You are correct on most of what you took away from the conversation except for when the engine runs rich. It only runs rich during open loop, when in closed loop the engine runs at 14.7 to 1 which is mandated by the input from the o2 sensor.
Crawford Eco Block
- Thread starter Canazes9
- Start date
You are correct on most of what you took away from the conversation except for when the engine runs rich. It only runs rich during open loop, when in closed loop the engine runs at 14.7 to 1 which is mandated by the input from the o2 sensor.
Lol... you underestimate the power of the Q!!
wfo9
New member
Don't worry. People on here are very close minded. They can't believe for a second that the o mighty Toyota can make a mistake. Reality is that Toyota has a million flaws that can be vastly improved on very easily.
I have not read the complete thread over there, but a quick glance revealed it is a maf spacer. These can work depending on the application... It's typically not going to make a huge difference, but I've seen them work first hand. It basically just helps the MAF read a more accurate airflow. I tuned drag/street cars for a while. We would actually completely remove the MAF and go with pure VE tunes for the ultimate drivabilty, power and MPG... but it was a ton of work and an extreme amount of time on the dyno and street to dial it in. The problem with MAFs (although they continue to improve) is that they suffer from non laminar air flow. One common thing I would see is people cutting the screen out of their MAF in an attempt to increase airflow. This would cause a million problems because the entire purpose of that screen was to remove turbulence. Anyway, a simple spacer would sometimes help (depending on the route of the air in the inlet tube).
I'm sure the Toyota ECU is just like all the others. Its using a combination of many things to fuel and spark the motor (VE, MAP, MAF, IAT, 02 cells...). Once in closed loop, it relies pretty heavily on the MAF. Yes, the 02s adjust the fueling, but it is a rough load cell based adjustment and almost does nothing at WOT.
You would be shocked to see how off many factory tunes are. The 02/closed loop makes up for it (mostly), but there is still a lot left on the table.
I can't answer if this mod is worth it or not. It is clearly worth a try for $40. I seriously doubt you will notice a big change, but there might be something positive or negative. Only way to find out is to try it.
I'm sure the peanut gallery will give you flak no matter what your findings are. Funny thing is they have all this knowledge based on 0 experience.
Last edited:
Canazes9
New member
The OP was not Quirt, he was just a guy that tried it and liked it. He got heckled muck like these posts and quit posting.
Quirt never claimed 20% power left on the table. Got to read things in context....
Yeah, I think he's looking to recoup his R&D cost and the dirty SOB is probably even trying to make a profit!
David
Engineer
New member
A serious question, why would you run this product in a race car when I assume you have full tuning capability via an ECU.
Engineer
New member
hwell::vader: I'm not attacking you but I am attacking the product and how it is sold (and I'm the hostile one here :blah
.Seriously if you think this is a viable product, then do back to back, apples to apples, oranges to oranges testing and convince me/us.
Tell me that you've commuted on XX octane from A to B for a year filling up at the same stations along the way. Then without changing tire size, tread, air pressure, or any other variables (add or remove armor, add or remove lifts...) let us know a year after you install it how your mpg average has changed (or not). Also, just to make the comparison as accurate as possible, change your oil and air filter prior to the start of the 'control' and 'aftermarket part install' just to make both baselined out as close as possible.
I truly look forward to seeing results that will challenge the why/how this works. If the results show that it provides results that I don't expect, yes I will be shocked, but I will also have to understand that there is a physical system at play that I clearly don't fully understand and this would provide a learning opportunity. Learning opportunities are good (not hostile)...do I need more smiley faces?
Well said and too the point. Our EB only makes a small safe change, moving the sensor farther does give more power but gets in an uncomfortable zone for the general public.
We do tune all our other race cars... but the Toyota ECU is built like Fort Knox!!
So we tossed the cars on the dyno and shifted into McGyver mode
Canazes9
New member
:vader: I'm not attacking you but I am attacking the product and how it is sold (and I'm the hostile one here :blah
Seriously if you think this is a viable product, then do back to back, apples to apples, oranges to oranges testing and convince me/us.
Tell me that you've commuted on XX octane from A to B for a year filling up at the same stations along the way. Then without changing tire size, tread, air pressure, or any other variables (add or remove armor, add or remove lifts...) let us know a year after you install it how your mpg average has changed (or not). Also, just to make the comparison as accurate as possible, change your oil and air filter prior to the start of the 'control' and 'aftermarket part install' just to make both baselined out as close as possible.
I truly look forward to seeing results that will challenge the why/how this works. If the results show that it provides results that I don't expect, yes I will be shocked, but I will also have to understand that there is a physical system at play that I clearly don't fully understand and this would provide a learning opportunity. Learning opportunities are good (not hostile)...do I need more smiley faces?
If the only way you'll be satisfied is to see data from a year of carefully documented "before" testing compared to a year of fully documented "after" testing then you won't be satisfied - I have no intention of jumping through those kind of hoops to prove a point to you or anything else. What you're asking for is ridiculous. I don't need a year of data to see if the gas mileage changes after installation. A couple of weeks, couple of tank fulls is all the proof I'll need.
David
Quirt!
Is this street legal? Is it CARB approved? What is the patent number or numbers that is held on the product?
Data!!! Heaven forbid it be asked for :frisky:
Canazes9
New member
That's not a request for data, it's analysis paralysis. You simply do not need data anywhere near that intensive to determine efficacy.
David
STX4Runner
New member
I can only speak for myself, but a lot of my skepticism is due to the hundreds of other products that claim better mpgs or performance or both with no results. I'm not saying this thing is bs on the order of the "tornado" or those fuel line magnets, just some results would be needed. I say order it and use it for a few weeks and see if you think it works.
wfo9
New member
:hatsoff: for the most passive aggressive close minded response I have seen to date.:vader: I'm not attacking you but I am attacking the product and how it is sold (and I'm the hostile one here :blah
Seriously if you think this is a viable product, then do back to back, apples to apples, oranges to oranges testing and convince me/us.
Tell me that you've commuted on XX octane from A to B for a year filling up at the same stations along the way. Then without changing tire size, tread, air pressure, or any other variables (add or remove armor, add or remove lifts...) let us know a year after you install it how your mpg average has changed (or not). Also, just to make the comparison as accurate as possible, change your oil and air filter prior to the start of the 'control' and 'aftermarket part install' just to make both baselined out as close as possible.
I truly look forward to seeing results that will challenge the why/how this works. If the results show that it provides results that I don't expect, yes I will be shocked, but I will also have to understand that there is a physical system at play that I clearly don't fully understand and this would provide a learning opportunity. Learning opportunities are good (not hostile)...do I need more smiley faces?
Its not for you. I know it is fun to :rockthrow:, but move on.
This is by far the largest battle we face... but unlike the others you mentioned, ours is patented and it comes with a money back guarantee. Plus its backed by a large and reputable company in the Motorsports industry.
At the end of the day though, time will tell.
Last edited:
:iagree:
It's a lot to ask isn't it. The alternative would be a controlled environment testing to accelerate the timeline to an afternoon / a few days (ecu relearning).
It is far to simple to swap air cleaners, put some fresh oil in the system, pump up your tires, reset the ecu and baby the skinny pedal for a couple of weeks to convince oneself that your $40 has gone to good use. YMMV
:ear:
wfo9
New member
There is a logical response. But the haters will bash someone for even doing that.
Donkey
New member
"The manufacturer’s tune of the engine only utilizes 80% of its capability leaving room for improvement of both fuel economy and performance."
This statement is indefensible and is pure marketing, period.
This Toyota ecu is fully encrypted and no one knows what is going on inside of it. You can try to guess based on the tailpipe but you will never know for sure. Maf spacer that tricks the ecu would be a better statement, no reason to make up absolutely meaningless figures such as "The manufacturer’s tune of the engine only utilizes 80% of its capability leaving room for improvement of both fuel economy and performance."
I've tuned ls motors for new heads/cam/intakes with a wideband O2. I know that safety margins, garbage emissions controls, torque management, vvti and ranges of operating conditions exist, but saying "The manufacturer’s tune of the engine only utilizes 80% of its capability" totally discredits this or any product. Eating in to the safety margin and removing tables for some special operating conditions absolutely can provide more power and even better mpg, but our ecu is fully locked and no engine components have been changed. A maf spacer by itself does little, it most certainly does not give you 100% of an engines capability - whatever the hell that means.
80%, specifically, of its capability. What capability? Why 80% and not 85% or 70%? There is no conspiracy to deprive consumers of power or fuel economy and you can market a maf spacer without using this statement: "The manufacturer’s tune of the engine only utilizes 80% of its capability leaving room for improvement of both fuel economy and performance. "
Without that bogus claim the product can stand on its own as a device to alter the readings of the maf sensor. The bogus claim is not needed.
This meaningless, sweeping generalization is what bothers me. My job for years was creating marketing claims that would get past our lawyers, pet peeve I guess.
Good luck with the spacer!
Canazes9
New member
Similar threads
