A couple of users here need to attend "Otto-Engine 101".
I'll leave it to others to pillory you for your statements. I'll just point out a few things to ponder...
When it comes to injection timing, if the engine and it's valve timing will work with a carburetor, it will work with any injection timing, including continuous injection--without any 'shoot-through' of fuel. The rest is fine-tuning--and that is a whole art and science of its own.
There's almost no fuel system you can think of that hasn't already been tried, and most things have been tried more than a hundred years ago. As someone that has seen, worked on and used almost all of the ones that made it to production, I can tell you that the implementation matters more than the type when it comes to results. Early designs sometimes lacked the underlying technology to make them work as well as we expect from modern designs, but were still well-regarded in their day. Others were simply tried too soon. Also, when you contemplate 'Otto' engines, there's a lot of technological history in aviation, marine and stationary engines.
'Single point' (actually sometimes double-point) fuel injection mainly came in two basic varieties, one had a mechanical control mechanism in the intake manifold and injected fuel into a plenum. The one I'm familiar with were the Bendix systems and AFAIK they were used only in aviation engines. Its advantages were that it worked well with pressurized manifolds (supercharging) and was not sensitive to G-force so that it worked inverted. I've flown planes with it and while it is perfectly workable, it's operational quirks would not be tolerated by the automotive driving public--things like a mixture control on the dash wouldn't go over well. The only car engine I know that had anything remotely comparable was the Mitsubishi Starion/Chrysler Conquest that had an electronic system that kinda sorta was similar. These systems were developed from the late 1800s to the 1950s, the ones that worked well enough to survive were developed in the late 1920s and 1930s. They are still made today.
The other flavor of single (or double) point fuel injection was Throttle Body Injection (TBI) which was essentially a bolt-on replacement for a Rochester (GM) or Holley (Chrysler) carburetor. These arrived in the late 70's and with the exception of a few early duds, were reliable and efficient (albeit with fairly low power density engines) for two decades. These injected the fuel outside the manifold, at atmospheric pressure, onto the throttle plates, thus the name.
Electronic port fuel injection and direct injection (GDI) both had their mainstream automotive debuts in the 1950s, with limited success (Bosch GDI) and failure (Chrysler Electrojector). Chrysler introduced two different EFI systems, in the 1958 300D and the 1980 Imperial, that had to be recalled and replaced with carburetors. Bosch finally introduced the analog D-Jetronic a decade or so later, the first widely produced reliable system.
You seem to imply that all modern cars have, or should have, GDI as if it were inherently superior. That's just not true, IMO. GDI has become more popular over the past decade, but like port fuel injection over TBI, the main issues are power density and emissions, not reliability or efficiency. Both of my non-GDI cars are reliable and very, very clean (SULEV and PZEV, respectively) and have lifespans of 200k miles plus, but their power density isn't as high as the insane levels people seem to demand these days. GDI has had some serious issues since it appeared
25 years ago, including carbon build up on valves and particulate emissions. Maybe they have it working well enough now,
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
