Eco Block from crawford performance

You are welcome, I must say that this is the best group of guys on a forum I have ever experienced. Usually data and facts light a fire under the trolls and they go on a rampage.
It has been a pleasure answering questions and sharing knowledge with this group

 

I ordered one last night while drunk haha. I'll post results of butt dyno and see if it improves my 13 mpg

 

Just ordered mine #2413

 

I'm so skeptical....

 

Just picked mine up. Usps lady was having a hard time getting out of the snow haha. after being a dick and watching for a few seconds getting her mail truck sideways, I decided to move my work truck from out in front so she could move on haha. Time to slap this beast on and 4x4 over to whataburger behind my house and get some grub maybe a hot cinnamon roll......mmmmmm

 

So is the Q1 compatible with the 2014 Tacoma? I don't see it on the list

 

Subd for results

 

Just an fyi for people who are waiting to get theirs, you'll need to modify the engine cover if you want to keep it. This adds enough height to the MAF that the engine cover won't fit, but if you just widen the existing square above the MAF it'll fit fine. I know a lot of people just discard it but in my experience it does help a little to quiet the engine noise in the cab.

I've only driven it 30 miles to work this morning, so far I'm pretty happy with it. I don't have any numbers to back it up yet obviously but the instant MPG readings seemed a bit higher throughout my trip, and the butt dyno was pretty happy with things.

For $50 IMO it's a no-brainer, as long as it doesn't hurt anything I don't see any reason not to at least try it if you're unmodified. Like somebody else posted, it'll pay for itself in less than a year if you gain even a little bit of MPG's.

 

Yea, need to update the list... Q1 fits

 

Has anyone rolled up to the dealer with one of these on for general maintenance? Just curious if they noticed it and if they said anything?

 

Great because I wanted to try it out so I ordered it and received it already lol. Just making sure before I install it. Fast shipping too! Took 2 days to go from Cali to Florida

 

Quirt,

I'm curious.. This product is in effect tricking the MAF into reading less airflow than is actually entering the engine by placing the metering area closer to the walls of the intake tube.

When the ECU gets the inputs from the MAF, IAT, CLT, TPS, CrnkPOS, CamPOS, etc. It's going to determine a load cell for the given RPM. Others not familiar with what I'm talking about can see below (while not a Tacoma, this is a representation of how the timing map in this case is programed within an ECU) X axis represents the "load", and Y axis represents the RPM.

With this product altering the relative signal reported to the ECU with values less than actual, this will put the vehicle in a lower load cell(s) compared to an otherwise stock vehicle. While transitions from cell to cell are not likely and in most cases, should not have large transitions, running in a load cell above or below "stock" shouldn't be much of a problem under normal circumstances.

But here's where my curiosity lies, with the MAF reporting less airflow than the engine is ingesting/burning in combustion, the O2's are going to report a leaner mixture and short term trims will adjust, shortly after with a sustained "leaner" mixture, the long term trim will take effect. Essentially returning the vehicle to the programmed mixture (AFR) Toyota programmed for closed loop operation.

Does this part modify the reported MAF signal enough to essentially max out the STFT/LTFT to effectively lean the vehicle out in closed loop? Or is this simply designed to lean out open loop operation?

 

I am curious too. Otherwise there would be a lot of people with CEL's for lean codes.

Now i never checked, since i didn't care to, but with my adjustable FPR, I dropped the static psi for the fuel from its stock pressure @~43.5 down to ~39. So while under full vacuum(idle) it was somewhere around ~35. I did this to lean out the high RPM AFR, while driving/racing. Used much less fuel from one track day to the next. Also stopped burning as much on my daily commute. Point is, that even with that lower pressure, it didn't skew the fuel trims enough to set any CEL's and picked up fuel mileage. Just something to add to the mix.

 

Just tell me if i should spend my money Mark! lol

 

Impressive 1GR based on your signature!

The results you posted, were those on the stock ECU? Dropping the fuel pressure is achieving the same thing, but the Eco-Block is airflow dependent whilst the fuel pressure modification is completely independent. Overall the observed result should be similar anyhow.

I'd speculate the reason you saw mileage increases during your daily commute is a by-product of you being in open-loop more than "grandpa" driving to church. If you'r not maxing out the fuel trims, the truck is running (or trying too) at whatever lambda value/afr is programmed.

Interesting datapoint though! Thanks for sharing that.

 

The load axis on the graph you posted is derived from the MAF sensor, so every table like the one you posted which uses load as an axis is effected by the Eco Block. The other sensors you mentioned add a compensation to the output from this graph.

Correct, the EB causes the ECU to read from a different load cell which has a different number in it which changes the mathematical equation for that function.

When the ECU is in closed loop fueling, the air fuel ratio will be what is listed in the table. The ECU will use the information coming from the O2 sensor to trim the AFR until it matches the table. If it cannot get to the desired AFR listed in the table then it will toss a check engine light to let you know that something is wrong. 25% is usually the maximum that the ECU can trim. So, when the ECU is in Closed Loop Fueling the AFR will be what is programmed into the table from Toyota.

I only use about 15% of the available 25% so the ECU is happy while in closed loop fueling. That also gives me a cushion so my customers are not on the edge of having a check engine light coming on. So yes, you will not see better fuel mileage from a reduction of fuel injected while in closed loop fueling but you will see a small increase from the increased efficiency gained from the advanced ignition and cam timing.

 

Awesome! Thank you for the reply.

I posted the timing table (from my old Mitsubishi EVO) to give others an idea of what I was talking about. I'm sure many here haven't seen that before and didn't want to lose anyone.

 

I would be surprised if the dealer noticed a kangaroo under the hood.

Jokes aside, I really doubt they will see it or mention it if they did.

 

Thanks for posting it, it gives definition to some of the conversation which is good.
I have been looking at those graphs for 26 years now and forget that what is common sense to me is not necessarily the same for others

 

I put on on a turbo diesel Toyota truck in Thailand that we ended up taking to a shop because is was running weird and had a check engine light. The truck was in the shop for 4 hours while they pulled the codes then started checking the sensors looking for the issue. Turned out it was a crank or cam sensor which they ended up replacing. But... they never even saw the Eco Block under the MAF sensor which was in plain view.