Crawford Eco Block

[mo_mo]

:hatsoff: for the most passive aggressive close minded response I have seen to date.

Its not for you. I know it is fun to :rockthrow:, but move on.

You're right. It's not for me. The data isn't there. The data most likely will never be there. Time will tell according to Quirt, but unfortunately it's been since 2011 and the data still doesn't tell? I will now stop attempting to convince people in this thread to save their money.

I pass the torch to you and the rest of this forum to show wether this product works.

If you can, also kindly ask what the Patent number is that is held on this product.

Thanks!

 

[wfo9]

I must admit, I finally looked at the actual product and I'm a little more skeptical now.

When I read MAF spacer, I thought it spaced it further downstream (which is what I have done in the past). This looks like it moves the heated wire element up a bit in the inlet tube.

It could still work as advertised with no adverse effects, but it is a bit of a roll of the dice....

I won't be trying it, but will be open minded to hearing positive or negative results.

 

[Quirt]

"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!

I am sorry you feel that way about my attempt to help "non tuner" people to grasp the concept of how this product works.

That said, the OEM manufactures are held to very high standards which is what all the aftermarket component manufactures take advantage of. Us included.

 

[Quirt]

I must admit, I finally looked at the actual product and I'm a little more skeptical now.

When I read MAF spacer, I thought it spaced it further downstream (which is what I have done in the past). This looks like it moves the heated wire element up a bit in the inlet tube.

It could still work as advertised with no adverse effects, but it is a bit of a roll of the dice....

I won't be trying it, but will be open minded to hearing positive or negative results.

Correct, our EB moves the sensor to a spot in the intake tube where the air flow is less. Reading less air flow is why the ECU injects less fuel, same math as a cold air intake only they do it by increasing the diameter of the intake tube.

 

[1engineer]

[MENTION=121742]Quirt[/MENTION] glad to see you joined the conversation. I read the whole Tacoma thread. I am not an ICE or fuel systems engineer but I have been designing stuff for a few days lol and I have a question:
Nothing in our world is free. Not power, efficiency or anything else. What suffers? Reliability? Component life? A narrower application band?

I understand Toyota has to jump through hoops for emissions and I know what a company that size would spend just to gain a 1/2 mpg. I know you have a design patent for this product but they could buy your company without breaking a sweat and save R&D dollars to boot. So why do they not use rhis spacer?

Again glad you are here and I would appreciate an answer but remember I am just a dumb old engineer so keep the words small. Thanks

 

[Quirt]

[MENTION=121742]Quirt[/MENTION] glad to see you joined the conversation. I read the whole Tacoma thread. I am not an ICE or fuel systems engineer but I have been designing stuff for a few days lol and I have a question:
Nothing in our world is free. Not power, efficiency or anything else. What suffers? Reliability? Component life? A narrower application band?

I understand Toyota has to jump through hoops for emissions and I know what a company that size would spend just to gain a 1/2 mpg. I know you have a design patent for this product but they could buy your company without breaking a sweat and save R&D dollars to boot. So why do they not use rhis spacer?

Again glad you are here and I would appreciate an answer but remember I am just a dumb old engineer so keep the words small. Thanks

We are in the same boat Greg... I have a few years on you and resemble you last sentence "need to update my profile"

That was a long read for you, I like your commitment.

What will suffer the greatest is the life span of the o2 sensor. As it gets contaminated from the fuel byproducts it will start to respond slower and when it takes too long to trim the fuel back to stoic during closed loop, the ECU will trigger a check engine light so you know its time to replace it. Because the ECU has to do a fuel trim based on our Eco Block, it will throw a check engine light earlier than it would without it.
Keep in mind that the longer it takes for the ECU to trim the fuel back to stoic, the more fuel you are using / wasting. So having the check engine light come on a little earlier than the factory originally designed will actually save you some fuel.

The power gain is only 5 to 7% so the reliability factor will change very little.

Toyota does not need our spacer as they could just make the same changes within the ECU at almost zero cost.
But... their engineers have decided that the AFR they have chosen is perfect during open loop fueling. You and I are both engineers so you fully understand how the math can overcome the facts.

Thanks for the welcome

 

[1engineer]

We are in the same boat Greg... I have a few years on you and resemble you last sentence "need to update my profile"

That was a long read for you, I like your commitment.

What will suffer the greatest is the life span of the o2 sensor. As it gets contaminated from the fuel byproducts it will start to respond slower and when it takes too long to trim the fuel back to stoic during closed loop, the ECU will trigger a check engine light so you know its time to replace it. Because the ECU has to do a fuel trim based on our Eco Block, it will throw a check engine light earlier than it would without it.
Keep in mind that the longer it takes for the ECU to trim the fuel back to stoic, the more fuel you are using / wasting. So having the check engine light come on a little earlier than the factory originally designed will actually save you some fuel.

The power gain is only 5 to 7% so the reliability factor will change very little.

Toyota does not need our spacer as they could just make the same changes within the ECU at almost zero cost.
But... their engineers have decided that the AFR they have chosen is perfect during open loop fueling. You and I are both engineers so you fully understand how the math can overcome the facts.

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks for the quick reply. Will there be any adverse effects depending on application? Pikes Peak versus Death Valley for example? Lastly, warranty denial? That's all I can think of. Thanks and yes, math trumps common sense more than people know.

 

[Randyman...]

Does it sound like I grasp this?:

So this thingy places the MAF in an area of slower air velocity (same CFM, but at a spot of greater cross-area, so lower resultant velocity?), making the T4R think it is taking in less air, thus making the ECU run lean?


Then the O2 sensor detects the lean condition, and the ECU richens the mapping while in closed loop to compensate? The resultant closed loop ends up at equilibrium around stock stoic mixture (or are we getting power/mixture gains in closed loop, too)?

So the big "benefit" happens in open loop @ WOT where the ECU would use the current "corrected" fuel mapping offsets (but ignores O2 data) and ends up sending more fuel (richer) @ WOT compared to a stock setup?

And the fact that more gas (richer mixture) is used at WOT causes the O2 sensors to gunk up more quickly than they would @ Stock? Any detriments to the Cats?

Is this the meat and potatoes of it?

 

[Canazes9]

Does it sound like I grasp this?:

So this thingy places the MAF in an area of slower air velocity (same CFM, but at a spot of greater cross-area, so lower resultant velocity?), making the T4R think it is taking in less air, thus making the ECU run lean?


Then the O2 sensor detects the lean condition, and the ECU richens the mapping while in closed loop to compensate? The resultant closed loop ends up at equilibrium around stock stoic mixture (or are we getting power/mixture gains in closed loop, too)?

So the big "benefit" happens in open loop @ WOT where the ECU would use the current "corrected" fuel mapping offsets (but ignores O2 data) and ends up sending more fuel (richer) @ WOT compared to a stock setup?

And the fact that more gas (richer mixture) is used at WOT causes the O2 sensors to gunk up more quickly than they would @ Stock? Any detriments to the Cats?

Is this the meat and potatoes of it?

Not quite.

In closed loop operation the O2 sensors correct the fuel mixture back to stock, but because the engine is perceived to be under less load the ignition/cam timing gets a slight boost.

In open loop the the mix is to rich. More fuel does not equal more power. The mix is leaned from stock to about 12:1 (still plenty rich to be safe) and you make more power while using less fuel. This is not just WOT, I'm gathering from Quirt's other posts that people are in open loop more often than may be commonly beleived daily driving.

The O2 sensors are not getting fouled or dying any quicker. The sensors have a life span, the older they get the slower they react. You are asking your ECU to make bigger adjustments than stock in closed loop operation so an O2 sensor that might be fine w/o the eco block will throw a code with it.

Quirt please correct any errors....

David

 

[Quirt]

Does it sound like I grasp this?:

So this thingy places the MAF in an area of slower air velocity (same CFM, but at a spot of greater cross-area, so lower resultant velocity?), making the T4R think it is taking in less air, thus making the ECU run lean?


Then the O2 sensor detects the lean condition, and the ECU richens the mapping while in closed loop to compensate? The resultant closed loop ends up at equilibrium around stock stoic mixture (or are we getting power/mixture gains in closed loop, too)?

So the big "benefit" happens in open loop @ WOT where the ECU would use the current "corrected" fuel mapping offsets (but ignores O2 data) and ends up sending more fuel (richer) @ WOT compared to a stock setup?

And the fact that more gas (richer mixture) is used at WOT causes the O2 sensors to gunk up more quickly than they would @ Stock? Any detriments to the Cats?

Is this the meat and potatoes of it?

You got part of it Randyman...

Our thingy moves the sensor to a spot in the intake where there is less volume as opposed to velocity. This does make the ECU think there is less air entering the engine so it tells the fuel injectors to inject less fuel.

The air fuel ratio will reach the equilibrium you are speaking of during closed loop fueling and run the engine at stoic. At this point the benefits come from the increase in ignition and variable cam timing.

You are correct in most of your open loop paragraph except for the AFR change. The air fuel ratio will be leaned out as opposed to enriched which is where the biggest benefits come from, including a longer cat and o2 sensor life span

Good questions though!

 

[Quirt]

Thanks for the quick reply. Will there be any adverse effects depending on application? Pikes Peak versus Death Valley for example? Lastly, warranty denial? That's all I can think of. Thanks and yes, math trumps common sense more than people know.

My pleasure.

Mass Air Flow sensors are wonderful tools for the ECU to maintain proper control of the engine regardless of the altitude. As an example, we installed a big turbo kit and tuned one of our customers cars at sea level and he took it to the Pikes Peak hill climb. Not only did his car make it to the 14,600 ft elevation but he also won rookie of the year and finished second in his class. He even beat Rhys Millen's time that year!

Warranty is all up to the dealer. That said, Toyota of Escondido sells our Eco Blocks in their new Truck and Car facilitates.

Can I steal that last sentence from you??

 

[Randyman...]

At this point the benefits come from the increase in ignition and variable cam timing.

So with less airflow being detected by the MAF (and handed off to the ECU), this means the ignition and cam profiles are more aggressive?

Wouldn't the opposite happen (would you advance timing on a lean mixture, or roll over to the "High RPM" cam profile any sooner if running lean)?

Or is the end result that at a given TPS reading (at a given throttle position), the engine is actually doing less "work", so you need more throttle to get the same work (and the greater TPS [more throttle] is what ultimately brings the timing advance and high-rpm cam profile into play?).

I think we are on the same page with the CFM. If you move the MAF to an area of larger cross-section on the intake tube, the velocity (air speed) will be lower at the same CFM flow. If you moved to a smaller cross-section, velocity would increase at said CFM, correct? So your thingy moves the MAF to an area of larger cross-section on the intake tube and then read lower velocities at a given CFM.

Since the MAF assumes it is located in a certain cross-sectional area on the intake tube, it is basically only looking at velocity (air speed), but the cross-sectional area is known and calculated off this reported velocity - right? By slowing down the AIR-SPEED (velocity), the MAF reports less velocity to the ECU (ECU is still assuming the MAF is located in its specified location at a specified cross-section, and using this stock reference area to calculate actual CFM). But CFM flow is actually the same - just measured across a different cross-sectional area thus different reported airspeeds (and affects the resultant calculations to derive CFM).

This is a neat way to trick the ECU!

but then at WOT - are you saying the Toyota ECU runs too rich, and results in a power loss (over what's possible at a proper AFM)? That seems odd - but I guess that is to protect the longevity of the engine since I don't believe CAFE is very concerned with WOT/open Loop emissions?

Add: But your thingy somehow limits the AFM to a "best possible ratio" at WOT? How does it accomplish that feat?

We've been proven wrong once already with The Wraith's CAI dyno runs (I sure was surprised!) - so maybe someone (hint hint) will get one of these and carry on the systematic Dyno testing

 

[Marcocopuffs]

So a group buy for the 4Runner crowd?

 

[Quirt]

Not quite.

In closed loop operation the O2 sensors correct the fuel mixture back to stock, but because the engine is perceived to be under less load the ignition/cam timing gets a slight boost.

In open loop the the mix is to rich. More fuel does not equal more power. The mix is leaned from stock to about 12:1 (still plenty rich to be safe) and you make more power while using less fuel. This is not just WOT, I'm gathering from Quirt's other posts that people are in open loop more often than may be commonly beleived daily driving.

The O2 sensors are not getting fouled or dying any quicker. The sensors have a life span, the older they get the slower they react. You are asking your ECU to make bigger adjustments than stock in closed loop operation so an O2 sensor that might be fine w/o the eco block will throw a code with it.

Quirt please correct any errors....

David

You did good David

 

[Quirt]

So with less airflow being detected by the MAF (and handed off to the ECU), this means the ignition and cam profiles are more aggressive?

Wouldn't the opposite happen (would you advance timing on a lean mixture, or roll over to the "High RPM" cam profile any sooner if running lean)?

Or is the end result that at a given TPS reading (at a given throttle position), the engine is actually doing less "work", so you need more throttle to get the same work (and the greater TPS [more throttle] is what ultimately brings the timing advance and high-rpm cam profile into play?).

I think we are on the same page with the CFM. If you move the MAF to an area of larger cross-section on the intake tube, the velocity (air speed) will be lower at the same CFM flow. If you moved to a smaller cross-section, velocity would increase at said CFM, correct? So your thingy moves the MAF to an area of larger cross-section on the intake tube and then read lower velocities at a given CFM.

Since the MAF assumes it is located in a certain cross-sectional area on the intake tube, it is basically only looking at velocity (air speed), but the cross-sectional area is known and calculated off this reported velocity - right? By slowing down the AIR-SPEED (velocity), the MAF reports less velocity to the ECU (ECU is still assuming the MAF is located in its specified location at a specified cross-section, and using this stock reference area to calculate actual CFM). But CFM flow is actually the same - just measured across a different cross-sectional area thus different reported airspeeds (and affects the resultant calculations to derive CFM).

This is a neat way to trick the ECU!

but then at WOT - are you saying the Toyota ECU runs too rich, and results in a power loss (over what's possible at a proper AFM)? That seems odd - but I guess that is to protect the longevity of the engine since I don't believe CAFE is very concerned with WOT/open Loop emissions?

Add: But your thingy somehow limits the AFM to a "best possible ratio" at WOT? How does it accomplish that feat?

We've been proven wrong once already with The Wraith's CAI dyno runs (I sure was surprised!) - so maybe someone (hint hint) will get one of these and carry on the systematic Dyno testing

The different tables inside the ECU control different output functions for the engine. Each of these tables has an X and a Y axis and the input from the MAf sensor creates the "load" axis. The load axis is used in many of these tables and every one of them is changed by our Eco Block. This is how we get a fuel, ignition, cam timing and in some cases a shift point change on automatics.

Do you follow?

 

[Quirt]

So a group buy for the 4Runner crowd?

This is a possibility, we would need to become a vendor on this forum first though.

 

[Engineer]

You're right. It's not for me. The data isn't there. The data most likely will never be there. Time will tell according to Quirt, but unfortunately it's been since 2011 and the data still doesn't tell? I will now stop attempting to convince people in this thread to save their money.

I pass the torch to you and the rest of this forum to show wether this product works.

If you can, also kindly ask what the Patent number is that is held on this product.

Thanks!

I will 2nd a request for the patent number , very curious to see what the purpose, use, description is. I am a sceptic and think that no data has been shown that any tuning was done nor that anyone knows what adjustments this is making in the tables of the Toyota ECU. Everything so far presented is "engine control theory". Any data to show that the 5mm spacing (no idea on thickness) is better then 8mm or 10mm?


From the Tacoma Thread

"We actually did patent it before we put it out on the market

The manufactures have so many hoops they have to jump through that they end up leaving some room on the table for us aftermarket guys to exploit. Most all tuners trim the fuel at high loads / high RPM's when we make stage maps to replace the factory's tune. This product uses the same math as an aftermarket tune but on a smaller and safer scale.

The increase in fuel mileage comes directly from injecting less fuel, it's pretty simple math."

 

[rydr1]

Lets just put all the speculation to test, find me a dyno and put one on my vehicle and we can go from there. :eyebrows:

In 06 I dynoed my 06 Tacoma V6 and the first thing the guy running the dyno told me is that the engine is running too rich at WOT and if leaned a bit, power can be produced. It was running an air fuel ration of 10:1. Never did anything else with it though.

What the ECM is doing is not a Toyota design flaw in any way shape or form. Like others have stated, they are more concerned about reliability and emissions, how else would we get 500K miles out of these engines?

 

[Randyman...]

The different tables inside the ECU control different output functions for the engine. Each of these tables has an X and a Y axis and the input from the MAf sensor creates the "load" axis. The load axis is used in many of these tables and every one of them is changed by our Eco Block. This is how we get a fuel, ignition, cam timing and in some cases a shift point change on automatics.

Do you follow?

OK - So I think I see my disconnect (I'm think I'm beginning to understand the mystery that is the tightly encrypted Toyota ECU!):

With the Toyota ECU under WOT or Open Loop conditions, it ignores the "Learned/Corrected" closed loop behavior as referenced to the O2 sensors' "Real World" conditions (which are absolutely needed to get back to 'proper' stoic with the modified airspeed input it's receiving as a result of your product).

Since your thingy essentially reports lower CFM to the ECU (the end result is a lower 'calculated' CFM at the ECU, correct?), the WOT response results in running at the best AFM for the reported airspeed (meaning the ECU artificially leans the WOT AFM as based off the discrepancy from air temp vs TPS position vs AFM input, but IGNORES the "Learned" O2 corrections that otherwise result in a closed loop scenario).

So "ECU open loop" conditions still obey the reduction in the MAF's reported airflow your product creates, but the ECU ignores the learned corrections it sees from the O2 sensors. End result - a leaner mixture at WOT based off the lower reported MAF airflow, and a "corrected" stoic AFM in closed loop conditions by applying the O2 sensor's feedback..

Closer? Closed Loop vs Open Loop always throws me for a loop

 

[Monkeymenno]

From the Tacoma Thread

"We actually did patent it before we put it out on the market

The manufactures have so many hoops they have to jump through that they end up leaving some room on the table for us aftermarket guys to exploit. Most all tuners trim the fuel at high loads / high RPM's when we make stage maps to replace the factory's tune. This product uses the same math as an aftermarket tune but on a smaller and safer scale.

The increase in fuel mileage comes directly from injecting less fuel, it's pretty simple math."

I am really new to t4r.org, and my knowledge on subjects of open and closed loop, fuel trims and the like is minimal. I do know a little about how MAF sensors work and to my mind the math does work although saying 'it's pretty simple math' is probably over simplifying it a little. I do know that when something sounds to good to be true it probably is.

I work in the north - Northern Manitoba. On a -45° day we have new vehicles with check engine lights on because it doesn't know what to do with that kind of temperature combined with the humidity levels we can experience at the same time (you would not believe the frost clouds that come out of the vent raise of the mine). I guess like some of the other members I have concerns about how this mod would affect the longevity of a $17,000 engine. If the manufactures ecu cannot cope with every situation given to it here on planet earth, then to my mind tricking the ecu to the lean end of the 'safe' air fuel ratio is playing roulette. It may be that one-in-a-million situation, but if nature does find a way to trick it who is going to have to pay for that engine?

I get why something like this could work but at the end of the day, while being an ingenious way of tricking the computer the information it sends is completely unintelligent. It doesn't think, it doesn't adjust, it just feeds a false signal at all times to the ecu. No matter what is going on around you it sends that signal, just a little lower than actual. A proper ECU hack can at least build on to the safeties, this one cannot.

Here in Manitoba, we have had people come door to door every couple of year with these little things they claim will save you money on your power bill. A little box that you plug into any wall outlet that with 'smooth out' micro-surges. Every time the warnings are reported on the news. Every time there are people taken for $50 for a glorified night light. I can't say for sure, but this has that feel.

I guess I would just ask for a patent number like the others here. And for data. It would be a big ask but I would really like to see durability testing. Not just miles but conditions. I would love some more fuel economy but realistically I am looking at a $80 to $120 a year savings. Or like, 3 or 4 bucks a tank. I'm probably better off not buying a coffee when I fill up, replacing the air filter more often or not carrying 500lbs of extra gear.