|
the shocks are caused by the injectors opening and closing and interrupting fuel flow. that happens at a high frequency. a mechanical gauge couldn't keep up with the frequency to report the pulses, so its showing an average basically.
the type of gauge usually used is a mechanical device that works on the Bourdon principle. if you wanted a faster response rate you could look into electronic pressure transducers.
a pressure transducer reports electronically so it can be coupled to a computer with a digital input, a mechanical gauge is connected with a hose.
I believe the ECU is triggering the injectors and does so in time with engine position and RPMs. I think they are fired in banks of 2 and not singularly as you may expect but I'm a bit grey on the details of that. they are basically running at a fairly high frequency so the pulsations may make a sort of buzzing sound or a whine that would increase with RPM.
a fairly high frequency vibration.
it could probably be graphed and analyzed if you set up the appropriate measuring devices, but this is not a normal mechanical check.
better quality fuel gauges will be likely fluid filled, water is enclosed to slow the needle movement to allow a more accurate average reading
you may find that if you look into newer cars they may have gone towards the injectors firing in sequence and you can look up "sequential fuel injection". in that system the injectors would fire individually and spread the vibration over more smaller pulsations.
in general the fuel systems in cars began as fairly simple carbs which were easy to maintain by farmers of back yard mechanics,, and toward more proprietary and expensive to repair systems, some may basically be designed to send you to the dealer to make them money and require sophisticated software and tools to analyze service.
the problem for the consumer and the environment. is that they manufacturers use a system of constantly changing sophisticated parts with a limited lifespan, this is because the auto industry is not interested in longevity nor the environment, but is instead driven by profitability..
one way to accomplish that is to keep reducing the expected lifespan of cars to force more need for sales. when a new car reaches an age where the cost of all these unique proprietary parts and dealer service exceeds the used vehicles worth, they get to sell another vehicle. this is called planed obsolescence.
some older cars that came with carbs, and evolved to be fuel injected and electronically controlled , could be upgraded to the older carb systems, reducing cost of maintenance often with some trade off in mileage or power, but the 944 was never made with carbs. Its an option if you own a common older muscle car..
wen the automakers started with fuel injections they also used proprietary PCB boards. The printed circuit boards could have been standardized but I know of no manufacturers that chose that path. Instead each manufacturer created their own proprietary system and copied the technologies of others. the boards became proprietary patented technologies.
some of the older cars were being converted to run on natural gas, its cleaner burning, makes less power , needs a big tank. we have so much propane and natural gas there we are starting to sell it on an international level.
natural gas doesn]t need to go through an oil refinery. I believe a practical approach would be to use small engine hybrid designs, that would eliminate the need for batteries, Also cars could be standardized and made with the intent of being repairable products. If batteries did need to be used they could be made easily swapped for fast charging and they could be standardized. CNC technologies to dismantle and re-use materials could be involved and designed at the design stages of products. its wasn't a mistake that these technologies dont exist. If robots can efficently assemble cars they could also be made to efficiently disassemble their parts for recycling of materials. the reason we do not have disassembly plants is because the industry is driven by profit and not common sense.
I have a friend that drives a crane in a scrap yard, I asked what hey do whrn they get a Tesla? drop it in the shredding machine so it is ground to bits, batteries and all . only now are batter recycling plants being designed. this is because the profitability of recycling plants is taking a back seat to manufacturing more products.
if the auto manufacturers became more interested in the environmental impacts of their products. great strides could be made with respect to the environmental concerns.
car recycling was pretty much made obsolete intentionally by the auto manufacturers through use of cheaply made proprietary parts and complex procedures.
Henry ford used standardization, he copied what the gun manufacturers did and made millions of model T's using standardization principles. and they were well loved due to being easily repairable by the farmers and back yard mechanics.. VW and Harley davidson and volvo did well at making repairable products.
now the auto manufacturers are fooling consumers into paying for high priced electric cars which are constantly being changed and altered. the ideal situation for an auto manufacturer is that the consumer pays the dealer constantly because he keeps buying cars designed for a very limited and controlled lifespan. buy or lease , doesn't matter, you are basically renting the car and you'll be back on schedule with your wallet open again as intended.
the problem is not that the manufacturers have found technologies that cannot be standardized, the same technology that was used to build a model T can be applied to modern hybrids or electric cars.
the problem is that the auto manufacturers see standardization as a threat to their profit margins. Longevity is not their goal , fast fashion cars which hurt the environment are the result.
The problem was intentionally created because of of automaker profitability making the decisions instead of common sense.
|