Talk:Gasoline direct injection

Automobiles C‑class Mid‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology C‑class

	Technology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I added that most of the carbon buildup comes from blow-by past the piston rings (or the crankcase oil itself, if fossil based), not from air through the air intake filter. Products of combustion steadily leak past the piston rings into the crankcase. This pressure has to go somewhere so it's routed into the intake plenum. Some engines have separators to remove liquid component of this mixture but they might not work as designed under all situations. So a mist of fossil/synthetic oil and blowback carbon gradually cooks onto the hot intake valves and manifold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.128.192.34 (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Clarification needed

The merger proposal has been rejected but I think some clarification is needed concerning Gasoline direct injection, Stratified charge engine and Turbo fuel stratified injection. Are the following statements correct?

a Gasoline direct injection engine may, or may not, use Stratified charge
a Stratified charge engine may, or may not, use Gasoline direct injection
a Turbo fuel stratified injection engine is a Stratified charge engine with a turbocharger

Comments please. Biscuittin (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete all. All three articles are crap that convey nothing and are so badly written that an honest clean start would be an improvement. Stratified charge engine is particularly awful as it's hopelessly confused with the Diesel cycle.

BTW, TFSI is a stratified charge engine(sic) with a turbocharger and an Audi badge.

'Stratified charge' BTW has been in commercial use since the days of Prosper L'Orange. It was most noted around 1990, when there was considerable interest (and a lot of money was wasted on snake oil salesmen) in using stratified charge as a means of achieving a lean burn engine – at that time, a really lean burn engine. This never happened. We should distinguish though between "engines with some degree of stratification" (common and old tech for diesels, as a means of improving initial combustion and establishing the flame front), "lean burn engines of crazy optimism" (they never happened, and they certainly couldn't be done with the control systems of 25 years ago) and the sort of thing that is increasingly common over the next few years, where some rational degree of stratification is used to give advantages to the overall combustion (and so improve efficiency and emissions, more than just making the engine run more smoothly). I don't think WP is capable of explaining any of this though. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are the expert, perhaps you could re-write the articles. Biscuittin (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't be arsed. Wikipedia is too broken to waste time on. Maybe too broken to fix at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you post here then? Biscuittin (talk) 09:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's quick and easy to post here. Rewriting stratified charge would take a few evenings at least, time I just don't have.

It fails the basic WP editing model: you can't write an article on stratified charge by just googling up a few sentences and pasting them in in order. Instead someone needs to understand the principles of what stratified charge could be used to achieve, to thoroughly understand topics like fuel injection and the Otto / Diesel cycles, to avoid the confusions that have already made it into this article, and then to construct a sensible narrative for the overall article. Fragments like "The Mercedes 300SL had gullwing doors" just aren't important in explaining such a narrative – and what's in here already about the 300SL's fuel injection is no better. TFSI shouldn't even be an article - it's an Audi label for their current state of the art. It should be part of an overall narrative on stratified charge, where it can fit into that narrative and add something to it. However it's easier to write, "I like Audis. A car mag used "Audi", "stratified charge" and "<buzzword>" on the same page. OMG!" in the traditional WP fashion. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some tidying up on Stratified charge engine and added a merge tag to Turbo fuel stratified injection. I agree that a lot more references are needed and I will see what I can find. Biscuittin (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Gasoline direct injection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Gasoline direct injection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Gasoline direct injection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gasoline direct 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 10:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gasoline direct 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 23:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]