When will you drive up for a little dyno action?
Crawford Eco Block
- Thread starter Canazes9
- Start date
When will you drive up for a little dyno action?
RedSled
New member
Maybe Tues. or Wed.
A provisional "patent" is nothing more than a registration system--all you do is submit whatever it is that you want and use that as a place holder while the non-provisional patent application is being drafted and filed. One would eventually claim priority to this provisional application, so that your non-provisional application can have the benefit of an earlier filing date.
What you actually have is nothing more than provisional application filed, certainly not a granted patent. There is no granting process for the provisional application as there is no actual examination being conducted. It is simply an invention registration system, like in the olden days before the creation of the patent system. Anyone can file a provisional application with absolutely any disclosure they want, and they would have in their possession a provisional application, simple as that.
Same thing goes for the PCT, it is merely an international place holder. There is no examination process for this PCT, nor a granting process. What you filed is what is published.
What perplexes me is why you claim your patent attorney advises you not to share the patent application number and such. By the mere fact that you have filed a PCT means that your US non-provisional application must be rescinded from non-publication, if you had opted to keep it unpublished at the time of filing. This means that your entire disclosure is public knowledge as it would be published in a pre-grant publication by the us patent office.
Same goes for that PCT, it is eventually published by the wipo, so I don't see why your attorney advises you to remain so secretive. Sooner or later, it's going to get published, if not already published, depending on when you filed them.
I do not mean to come off confrontational, but please stop using the term "patented" as it is extremely misleading and borderline false advertising.
Cool, give a call and let us know
Jetboy
New member
Robert Park's books on voodoo science have always been my favorites. His list of warning signs tend to hold true. Even when CERN challenged Einstein a few years ago and ended up with egg on its face. None fit this exactly, but #7 comes pretty close. It's basically just running lean right? I mean that seems to be the only plausible explanation. Otherwise I'll be the troll. I won't hesitate to call B.S. when it smells like crap. A couple tuners cannot produce more power, more efficiency, and equal reliability than the best auto manufacturing company the world has ever known with a practically unlimited budget seeking the very same thing.
1.Discoverers make their claims directly to the popular media, rather than to fellow scientists.
2.Discoverers claim that a conspiracy has tried to suppress the discovery.
3.The claimed effect appears so weak that observers can hardly distinguish it from noise. No amount of further work increases the signal.
4.Anecdotal evidence is used to back up the claim.
5.True believers cite ancient traditions in support of the new claim.
6.The discoverer or discoverers work in isolation from the mainstream scientific community.
7.The discovery, if true, would require a change in the understanding of the fundamental laws of nature.
1.Discoverers make their claims directly to the popular media, rather than to fellow scientists.
2.Discoverers claim that a conspiracy has tried to suppress the discovery.
3.The claimed effect appears so weak that observers can hardly distinguish it from noise. No amount of further work increases the signal.
4.Anecdotal evidence is used to back up the claim.
5.True believers cite ancient traditions in support of the new claim.
6.The discoverer or discoverers work in isolation from the mainstream scientific community.
7.The discovery, if true, would require a change in the understanding of the fundamental laws of nature.
Last edited:
Correct, lowering the amount of fuel going into the combustion chamber creates a leaner air fuel ratio. And adding a little ignition advance creates a little more efficiency as well. It's not rocket science or magic, its just what us tuners do day in and day out. It's the same principals used in my personal car that makes twice the power and three times the torque as the factory delivered it. In the aftermarket industry we get to do what the factory cannot do... and sometimes the factory will actually hire us to build projects for them
Omar RVA
New member
Though combative at times, I've enjoyed reading this thread on Quirt's product (even learned a bit about our ECUs and noticed some differing perspectives that I may not have on my own). Full disclosure: I have no skin in this game at all and won't be a consumer of this product.
Everything you stated above is true and offers something to the conversation - if taken impersonally. It is a valid point that could have used just a bit more tact. What's troublesome to me is that you felt the need to hide your real user name for the sake of proving a point in, what seems to be, a confrontational manner (if you feel the need to create a second account and say "I don't mean to be [insert negative adjective here]," then you were probably just [insert negative adjective here]). I could also be totally wrong and you've been lurking here for some time and this thread pushed you to make an account. But something tells me it's the former.
OA
I wonders why he edited this out of his last post; "I'm a physicist - who also happens to be a patent attorney"
RedSled
New member
Will do.
Jetboy
New member
I am both. I just prefer to not rely on the messenger. The message is stronger that way. If we want to dispute the blatant misrepresentation in your marketing about patented, we can. Or thermodynamics of combustion. We can discuss that too. Or we can discuss your snake oil. It's totally up to you.
diverscale
Member
Thanks 1engineer, wanted to ask this same question. Why?
(please remember that it was 116 deg F when I was in Death Valley)
Because when I went through Death Valley (I am really not the kind to be easy on my vehicles), I often used WOT, on level ground, going to truck's max speed on extended periods, and even used WOT on very long uphills, for extended period of times. Truck would only keep 65-70 MPH at WOT because of heat and altitude. Kind of testing the truck one would say. For curiosity purpose, truck would not go past 105-107 MPH on a relatively flat road and was a slug compared to normal operation conditions.
The thing is, I wonder if I had this installed, the small% leaner my engine would have run, in all that heat, with my driving habits, might have cost me a new block?
edit: by the way, during that run, at one time the engine lost approx. 80% of its power, while I was applying full throttle. Like if the ECU, with all the conditions present, was detecting a possible future failure. Personal guess is it was not pre-ignition detection by knock sensors, as I was pretty high up in RPM (pre-ignition mostly happens at lower RPM/high Torque conditions). Which strengthen my fear about tweaking engine inputs. Protection systems were made for stock engine inputs.
----that being said, I would gladly try the product for 40$ just for the heck of it, but would not go to Death Valley or the North Pole with it installed
Last edited:
Randyman...
New member
I'm also one to question everything that is presented to us in this 21st century World. Everyone has an agenda these days - Just try to get any type of factual and un-biased news these days - simply not gonna happen. The public is so misguided thanks to the smoke-screen of "paid for" mass media (even beloved PBS and NPR are backed by powerful financial interests), but that's a whole nother topic...
That said, I've gladly been learning (in a very indirect round-about way) about our ECU's from Quirt's posts and the extremely smart peeps involved in this thread. Also seems like Quirt has been around the block more than once (a double edged sword - as we know what knowledge combined with a desire to "cash in" can do to a person and their scruples )
I can see leaning up the mixture at WOT resulting in a few % power gains (many have substantiated claims that most ECU's run rich at WOT on purpose to favor reliability over bleeding-edge power output with risk of burning a valve or whatever). Then, the fact that the ECU is tricked into bringing timing advance and VVTi advances on "early" in the powerband could also theoretically increase power in closed loop conditions below WOT.
Long term, I could see additional fatigue placed on the stock components (considering tolerances and such can push edge-cases out even further), and I believe Toyota needs to make profit-based decisions on cranking out most power (and generally efficiency in the same breath) but negating warranty claims at the same time (loss of revenue). Could Toyota get the same results? I have no doubt. Woujld they have more warranty claims as a result? I dunno - but you can bet Toyota has looked at this from a profit angle, and made their decisions accordingly.
diverscale's comments above were likely part of Toyota's profit considerations when mapping the ECU. But that kind of adversity tolerance does inherently leave power on the table for most typical T4R owners.
I don't believe the inflated claims of "Leaving 20% on the table" are genuine, but as a marketing guy, you'd be inclined to "prop up" your product as far as possible to get as many "bites" (influential customers) as possible.
I reserve the term "Snake Oil" for products that literally do NOTHING! The Audio world is filled with gullible people that buy into all kinds of snake oil - and the results are often hard (or impossible) to quantify. The Audio-Fool World is likely the most abused segment in this regard.
This product at the very least does affect the MAF's data input to the ECU - so I would not immediately lump this into the "Snake Oil" category (actually affects something in the loop - the end result is another topic).
Believe me, I'm just as skeptical as Jetboy and others (but don't have their experience or schooling in this area, but once I thoroughly understand a basic concept I can generally follow it through to its real-world application and end-result).
I will say The Wraith's TRD CAI Dyno Results show more improvement than this device, but then again a CAI is $300 or so product compared to a $40 product. At the same time, more gullible people would be willing to drop $40 with hopes of "Seat of the Pants Dyno" results will be observed (which is greatly reinforced by confirmation bias, thus less product returns ).
I'm extremely skeptical, but leaving an open door in my willingness to accept the proclaimed end-results (again, this product is actually affecting the reported MAF data, and the resultant CFM calculations at the ECU are impacted as a result - beyond that, the "real-world" results are the ultimate question).
That said, I've gladly been learning (in a very indirect round-about way) about our ECU's from Quirt's posts and the extremely smart peeps involved in this thread. Also seems like Quirt has been around the block more than once (a double edged sword - as we know what knowledge combined with a desire to "cash in" can do to a person and their scruples
)I can see leaning up the mixture at WOT resulting in a few % power gains (many have substantiated claims that most ECU's run rich at WOT on purpose to favor reliability over bleeding-edge power output with risk of burning a valve or whatever). Then, the fact that the ECU is tricked into bringing timing advance and VVTi advances on "early" in the powerband could also theoretically increase power in closed loop conditions below WOT.
Long term, I could see additional fatigue placed on the stock components (considering tolerances and such can push edge-cases out even further), and I believe Toyota needs to make profit-based decisions on cranking out most power (and generally efficiency in the same breath) but negating warranty claims at the same time (loss of revenue). Could Toyota get the same results? I have no doubt. Woujld they have more warranty claims as a result? I dunno - but you can bet Toyota has looked at this from a profit angle, and made their decisions accordingly.
diverscale's comments above were likely part of Toyota's profit considerations when mapping the ECU. But that kind of adversity tolerance does inherently leave power on the table for most typical T4R owners.
I don't believe the inflated claims of "Leaving 20% on the table" are genuine, but as a marketing guy, you'd be inclined to "prop up" your product as far as possible to get as many "bites" (influential customers) as possible.
I reserve the term "Snake Oil" for products that literally do NOTHING! The Audio world is filled with gullible people that buy into all kinds of snake oil - and the results are often hard (or impossible) to quantify. The Audio-Fool World is likely the most abused segment in this regard.
This product at the very least does affect the MAF's data input to the ECU - so I would not immediately lump this into the "Snake Oil" category (actually affects something in the loop - the end result is another topic).
Believe me, I'm just as skeptical as Jetboy and others (but don't have their experience or schooling in this area, but once I thoroughly understand a basic concept I can generally follow it through to its real-world application and end-result).
I will say The Wraith's TRD CAI Dyno Results show more improvement than this device, but then again a CAI is $300 or so product compared to a $40 product. At the same time, more gullible people would be willing to drop $40 with hopes of "Seat of the Pants Dyno" results will be observed (which is greatly reinforced by confirmation bias, thus less product returns
).I'm extremely skeptical, but leaving an open door in my willingness to accept the proclaimed end-results (again, this product is actually affecting the reported MAF data, and the resultant CFM calculations at the ECU are impacted as a result - beyond that, the "real-world" results are the ultimate question).
Last edited:
I couldn’t stay away!
Many claims have been made and a lot of educating (myself included) has gone on in this specific thread. I think that is great. Personally this product is still not for me, and Quirt can take this feedback or leave it but the following is my attempt to explain my continued skepticism. Yes some may believe that my standard of proof is high and that is okay with me. All and all though I will say that Quirt has been very professional and I commend him for sticking to his guns.
Directly from the Crawford Performance website:
1) As explained, and forgive me if I have this wrong, the device repositions the MAF sensor to a different flow stream within the inlet. This tricks the ECU into believing there is less air flow and trims fuel and possibly other engine systems to run at a different open loop map.
Having never seen the Toyota source maps, I do not know for certain that the open loop map is not trimmed by the closed loop map trim. It would seem simple enough for the ECU to learn what the closed loop offsets are and apply them to the open loop to hit the desired set point but that's just me. Let’s presume that this isn’t the case and that the engine system will function as described previously.
Post #65 by Quirt
Knowing that no optimization has been done is a bit scary considering I for one am presuming that Toyota did optimize their system. But let’s presume that this device does ‘fix’ a Toyota optimization failure.
Steve W. posted the following on a different board Post #7 on 6-15-2006
Pickler posted the following on a different board on 01-23-2015
Both of these show where peak power vs. peak economy occur. Perhaps Toyota is unaware of this optimization. Additionally in the second graph you will notice the increase in EGT and cylinder head temp curves which may be of interest to reliability for some.
Flow velocity profiles can be found here and knowing where this sensor is baselined on a profile and being repositioned to could help you improve the product. I really have to question what data or math drove the decision process mentioned above.
2) Air filters vs dyno (skip to 1:55)
30 hp on an air filter. If this is true, we should all go change our filters! Just a friendly reminder for doing general maintenance can provide a really good boost to your vehicle all around
30 hp / (400 hp?) ~ 8%... where did the 8% gain claim originate for the eco block? The charts posted thus far show 60 to 63 hp (5%) and 190 to 200 hp (5%).
Single dyno runs have been a long standing tradition of the aftermarket trade. I admit that I have never put my vehicle on a dyno. There are many variables in play all of which can contribute to showing gains or a lack thereof. For example, the baseline could be a well warmed up engine and transmission with the AC blasting and a dirty air filter while the modified run is a cold engine and transmission with all accessories off and a brand new air filter (OEM or other) with the ECU recently reset. I asked in another thread just the other day if the person had recorded any extra vehicle sensor temps during their dyno runs and if they had a dyno calibration spec sheet. More data is better and independent 3rd parties are best
Here’s a video showing back to back runs without changing hardware (6:45 ~ 210.7 hp, 7:00 ~ 204.3 hp = 3% variation) Actually that video is rather interesting with respect to dynos and "snake oil". I could even tell you that the reason the aftermarket filters used didn’t increase power was because they didn’t allow time for the ECU to reset… almost as if one wants to see positive results, one sees positive results and if one wants to see negative results, one sees negative results when it comes to pseudo science type stuff.
If you want to optimize the spacer for power and have access to a dyno, why not record MAF, TPS, O2, Fuel injector duration, pressure… to fine tune the product?
3) I had a section on patents here but someone else took care of that… the only other speculation I had was perhaps the patent/pending wasn’t in the US but I guess we’ll never know especially if it’s not marked on the packaging or part.
4) There is no statement on the website that this is an ‘off-road’, non ‘street legal’ device. If this device is modifying emissions, efficiencies, and power output as claimed, then it should be CARB approved seeing as how this is being sold out of a California facility without restriction (Escondido Toyota).
Blue color adds 20 hp
I look forward to everyones results.
Trust but verify and best of luck to you all.
Many claims have been made and a lot of educating (myself included) has gone on in this specific thread. I think that is great. Personally this product is still not for me, and Quirt can take this feedback or leave it but the following is my attempt to explain my continued skepticism. Yes some may believe that my standard of proof is high and that is okay with me. All and all though I will say that Quirt has been very professional and I commend him for sticking to his guns.
Directly from the Crawford Performance website:
1) As explained, and forgive me if I have this wrong, the device repositions the MAF sensor to a different flow stream within the inlet. This tricks the ECU into believing there is less air flow and trims fuel and possibly other engine systems to run at a different open loop map.
Having never seen the Toyota source maps, I do not know for certain that the open loop map is not trimmed by the closed loop map trim. It would seem simple enough for the ECU to learn what the closed loop offsets are and apply them to the open loop to hit the desired set point but that's just me. Let’s presume that this isn’t the case and that the engine system will function as described previously.
Post #65 by Quirt
Knowing that no optimization has been done is a bit scary considering I for one am presuming that Toyota did optimize their system. But let’s presume that this device does ‘fix’ a Toyota optimization failure.
Steve W. posted the following on a different board Post #7 on 6-15-2006
Pickler posted the following on a different board on 01-23-2015
Both of these show where peak power vs. peak economy occur. Perhaps Toyota is unaware of this optimization. Additionally in the second graph you will notice the increase in EGT and cylinder head temp curves which may be of interest to reliability for some.
Flow velocity profiles can be found here and knowing where this sensor is baselined on a profile and being repositioned to could help you improve the product. I really have to question what data or math drove the decision process mentioned above.
2) Air filters vs dyno (skip to 1:55)
30 hp on an air filter. If this is true, we should all go change our filters! Just a friendly reminder for doing general maintenance can provide a really good boost to your vehicle all around
30 hp / (400 hp?) ~ 8%... where did the 8% gain claim originate for the eco block? The charts posted thus far show 60 to 63 hp (5%) and 190 to 200 hp (5%).
Single dyno runs have been a long standing tradition of the aftermarket trade. I admit that I have never put my vehicle on a dyno. There are many variables in play all of which can contribute to showing gains or a lack thereof. For example, the baseline could be a well warmed up engine and transmission with the AC blasting and a dirty air filter while the modified run is a cold engine and transmission with all accessories off and a brand new air filter (OEM or other) with the ECU recently reset. I asked in another thread just the other day if the person had recorded any extra vehicle sensor temps during their dyno runs and if they had a dyno calibration spec sheet. More data is better and independent 3rd parties are best
Here’s a video showing back to back runs without changing hardware (6:45 ~ 210.7 hp, 7:00 ~ 204.3 hp = 3% variation) Actually that video is rather interesting with respect to dynos and "snake oil". I could even tell you that the reason the aftermarket filters used didn’t increase power was because they didn’t allow time for the ECU to reset… almost as if one wants to see positive results, one sees positive results and if one wants to see negative results, one sees negative results when it comes to pseudo science type stuff.
If you want to optimize the spacer for power and have access to a dyno, why not record MAF, TPS, O2, Fuel injector duration, pressure… to fine tune the product?
3) I had a section on patents here but someone else took care of that… the only other speculation I had was perhaps the patent/pending wasn’t in the US but I guess we’ll never know especially if it’s not marked on the packaging or part.
4) There is no statement on the website that this is an ‘off-road’, non ‘street legal’ device. If this device is modifying emissions, efficiencies, and power output as claimed, then it should be CARB approved seeing as how this is being sold out of a California facility without restriction (Escondido Toyota).
Blue color adds 20 hp
I look forward to everyones results.
Trust but verify and best of luck to you all.
Last edited:
Around the block I have been, especially in the Motorsports world
And this is what I have been driving around the block for the last few years;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKXzDhGhoEg
It's kinda on the other end of the scale compared to our Eco Block and what I have spent a good part of my life doing. Keep in mind that this car came to me with 200HP and how has 500HP so I am well aware of what stress can do to an engine and everything connected to it.
When I first got this car I put our Eco Block on it until I finished designing and building the turbo kit for it.
And this is what I have been driving around the block for the last few years;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKXzDhGhoEg
It's kinda on the other end of the scale compared to our Eco Block and what I have spent a good part of my life doing. Keep in mind that this car came to me with 200HP and how has 500HP so I am well aware of what stress can do to an engine and everything connected to it.
When I first got this car I put our Eco Block on it until I finished designing and building the turbo kit for it.
Randyman...
New member
Nailed it. My door is cracked open, but ready to close in a jiffy if needed
Pushing marketing claims to the extremes will pull in more gullible buyers, but "those in the know" will only look at inflated marketing copy as a strong signal that snake oil is very likely present...
Just like Toyota has to balance power and efficiency vs. reliability to maintain profits, Quirt needs to consider balancing inflated marketing copy against the push-back and skepticism that knowledgeable people will have to these inflated claims.
I can believe something is happening with this device...
Great thread
oljedi11950
New member
This WHOLE thread cracks me up the Op came in with good intent to let those that complain about our mpg with a product that we all know might or might not , and immediately is flamed ! Now if you don't want the F-N THING DON'T F-N buy it end of story . People piss & moan about lifts , wheels, skid plates, bumpers , adding mod after mod but along comes THIS & everybody trips . Jesus Christ we spend more on beer on a wknd WTF !
It might be a scam who knows, the guy came in tried to explain his product never once trying to sell it (promote yes) but all the while being civil to all , who gives a fuq if it has patent it's pkg nice has a disclaimer . I'm certainly not an engineer but it sounds plausible lord knows I wouldn't mind better mpg . End of , domo .
It might be a scam who knows, the guy came in tried to explain his product never once trying to sell it (promote yes) but all the while being civil to all , who gives a fuq if it has patent it's pkg nice has a disclaimer . I'm certainly not an engineer but it sounds plausible lord knows I wouldn't mind better mpg . End of , domo .
Randyman...
New member
wfo9
New member
Quick question for Quirt.
I mentioned before that I have a strong tuning background... but I have been out of it for about 10 years.... and never worked on a factory Toyota setup for obvious reasons (yes, you suck Toyota). The fact that we are on a thread about tricking the ECU into giving us a scrap of improvement says it all. They are in the dark ages.
So when you trick to MAF into reading less air, it is going to be mitigated by the fuel trims. Initially, the STFT will be high and those will eventually move to LTFT. But, your timing and other maps will stick to their slightly lower load values. WOT is not going to get its own fuel trim (since the narrowband sensor is useless at WOT), but it should pick up the fuel trim of the highest load (non WOT) cell. In the end, the underlying benefit of this product is more aggressive spark timing (and maybe some VVT activation - although it seems like it would just delay it). I never really dealt with VVT.
The part about WOT is what concerns me the most, The ECU will have no way to adjust out any drastic lean condition on the top end.
So my question is.. Have you hooked up a WB to any of the 1GRFE dual VVTi rigs and seen what type of AF ratio they are hitting at the top end with your device installed... How does this change between initial install vs some time to learn the LTFTs.
I mentioned before that I have a strong tuning background... but I have been out of it for about 10 years.... and never worked on a factory Toyota setup for obvious reasons (yes, you suck Toyota). The fact that we are on a thread about tricking the ECU into giving us a scrap of improvement says it all. They are in the dark ages.
So when you trick to MAF into reading less air, it is going to be mitigated by the fuel trims. Initially, the STFT will be high and those will eventually move to LTFT. But, your timing and other maps will stick to their slightly lower load values. WOT is not going to get its own fuel trim (since the narrowband sensor is useless at WOT), but it should pick up the fuel trim of the highest load (non WOT) cell. In the end, the underlying benefit of this product is more aggressive spark timing (and maybe some VVT activation - although it seems like it would just delay it). I never really dealt with VVT.
The part about WOT is what concerns me the most, The ECU will have no way to adjust out any drastic lean condition on the top end.
So my question is.. Have you hooked up a WB to any of the 1GRFE dual VVTi rigs and seen what type of AF ratio they are hitting at the top end with your device installed... How does this change between initial install vs some time to learn the LTFTs.
Last edited:
Similar threads
