Subaru XV Crosstrek Forums banner

21 - 40 of 51 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
I really felt that removing the carbon filter from the airbox helped the car rev quicker while in neutral (I'm on the MT6 model)... also seemed to help it get up to RPMs when downshifting. I think I'd mostly seen folks agreeing with this, but I do recall at least one person here claiming no difference. IDK how noticeable this mod is for the CVT model though. Sorry for not providing any references!

I do have the AEM intake also, but I installed it a while after removing the carbon filter and I can't say that I noticed much of a difference. It does sound a bit louder though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
650 Posts
$340 for machined aluminum blocks, ouch!

artosa
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,379 Posts
$340 for machined aluminum blocks, ouch!

artosa
My feelings exactly.

But according to the BRZ thread, lots of BRZ owners believe that it's the best value out there in terms of performance mods. Of course, that makes you think how poor the value is in many of the other mods...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
My feelings exactly.

But according to the BRZ thread, lots of BRZ owners believe that it's the best value out there in terms of performance mods. Of course, that makes you think how poor the value is in many of the other mods...
Although this is not going to win me any brownie points, I'm going to be honest and say that I mostly have Crawford's back on this one. The reason is two fold: For one, if I wanted to make $10 an hour I would go flip burgers. Crawford is a big player in the aftermarket world with (what I assume is) a big overhead to match. They went to the time and expense to develop these and eat that upfront cost regardless if this product is successful or if these things turned out to be a flop. After all the R&D is finished and they are finally ready to be produced and sold, Crawford has to hope that they sell enough to at least break even on the venture or hopefully turn a profit... and a decent enough profit to make it all worth their while.

And reason number two... well you actually took the words right out of my mouth. Most guys will not blink at spending that much on an axleback exhaust hoping for a power increase, only to be sorely disappointed. At least these things do something. Whether that something is enough to justify the cost is up to the individual consumer. BTW, MA Performance and RallySport Direct both have them listed for $306, and with their perpetual discounts, that brings the price under the $300 mark.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Although this is not going to win me any brownie points, I'm going to be honest and say that I mostly have Crawford's back on this one. The reason is two fold: For one, if I wanted to make $10 an hour I would go flip burgers. Crawford is a big player in the aftermarket world with (what I assume is) a big overhead to match. They went to the time and expense to develop these and eat that upfront cost regardless if this product is successful or if these things turned out to be a flop. After all the R&D is finished and they are finally ready to be produced and sold, Crawford has to hope that they sell enough to at least break even on the venture or hopefully turn a profit... and a decent enough profit to make it all worth their while.

And reason number two... well you actually took the words right out of my mouth. Most guys will not blink at spending that much on an axleback exhaust hoping for a power increase, only to be sorely disappointed. At least these things do something. Whether that something is enough to justify the cost is up to the individual consumer. BTW, MA Performance and RallySport Direct both have them listed for $306, and with their perpetual discounts, that brings the price under the $300 mark.
If I hadn't just dropped money on led fog lights, I'd probably be getting with you for a tune. I'm so tired of the Rev hang on my 2018 6mt.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,379 Posts
Although this is not going to win me any brownie points, I'm going to be honest and say that I mostly have Crawford's back on this one. The reason is two fold: For one, if I wanted to make $10 an hour I would go flip burgers. Crawford is a big player in the aftermarket world with (what I assume is) a big overhead to match. They went to the time and expense to develop these and eat that upfront cost regardless if this product is successful or if these things turned out to be a flop. After all the R&D is finished and they are finally ready to be produced and sold, Crawford has to hope that they sell enough to at least break even on the venture or hopefully turn a profit... and a decent enough profit to make it all worth their while.

And reason number two... well you actually took the words right out of my mouth. Most guys will not blink at spending that much on an axleback exhaust hoping for a power increase, only to be sorely disappointed. At least these things do something. Whether that something is enough to justify the cost is up to the individual consumer. BTW, MA Performance and RallySport Direct both have them listed for $306, and with their perpetual discounts, that brings the price under the $300 mark.
No argument there...

But I do find it surprising that the performance aftermarket business the way that it is, that no-one is making a knock off especially for the BRZ. After all, if you look at lightweight pulleys as an example (which is a much more debateable mod when it comes to cost/performance), there are tons of them on the market from all of the 'big boys' to the small knock offs. So, why not these spacers?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
I am VERY curious of Crawford's Eco-Block, https://crawfordperformance.com/collections/eco-block/products/ecoblock-q1. I figure for only $50 it's worth a try, but I have not seen ANY feedback out there. RalliSport, or anyone else, have you any experience & heard anything about this part's true capabilities? It does sound interesting!

Thanks!
I would stay away from it myself. This product tricks the MAF sensor to think less air is entering the cylinders. The ECU will overcompensate for this resulting in a lean air to fuel mixture. This will likely give you more power. However, for an engine that is already a high compression engine, it is unadvisable. This makes the air/fuel mix more volatile and increases the chance that the mix combusts early. This is referred to as a “detonation” and can be harmful to the engine. Some Frs owners have noted detonations with the ecoblock already. I don’t know if our FB20 motors would be as susceptible to detonation as an FA20, but that’s not a risk I’ll take. If you want to run leaner and not have problems, get a proper engine tune.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
499 Posts
I would stay away from it myself. This product tricks the MAF sensor to think less air is entering the cylinders. The ECU will overcompensate for this resulting in a lean air to fuel mixture. This will likely give you more power. However, for an engine that is already a high compression engine, it is unadvisable. This makes the air/fuel mix more volatile and increases the chance that the mix combusts early. This is referred to as a “detonation” and can be harmful to the engine. Some Frs owners have noted detonations with the ecoblock already. I don’t know if our FB20 motors would be as susceptible to detonation as an FA20, but that’s not a risk I’ll take. If you want to run leaner and not have problems, get a proper engine tune.
I think this kin dof mod will need premium octane gas, if you are not intend to use it, then the risk may outweight the benefit
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
No argument there...

But I do find it surprising that the performance aftermarket business the way that it is, that no-one is making a knock off especially for the BRZ. After all, if you look at lightweight pulleys as an example (which is a much more debateable mod when it comes to cost/performance), there are tons of them on the market from all of the 'big boys' to the small knock offs. So, why not these spacers?
Since Crawford beat me to the punch I was just going to walk away from this idea, since they would no longer be referred to as the "RalliSport intake spacers", and would now be designated the "Crawford knock-offs." But now I'm thinking it wouldn't hurt to have my people take a look give me a quote on making these...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
650 Posts
Competition might bring the price down to something resembling reasonable... I don't begrudge those wanting to make a profit, but recouping R&D in the shortest possible time to take advantage of a new "thing" is, IMHO, short-sighted. But then I'm not a businessman either, just a lowly consumer. I'd never heard of Crawford until I started looking at catch-cans and a forum member mentioned he/she had bought one. Putting a product out there at a reasonable cost that actually works would benefit a wider consumer base than just the performance enthusiast.

artosa
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
Since Crawford beat me to the punch I was just going to walk away from this idea, since they would no longer be referred to as the "RalliSport intake spacers", and would now be designated the "Crawford knock-offs." But now I'm thinking it wouldn't hurt to have my people look give my a quote on making these...
Just curious, do you use CAD software? This is about the simplest part to CAD up if you know how. It could reduce overhead cost for the part. You would just be paying someone else to machine them, and not the design work.

Also, If you were to develop a tune for them to go with, and your product would be more competitive at even at a slightly higher price range. Just a thought :)
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,379 Posts
Just curious, do you use CAD software? This is about the simplest part to CAD up if you know how. It could reduce overhead cost for the part. You would just be paying someone else to machine them, and not the design work.

Also, If you were to develop a tune for them to go with, and your product would be more competitive at even at a slightly higher price range. Just a thought :)
I think one of the hardest things would be is to decide on the actual optimum width of the spacers themselves. You could go with the 'what the other guy did' philosophy but there's no guarantee what they did was actually the best option.

IMHO, two models should be offered - the drop in addition (so no tuning really required) for those who want a simple straight forward mod; and then, there's the deluxe model which is built to be tuned and only sold with a tune. If one is offered for the MY18+, an additional feature of a small intake for valve cleaning (ie some place to spray valve cleaner) since they are DI. There's alot of angst out there about carbon build up on the valves...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
I think one of the hardest things would be is to decide on the actual optimum width of the spacers themselves. You could go with the 'what the other guy did' philosophy but there's no guarantee what they did was actually the best option.

IMHO, two models should be offered - the drop in addition (so no tuning really required) for those who want a simple straight forward mod; and then, there's the deluxe model which is built to be tuned and only sold with a tune. If one is offered for the MY18+, an additional feature of a small intake for valve cleaning (ie some place to spray valve cleaner) since they are DI. There's alot of angst out there about carbon build up on the valves...
I like the idea, solid input. A design of experiments would be necessary to find the optimal height. Luckily, there are only two factors worth playing with. The material and the offset. If Crawford says that they decrease intake temps, I think that’s reasonable. There may be a high melting temp plastic (transfer less heat without melting) that could be molded rather than machined which could reduce the cost. Perhaps that’s too high of a level. Making and testing the outcomes of several different offsets would be the only to know an optimal offset. It would be a fun experiment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
I am VERY curious of Crawford's Eco-Block, https://crawfordperformance.com/collections/eco-block/products/ecoblock-q1. I figure for only $50 it's worth a try, but I have not seen ANY feedback out there. RalliSport, or anyone else, have you any experience & heard anything about this part's true capabilities? It does sound interesting!

Thanks!
I'll get to that in just a second. First I'll comment on the two other replies to your post.



I would stay away from it myself. This product tricks the MAF sensor to think less air is entering the cylinders. The ECU will overcompensate for this resulting in a lean air to fuel mixture. This will likely give you more power. However, for an engine that is already a high compression engine, it is unadvisable. This makes the air/fuel mix more volatile and increases the chance that the mix combusts early. This is referred to as a “detonation” and can be harmful to the engine. Some Frs owners have noted detonations with the ecoblock already. I don’t know if our FB20 motors would be as susceptible to detonation as an FA20, but that’s not a risk I’ll take. If you want to run leaner and not have problems, get a proper engine tune.
The purpose of this product is indeed to trick the MAF sensor, and I am not a fan of anything that tries to trick your ecu (it's a hack solution), especially if one has access to legit tuning services (many car guys aren't as luck as us Subaru owners and don't have a tuning option available for their ride and I feel for them). While in closed loop, your ecu will auto adjust to keep your AFR at or near 14.7:1 so any potential leaning out effect would be completely negated. And you actually want a richer than stoich AFR for more power, normally 13.5:1 down to 12.5:1 sometimes as low as 12.2:1 Well every engine is different and tuning theory only goes so far in each application, which is why the flashing/logging/examining/tweaking/reflashing/logging etc method is so important. Turns out that if you want even remotely aggressive ignition timing on the FB20D you need to go even richer than previously stated, so this thing is sending your AFR's in the wrong direction. The factory open loop fuel map actually swings from too lean (which you definitely wouldn't want to go any leaner if trying to make power!) to too rich. I'll circle back to this.



I think this kin dof mod will need premium octane gas, if you are not intend to use it, then the risk may outweight the benefit
Correct!! I would never put this thing on my car and run less than 93 octane gass, 91 at the very minimum. Otherwise your ecu is just going to pull timing and you may end up with less power than you had before.




All that being said, there is a reason this thing may be mostly ok on the FB20D and I don't know if it was intentional on the part of Crawford or just extreme luck. As I already pointed out, while in closed loop your ecu will end up catching this thing red handed and simply add fuel to keep you AFR at 14.7:1 So while in closed loop this thing shouldn't be harmful, but that also means it would be completely useless. And since the factory tune is so reluctant to go into open loop, you are in the safe closed loop zone for most of the rpm range (again, that means no extra power in this safe zone either). Now in typical Subaru fashion, their open loop fuel maps quickly swing from too lean (for max power) to too rich. And by the time your ecu finally transitions into open loop (you have had your foot to the floor during this wait), you are now probably in the overly rich zone of the OL fuel map and having it leaned out a bit is a good thing, but you would still want higher octane gas to make sure you are running full timing.

So in short while driving normally and in closed loop, this thing is not doing anything except throwing off your short and long term fuel trims. And with the pedal floored it might have a helpful effect in the top end but it all depends on exactly how much leaner it's making your AFR's and at exactly what point your car transitions into open loop.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,379 Posts
I like the idea, solid input. A design of experiments would be necessary to find the optimal height. Luckily, there are only two factors worth playing with. The material and the offset. If Crawford says that they decrease intake temps, I think that’s reasonable. There may be a high melting temp plastic (transfer less heat without melting) that could be molded rather than machined which could reduce the cost. Perhaps that’s too high of a level. Making and testing the outcomes of several different offsets would be the only to know an optimal offset. It would be a fun experiment.
Obviously, a plastic product does exist as that's what the factory intake is made out of! But then it would take away from the 'high performance' visual aspect of the piece (yes, it's in the engine block so who is going to see it, right? But visual appeal is a big thing).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Trying to increase the horsepower on a naturally aspirated engine by putting performance mods on it is like trying to look more muscular by drawing abs on your gut.

Don't waste any of your money on such nonsense. If you want more performance you need boost (aka turbo or supercharger). Then you also have room for tuning the vehicle to get more out of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
Trying to increase the horsepower on a naturally aspirated engine by putting performance mods on it is like trying to look more muscular by drawing abs on your gut.

Don't waste any of your money on such nonsense. If you want more performance you need boost (aka turbo or supercharger). Then you also have room for tuning the vehicle to get more out of it.
It’s almost as pointless as replying to a thread you have no intent contributing to. I think the analogy is off too, considering painting abs on won’t make you stronger at all. It’s more like making your abs stronger without ever using an ab machine at the gym. Ultimately your body needs high weight (analogous to a turbo)to be able to push its limits further, but but thee are lots of exercises that can be done without an ab machine that will still make your abs stronger. I have never in my live used the excuse “There’s no point working out without the machines at the gym because it’s harder to get strong without them” as an excuse to be lazy.

Furthermore, I think trying to extract more power from an N/a petrol engine has the most reward (not in terms of horsepower obviously). In terms of thermal efficiency (how much of the chemical energy in the fuel is actually used to move the vehicle), the n/a petrol engine is the least efficient type of engine used in cars today. Diesel motors are far more efficient, even with a less reactive fuel. Forced induction engines have a much higher output compared to their fuel consumption. Naturally aspirated engines are less thermally efficient, so the most gains you can get from an n/a are from mods that make the engine more efficient. Exactly what we are discussing here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
650 Posts
In degrees of efficiency, for my purposes at cruise (1.5k to 2.5k rpms) if their figures are correct, would only give me 2 to 4 hp for the manifold blocks and that would be at a loss of mpg's because of f/a ratios and timing at those rpm's (if I have my facts straight). So without a tune, you will lose mpg's (my goal)?

artosa
 
21 - 40 of 51 Posts
Top