Talk:Gasoline direct injection

Archives of past discussion

Archive 1 (2006 November - 2007 November)

got rid of GM diesel info

there was info about an upcoming GM diesel engine and I deleted it. This article is on gasoline engines, NOT diesel... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.55.206 (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Later systems

I went ahead and altered the additional information about Ford's DI system.

• While Ford made a press release concerning their direct injection system in 2001, it did not enter the marketplace until 2003. (correct me if I'm wrong)
• Bringing up concept vehicles is trivial to the scope of this article.
• Removed the EcoBoost main page redirect, all the other engines are highlighted.
• For consistency I grouped the Ford products with each other.

Also I believe without the modifications that portion of the article becomes biased towards Ford's products. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.224.246 (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

In 2001 Ford released materials including information of a 1.1-liter engine under testing equipped with DI. All dates in that section pertain to the manufactures release of the technology to the marketplace. http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=9493 Ford released their system to the marketplace in 2003. 69.65.224.246 (talk)

I beg to differ, concept vehicles is the best way to demonstrate product development. Isn't trivial. Redirect isn't main article. Chronologically do as well consistency. Biased there's not, all modifications about Ford engines representation of factual information. Please do not remove referenced information from articles. Thank you. --Tomcha (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not a Ford specific article, no need to mention a 2001 Ford engine that was not in production. And no need to specifically single out the EcoBoost engine. Ford's concept vehicles are already discussed in Ford specific pages which again this article is not. Thanks 69.65.224.246 (talk)

Need to mention that a system conception is primary for objective facts of all developments, direct injection. --Tomcha (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The article clearly pertains to production engines, not everything bit of Ford minutiae. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.224.246 (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. Please do not remove relevant referenced fact from articles. Thank you. --Tomcha (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ford doesn't build a production 3-cyl engine. this isn't an article to detail Ford concepts and non-production engines. 69.65.224.246 (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

All right, concepts engines. Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. --Tomcha (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

not assuming ownership, none of the other editors have ever attempted to include any manufactures concept cars or non production engines, or focus on any single manufacturer so heavily adding any bit of trivial information, there is zero relevance in a general DI article to include engines from concept vehicles. Again please do not remove tags without discussion. 69.65.224.246 (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

also it has been pointed out to you in the Ford EcoBoost engine article that the Bobcat engine isn't a two-stroke engine, yet you choose to revert factual edits. That and all the bits of Ford information you are adding to this article can already be found in that same article. 69.65.224.246 (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

V8 EcoBoost (Bobcat) is a two-injection stroke engine, uses E85 injection and gasoline injection. --Tomcha (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Again you have been told by two editors that the Bobcat engine isn't a two-stroke engine. Clearly you do not know what a two stroke engine is. 69.65.224.246 (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I am a little concerned with this part of the article -> "Twin-fuel engines

Code named Bobcat the new twin-fuel engine from Ford. It is based on a 5.0L V8 engine block, but it uses E85 cylinder injection and gasoline port injection. The engine was co-developed with Ethanol Boosting Systems, LLC of Cambridge, Massachusetts, which calls its trademarked process DI Octane Boost. The direct injection of ethanol increases the octane of regular gasoline from 88-91 octane to more than 150 octane. The Bobcat project was unveiled in Department of Energy and Society of Automotive Engineers in April 2009.[41][42]"

Ethanol does not have that high of an octane, and mixing it with gas would not cause that... perhaps a ethanol/water mixture could reach that level, but if that is the case it should state it.

For the record. Ethanol's octane is 129 according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.147.18 (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought, WP:OR. --Tomcha (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Article needs graphics

This article needs an animated schematic.

If it can be done for nuclear reactors ([Pressurized Water Reactor] and [Boiling Water] have them, then surely fans of the auto industry, which is much larger, can do one. rhyre (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

WWII aircraft engine unlisted

According to Nakajima Ki-84 page, the fighter used a direct injection version of the Nakajima Homare engine.92.58.53.99 (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

more explanation

The "theory or operation" section needs a new starting paragraph that explains in some detail the statement from the intro: "The gasoline is highly pressurized, and injected via a common rail fuel line directly into the combustion chamber of each cylinder, as opposed to conventional multi-point fuel injection that happens in the intake tract, or cylinder port."

It does not make sense to begin a "theory of operation" with the effects or consequences (advantages) of the technology whose workings have not yet been explained. 65.200.157.179 (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

carbon build up

Users of various forums talk of carbon build up due to direct injection. Here's an example article on the subject from Edmunds, written in 2011 Edmunds - Direct Injection Fouls Some Early Adopters. Is there solid research anywhere into this alleged drawback of direct injection? It's easy to find anecdotal evidence from individuals on forums, most of it "friend of a friend" but I'm having a hard time finding hard research. 75.158.93.71 (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal with Stratified charge engine

Since no-one appears to have started a discussion on the proposed merger of Stratified charge engine into this article, I shall begin the discussion:

Oppose: The concepts may be related, but they are not identical. Two notable stratified charge systems, Honda's Compound Vortex Controlled Combustion (CVCC) from 1975 to 1983 and Piaggio's system as used in the Vespa ET2, use carburetors to vapourize the fuel. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose It's nonsense to even suggest this. We might as well merge clutch and carburettor. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)