Crawford Eco Block

[diverscale]

Which model would fit our trucks? Engine is 1GR-FE 4.0L with dual VVTI. Same as tacoma 4.0L on most parts (not 1000% sure about the MAF sensor though)

How much, shipped to Canada?

I might try this depending on shipping price, but I would not be the best of testers, since I don't track my MPG that much. But, I have a pretty good general idea of consumption during winter/summer/day-to-day/road-trips. If there is a difference of 5% or over, I will -probably- nail it down.

Snake oil or not, this is one of the most interesting threads I've seen on this forum to date.

 

[Randyman...]

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.

I'm clueless on STFT and LTFT (new terms to me and my ignorant ass!!!). But it seems to be a common consensus that most ECU's will err on the side of caution and run overly rich at WOT. I don't believe this affects CAFE requirements or EPA MPG specs, and means less warranty repairs for us "Lead Footed" owners to the manufacturer (at the detriment of "power left on the table" @ WOT for most users).

If the MAF's reported data is only slightly affected by this device, I would not see an overly lean condition happening at WOT. Rather, a slight leaning and the end result of closer to stoic at WOT (but as Quirt mentioned, still richer than stoic, but leaner than stock WOT behavior).

 

[diverscale]

Quick question for Quirt.

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.

Indeed, seeing the difference is A/F ratio at WOT, at the worst condition location on the power band would give us a good idea of the impact in an extreme climate like a desert. 3 runs with the device, 3 runs without.

For example, if the worst case scenario A/F stock is 12.0, and worst case scenario with the ecoblock is 12.9 (7,5% decrease toward lean) an expert could anticipate future risks with this data.

Like 1engineer said, nothing is free, and I do think that where we 'could' pay is reliability. Thing is, how wide is the built-in safety margin. Maybe we have too much safety margin that no-one, on any condition, on this planet could reach the limits, in this case, we would virtually not lose reliability with the device. Second option is one-in-a-million will climb a hill with a 5000 lbs trailer in an incredible heat and have a failure.

--IMO-- My guess is that the changes are so minuscules, that 99.9% of people should not be concerned about blowing their engines. Truck will rust-out and you will get an accident before the engine dies because of this I am pretty sure. But I would still be fearsome in extreme climate before I see actual dyno figures of our precise 1GR-FE dual VVTI engines with and without the device, in the same conditions.

 

[FrontRange4Runner]

I'll take the OEM design. Report back and let us know how it works!

My reasoning:
A $40 part will increase your efficiency and mpg by around 10% according to the Tacoma guys. AND it increases HP?
Why don't the OEM engineers quickly add it to their engine? C'mon, 10% is HUGE. Toyota spends Billions on making their engines more efficient and we are talking only a few percent.

Logic dictates one of two things:
A. It works but will cause undesirable issues pertaining to reliability, longevity and durability.
B. It does not work when actual controlled tests are run.

Good luck everyone.

Exactly my thoughts. You really think for 4$0 bucks Toyota wouldn't install a part that could give 27HP and 2 mpg? lol That would put us over 300 hp and 25 mpg.....those engineers must be morons!

 

[diverscale]

Originally Posted by 1engineer View Post
I'll take the OEM design. Report back and let us know how it works!

My reasoning:
A $40 part will increase your efficiency and mpg by around 10% according to the Tacoma guys. AND it increases HP?
Why don't the OEM engineers quickly add it to their engine? C'mon, 10% is HUGE. Toyota spends Billions on making their engines more efficient and we are talking only a few percent.

Logic dictates one of two things:
A. It works but will cause undesirable issues pertaining to reliability, longevity and durability.
B. It does not work when actual controlled tests are run.

Good luck everyone.

Exactly my thoughts. You really think for 4$0 bucks Toyota wouldn't install a part that could give 27HP and 2 mpg? lol That would put us over 300 hp and 25 mpg.....those engineers must be morons!

C. OEM safety margin is too wide for any and every condition on this planet, the moon and even mars, we could trim it down a bit and not suffer any reliability issue

 

[Randyman...]

Exactly my thoughts. You really think for 4$0 bucks Toyota wouldn't install a part that could give 27HP and 2 mpg? lol That would put us over 300 hp and 25 mpg.....those engineers must be morons!

Engineers don't make the calls on bottom-line profits Rather, the engineers must conform to meet targeted profit projections from what I gather. If that +2MPG gain means more warranty repairs, then you can bet the end-cost to Toyota's stock holders (God) will be the determining factor BAR NONE!

I don't drive in the desert @ WOT (on the contrary, I'm very often close to sea level and 70*F, but likely encounter WOT more often than most ) - so I could see pushing my motor a bit further towards stoic @ WOT without much negative impact.

 

[oljedi11950]

You Sir just gave me a great laugh!!! Thanks so much

You're welcome ! Will give this a go just because . :lookout:

 

[FrontRange4Runner]

Engineers don't make the calls on bottom-line profits Rather, the engineers must conform to meet targeted profit projections from what I gather. If that +2MPG gain means more warranty repairs, then you can bet the end-cost to Toyota's stock holders (God) will be the determining factor BAR NONE!

I don't drive in the desert @ WOT (on the contrary, I'm very often close to sea level and 70*F, but likely encounter WOT more often than most ) - so I could see pushing my motor a bit further towards stoic @ WOT without much negative impact.

I agree with this, and I should have said "without sacrificing something". My point was simply that there is no free lunch, extra power and efficiency come from somewhere. If that place is reliability, then Toyota won't be going there - it's what their brand is built on. I'm all for new products and potential gains they may yield, however things like this make me skeptical. There are a million snake oil salesmen out there, and over the internet it's impossible to tell good from bad, especially with very little data to look at. Having driven test cars form many years, and for many different manufacturers, I've seen how much time and $$ they invest into getting the most out of their products. Sometimes things are overlooked for a reason and sometimes they are just overlooked. Honestly, with something like this, only time will tell. I would love to see some people run it, and bring back some concrete data after 6 months, a year and beyond. I still have payments to make, so I have to err on the side of caution. :whoo:

 

[FrontRange4Runner]

C. OEM safety margin is too wide for any and every condition on this planet, the moon and even mars, we could trim it down a bit and not suffer any reliability issue

I would say that Toyota leaves a very healthy (the most healthy?) safety margin. Then again, that's why I bought it. I've always said that the first vehicle on the moon should have been an electric Land Cruiser. It would have been one hell of a marketing ploy....

 

[Randyman...]

I would say that Toyota leaves a very healthy (the most healthy?) safety margin. Then again, that's why I bought it. I've always said that the first vehicle on the moon should have been an electric Land Cruiser. It would have been one hell of a marketing ploy....

Right on. We're actually on the same page IMO.

Toyota's reputation for reliability ultimately determines all resultant engineering decisions (aka: "compromises") with our T4R's. This directive comes from 'up above' with the aspiration of protecting the Shareholders' (God's) investments.

I believe I could compromise some of that wide-ranging reliability threshold for a bit more power w/o negatively affecting my own reliability. I actually demand WOT performance from my truck quite often, but at relatively "easy" environmental conditions (at the very least, on fairly level road - which driving on persistent steep inclines are likely the most traumatic load for an engine, and MUST be accounted for across every single vehicle - regardless if you live in the plains 24/7 or in play in "hill country" often).

I'm still a radical skeptic at this point, but if this device will allow me to negate 2% reliability for 2% power, I'll take those odds based off my relatively tame environmental conditions transposed against my "aggressive" driving style and desire for more power from my extremely-sophisticated Dual-VVTi motor and highly encrypted ECU.

 

[FrontRange4Runner]

I believe I could compromise some of that wide-ranging reliability threshold for a bit more power w/o negatively affecting my own reliability. I actually demand WOT performance from my truck quite often, but at relatively "easy" environmental conditions (at the very least, on fairly level road - which driving on persistent steep inclines are likely the most traumatic load for an engine, and MUST be accounted for across every single vehicle - regardless if you live in the plains 24/7 or in play in "hill country" often).

Agreed, we are on the same page. This is why vehicles are heavily tested in most conditions before they are released. Engine load will be significantly different in TX vs the western half of CO. Starting at 5k feet and going up to 11k, my engine is producing significantly less power, while the vehicle mass is staying the same, causing the overall workload to increase. Toyota has given me a generous margin in those conditions, which means that yours is that much bigger. Just keep in mind that +2% power is almost never directly related to a 2% decrease in reliability. There are many unforeseen factors that may arise (or not) which we are not aware of, due to lack of any real data - especially in the long term. Manufactures have the ability to pull an engine after any mile interval and see whats going on inside (not counting the test data which averages 10 gigs per 8 hours of drive time). We don't have that luxury, so it's a bit of a gamble on products like this. I say do what you're comfortable with and evaluate from there.

 

[BlackWorksInc]

So... did you guys manage to do controlled tests with before & after Datalists while you had it on the Dyno? I would think that alone would be a good data set to have to go by.

 

[Taco04]

Any guinea pigs with a 5th gen in San Diego? I know we have some members that live near Crawford Performance, would be nice to see a 5th gen on the dyno so we have some data.

 

[Engineer]

After browsing the internet for the product reviews I found and read through threads on Tacomas, Scions, Subarus and here that are all almost identical. a certain percentage claim snake oil and comment that the product was never tested or designed for their engine and yet makes claims such as 5-8% power gain with Mpg improvements. For comparison sake I was wondering what the CAI description was vs the EcoBlock. ≈

TRD Cold Air intake description:
The dyno-tested TRD cold air intake system creates more horsepower and torque by bringing cooler, denser air to the engine. The cold air intake features a low-restriction air filter in a special molded filter housing. It also incorporates a vacuum indicator that automatically indicates when the filter should be serviced.
4.0L V-6 Engine
Dyno-tested to deliver an increase in both horsepower and torque for superior acceleration and power.
Optimized airflow to engine intake can increase fuel efficiency.
Features reusable high-flow, low restriction air filter that can be cleaned and reused for the life of the vehicle.
Incorporates a vacuum indicator that monitors filter efficiency and indicates when filter service is required.
Emission-legal1 in all 50 states.
Notes:If a replacement Air Filter Element is needed - Use Part Number PTR43-00083. This is a Flat Panel style air filter with red rubber trim
Emissions Compliance Information:A new process has been implemented. No longer is the Emissions Label included in the Performance Air Intake Kit.
This TRD Performance Air Intake Kit has received 50-State Emissions Compliance via the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Not all states require the Emissions Compliance Label but TRD does recommend ordering one. To receive the proper Emissions Compliance Label for this TRD Performance Air Intake Kit, please order MDC part number 00602-35120. Proof of ownership may be required.
EMISSIONS LEGAL: Yes
ENGINE TYPE: Roller Rocker
TRD: TRD
2010 - 2013 Toyota 4Runner
2010 - 2013 Toyota FJ Cruiser
Call for Fit Confirmation PTR0389100


EcoBlock Description:
The Eco Block
Increase fuel economy and power as much as +8% in minutes with the patented Eco Block from Crawford Performance.
Installation is simple and only requires a screwdriver
Satisfaction is guaranteed: if you aren’t satisfied, simply return the Eco Block to Crawford Performance for your money back.*
Increase fuel mileage, decrease exhaust emissions, and provide an improvement in horsepower
How is this possible?
Crawford Performance engineered the Eco Block based on 35 years of automotive racing experience. Most cars sold do not take full advantage of their potential by design, leaving up to 20% on the table. This is extra safe for the manufacturer, but it is not optimized for you, the owner.
This patented technology safely unlocks that potential. The manufacturer’s tune of the engine only utilizes 80% of its capability leaving room for improvement of both fuel economy and performance. The Eco Block has been tested on the racetrack and the street since 2011. By utilizing the basic principles of engine tuning, the Eco Block actually gives a greater benefit the more aggressively you drive.
Is it safe?
After years of testing, Crawford Performance is confident that you will be satisfied by the Eco Block. The patent pending technology is so good we offer a money back guarantee from Crawford Performance*.
Who is Crawford Performance?
Crawford Performance designs and manufactures premier aftermarket performance products in the USA and has been recognized with factory support from top International race teams. Crawford’s mission is to continue to push performance while ensuring the highest standards of quality and reliability.
Try the Eco Block, it will increase your fuel mileage, decrease your exhaust emissions and provide an improvement in horsepower.
* Please see our Eco Block Guarantee for information on returning your Eco Block if you are unsatisfied within the first year. Basic terms and conditions apply including proof of purchase.

 

[Jetboy]

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 .

Unfortunately this is the problem. These products have been around since the beginning of automobiles. And they are specifically targeted at people like you who don't know exactly what they do. Do you really think Toyota - who had to meet phase 3A of the CAFE standards - didn't push these engines as far as it possibly could while retaining reliability? Is it a good idea to trick your ecu into a lean fuel state that is unknown? The manufacturer likely doesn't know what combustion and exhaust temperatures it's creating or how those compare to factory tune. We don't know how close the lean burn is to burning through the boundary layer and damaging you valves. It could occur at WOT only and take 2 years of normal driving before your valves finally receive sufficient damage to cause a problem. We just don't know - but we DO know that these are very real possibilities and have a relatively high probability compared to factory tune. Advertising says "safe" lots of times. What does that mean and will they stand behind an engine failure?

You're also probably polluting more. We don't know whether this is causing your catalytic converter to operate poorly and polluting more. Generally cats require a near stoichiometric fuel mixture (proper volumes of fuel and air for efficient reaction consuming all of the fuel and available oxygen - in an ideal world 14.64:1). Running lean will not allow the catalytic process to work properly and increase emissions. While intuitively you might think less fuel means less emissions - that is simply not the case when you're also using some of the unburned fuel to react in a catalytic converter. One of the primary functions of early rich fuel mixtures is to heat up the catalytic converter to proper operating temps. Leaning out the fuel mix significantly hinders this process. There's a reason no manufacturer has been able to meet our current emissions standards with lean burn engines. The catalytic converters won't function properly and too much oxygen in the combustion process = more NOx emissions. While the advertising says it decreases emissions, this is unlikely.

If you install this and your engine fails in a year and your warranty is void (just becasue you can't see an error code doesn't mean the cpu isn't recording more than you know...none of us really know - Toyota is very secretive about the data in the recorder) what are you going to do? How about the cat? Just one cat failure is enough to erase all of your fuel savings. As long as you recognize the actual risks I say go for it. I'm all for modifying our junk. But what I see is a market of people who don't know the risk.

 

[Quirt]

Which model would fit our trucks? Engine is 1GR-FE 4.0L with dual VVTI. Same as tacoma 4.0L on most parts (not 1000% sure about the MAF sensor though)

How much, shipped to Canada?

I might try this depending on shipping price, but I would not be the best of testers, since I don't track my MPG that much. But, I have a pretty good general idea of consumption during winter/summer/day-to-day/road-trips. If there is a difference of 5% or over, I will -probably- nail it down.

Snake oil or not, this is one of the most interesting threads I've seen on this forum to date.

2003-04-05-06-07-08-09 4Runner all 4.0L #197-6030 =Q1
2010-11-12-13-14 4Runner 4.0L #197-6160 =Q2

You would need to contact our sales dpt to get a shipping quote, I am worthless for that info

 

[Quirt]

Indeed, seeing the difference is A/F ratio at WOT, at the worst condition location on the power band would give us a good idea of the impact in an extreme climate like a desert. 3 runs with the device, 3 runs without.

For example, if the worst case scenario A/F stock is 12.0, and worst case scenario with the ecoblock is 12.9 (7,5% decrease toward lean) an expert could anticipate future risks with this data.

Like 1engineer said, nothing is free, and I do think that where we 'could' pay is reliability. Thing is, how wide is the built-in safety margin. Maybe we have too much safety margin that no-one, on any condition, on this planet could reach the limits, in this case, we would virtually not lose reliability with the device. Second option is one-in-a-million will climb a hill with a 5000 lbs trailer in an incredible heat and have a failure.

--IMO-- My guess is that the changes are so minuscules, that 99.9% of people should not be concerned about blowing their engines. Truck will rust-out and you will get an accident before the engine dies because of this I am pretty sure. But I would still be fearsome in extreme climate before I see actual dyno figures of our precise 1GR-FE dual VVTI engines with and without the device, in the same conditions.

This is well said and to the point... nothing is free. And this simple part does a very small percentage of change when you look at the big picture.

 

[Quirt]

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.

Glad you came back mo mo

This post is so big that it will take a while to make a good reply.

 

[Quirt]

@mo mo

I never said that there was no optimization done while developing our product. On the contrary we have years of real world testing on the road, a full season of racing two cars on the race track and hours of dyno time to get the proper air fuel ratio and reliable power gains.

The percentage gains we have found are close to 5% on NA motors and close to 8% on turbo charged motors.

You are spot on about the increases which can be achieved with a dyno run, but it's actually worse than you outlined. All I need to do is move my air temp probe to higher temp area and the dyno will show an increase in power, its that easy if you want to lie to people.

I like your current approach

 

[Jetboy]

What racing circuit were you racing a 1GR 4runner/tacoma with this mod? At what point did you find it unreliable? What failures did you find? What were the a/f ratios to reach failure point?