Crawford Eco Block

mo_mo said:
Figures 5 & 6 would disagree with the assumption that time and distance will even everything out :)

http://www.epa.gov/smartway/forpartners/documents/sae-reports/evaluating-fuel-economy.pdf

Those error bands are quite large. Thousands of miles still won't account for the slew of variations that will creep into this type of measurement. Tolerances are a pain! Here's one of many sites that just scratches the surface of why MPG typically improves during warming months:
http://www.topspeedracer.com/better-gas-mileage-in-summer-than-winter.html
Are these variables controlled by time and distance in the proposed test? I don't believe so. There are other things that can be measured to show the functionality or lack thereof of the eco block and we would be better served monitoring those.
Click to expand...
I totally understand. The links you quoted are the proper way to test and that's not gonna happen here. Do you know what a PID loop is? I'm just trying to advance the real data up the curve towards the target a bit. Before you shoot holes in it lol hear my logic:
One guy goes 50 miles and reports his instant mpg reading.
Or one guy goes a few tankfuls and reports his mpg.
The second guy would be more accurate but still a long way from being worth anything right?
So far that is what we have - a few guys going a few hundred miles and reporting their findings. It's mostly meaningless.

Now flounder has volunteered to test one. He drives several thousand miles a month over the same route. He is not buying one so he has no reason to fudge. He actually keeps records.

Now this is just one guy driving. His actual mpg is meaningless because of so many variables compared to the next guy right? Right but his percent increase, decrease or no change would be applicable to othere. Given, this is one guy in one situation but in my mind this would be better than the guy going 50 miles and reporting his instant mpg.
In addition do a trailing average on his actual results will have the desired effect of smoothing out the weekly variables that are invariably present in day to day operation. In this case the longer the test runs the more accurate the results will be... for one data point. I volunteered to document this so everyone would at least know this one test had no bias.
 
1engineer said:
I totally understand. The links you quoted are the proper way to test and that's not gonna happen here. Do you know what a PID loop is? I'm just trying to advance the real data up the curve towards the target a bit. Before you shoot holes in it lol hear my logic:
One guy goes 50 miles and reports his instant mpg reading.
Or one guy goes a few tankfuls and reports his mpg.
The second guy would be more accurate but still a long way from being worth anything right?
So far that is what we have - a few guys going a few hundred miles and reporting their findings. It's mostly meaningless.

Now flounder has volunteered to test one. He drives several thousand miles a month over the same route. He is not buying one so he has no reason to fudge. He actually keeps records.

Now this is just one guy driving. His actual mpg is meaningless because of so many variables compared to the next guy right? Right but his percent increase, decrease or no change would be applicable to othere. Given, this is one guy in one situation but in my mind this would be better than the guy going 50 miles and reporting his instant mpg.
In addition do a trailing average on his actual results will have the desired effect of smoothing out the weekly variables that are invariably present in day to day operation. In this case the longer the test runs the more accurate the results will be... for one data point. I volunteered to document this so everyone would at least know this one test had no bias.
Click to expand...

Science! Loving a realistic test!!!! Boom!!!
 
This is from the TW forum;

I would like to report my recordings for the month of April. Note that my records for the month of March are post #928 on page 47.

Without Crawford Performance Q3:
3/4/15 --> 335 miles / 15.10 gal = 22.19mpg
3/9/15 --> 367 miles / 16.29 gal = 22.53mpg
3/13/14 --> 359 miles / 16.00 gal = 22.44mpg

With Crawford Performance Q3:
3/19/14 --> 377 miles / 16.01 gal = 23.55mpg
3/26/15 --> 355 miles / 15.26 gal = 23.26mpg
3/30/15 --> 347 miles / 14.84 gal = 23.38mpg
Below are my numbers for the month of April

4/6/15--> 389.5 miles / 15.944 gal = 24.43mpg
4/9/15--> 373.4 miles / 14.828 gal = 25.18mpg
4/15/15--> 377.8 miles / 16.086 gal = 23.49mpg
4/21/15--> 375.6 miles / 15.989 gal = 23.49mpg
4/27/15--> 405.5 miles / 16.701 gal = 24.28mpg

So now I have a month and a half of data collected, 8 complete fill-ups, and over 3,000 miles being involved with the EB Q3. Note, I am still driving the same commute and conditions as last month except for the fuel-up on 4/9 which involved a 130 mile round trip of driving 55 mph with very little speed change. So far the EB has been good to me as I can say that I have never averaged over 23mpg this easily. Also, after reading through the last few pages I have been monitoring my long term fuel trim and have not noticed any marginal variances that would concern me. Overall I am happy with the purchase that I made from Crawford and would like to say thanks to Quirt for always being attentive on this thread because there are questions that I find myself asking and by the time I read through the questions of other members, Quirt usually has already answered them.
 
Hi guys. Just a heads up. On how many Gallons are In a tank. Once your truck show 0 miles remaining I always have a min of 30 miles remaining. Which equates to about a gallon and a half remaining and when filling back up again I have to only usually add only 22 gallons. Which if you remember i know for a fact my truck will take 25.5 gallons. So you may want to remember that when trying to get the most out of a tank of gas which is what I do. If I mentally try to micromanage every mpg. I would go nuts. Which is why I try to get the most out of drafting and my biggest friend is the cruise control. If you turn off the cruise control and use the gas Peddle going down hills and up them will yield the best or a better average per tank. Yes I know people it's come back to miles per gallon. How ever I know there are long periods where I can basically coast and get a recording of up to 38 mpg. For a long stretch of milage maybe 3 miles at a time but then you lose going up hill but if you pay attention it should get you higher averages.

I know some o e here is going to say I am stupid for running the truck so low on fuel. But there is a reason for the madness each gallon of gas if I remember weighs about 8.5 lbs per Gallon. So I know when I am below a quarter of a tank. I am automatically about 120 Poulds lighter. Which means less weight.
 
Engineer said:
Nice Cars, I lol'd at the water balloons to drift through. 80k for a BRZ........:roadkill:
Click to expand...

Yea, and they had Green spooge inside instead of water so the clean up of the car was a major PITA!

The Brembo brake upgrade was $8700 alone, it added up quick with this build.
 
I got this in a PM over the weekend;

Quick Note: Picked up an ECOBLOCK and installed last week. Not scientific by any means, but immediately saw approximately .75 - 1MPG increase around town. Throttle response felt better as well. Took on a 285 road trip today on run I've done many times. Typical speeds 70-80MPH. Well, MPG at end of trip was 20.1MPG when past was at 19MPG. Lots of long hills. Definitely noticed throttle response increase, less downshifting out of OD. Just for the record, running TRD Airfilter in standard box and have Borla Cat-Back on 4Runner. Its a 14 TE Base. I've also put Spidertrax Spacers on all 4 corners, runner 5100 Bilsteins and replaced OEM tires with Michelin LTX2's. Also have modified swaybar endlinks and place Polybushing on the bars. It handles very well on the road with no wandering or crosswind deflection.
 
ohlookitsthisthreadagai.jpg
 
flounder1 said:
I will tell you what. You send me one for free and I will run on my torque pro with my 2011 stock sr5. I drive about 4000 miles a month. I know what I get out of every tank. I can use for a full month and give a real world review. I currently get 20.5 miles to the gallon and I know how to cheat the pumps and my tank to make sure it truly fills up. I can watch intake temps and also my mav gauges to see influxes. Its your call if you want to sell these things I will help you out with putting this to the test for real. I drive from Philadelphia to Baltimore at least 2 times a week. The most I got out of a tank was 500 miles keep in mind that was drafting 18 wheelers from Philly to Pittsburgh. Just this week I got 470 miles out of a tank driving to Corning ny.
I average 430 miles to a full tank. By the way the most amount of gallons I have put in the truck is 25.5 gallons. I usually am putting 22 gallons every 2 to 3 days. I will even check plugs each week to see any dentation problems.

YOUR CALL TO END ALL OF THIS MADNESS. pm if you want.:50cal:
Click to expand...

I got his address today so we can get this test started!
 
As promised, I would post my results.

Prior to install average driven on same route daily: 15.3 MPG

First tank: 14.3, (knowingly pounded the gas more frequently)
Second tank: 15.8
Third tank: 16.1
Fourth tank: 15.9
Fifth tank: 15.6

Haven't changed a thing about my driving. Even got a speeding ticket going 12 over last week. The eco block probably does as advertised. Only way to find out if it does anything from a performance srandpoint is to put it on a Dyno.

I found an AWD Dyno up here recently. Will swing by in June to see if this does anything.
 
Formidable said:
As promised, I would post my results.

Prior to install average driven on same route daily: 15.3 MPG

First tank: 14.3, (knowingly pounded the gas more frequently)
Second tank: 15.8
Third tank: 16.1
Fourth tank: 15.9
Fifth tank: 15.6

Haven't changed a thing about my driving. Even got a speeding ticket going 12 over last week. The eco block probably does as advertised. Only way to find out if it does anything from a performance srandpoint is to put it on a Dyno.

I found an AWD Dyno up here recently. Will swing by in June to see if this does anything.
Click to expand...

So that's going to a 15.54 average from 15.3 ?
 
JeremyB said:
15.85 if you toss the first tank. Std dev of 0.2 gallons.

What were the 5 tanks previous to the eco block?
Click to expand...

5 tanks prior to install:

14.7
15.5
15.3
14.8
15.6

Ave 15.18. There is only 5k miles on the truck. The average overall prior to install is 15.3 which is probably a more accurate gauge.
 
I hate to bring back this thread :hiding: :behindsofa:
But I just thought of something...

This device works by positioning the MAF where it sees less airflow, right? Doesn't having a dirty MAF sensor have the same effect? A dirty sensor is insulated from airflow by dirt, so it gets hotter and the computer thinks there is less airflow than what is actually there.

There are claims that this device improves MPG and that cleaning the MAF improves MPG. Can they both be right? It seems like a contradiction to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
Eibach pro truck or Bilstein 5100 for SR5 for road use and stock height
Replies
4
Views
3K
johnnygraphic
J
OutBreak
2019 Toyota Tacoma TRD Off-Road W/ Alu Cab $45,000 / 70,000miles / NOVA area
Replies
0
Views
2K
OutBreak
OutBreak
P
Gauges, needle position etc. Much more, but a starter
Replies
2
Views
1K
Parks Junkie
P
Lexington
KO2 vs KO3 Tires
Replies
11
Views
13K
DAW89446
DAW89446
R
Any GM Diesel Specialists On This T4R Board?
Replies
3
Views
6K
Rick G.
R

Members online

Total: 418 (members: 4, guests: 414)

Forum statistics

Threads
278,310
Messages
3,554,080
Members
248,016
Latest member
Advally Service

Share this page

Trending content

Back
Top