Crawford Eco Block

[LandCruiser]

Not THAT is probably the biggest load of bullshit in this entire thread.

There is NO WAY that there could be a random and steady full MPG drop or gain at the INSTANT and for the FULL DURATION that one variable was changed, let alone TWICE, unless that variable caused the change.

Or are you saying that the switch to 275 tires doesn't really lower gas mileage either? And that my numbers above don't show that? Cuz that would be pretty big news to the entire wheeling community if it were true.

Be skeptical (And no one is more skeptical than me) but keep an open mind!

Unless of course you are just another internet troll, I was taken in once this week already on this forum, my troll sense is not highly developed I'll admit.

No trolling.

When I bought my TE it ran about 17 on the highway with the stock tires and suspension.

Now it runs 19 with a lift and 285 BFG TA/KOs.

I fill it with shitty 85 octane Colorado swill and "instantly" get terrible gas mileage.

I fill it with zero elevation 93 octane and suddenly I'm Mr. Hypermile.

I drive 300 miles highway and don't use cruise, bad gas mileage--instantly. It suddenly gets better when I cruise.

Hot and humid, bad gas mileage, cool and dry, great gas mileage.

When car manufacturers are placing valences, fairings, underlip spoilers, low rolling resistance tires on EVERYTHING to get their MPG up, the idea that they could improve all their vehicles with "this secret trick the gas companies hate!" they would.

 

[mo_mo]

Someone else would have to try this as it would need some separate equipment I think.

I have looked at the AFR graph while driving, and it shows.... a perfect 4.7 AFR (With deviations for short periods of acceleration deceleration) just like before.

But of course, the ECU /thinks/ it's putting enough fuel in to hit 4.7 but... since it's MAF value has been tweaked by 5% (or whatever) it's putting in 5% less fuel to hit that target and then seems to be reporting that value through the OBD port. So I'm not sure that AFR value is an actual reading as much as it is a statement of intent by the ECU.

I would be interested if someone did an analysis of those issues that has the proper tools and knowledge to measure actual values separately from the ECU which is being tricked. That part is a bit beyond me I'm afraid

What scares me more are the people that buy used super chargers and slap them on without going in and getting their ECUs reprogrammed to handle it. Yikes!

Ditch the calculated AFR and look at your O2 sensor output directly for lambda measured.

 

[DEERUNNER]

I want a Crawford EGO Booster!

 

[2014 Warthog]

Ditch the calculated AFR and look at your O2 sensor output directly for lambda measured.

I can get those numbers now... Maybe compare them to someone else without the block, though really it needs to be compared to mine without it. Different gas, altitude etc might cause too much additional noise.

Ok, readings as follows, this was while idling and giving throttle to 2+k in park after the commute home. If I get some time this weekend I'll try getting readings at idle and highway speed with the block on and off.

These were the cat and O2 values that were built in and had functioning numbers, Dunno if I need to program in more or not at this point.

Cat Temp
Bank1 Sensor1 962
Bank1 Sensor1 729
Bank1 Sensor1 960
Bank1 Sensor1 720

O2 Wide range
Sensor 1 Ratio 1.0
Sensor 1 3.3
Sensor 5 Ratio 1.0
Sensor 5 3.29

O2 Narrow
Bank 1 0.12 to 0.85
Bank 2 0.11 to 0.85

The wide range sensors were very quick acting. Staying at 1.0 ratio at idle or 2k if I held the throttle still. Dips to 0.98 and up to 1.05 on throttle changes.

The narrow range was strange, it would go from 0.12 then to 0.44 for a bit then to 0.83 then back down again over a long cycle. Not necessarily directly tied to the throttle position that I could see... So no idea what the actual "Value" of that sensor is. This is the one that is supposed to rapidly switch from high to low? It may be that my reader is averaging values at a rate that is close to a multiple of the frequency of the oscillation and is actually aliasing the data :/ That value I think is supposed to be hooked up to a scope to plot it over time if I have that right. Not sure if I'm going to unplug the wires and get under there with my scope but you never know

 

[Bino9905]

Is the price 40? I want one but web site said 50 bucks.....

 

[mo_mo]

I can get those numbers now... Maybe compare them to someone else without the block, though really it needs to be compared to mine without it. Different gas, altitude etc might cause too much additional noise.

Ok, readings as follows, this was while idling and giving throttle to 2+k in park after the commute home. If I get some time this weekend I'll try getting readings at idle and highway speed with the block on and off.

These were the cat and O2 values that were built in and had functioning numbers, Dunno if I need to program in more or not at this point.

Cat Temp
Bank1 Sensor1 962
Bank1 Sensor1 729
Bank1 Sensor1 960
Bank1 Sensor1 720

O2 Wide range
Sensor 1 Ratio 1.0
Sensor 1 3.3
Sensor 5 Ratio 1.0
Sensor 5 3.29

O2 Narrow
Bank 1 0.12 to 0.85
Bank 2 0.11 to 0.85

The wide range sensors were very quick acting. Staying at 1.0 ratio at idle or 2k if I held the throttle still. Dips to 0.98 and up to 1.05 on throttle changes.

The narrow range was strange, it would go from 0.12 then to 0.44 for a bit then to 0.83 then back down again over a long cycle. Not necessarily directly tied to the throttle position that I could see... So no idea what the actual "Value" of that sensor is. This is the one that is supposed to rapidly switch from high to low? It may be that my reader is averaging values at a rate that is close to a multiple of the frequency of the oscillation and is actually aliasing the data :/ That value I think is supposed to be hooked up to a scope to plot it over time if I have that right. Not sure if I'm going to unplug the wires and get under there with my scope but you never know

You can see how my sensors respond in this post and compare if you'd like:
http://www.toyota-4runner.org/5th-gen-t4rs/191035-crawford-eco-block-21.html#post1985468

 

[taco_burrito]

Free Eco-block device?

I saw this the other day and thought i'd post it up:
MAF Power spacer by Reese_tuning - Thingiverse

 

[2014 Warthog]

I saw this the other day and thought i'd post it up:
MAF Power spacer by Reese_tuning - Thingiverse

"You wouldn't download a car would you?!?"

 

[taco_burrito]

"You wouldn't download a car would you?!?"

Sure why not? It's been done before.
https://localmotors.com/3d-printed-car/

Also, this isn't a car it's a small plastic part that can be easily 3D printed... I just thought it was neat that someone made one. It saves me $50 making my own. :banana:

 

[flatspin]

LOL! I like this. I always double check my work, specially when posting publicly.

BTW, send over some of that $2.50 gas this way...

Ya, I knew I should have done it in a spreadsheet.... Oh well, you know the best way to get something correct on the internet is to post something wrong.

$2.50 / gal gas was just the quick average I saw when I filled up last. Found it for $2.33 the other day but it was 10% corn.

 

[rydr1]

$2.50 / gal gas was just the quick average I saw when I filled up last. Found it for $2.33 the other day but it was 10% corn.

Just giving you a hard time, man.
Thanks for rubbing in the gas price again. [emoji2] [emoji35] even less than last time.

 

[TheWraith]

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.

first of all ... I'm not pro crawford design or selling anything here ...

but just letting you know ... That Toyota is well known for running their tunes and engines on the rich side for safety reason. I've experienced it on every single toyota car Ive modified.

the crawford block does fool the computer to leaning out the factory tune. Will it work I do not know ... will it damage your engine in the long run; I dont know...

 

[mo_mo]

the crawford block does fool the computer to leaning out the factory tune. Will it work I do not know ... will it damage your engine in the long run; I dont know...

I'd contend that any MAF spacer can not fool the 5th Gen 4Runner computer into long term leaning out the factory tune due to the wideband O2 sensors (the trims will adjust within a full gas tank cycle). No risk of damage to your Toyota engine, but it will retune your right foot. When I turned off the "ecolight", I got better mileage as I wasn't babying it too much and started to drive normally.

Alternatives to a MAF spacer would be:
dirt
temperature
pressure
fuel quality/ethanol

The comp is smart enough to manage all of these things and placing a small spacer to offset the MAF will give you zilch.

Just my opinion. YMMV

 

[Quirt]

Cross posted from my build thread but it should be in both places:

Sooooooooo....

Remember that Crawford Eco Block MAF spacer thread a bit ago?

Ok, I'm not an idiot. We'll not so much these days, I was when I was 20 of course. I got scammed good at the swap meet with a "Spark energizer" thing that you popped onto the top of your coil to "Increase the intensity of your spark" to get better gas mileage. The guy had a car there and everything and would pop the thing in and out of the car while it was running and it ran great when in and not as hot when out.

Turns out he was standing on a piece of carpet with a switch under it that would cut out half of the plugs when he stepped on it making the engine run like crap on command.

Serious life lesson learned!

So I'm super pessimistic of EVERYTHING (Just ask anyone!). Intake cyclone? Gimmie a break, Fuel Shark? Is anyone THAT stupid? Etc etc etc...

Ok so the Crawford Eco Block MAF spacer... Here we go again... Only.. after reading everything I could about it and just relying on my general knowledge on the way the world works, both from an engineering and from a "Everyone is a scam artist" angles. I decided that there just /might/ be something to this.

So I quietly bought one a few months ago and gave been testing it. I've just got enough data to give what I think is a pretty solid test result.

I have a very strict set of habits when checking my MPG. I always gas up at the same station and usually the same pump. I always gas up just before and just after a trip so I completely separate my daily commute from any large outings. I'm a generally mellow driver, though not a hyper-miler.

For these results I averaged out my MPG only for completely full tanks and ONLY for 100% normal commute + weekend errand driving. Trips to the desert/Utah etc have WAY too many traffic/weather/random gas station variables to be very accurate.

Also, as an FYI, I live at nearly sea level and in California there is not really much if any of a summer/winter blend any more. It USED to be that in summer the MPG went DOWN because of anti-smog additives, but we get those year round now. So there is no big mileage drop/boost from winter to summer here any more like there used to be.

The numbers:

Completely stock
I only went through maybe 3 tanks completely stock and I didn't save the numbers...

Lifted, 265 (stock size) Toyo AT2 tires (Covers an 11 month period from April 2014 to March 2015, no Summer/Winter gas issues at all)
18.06 + 18.78 + 18.69 + 18.58 + 18.81 + 18.38 + 18.53 + 18.97 + 18.71 + 18.48 +
18.33 + 18.86 + 17.89 + 19.41 + 19.65 + 18.58 + 18.02 + 18.42 + 17.79 + 18.27 +
18.63 + 18.22 + 17.93 + 18.48 + 18.08 + 18.03 + 18.26 + 18.61 + 18.38 / 29
18.476

Same as above but 275 BFG KO2s
16.8 + 17.66 + 17.31 + 17.18 + 17.66 + 17.51 + 17.38 / 7
17.357 - 1.119 MPG

Same as above but with the Crawford Eco Block
18.15 + 18.21 + 18.66 + 17.92 + 18.27 + 18.45 / 6
18.276 + 0.919 MPG

Results
* 1.1 MPG drop from Stock AT to 275s
* 0.9 MPG increase using the MAF spacer with all other variables constant.

I was already as light on the pedal as my Patience would allow with the 275s knowing they were sucking my mileage down so there was no further room for pedal shenanigans with the spacer in.

So given where I drive and how I drive, those are the concrete numbers. The results were immediate and consistent, both for the tire change AND for the MAF spacer install. I'll pay for itself after about 5 months for me, and after that it's like getting a free gallon of gas with every fill. Not too bad.

So what about more power?
While I believe the dynos which show a + 5 HP across the range, I absolutely could not feel a thing on my first drive after install. The % gain in HP is just too small for me to notice.

What about mileage on trips or offroading?
I have no idea and may never really know... For example though I only lost 1 MPG going from 265 to 275, that is only for my mellow daily commute of 50 miles. When going heavy throttle out up a mountain, or if I had a lead foot, the loss could be more like 2 mpg as others have reported. My daily commuting is so utterly consistent but the gains, while there, are small enough, that I don't think even if I drive to Utah twice a year for 5 years if I could tell if I got better mileage when driving all out than before given the HUGE variation in MPG per fill up on my last three trips due to traffic, weather, energy level etc.


In the end I'm pleasantly surprised and quite happy to have nearly eliminated my 275 oversize tire penalty and will likely make going to 285 at some point less of an MPG disappointment

Addendum: As per [MENTION=118321]Jetboy[/MENTION] s post above. Since I have eliminated most of the variation in my measurement technique, 64 tanks of gas are way WAY more than are needed for a confident result.

A this point probably 10 samples would be at 99% accurate. But yes, if I were just using every single full and partial fill as well as every crazy thing I take my truck out on then it would take FOREVER to get a fine enough measurement considering the huge 9 to 23 MPG swing over every single entry in my log.

I reduced a +- 50% swing in bare stats to around +- 5%. Concentrating on the majority of my driving which is my daily commute and the thing I'm most concerned with. I don't care at all what my MPG is offroading

Thanks for the time and effort you put into this research. And it's good to see that your results are right in line with what our other customers are seeing.

Quirt

 

[Quirt]

Is the price 40? I want one but web site said 50 bucks.....

We had an intro price of $40 as well as a special price for two forums after the intro period was over. Both of these are behind us now so the regular price of $50 is in effect for Q1 and Q2 while the Billet aluminum version of Q3 is $56

Quirt

 

[2014 Warthog]

I'd contend that any MAF spacer can not fool the 5th Gen 4Runner computer into long term leaning out the factory tune due to the wideband O2 sensors (the trims will adjust within a full gas tank cycle). No risk of damage to your Toyota engine, but it will retune your right foot. When I turned off the "ecolight", I got better mileage as I wasn't babying it too much and started to drive normally.

Alternatives to a MAF spacer would be:
dirt
temperature
pressure
fuel quality/ethanol

The comp is smart enough to manage all of these things and placing a small spacer to offset the MAF will give you zilch.

Just my opinion. YMMV

Your opinion does not jib with my facts which I spent some considerable time and care gathering. 3 months now and I am getting a nearly constant +0.9 MPG since installing. (About +0.5 to +1.5 per tank, tank to tank variations of course caused by auto stop pump randomness and as I stated before, the amount of low MPG weekend driving I do)

There has not been one tank even close to as low as it was before installation. MPG gains were instant on the first tank and every tank since. Heck first of my standard commutes showed immediate improvement and has been constant every day for 3 months now.

And you obviously missed my point in the original post where I was ALREADY babying it as far as I could due to the mileage drop from the move to larger tires. "Larger Tires = MPG drop" is another fact confirmed by my testing methodology BTW, even with my additional babying. No one seems to be questioning that part of my testing.

So believe what you want, but believing something doesn't make it so...

I actually took the time to figure out for myself if it was BS or not and it's clearly not. If it was I would have said so and had data to back up the claim!

 

[Jetboy]

When car manufacturers are placing valences, fairings, underlip spoilers, low rolling resistance tires on EVERYTHING to get their MPG up, the idea that they could improve all their vehicles with "this secret trick the gas companies hate!" they would.

This. The EPA will test any device if you send a few to them to tell you if they actually work.

The lean effect can be done electronically by adjusting either the o2 sensor output or the maf sensor electronic signal. Either one can be easily modified and the o2 sensor is a durable solution that wont be immediately bypassed by the cpu. Of course it's illegal because it increases emissions but you'll never see Crawford own up to that.

 

[Quirt]

Your opinion does not jib with my facts which I spent some considerable time and care gathering. 3 months now and I am getting a nearly constant +0.9 MPG since installing. (About +0.5 to +1.5 per tank, tank to tank variations of course caused by auto stop pump randomness and as I stated before, the amount of low MPG weekend driving I do)

There has not been one tank even close to as low as it was before installation. MPG gains were instant on the first tank and every tank since. Heck first of my standard commutes showed immediate improvement and has been constant every day for 3 months now.

And you obviously missed my point in the original post where I was ALREADY babying it as far as I could due to the mileage drop from the move to larger tires. "Larger Tires = MPG drop" is another fact confirmed by my testing methodology BTW, even with my additional babying. No one seems to be questioning that part of my testing.

So believe what you want, but believing something doesn't make it so...

I actually took the time to figure out for myself if it was BS or not and it's clearly not. If it was I would have said so and had data to back up the claim!

It's ok, his personal opinion does not jib with any facts gathered by hundreds of people that actually have tested the product. Guys like him live on the internet as opposed to the real world where facts outweigh opinions. It's a shame he does not put his effort and obvious knowledge to a better and more positive use.

 

[mo_mo]

Your opinion does not jib with my facts which I spent some considerable time and care gathering. 3 months now and I am getting a nearly constant +0.9 MPG since installing. (About +0.5 to +1.5 per tank, tank to tank variations of course caused by auto stop pump randomness and as I stated before, the amount of low MPG weekend driving I do)

There has not been one tank even close to as low as it was before installation. MPG gains were instant on the first tank and every tank since. Heck first of my standard commutes showed immediate improvement and has been constant every day for 3 months now.

And you obviously missed my point in the original post where I was ALREADY babying it as far as I could due to the mileage drop from the move to larger tires. "Larger Tires = MPG drop" is another fact confirmed by my testing methodology BTW, even with my additional babying. No one seems to be questioning that part of my testing.

So believe what you want, but believing something doesn't make it so...

I actually took the time to figure out for myself if it was BS or not and it's clearly not. If it was I would have said so and had data to back up the claim!

Thank you for questioning my reading comprehension skills.

You, and Quirt, apparently don't want to address the fact of the wide band O2 sensors and their operation on the 5th gen 4Runner.

When you have a controlled sample with stdevs that don't conflict then we can talk about facts.

If you read between the lines on my post about the ecolight you will see that babying it too much can cause a loss in mpg.

In summary it is extremely difficult to control all of the variables for this type of testing and I am not discounting your testing. I am simply pointing out potential errors that may account for your measurements.

If you choose to take offense to this, then the internet is not for you

 

[2014 Warthog]

Thank you for questioning my reading comprehension skills.

You, and Quirt, apparently don't want to address the fact of the wide band O2 sensors and their operation on the 5th gen 4Runner.

When you have a controlled sample with stdevs that don't conflict then we can talk about facts.

If you read between the lines on my post about the ecolight you will see that babying it too much can cause a loss in mpg.

In summary it is extremely difficult to control all of the variables for this type of testing and I am not discounting your testing. I am simply pointing out potential errors that may account for your measurements.

If you choose to take offense to this, then the internet is not for you

While it may be fun to try to imagine what might be going on internally, none of us know enough about the internal programming to know HOW they are compensating (or not) for various variables. THAT is all pure speculation. The idea that the ECU would completely compensate out the changes cause by the spacer is speculation and in the end seems to be completely wrong.

As for babying, while my babying increased with the larger tires, I seriously doubt that was the explanation for the MPG drop, it was you know.. the larger tires, higher weight, less gear ratio and higher rolling resistance. A fairly well known phenomenon that my testing clearly backs up. Secondly, my levels of babying are the same before and after the block was installed SO that is ruled out as a variable. If anything, my MPG should go up even further now if I stop babying it maybe? In any case, that variable at this point would only positively affect the results, not negate them.

My samples are about as controlled as you can get without significant vehicle modifications and I went to some work to get them that way. My random deviations due to pump shutoff and weekend driving are smaller than the gains and losses when changing the tires and the using the spacer.

Finally, yeah frankly, (Speaking generally here, not specifically to you) if having to live with the type people who can take 100 years of research and thousands of scientists collecting data all converging onto one completely inescapable conclusion, pop their heads out of the sand long enough to yell "BULLSHIT". Combined with the people that instantly believe the most radically stupid things someone says without the tiniest bit of self reflection, or experimentation, or rational thought at all does make me frequently think that maybe this planet isn't for me