Crawford Billet Power Blocks

[smbstyle]

Just got this email from Mr. Crawford himself:



Crawford Billet Power Blocks
While doing the R/D on a custom intake manifold for the BRZ/FRS market, we stumbled onto a way to create the same power increase at a fraction of the cost. We call them our Billet Power Blocks or BPB.
CNC machined from Billet 6061 aluminum, our BPB sandwich between the cylinder heads and the intake manifold to create longer intake runners. The lengthened intake runners enhance the volumetric efficiency of the engine which translated into an increase of 19 Horse Power, 15 Pound Feet of Torque and narrowed up the torque dip by 300RPM on a totally stock BRZ. Our BPB also works with any aftermarket tune, exhaust and intake components. Our original road testing was done in conjunction with our stage 1 reflash followed by extensive dyno testing with and without a tune.
Our BPB kit consists of 24 pieces that make it a complete bolt on system which can be installed in under 30 min. In the kit you will find 2 BPB, 4 Delrin O-rings, 11 mounting bolts, 1 nut, 4 fuel rail shield risers, 1 support bracket for the direct injection control unit and 1 support bracket for the removal of the 7 pound fuel rail shields for you Race rack guys that are removing weight.
Crawford stands behind this product with a money back guarantee.

[SirBrass]

So they're really just phrenolic (sp?) spacers...

[Shiv@Openflash]

Originally Posted by jamesm

^ he's right. calling it 'autotune' to begin with is misleading. it's not tuning anything. it's trying to save it's own life. it cares nothing for optimization.

one could argue that fuel trims are fine because once they stabilize the AFR is fine. it's simply not true, especially on this car with it's two completely independent, interoperating fueling systems (port and di).

just look at some of the guys running OFT on e85. sure their trims 'learned' over time, but they still have wildly variable AFR every time the go into open loop. i've seen logs of the OTS e85 map with guys running 10.x:1 on e85. certainly not a good way to make power.

What are you talking about? After ~20 miles of driving, LTFT will do what it is designed to do: Compensate for fuel density/formulation variance. This applies to gasoline as well as to E85. And usually only during the first tank of E85 if there is a few gallons of leftover gasoline in the tank.

p.s. nm... this is very OT

[nelsmar]

I guess i am going to join in on the facebook fun too... If it works cool but not logging the AFR sounds sketchy. Having an even distributed vacuum leak to all four ports could possibly increase HP alone by giving false MAF readings and increasing ignition advance & false fuel compensation.

[jamesm]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

What are you talking about? After ~20 miles of driving, LTFT will do what it is designed to do: Compensate for fuel density/formulation variance. This applies to gasoline as well as to E85. And usually only during the first tank of E85 if there is a few gallons of leftover gasoline in the tank.

I'm not going to argue with you over it... again. If it worked like you describe, there wouldn't be datazap logs in the oft thread of people running crazy rich on e85. Of course long trims will compensate, but they don't do a great job of it. It just blindly applies whatever the current high trim is in all of open loop.

If what you were saying is true, no one would need an e85 tune to run e85, since the trim range is wider than the required comp. of course it doesn't work well, so you do. I've actually done this, and it does keep the car running. But 'running' and 'optimal' are two very different things.

So yes, you can run a half-assed map and hope the high trim is correct enough to keep you somewhat on target in open loop, or you cold tune it properly and not worry about it.

I'm really getting tired of your 'bad advice as a marketing tactic' routine, fwiw. I'm not going to engage in your back-and-forth games yet again, though. You know damn well if you had a solution to sell you wouldn't be telling people that using trims to compensate for e-content was a good idea.

FWIW:

"The idea of tuning any closed loop system is to dial in the raw tables/compensations so as to minimize reactive closed loop corrections. This is done when controlling boost, fuel and timing. With timing control being the least tolerant positive error. Defending the undefensable suggests either ignorance or the attempt to maliciously deceive."
- @shiv@vishnu... http://www.e90post.com/forums/showth...=493245&page=4 post #71.

Vishnu sells a Flex Fuel kit for E90 BMWs. Coincidence, I'm sure.

[Shiv@Openflash]

Originally Posted by jamesm

I'm not going to argue with you over it... again. If it worked like you describe, there wouldn't be datazap logs in the oft thread of people running crazy rich on e85. Of course long trims will compensate, but they don't do a great job of it. It just blindly applies whatever the current high trim is in all of open loop.

If what you were saying is true, no one would need an e85 tune to run e85, since the trim range is wider than the required comp. of course it doesn't work well, so you do. I've actually done this, and it does keep the car running. But 'running' and 'optimal' are two very different things.

So yes, you can run a half-assed map and hope the high trim is correct enough to keep you somewhat on target in open loop, or you cold tune it properly and not worry about it.

I'm really getting tired of your 'bad advice as a marketing tactic' routine, fwiw. I'm not going to engage in your back-and-forth games yet again, though. You know damn well if you had a solution to sell you wouldn't be telling people that using trims to compensate for e-content was a good idea.

Bad advice as a marketing tactic? Perhaps you need to learn to distinguish between what you think you know and what you really do know. I read a lot of what you say and it's very obvious it is coming from someone with very strong opinions. And I have no doubt that your intentions are in the right place. But that doesn't mean that you are doing people a service with some of the statements you make. Then again, you can easily turn the tables and say the same of me. But I try not to speak in absolutes because 20 years of doing this professionally has taught me that there is still a lot to learn.

Shiv

[Shiv@Openflash]

Originally Posted by jamesm

FWIW:

"The idea of tuning any closed loop system is to dial in the raw tables/compensations so as to minimize reactive closed loop corrections. This is done when controlling boost, fuel and timing. With timing control being the least tolerant positive error. Defending the undefensable suggests either ignorance or the attempt to maliciously deceive."
- Shiv... http://www.e90post.com/forums/showth...=493245&page=4 post #71.

This is example of you taking something completely out of context. In the context of Seimens MSD80 ECU (BMW), there is no long term ignition trim applied. You simply detonate and then retard timing. Rinse and repeat.

In the context of Denso ECU fuel control, there a long term fuel trim that constantly learns in an effort to minimize short term fuel trims and fueling error. This is what LTFT active is designed to do. And it works on any kind of fuel formulation assuming that the feedback authority range is sufficient. I appreciate the search though.

Vishnu sells a Flex Fuel kit for E90 BMWs. Coincidence, I'm sure.

Yes, we sell Flexfuel kits for the BMW. It's quite useful since, depending on ethanol content (E50 to E85), power gains of 100-180whp can be had through appropriate tuning. An NA FA20, on the other hand, will make 30whp regardless of running E50 or E85.
Why you ask?
Since it is not turbocharged, it doesn't start off (low E%) with a low lambda target for knock suppression. So there isn't anything to be gained by en-leaning the fuel target map as ethanol content increases. Also unlike the BMW, it doesn't need high ethanol content to achieve MBT so adding timing beyond what i possible with E50 is actually going to result in power LOSS, not GAIN.

So I think we are talking about two different things, no? And again, perhaps this discussion is best left to another thread.

Shiv

[jamesm]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

This is example of you taking something completely out of context. In the context of Seimens MSD80 ECU (BMW), there is no long term ignition trim applied. You simply detonate and then retard timing. Rinse and repeat.

In the context of Denso ECU fuel control, there a long term fuel trim that constantly learns in an effort to minimize short term fuel trims and fueling error. This is what LTFT active is designed to do. And it works on any kind of fuel formulation assuming that the feedback authority range is sufficient. I appreciate the search though.



Yes, we sell Flexfuel kits for the BMW. It's quite useful since, depending on ethanol content (E50 to E85), power gains of 100-180whp can be had through appropriate tuning. An NA FA20, on the other hand, will make 30whp regardless of running E50 or E85.
Why you ask?
Since it is not turbocharged, it doesn't start off (low E%) with a low lambda target for knock suppression. So there isn't anything to be gained by en-leaning the fuel target map as ethanol content increases. Also unlike the BMW, it doesn't need high ethanol content to achieve MBT so adding timing beyond what i possible with E50 is actually going to result in power LOSS, not GAIN.

So I think we are talking about two different things, no? And again, perhaps this discussion is best left to another thread.

Shiv

OK shiv... high fuel trims are good for you and IAM dropping is perfectly fine. Got it.

"The idea of tuning any closed loop system is to dial in the raw tables/compensations so as to minimize reactive closed loop corrections. This is done when controlling boost, fuel and timing. With timing control being the least tolerant positive error. Defending the undefensable suggests either ignorance or the attempt to maliciously deceive."

clearly you were just talking about ignition timing on a bmw.

[86-tundra]

the epic duel between jamesm, neslmar & shiv continue

[nelsmar]

Originally Posted by trevorovert

the epic duel between jamesm, neslmar & shiv continue

The epic cult following continues.

I have no part of this discussion that is completely off topic for the thread. I have also spent a good hour or so on the phone with Shiv recently explaining a number of miscommunications we had which resulted in a number of his fan members thinking i was attempting to bash him... But again that is completely off topic.

Now back on topic... Crawford stopped responding after I mentioned I tune on this platform. Sad panda.

[calmtigers]

Originally Posted by trevorovert

the epic duel between jamesm, neslmar & shiv continue

Legit I've learned so much and been so confused in these discussions..
Its seriously a great thing but sometimes the calling out that gets unanswered makes one or another look bad..

[Calum]

Originally Posted by calmtigers

For some odd reason, I always assumed Crawford was a really well known and trusted tuning company that was on par with Perrin in terms of established credibility with Subaru motors etc..

Whats with the shit talking? Also Subbed curious to see what this is

Two out of three isn't bad. Crawford certainly is on par with Perrin, and both are well known.

[FrsDuke]

Originally Posted by Calum

Two out of three isn't bad. Crawford certainly is on par with Perrin, and both are well known.

Heh

[gramicci101]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Yes, we sell Flexfuel kits for the BMW. It's quite useful since, depending on ethanol content (E50 to E85), power gains of 100-180whp can be had through appropriate tuning.

Well now I kind of want an E90 BMW.