In Part 1 (here), I introduced you to a reliable seller who “manufactures” thousands of refurbished injectors. Complete with the purchased injectors, the customer deceived also test protocols, which confirmed the excellent performance of these injectors. Let’s look closer; what do these protocols show.

Here are all injectors:

And these are the test results:

As you see, tests are performed on already familiar (from many other entries) Carbon Zapp equipment. 

The first aspect, which I fundamentally dislike – it is not possible to indicate which test result corresponds to which injector except for the hand-written #1, #2, etc., no other unique identification. Information in S/N fields does not fit these injectors. How so? This aspect reduces my trust in the test report to 0. From one side, in the S/N field, the person, who performed the test, has manually input the numbers (the theme “oh, I don’t fill in those fields” is not relevant), but they don’t correspond to the same injectors!

On the test report, the company’s data are not identified. That is more than strange because the company is actively advertising on eBay and selling thousands of refurbished injectors. I wonder why? 

But, if these aspects are not enough for you, let’s go further. 

First test: R2LC – electrical measurement. Electrically the injector “behaves” like a capacitor. My measurements which were made with different measuring tools (a “regular” multimeter, a specialized LC meter, and a 5.5 digit reference grade measuring instrument) indicate, that the injector capacity of “more or less” new releases (07 .. 11) is in the range of 2.2 .. 2.6 uF. Precisely the exact numbers are indicated in the other Carbon Zapp tests (check the reports in other entries). 

These current reports indicated following values: 4.1; 3.8; 2.8; 4.1; 3.5; 3.5 uF. And interestingly, the closest to the correct value is the measurement of injector No.3. Exactly injector No.3 is in a brownish body (accordingly, it looks like a genuine *048 injector). 

In these data, I see two fundamental problems:

a. electrical parameters of the injectors are very far from (even +70%) from the average expected value (2.4 uF);

b. scattering of the parameters of these injectors is quite wide (the difference between min/max is 46%).

These results, for me, mean:

a. these tests (except No.3) are performed for injectors, who definitely are not of the latest release of *048 injectors of last ten years (moreover, not releases 07 .. 11);

b. it looks that these 5 tested injectors in black bodies are either of poor quality (“alterative”) injectors or injectors of different types, or some of them have been damaged (but making such a presumption, it’s hard for me to indicate the damaged one, because of the “mixup” in the parameters).

Why is this parameter of MEGA important? Let’s see what the management signal of the injector looks like: 

This is how the injector management signal in idle looks like (opening time indicated by INPA around 200 us). As we see:

a. the voltage supplied to the injector reaches a maximum (130 .. 150 V) only around 100 us;

b. for around 100 us, the signal “grows” and, for the same time – “drops”. 

So – most of the time, the injector is opened/closed! Why so? The reason is precisely the nature (capacity) of this injector – DME High-side switch, using PWM, charges and discharges the capacity of piezo element of these injectors using large current (around 10 A). 10 A is a max current, which can be developed by MSD80/81/87 and also – endured by the injector itself.  

If the equivalent capacity of the injector is not 2.4 uF but 70% larger (as for these injectors tested), “rise” and “fall” times also will increase by 70% – time, during which the injector opens/closes.

The minimal opening time (confirmed by INPA/ISTA) is only 100 us, which means – with “normal” injectors, the voltage Plato is 0 us; the injector is opening for 100 us and directly after closes! Accordingly – such (with increased capacity) injectors in such mode will not be able to work at all! Conclusion: injectors of such large capacity cannot be used in the N43/N53 series engines (neither in N54/N63). 

I have no doubt that it is not even worth installing such (tested) injectors, but – if we have started the inspection of the test protocols, let’s check one more strange obstacle.

TP4 test is the fuel injected by the injector, the test for short opening (240 us). Also, the test pressure is close to the N53 series engine (180 vs 200 bar). As you see in the test reports. Parameters of all injectors are similar; simultaneously, the coding data differ even 3.2 times (224/715)! How is that possible? There are several scenarios possible: 

a. these results are complete fake;

b. test conditions (for example, charges/discharges of the injector) are radically different. 

It is clear that on the test stand, charges/discharges of 50 .. 100 A is not possible (such I would be necessary for the injector data to be correct, taking into account the vast difference of C), and such a huge I will not be withstood by the injectors itself. I have no slightest doubt that these test reports (except No.3) are not the ones of the injectors sold. 

It is possible that the seller was very cunning:

a. during the electrical test, the real (the sold) injectors were connected to the Carbon Zapp equipment. This measurement can be done under in-home conditions and make sure that they correspond/are correct;

b. for other measurements, other/correctly working injectors were used. So the set of tests is acquired, which is hard to challenge (and ask for the replacement of the injectors).

If my version corresponds to the truth – with all due respect. The fraud on a professional level!

And so, the image of the honest seller broke down.