what the Hesselman engine article is for. This is the article about fuel injection. Thanks! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Citation still needed

Wdl1961, this edit has been reverted, because the reference you provided did not support the tagged assertion and is of indeterminate reliability. Can you find a reliable source to support the tagged assertion? Thanks! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

refs

www.freepatentsonline.com/5085189.html - Similar www.normanchigier.com/Fuel_Injection_email.html - Cached - Similar www.freepatentsonline.com/5085189.html - Similar www.normanchigier.com/Fuel_Injection_email.html - Cached - Similar

Wdl1961 (talk) 03:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to please share with us — in complete sentences — what you find pertinent about these links? Just dropping in a couple of URLs, in a section of their own, nonresponsive to two pending requests for citation on this page, is not especially coöperative or productive. Neither is dumping in large quantities of text presumably from some of these links, as you did (and I undid) twice today. Please try to engage in discussion; that's what the talk page is for. Thanks! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C05:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

quit your corrupting this page

Wdl1961 (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Was this the reason for blocking the article? If so, isn't it time to unlock it?

ivaneduardo747 (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Other fuel injectors

uh, what about other fuel injectors like in jet engines, rockets, etc? This title should not be reserved for gasoline and diesel injectors. That would be the largest subsection, but not even close to the whole thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.128.130 (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Toyota two-stroke

There's a big, complex and heavy conceptual automotive two-stroke designed by Toyota. The engine is one of the company’s dual-overhead cam, four-stroke engines converted to run a two-stroke cycle. The camshafts run at crankshaft speed then air is delivered to the intake valves through a supercharger. Fuel is then added through a high-pressure, direct-injection system. A straight six cylinder, 244 cubic-inch version of this engine is suppose to produce torque equal to GM’s 454 V8.--Timpicerilo (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Whats the differnce between Gasoline direct injection and Fuel injection

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mechanical fuel injection

I redirected mechanical fuel injection here (electronic fuel injection already redirected here). The last version before changed to a redirection is at [1]. I copied one sentence here from that article. RJFJR (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 12.238.8.30, 13 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} This request applies to the section "Direct Injection", paragraph 1, sentence 3.

Change text from: "In a common rail system, the fuel from the fuel tank is supplied to the common header (called the acculmulator)." Change text to: "In a common rail system, the fuel from the fuel tank is supplied to the common header (called the accumulator)."

This change changes the word, "acculmulator" to "accumulator" because the word is spelled incorrectly in the existing text.

12.238.8.30 (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Injectors used in 5.0L example are undersized for the engine

Substituting real variables for the 5.0 L engine at idle.

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

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

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

Injector pulsewidth typically ranges from 4 ms/engine-cycle at idle, to 35 ms per engine-cycle at wide-open throttle. The pulsewidth accuracy is approximately 0.01 ms.

In the example for maximum power at 5500 rpm, the 24 lb./hr. injectors used require a 35 ms. injection pulse per cycle to deliver the required fuel for the 11:1 air fuel ratio. The problem is that two engine revolutions (a complete engine cycle)at 5500 rpm are completed in 21.8181 milliseconds, far less than the 35 milliseconds for the requisite fuel pulsewidth. It would be better to redo the calculations with a 40 lb./hr. injector. The 5500 rpm example would then require a just obtainable 21 millisecond fuel pulse while the idle pulse would drop to a 1.8 millisecond pulsewidth, at or below the absolute linearity minimum for most fuel injectors.

If greater dynamic range is required, than pressure across the injector must be varied to meet both low pulsewidth linearity as well as maximum high power flow capacity. Unfortunately, manifold pressures are low at idle and high at wide open throttle operation requiring an even larger range of fuel rail pressures to achieve a higher rail to manifold delta pressure at high speed and load operation. To make the tradeoffs even worse, pump capacity decreases with pressure, and at lower flows fuel remains in the hot fuel rail longer requiring a minimum absolute pressure to keep from vaporizing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.2.1.101 (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree w/ the above conclusion the injector is too small.

One problem w/ the formula is it does not account for multiple injectors, typically port injection uses one injector per cylinder. A 5.0L V8 w/ 8 24lb/hr injectors would generally be considered more than adequate.

Another issue is it seems to assume fuel can only be injected during the intake stroke, when it can actually be throughout all 4 strokes, for port or TB injection.

Third, it doesn't seem to account for turn on and turn off delays due to injector inductance.

-phil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.192.215.56 (talk) 05:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC) <rathod>we can stop the fuel injection in other 3 strokes which are occuring exept than the intake stroke by taking a delay time in injection for three strokes

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

Modern diesel cars in Europe are usually sold by their first owner after 200-220k or even 150k kilometers, because they know there will soon be problems with injector tips and costs of replacement are scary / ridiculous. A single spare sprayer tip costs the price of a fine 21-speed mountain bike and usually we speak of inline 4/5 cyl engines, so costs can run to up to 4/5 tips and that would buy you a 125ccm scooter brand new!

Anyhow, these 1800-2000 bar high-pressure diesel injector systems are totally fragily and subpar or contaminated fuel will destroy them in as little time as 2 fuel tank fills. The sprinkler tip's holes are as small as 1/1000th of a millimeter in diameter (not a typo!) and as little as one grain of sand or dust makes them explode like a faulty cannon.

Modern european diesel engines haven't got the reliability of good old 1970s naturally aspirated "sucker" diesel blocs, which easily made it to 750k kilometers or more without overhaul. They were heavy, slow-revving, sluggish and underpowered, but low running costs, ample torque and indestructible reliability made them an icon, especially the old large "vertical headlamp housing style" Mercedes limos / station wagons with a diesel powerplant. Direct injected common-rail diesel engines are only there to make the car manufacturer affiliated repair shops blossom.

Furthermore it is very easy to illegally chip-tune commonrail diesels to excessive power level, most done to Audi and BMW cars, so that young wealthy sociopathic adults can play dragster racer at traffic lights. The result are really large puffs of black soot from unburned diesel fuel, that overwhelms the particulate filter assembly and spews carcinogenic micro-particulate pollution all over the street. Particulate pollution from the supposedly enviro-friendly diesel engines is a huge problem now all across Europe and aftermarket injected block-boosting is a big part of it.

In contrast, non-injected diesels were not suitable to excessive tuning, in fact alpha-male type avoided them due to sluggishness of 1970-80s diesel blocs. 87.97.106.110 (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

== Image inverted ==

The image at top right (2.5 liter Jeep engine) is inverted. Would someone please correct this!

OldJohn1928 (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Supercritical fluid injection

Should be mentioned in the article, no?

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

Edit request on 7 August 2012

Please change This system used a normal gasoline fuel pump, to provide fuel to a mechanically driven injection pump, which had separate plungers per injector to deliver a very high injection pressure directly into the combustion chamber. to This system used a normal gasoline fuel pump, to provide fuel to a mechanically driven injection pump, which had separate plungers per injector to deliver a very high injection pressure directly into the combustion chamber. The cars showed very good performance and up to 30% less fuel consumption over the carburettor version. The vehicles had problems to start, however, when the engine was warm due to the vapor lock. because I read it in a German Wikipedia and this is a translation. I think the cars were made in Germany and they have better information. 86.49.45.25 (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Electronic injection

"The first commercial electronic fuel injection (EFI) system was Electrojector" This statement is nonsense since, as the text explains, the system was never made available to the public.

The next paragraph continues "Chrysler offered Electrojector on the 1958" but once again states that only experimental vehicles were equipped with the system.

This article is about commercial fuel injection and these two paragraphs about purely experimental systems that never progressed have no place here. DesmondW (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

@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)

It says in Chrysler 300 letter series#1958 300D that "thirty-five cars were built with fuel injection" but it also says that the Electrojector system "proved troublesome" and "most cars had it replaced with the dual four barrel carburetor setup." I think this is a good indication that the "Electrojected" 1958 Chrysler products did, in fact, make it into production. There just aren't too many still on the road.--Kevjgav (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The Chevrolet Corvette was available with fuel injection in the 1957-1965 model years, but the Rochester fuel injection was a mechanical system which also used a mechanical pump. Bosch made improved versions of both mechanical and electronic. The Bosch K-Jetronic "continuous injection" was a mechanical system with an electric pump (electro-mechanical fuel injection?) and provided a continuous flow of fuel into the engine. There was also the Bosch L-Jetronic "air-flow controlled injection" which was the first reliable electronic system (as far as I know) but this clearly isn't relevant. Nevertheless, with the first two comments, I did intend to have some relevance.--Kevjgav (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I found the site, which the guy doesn't actually own. It says in http://www.allpar.com/cars/desoto/electrojector.html that this car is believed to be the only fuel injected DeSoto still on the road with the original fuel system. The Electrojector system was first used in the 1957 Rambler Rebel but the "Electrojected" Rebel never went beyond a pre-production car. This is a website dedicated to the Chrysler company itself.--Kevjgav (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

minor quibble

The use of the word "admitting" in the introductory sentence is unfortunate, I think. Admitted implies "allowed in;" apparently, some sort of gate is opened up and the fuel is allowed to wander in of its own accord. In actuality, the fuel is forced in by injection. A more forceful verb would be more accurate; "introducing," perhaps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.18.94 (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

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)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 05:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

Poor word choice, "from" needs to be changed to "because of" or possibly "by"

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)

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)

Whats the difference between direct- and indirect injection?

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)

Spelling

The spelling of the "Carburettor" in the introduction is mis-spelled as "Carburetor" - signed Vishnu494

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)

Article LOCKED???

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)

Calling all Industrial Archaeologists

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Swirl injection - removed "essay-like" tag Comment

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)

Fuel Rail vs. Common Rail Comment Suggestion

"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)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2019

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. Tdh6561 (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2019

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. Tdh6561 (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 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)

Help

I need help with timing for Isuzu 320 Kgolagano machete (talk) 09:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

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)

J jetronic missing

Along with a few other historical points. More mention should be made of the evolution of various injection systems, notably TBI, ITB injection, the totally absent J jetronic, etc. This page is missing quite a bit of history. 74.81.12.160 (talk) 09:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I have never heard of a J-Jetronic. The concept of the throttle body injection has been known since the late 1950s, but has been been considered inferior to carburettors until cheap electronics became available that allowed car manufacturers to make a mixture formation system better than a carburettor, but without the necessity to redesign the intake manifold. So basically, TBI was only used in cheap economy cars throughout the 1980s and early 1990s. I might have books that describe this in detail. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Likewise, I have never heard of J-jetronic and neither has Mr Google. But if you have information (and references) then we'd be happy to hear more about it.

TBI (throttle body injection) is covered at Fuel_injection#Single-point_injection but not by that name. We could easily add that name. As Johannes said, it was for cars that wanted reduced emissions without a costly redesign of the engine and was essentially a direct replacement of the carburettor.

ITB (individual throttle bodies) is not technically an injection issue because it can be implemented by carbs (eg 2x Webber 45DCOE on 4 cylinder engine or multiple SU carbs), by multi-point injection (eg as on the Toyota 4A-GE 20-valve engine and many of the sportier motorbike engines) or by direct injection (just butterfly valves in each cylinder's intake path). But it probably wouldn't hurt to mention it as an example in the multi-point section.  Stepho  talk  10:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1129618745

Hello @MrsSnoozyTurtle: Back in autumn of 2020, I tried making the fuel injection article as brief as possible because the term is – for good reason – not really used in scientific literature to describe certain systems; fuel injection is basically just a word that is used to express that an engine doesn't have a carburettor. I made a clade that describes mixture formation systems in "order" if you will (Special:Diff/1123869184#Overview). Your very recent rewriting of the lead section made the article read as if it was limited to single-point injection (which is just one out of many "fuel injection" systems). The reason why the term "fuel injection" works in the first place is because it generally applied to car engines running on petrol, and because only manifold injection systems existed in significant quantities (we may ignore the Goliath, Gutbrod, and W 196/W 198 altogether). Thus, fuel injection could be interchangeably used with manifold injection, and that is especially true for regions in which Diesel cars are not frequently seen. In fact, the various fuel injection systems are so different from one another that there are monographs that focus on certain system (e. g., direction injection in internal combustion engines operating on the Otto principle). Wikipedia should depict topics from exactly that point of view. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 10:35, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello Johannes, thank you for the explanation.

My aim was to use a quote directly from a reference for the definition, however in hindsight that caused problems because the book covers petrol fuel injection systems, and was written before direct injection became commonplace. (I also checked the Bosch Automotive Handbook for a definition, but - perhaps for the reasons that you mention - it did not provide one) The introduction section should definitely be clear that fuel injection covers more than just manifold injection, and I apologise that my edit implied this.

All the best, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:30, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

No problem mate – I just try to be clear why I make certain edits, and that's what talk pages are very useful for, considering that the edit summary is limited. Best regards, -- Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 23:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Circular link

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)