Wannabe Code Monkey sends along an article from the Patriot Ledger about an effort in Massachusetts to pass a "Right to Repair" bill. "Since the advent of congressionally mandated computers in vehicles more than 15 years ago (for emissions), cars have evolved into complex machines that are no longer just mechanical. Computers now monitor and control most systems in the car from brakes to tire pressure and all the electronics and engine fluids... [and] car manufacturers continue to hold back on some of the information that your mechanic needs in order to properly repair your car and reset your codes and warning lights... Massachusetts is now poised to solve this problem and car-driving consumers should pay attention this fall when the Massachusetts Legislature takes up landmark legislation that would force manufacturers to respect the right of consumers to access their own repair information. The legislation, known as Right to Repair, is seen by car manufacturers as a threat to the lucrative service business in their dealerships and they are massing their lobbyists on Beacon Hill in an effort to defeat it."
I didn't want to bail them out, I don't want their cars, and I don't want my freedoms disgraced further with the ridiculous notion that they now owe us something.
I kid, some of the best mechanics I've had work on my previous cars (one was a bmw z3) would do all the changes then stop by the dealership for me to have the computer reset. Going to the dealership itself has always been a price gouge - $400 for an oil change? Go fuck yourself in the pee whole with that oil.
Seriously though, I think this type of law, allowing all mechanics access to the information and technical data on the cars they are certified to fix is a good idea and should be a federal law and not just up to some states to follow.
Why would anyone oppose this? Lets see here our tax money has (without a popular vote even) bailed out most US auto makers, made it a crime to really reverse engineer computer systems in general, and has supported various pro-auto maker legislation. If they are going to take -our- tax money, and if the government insists on criminalizing reverse engineering and modification of cars, the only sane thing is that they must release documentation allowing everyone to do repairs themselves. Don't like it? Don't take our tax money, and lobby congress with all your $$$ to repeal various forms of legislation making it hard to reverse engineer things legally.
So essentially the government is paying auto manufacturers to send lobbyists back to washington to lobby on behalf of the auto manufacturers which Washington actually owns?
This isn't fair to the automaker's shareholders, the government is infringing on their right to receive a return on their investment as determined by the objective free market. Forcing them to give up their intellectual property based on some absurd notion of repair rights (good luck finding that in the constitution) is just another form of wealth redistribution.
Now of course, I do not have to do business with a car company that will not allow me to fix my own car. I can, instead choose to support any company that provides such information as necessary.
No, you can't. All the manufacturers keep this info hidden. The only possible exception I can think of are smaller performance car makers, like Ariel or Ascari, but I wouldn't count on it too much. They're also all small trackday cars with face-ripping acceleration and enough room in the trunk for maybe a toothbrush and a small sandwich.
Or I can search for a brilliant mechanic, computer tech, and electrical engineer who will work together to fix my car and we can open our own business.
Good luck. Reverse engineering laws are hard to get around if you're going to commercialize your work.
Or I can buy a car with no computer interfaces at all that I can repair with little more than a hammer. Of course such a car as in the last example would probably fail the state mandated emissions standards - boo state!
Such a shame we don't have widespread smog problems in most major cities.
Those computer interfaces don't just keep emissions down. They're also keeping performance and gas millage up, as well as vastly increasing the durability of engines. In well-built engines, there are almost never any mechanical problems within a car's reasonable lifetime. There's a bunch of sensors helping to keep everything tidy, and a given engine code is almost always the result of one of those sensors going out, not something like a piston connecting rod blowing through your hood.
When people say they used to be able to repair anything on their car with a wrench and a hammer, they're not looking at the full picture.
It's B. S. that every single model of car has a different computer. $700 for a used 93 Toyota ECM that consists of maybe $15 worth of parts? Make a single, universal cpu that can be programmed for whatever car it's going in. Then I can go to the junkyard, get a box out of a wrecked Chrysler, have it reprogrammed at the dealer, and stick it in my Toyota. They can make their software proprietary, I don't care. Make the hardware open.
Imagine the state tech would be in if every computer manufacturer made its own cpu, motherboard, graphic processor, interface protocols, operating system and software, and they were all non-interchangeable between models. USB? Which flavor? The protocols would all be different: If you bought a flash drive to fit in a Dell laptop, it wouldn't work in a Dell desktop or any other model of Dell laptop, or anyone else's. Forget about any kind of networking. Software? You only get what the manufacturer loads on the machine. No upgrades, no third-party software. Oh, and if you buy a new machine, the software will all be different. Asinine? Yes. Unlike auto makers, tech manufacturers realized long ago that keeping every single thing proprietary wasn't a good business model.
If nothing else, imagine the cost savings to manufacturers if they adopted a universal hardware architecture.
It has nothing to do with the CPU. The reason ECMs are specific to cars is that different cars have different sensors and actuators that require different control hardware and signals. How many fuel injector lines should there be? What kind of drivers do they need? Turbo boost controls? How many knock sensors? Even open source ECMs are built to suit certain applications. One size fits all doesn't work unless everything goes on a network. I don't think fuel injectors and temperature sensors need network addresses and I certainly wouldn't want to pay the dealer to configure them for me.
You're pissed off that you had to pay $700 for something that should have been under $200. Toyota screwed you. What makes you think they won't charge $500 to program an ECM you get from someone else? The ECM for my 1987 GM is specific to the particular model, but I can get a replacement for $100 and transfer the data by plugging in a couple PROMs.
I agree that many modules in automobiles could and should be standardized for plug compatibility but the ECM is not one of them.
Do NOT buy a Volvo newer than '06 if you care about this sort of stuff. Any Volvo after about MY2006 requires something called "VIDA", which is the worst kind of crippled software. First, you need a several-thousand-dollar interface box. Second, the software requires a LIVE INTERNET CONNECTION. Cars after 2000 or so and before 2006 require "VADIS" and the same $$$$$ interface box.
Get a load of this: every module in the car (and there are a dozen plus) requires firmware or "coding". That coding is VIN specific, and the software is ENCRYPTED TO YOUR SPECIFIC CAR by Volvo before it is transmitted to you (the reason a live connection is required.) Further, the download requires a payment to Volvo! Just the ability to use VIDA is subscription based, and you pay separately for diagnostic abilities, wiring charts, and technical information. As in, you have to pay for each one if you want it- it's not a package.
On the Audi/VW side, there is an awesome program called VAG-COM which allows you to view all sorts of parameters, adjust values, read diagnostic codes, etc...almost EVERYTHING that can possibly be accessed or tweaked. Alarm motion sensor too sensitive? Tweak it. Want to be able to roll up your windows from the keyfob? Done. Want to enable one-touch-up on a window? Done. Want to install euro-code taillights with yellow turn signals? Done. Want to let your fog lights stay on with your highbeams, or run with the headlights off? Done and done. Costs a few hundred dollars, and that includes the adapter. You can buy the factory repair manual, and once you have, it's yours, and you can diagnose and repair many things yourself, replace components, etc.
On the Volvo side...guess what? VIDA required. "What about ODB2?" you say? Well, ODB2 only encompasses the most basic live engine information and diagnostic codes. If you want anything actually useful, you need to know the custom ODB2 data fields (very similar to how SNMP is an open standard, but nearly worthless without vendor OIDs.)
Truly, madly blows. There are a bunch of parameters that can be changed on my car, but they can only be done by the dealer, and they're guaranteed to charge for it. Nevermind that the whole car is networked with CAN-BUS and many of the mid-2000's models have huge problems with module failures, network bus problems, etc. Oh, and the best part: if a software update fucks up something, they can't roll it back. Volvo didn't design the systems to allow for going back a firmware revision. You can only install NEWER versions!
On the Audi/VW side, there is an awesome program called VAG-COM which allows you to view all sorts of parameters, adjust values, read diagnostic codes, etc...almost EVERYTHING that can possibly be accessed or tweaked.
I second the motion that VAG-COM is awesome. However it shouldn't be used to contrast VW/Audi with Volvo, since (to my knowledge) VAG-COM was reverse engineered entirely independently of VW after frustration with VW's use of proprietary codes.
I second the motion that VAG-COM is awesome. However it shouldn't be used to contrast VW/Audi with Volvo, since (to my knowledge) VAG-COM was reverse engineered entirely independently of VW after frustration with VW's use of proprietary codes.
Actually, it should - because VW/Audi's code is private/proprietary, but with a few exceptions (namely, encryption/encoding used to match the dashboard cluster to the ECU and the immobilizer, for anti-theft reasons) nothing is encrypted.
VW/Audi don't ship electronic modules and parts without software/programming. You may need to flip some bits, but VAG-COM can do it. And you can move parts between cars. And the software in a effing headlight (!!) isn't specifically and purposefully encrypted for one specific car. For Volvos, IT IS. And because of all that encryption, there will never be a "VLV-COM".
It's a fundamental design and business policy difference, and one whose only purpose is to bone the customer and lock them into servicing their car at mechanics who do enough volume to be able to afford the outrageous VIDA fees. And in ten years when they stop making modules for a particular Volvo, you won't be able to go to the junkyard and yank a module.
"The legislation, known as Right to Repair, is seen by car manufacturers as a threat to the lucrative service business in their dealerships and they are massing their lobbyists on Beacon Hill in an effort to defeat it."
Translation:
"We are getting rich off of keeping ourselves be the only ones able to fix our cars, and we don't want no smegging competition."
The motivation here is roughly the same as that which inspired California's so-called Lemon Law. Contrary to common perception, though, California's law covers EVERYTHING (past a certain cost of manufacture), not just automobiles, and for a period of no less than seven years.
For example, when my 21-inch Nokia CRT monitor died after six years, California's law explicitly guaranteed me a "right to repair". However, Nokia had sold their display brand to Viewsonic who, when I contacted them, politely told me to go fuck myself. Legally speaking, I could have sued Viewsonic for specific performance and the verdict would have been assured. I even spoke to one firm about the possibility of a class action suit (they decided the "class" wasn't large enough to be profitable for chasing that ambulance). Ultimately it wasn't practical to sue Viewsonic, but had I done so the state law would have guaranteed a slam-dunk verdict in my favor.
Perhaps Massachusetts should consider broadening the scope of its proposed law as well? Why arbitrarily restrict it to only ONE type of product?
This is very important, because if Ford* needs to release the information needed to repair the Focus* to the state of Massachusetts, they will basically make it available everywhere in the world where Ford sells this car.
Similar to other US state laws regarding pollution or safe materials, this will affect us worldwide
This is very important, because if Ford* needs to release the information needed to repair the Focus* to the state of Massachusetts, they will basically make it available everywhere in the world where Ford sells this car.
Similar to other US state laws regarding pollution or safe materials, this will affect us worldwide
Or they'll add a state-specific encryption key needed to unlock the computer for repair work. And they'll only release the key for vehicles sold in Massachusetts.
Or they'll add a state-specific encryption key needed to unlock the computer for repair work. And they'll only release the key for vehicles sold in Massachusetts.
I think I'd just replace the entire ems with the open source engine management system. [diyefi.org] This project has been around for some time, I'd sure like to put it into my car restoration.
You're right that any mechanic can read the legislated OBD-II codes. However, manufacturers are allowed to use proprietary codes or protocols for anything that isn't emissions related, and it wouldn't be too difficult to lock you out of everything else, if they really wanted to. Reading OBD-II trouble codes is only the tip of the iceberg of what you can do when you have full read and write access to the ECU.
You're right that any mechanic can read the legislated OBD-II codes. However, manufacturers are allowed to use proprietary codes or protocols for anything that isn't emissions related, and it wouldn't be too difficult to lock you out of everything else, if they really wanted to. Reading OBD-II trouble codes is only the tip of the iceberg of what you can do when you have full read and write access to the ECU.
That is the point of this law, they currently "lock you out" by not publishing what those codes mean. I'm pretty sure that what you are suggesting would violate either the current OBD-II legislation or this new law. Additionally, the problem with releasing the key only for cars sold in Massachusetts is that the manufacturer can only know what cars are sold new in Mass, this law would also cover cars sold used.
I find this business practice on the part of automobile manufacturers very offensive. On the other hand, I am very skeptical of additional government regulation. My suspicion is that the problem this law is designed to fix is one that was created by government regulation in the first place.
My suspicion is that the problem this law is designed to fix is one that was created by government regulation in the first place.
Or it could just be that the corporations found a way to screw the consumer out of a quick buck, and that we don't live in a universe with unlimited resources and competition? Seriously, it is within the realm of possibility that a government can Do Good (tm).
Greetings and Salutations;
Actually, the car companies are doing exactly what they are mandated to do. We all have to remember that the job of the car companies is NOT to produce great transportation for Americans and the rest of the world. Their job, being a publicly traded company, is to make as much profit for their shareholders, at the lowest expense possible.
As long as this subtle difference in goals is in force, we will have the same situation of the car companies working to vacuum as much cash out of our pockets as possible, and, doing what ever they can to keep competition from rising.
Regards
Dave Mundt
It's pretty different. It's more like if you had to take your Epson printer to a service shop to determine which cartridge needing replacement because the information for that was only available to Epson shops and the printer merely displayed "a new cartridge is required"
I've played with OBD-II a little bit, but... with the tools I've used, there are some standardized codes, which were required by law. There are others that are passed down the same bus, which can be decoded, assuming the decoder manufacturer or software developer knew what to use those values for.
Unfortunately, that only covers the OBD-II portion of the system. It doesn't necessarily mean that you have information for your transmission, brakes, airbags, etc, etc, etc.
You are absolutely correct about the state issue. I bought my 2000 car used in 2001. As it turned out, it had originally been slated to ship to California, as it was configured for California emissions. The actual delivery to the 1st customer happened in Florida. Since then, it's visited about 30% the states in America. Not that I'd intentionally drive it to another state just to get it fixed, but there's always the possibility that I would move or temporarily live in a state. Someday I may sell it, and the new owner may live in Mass. The twin to my current car (but the 1998 model year) was first sold in South Carolina, and I had it shipped to Florida for purchase. A couple years ago, I sold it on Craigslist, and the new owner happened to be down from New Jersey and his car died, so he bought mine and drove home.:) That car also had been up and down both the East and West coast of the US, as well as all across the Southern half of the country.
In reading the article, they're asking for OBD-II. They want a way to be alerted for the problem causing the "Check Engine" light, and to be able to clear it. Amazingly enough, every car sold in America since the 1996 model year has this ability. A friend asked me to have a look at his 1997 truck. I happened to have my $100 code reader in the car, so I plugged it in, and voila, "here's your faults". 3 codes were present. One turned out to be a transient error. One wasn't all that important. One is indicating a future repair will be necessary, but isn't urgent quite yet. He'll want to make the last one before a long road trip, or when he has a few extra bucks.:) It's about $50 in parts, and will take me about 30 minutes to do.
Ya, I can't always just diagnose a vehicle by feel any more, but having the right tools makes it easy. But hey, you always need to have the right tools. There's a reason I have several toolboxes full of tools. I went on a trip, and part of that trip involved repairing several cars with different problems. I brought a couple hundred pounds of tools with me, and used most of them at some point. I'd like it if we could standardize things like bolt sizes, belt sizes, and (oh my gosh) parts. How many different versions of parts do we really need on the market? Is it really necessary to specialize crap cars so much that you have to know the MONTH it was built in, because the manufacturer habitually changes design of many parts two or three times through a model year?? It can really be a pain. My preferred cars use the same parts across many years. It's not like the old days, when I knew a smallblock Chevy was interchangable for decades.
My suspicion is that the problem this law is designed to fix is one that was created by government regulation in the first place.
Uh, and you come to that conclusion *how*, exactly?
Here, let's play a little game. Let's pretend there were no regulations dictating the actions of car companies, no laws restricting reverse engineering (it's not clear to me that reverse engineering is actually illegal, here, but I can see it falling into a gray area), and no IP laws protecting their trade secrets. You know what would happen? The manufacturers would encrypt all output coming from their car computers, and would include decryption hardware on the gear they sell to the mechanics. Those mechanics would then be placed under a strict contract (which, according to Libertarian thinking, is perfectly reasonable... the government, after all, should exist primarily to enforce voluntary contracts between individuals) such that any attempt to break down, reverse engineer, or otherwise misuse the equipment would result in termination of their contract and repossession of the equipment in question. Voila! The consumer is completely screwed and they have absolutely no recourse (after all, the government getting involved would be evil socialism).
Now, if you can find some clever libertarian solution to this problem, or can otherwise find an issue with my logic, please, show it to me. Because I just don't see it.
And as an aside, one might say "Well, competition solves the problem! A competitor can just come in, keep their cars open, and voila they steal market share!" But, of course, that completely ignores fun things like barrier to entry (yes, believe it or not, it costs a fuckton to get into the car manufacturing business), not to mention good ol' fashioned collusion. 'course, libertarians do like to ignore inconvenient facts such as this.
There were already computers in cars. My 1981 Chevy Chevette had a Motorola 6800 in it. It controlled the ignition timing and did some shenanigans with the fuel based on air flow. I had zero access to its internals. Likewise, my 1987 Nissan Sentra had a microprocessor in it, that ran the ignition and some of the fuel emissions equipment. Again, zero access to its internals. In fact, if I pulled the carpet out from under the seat, I could get access to the controller's case and by pushing on a button there, I could see an LED blinking on and off in long repeated strings of quick on and longer on times. Zero documentation in any of the manuals I could get to.
What Congress mandated was that manufacturers use a standard communication protocol, document it, and release it publically (sorta -- it's not really fully public), to prevent them doing exactly what the previous poster said they'd do, and they were in fact doing: providing diagnostic tools that only their mechanics could use.
The problem is that you're assuming that a vehicle sold in Massachusetts stays and Massachusetts and that no other vehicles are brought in. A vehicle sold in Colorado would have to be serviceable by mechanics in Massachusetts, thus the code would have to work on all vehicles. If the code works everywhere, it WILL get leaked and people everywhere will be able to repair their own vehicles.
Yes!!!! It is about damn time. I hope the rest of the country will follow suit.
My local Honda Dealership wanted over $350 to "fix" a busted key (the electronics in it were fine, but the metal shaft was bent) by selling me all new electronic components inside the car's ignition system as well as matching "new" keys. I thought that was outrageous, so I took it to a local mechanic who told me that he wasn't allowed to order the parts... but he took one look at the key and said, "take that to a smart locksmith," and then he recommended one. I followed his advice, and the locksmith fixed my key in less than five minutes FOR FREE.
That's one more reason why I don't trust dealership service.
And I'm guessing the fix involved putting the key on a hard, flat surface and hitting it with a hammer....
Almost. Certainly if I had had the courage, then I would have tried that myself. However, the local mechanic actually warned me not to try it myself and said that modern Honda keys have pretty tight tolerances.
The locksmith used a device that looked like two vices that could be stretched apart with a lever.
I'm sure that some of the more handy slashdotters could have fixed it themselves, but I'm not so good with that stuff... which is why I went to the dealer in the first place. I thought they would either straighten it or charge me $20 for a new key and then punch in some code tied to the VIN number... I guess they need a bigger markup, though.
I believe that dealer was definitely trying to screw you. The smart key (or whatever Honda's name for it) electronics in the car are already built to accept new keys, and the procedure for programming them is fairly straight-forward. ANY modern and qualified locksmith can hook you up with a replacement key. Hell- I got one for my last Honda from Ace Hardware- they have the "smart" keys and duplicating equipment for it, although they can't help you actually program the RFID to the car. That information is readily available online though.
I don't remember the exact procedure anymore, but it was something along the lines of- "With an already-programmed key- lock and then unlock the driver's door. Then lock and unlock it with the new key. Then insert the already-programmed key in the ignition and turn it to Run, then Off. Then do the same with the new key three times within one minute." All these steps tell the car's immobilizer and ignition RFID system that you have a new key and want to use it. There are similar procedures for all such systems.
I suppose it might be a bit difficult if you didn't have another working key, but you could probably fudge it by using the new key and just holding the broken one next to it so the car "recognizes" that you have a legitimate key.
As far as the topic of providing ALL of the error code information, instead of reserving key information to drive up dealer revenue- I definitely agree, although it is possible it would result in overall car prices going up. I can't help but think the additional revenue of these repairs helps to keep prices down to some extent, and I have little doubt that repair revenue is what keeps many dealers in business. I do remember when I owned a Volkswagen that it was almost impossible to get any relevant error codes out of it using standard ODBII equipment. My "regular" mechanic couldn't do a whole lot with it, and I had to take it to the dealer or an expensive "specialist" to diagnose many of the errors (and there were a LOT of them). To their credit- I've never had a problem with my Hondas that wasn't easily diagnosed with an ODBII meter from Pep Boys. I found a quote online once along the lines of: "A Volkswagen doesn't exist to give its driver pleasure- it exists to provide a constant revenue stream to the dealer." Not to just pick on them, I actually loved that car and you could probably plug any car manufacturer into that sentence.
People might accept that behavior for a $30 piece of software, but they will *not* accept it for a $18,000 car. I almost wish some car company would try it, but then they'd crash in flames and we'd have to bail them out again.
Furthermore the vehicle will only come with one Vehicle Access License (VAL) for the purchaser (primary driver). Additional VALs must be purchased for each additional driver. VALs come in two forms: Standard for occasional drivers and Enterprise for secondary drivers. These licenses cannot be transferred from one vehicle to another unless you subscribe to the Vehicle Assurance program.
You forgot: Backseat Access Licenses(BAL) are necessary for all passengers. For single car households, your best bet is to get per-seat OEM BALs from your vehicle manufacturer. For multi-car households, you can get per-user BALs.
Educational BALs can only be used by somebody with a current learner's permit; but may be treated as evaluation VALs for up to three (3) hours/day if at least one VAL has been purchased for the car and no other BALs are in concurrent use on the same vehicle.
In order to ensure healthy demand for Small and Medium Family VAL/BAL licence packs, any single VAL holder of greater than eighteen (18) years of age is entitled to one "Guest BAL" for purposes about which our PR flacks will never speak plainly.
I hope you're not suggesting that contracts revert to being bi-directional. We have a proud tradition of contracts being used to benefit us and screw you; if it's not broken, don't try to fix it.
A thousand times, yes. People seem to forget the extent to which industry (yes, *capitalist industry*) deserves credit for so many of the modern luxuries they enjoy. We should be happy enough that there are people willing to work hard enough to create and run companies like GM and Ford before we gang up and start punishing them for trying to make a buck. Consumer protections and safety standards are just marketing terms for the real agenda: the expansion of government regulation until you can't even build a house or open a theme park without getting a bureaucratic stamp of approval.
Capitalism is good, extortion is bad. We support people trying to make a buck, it's when they hold your life ransom in order to make unreasonable amounts of cash that we have a problem. This is an example of the government doing what it's supposed to do: represent the people's will. The people think the car companies are taking advantage of them and want it to stop.
Also, in terms of capitalism, the car companies are muscling legitimate competition (the independent mechanics) out of the picture. This brings us to the ironic position of requiring regulation in order to maintain a free market. It's a good thing, though.
A better way of looking at it is are the the car makers allowed to collude with the dealers to restrain the trade of the independent shops via lockout.
Posting the question that way even Adam Smith himself would say hell no. Markets have to be reasonably free for 'free markets' to work.
They all need to be publish all the diagnostic codes.
In the article, it mentions that the "Right to Repair" relates to your right to choose who repairs your car (yourself, your local garage vs. the official car company dealer).
Because cars have so many control units (eg. the Engine Control Unit [2carpros.com]), specialized (and expensive) dealers are given advanced scanners which have full access to all the computer systems, and have the ability to clear any internal firmware fault bits which make fault lights remain on even after the car has been repaired. Other non-dealer garages don't have access to this information. They may be able to repair a broken headlight, but the computer system won't turn the fault light off, and might even refuse to allow the ignition to start.
Some car companies were using DRM legislation to prevent owners from altering/checking/viewing the state of the system controller.
There already is a government mandated standard for getting access to engine information. It's called OBD [wikipedia.org] and you read codes off with a $100 reader. Your local AutoZone, etc. will usually even let you borrow a reader if you need to.
OBD defines a set of specific codes for specific errors or measurements. It also allows manufacturers to define their own codes and measurements. I don't know of single vehicle whose manufacturer specific codes are not publicly available. Okay, you may have to pull out a book or look it up online (e.g. here is the list of codes for may BMW E46 3-series [e46fanatics.com]) but it's out there and it's an amazing thing. The newer cars will even give you details like your exact fuel/air mixture... in real-time. 9 times out of 10 the code pulled off the reader will tell me exactly what's wrong my car.
It amazes me how many hobbyist and even professional mechanics complain about this. The tools are there, and cheap, just learn how to use them.
I went to that link, there were an awful lot of "UNKNOWN CODE" listed. I stopped skimming between 500 and 600 and found over 70 "UNKNOWN CODE" listings in that. Those "UNKNOWN CODE" listings are what this law is about. Those aren't unused codes, they are codes that BMW considers trade secrets and that are only published to mechanics working for BMW dealerships (other car manufacturers have similar codes).
Without the experience to understand what those codes imply I am still in the dark as to what the problem actually is.
That has nothing to do with this.
OBD-II means that you can talk to the Powertrain Control Module, or PCM. What you can talk to it about is what this is all about. Your code reader allows you to pull trouble codes, which will allow an experienced mechanic who has driven your car to make some educated guesses. A more advanced generic scan tool is usually able to additionally read the state of all of the vehicle's sensors, and view snapshot data that tells you what happened the last time the most serious code stored in memory occurred. The manufacturer's scan tool, which is usually based on one of about four [occasionally updated] models from the same people who will sell you generic or even vehicle-customized scan tools at outrageous prices, goes considerably further than this; however, there is much more than the tool itself involved.
First, it's important to note that the scan tool is not the only computer involved in tuning the computers of modern vehicles. Most vehicles have, if not field-reprogrammable code, then at least field-reprogrammable maps which dictate fuel delivery under specific vehicle conditions. This data is usually delivered to the PCM via the scan tool, but it is usually delivered to the tool from a PC at the dealership. If you want to reprogram the factory computer for high-altitude operation (yes, this is a real scenario, yes, I think the cars should be able to self-adjust by now, so they can keep up with my ancient mechanical turbo-diesel) you're going to need access to this stuff. In addition, on the rare chance you actually get any of those mystery codes, the factory scan tool will know what they are. In most cases they're probably going to be some internal error that has to do with why some component failed, like perhaps the PCM. In some cases, they might be vitally important to understanding what the problem is. Who knows? They're secret!
Eventually, some of this information sneaks out. Someone gets their hands on the tool and some OBD-II interfaces of some sort; maybe CAN, maybe the ISO or JEDEC standard, and they sniff the traffic and see what it looks like. You can plug in a module and reprogram a lot of diesels, for example, to be more efficient or more powerful. "Back in the day" when ECUs were simple and had an 8-bit microcontroller you had a lot of chip-replacement upgrades, but now you need to reprogram or replace the PCM because pieces of the car talk back and forth to one another in many cases, especially when there is traction control, an automatic transmission, and coil-on-plug (or often even waste spark) ignition.
As someone who has dealt with OBD-II a bit, allow me to shed some light on the subject. The OBD-II standards specify a series of families of error codes. Codes within a certain range are chassis codes, another range for powertrain codes, another range for emissions control crap, etc. The precise details of what non-powertrain codes mean, however, are specific to each vehicle. For example, in most Chevy cars, C1780 means "Loss of Steering Position Signal". In Ford vehicles, it means "Temperature select failure". And IIRC, there are even some variations between specific models, though I don't have time to hunt for specific examples.
And even within the powertrain codes, the root cause can be vehicle-specific. For example, P0171 and P0174 are both codes for engine banks running lean on a '99 Windstar. They usually mean a vacuum leak caused by oil breakdown of port seals coupled with carbon deposits in the intake due to a flaw in the front valve cover. That's something the code number can't tell you.
Finally, some cars have multiple ECUs at multiple addresses. The chassis and brake codes might be in a different ECU, and AFAIK, that info is completely undocumented.
In short, generic scan tools generally give you a reasonable view of the powertrain codes and nothing more. Although it's better than nothing, it isn't a complete picture.
My clutch went out on the highway and the mechanic told me that it was either the master cylinder or the slave cylinder, but they didn't have the diagnostic tools to verify which and they were getting the runaround from the manufacturer.
The mechanic is an idiot. There's no computer codes or special tools to determine if the problem is the master cylinder or the slave cylinder. It's literally a mechanical system; clutch linkage to the piston on the master cylinder, piston pushes fluid through the line to the slave cylinder, which has a piston which pushes the release fork. If the system was low on fluid when you brought it in (and it must have been, or filling and bleeding it without fixing the problem wouldn't have gotten it working temporarily), then the fluid leaked somewhere. Find the leak (using Mk I eyeball and other primitive tools) and you've figured out which one is the problem.
Hey Big Auto (Score:5, Insightful)
Time you started listening to OUR needs.
- The Taxpayers
p.s., next time we'll just outsource your C-level jobs to India and China and keep the factory workers here.
Re:Hey Big Auto (Score:4, Insightful)
- An American Taxpayer
Parent
Re:Hey Big Auto (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
But non-dealer mechanics suck (Score:5, Interesting)
I kid, some of the best mechanics I've had work on my previous cars (one was a bmw z3) would do all the changes then stop by the dealership for me to have the computer reset. Going to the dealership itself has always been a price gouge - $400 for an oil change? Go fuck yourself in the pee whole with that oil.
Seriously though, I think this type of law, allowing all mechanics access to the information and technical data on the cars they are certified to fix is a good idea and should be a federal law and not just up to some states to follow.
Do the same to Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
You might wonder what I mean, so here's my take:
If I have a corrupt Microsoft Office document, I should be allowed access to its "closed" file format in order to repair the document.
How about that?
Re:Do the same to Microsoft (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Do the same to Microsoft (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Lets see here... (Score:5, Insightful)
So what you're saying is... (Score:5, Insightful)
So essentially the government is paying auto manufacturers to send lobbyists back to washington to lobby on behalf of the auto manufacturers which Washington actually owns?
Ron Paul (Score:5, Funny)
This isn't fair to the automaker's shareholders, the government is infringing on their right to receive a return on their investment as determined by the objective free market. Forcing them to give up their intellectual property based on some absurd notion of repair rights (good luck finding that in the constitution) is just another form of wealth redistribution.
Re:Ron Paul (Score:5, Interesting)
Now of course, I do not have to do business with a car company that will not allow me to fix my own car. I can, instead choose to support any company that provides such information as necessary.
No, you can't. All the manufacturers keep this info hidden. The only possible exception I can think of are smaller performance car makers, like Ariel or Ascari, but I wouldn't count on it too much. They're also all small trackday cars with face-ripping acceleration and enough room in the trunk for maybe a toothbrush and a small sandwich.
Or I can search for a brilliant mechanic, computer tech, and electrical engineer who will work together to fix my car and we can open our own business.
Good luck. Reverse engineering laws are hard to get around if you're going to commercialize your work.
Or I can buy a car with no computer interfaces at all that I can repair with little more than a hammer. Of course such a car as in the last example would probably fail the state mandated emissions standards - boo state!
Such a shame we don't have widespread smog problems in most major cities.
Those computer interfaces don't just keep emissions down. They're also keeping performance and gas millage up, as well as vastly increasing the durability of engines. In well-built engines, there are almost never any mechanical problems within a car's reasonable lifetime. There's a bunch of sensors helping to keep everything tidy, and a given engine code is almost always the result of one of those sensors going out, not something like a piston connecting rod blowing through your hood.
When people say they used to be able to repair anything on their car with a wrench and a hammer, they're not looking at the full picture.
Parent
I tried to think of a car analogy... (Score:5, Funny)
and found myself in an infinite loop...
help
Universal, open-hardware car CPU (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Universal, open-hardware car CPU (Score:5, Insightful)
"industry standard connectors on the CPU"
It has nothing to do with the CPU. The reason ECMs are specific to cars is that different cars have different sensors and actuators that require different control hardware and signals. How many fuel injector lines should there be? What kind of drivers do they need? Turbo boost controls? How many knock sensors? Even open source ECMs are built to suit certain applications. One size fits all doesn't work unless everything goes on a network. I don't think fuel injectors and temperature sensors need network addresses and I certainly wouldn't want to pay the dealer to configure them for me.
You're pissed off that you had to pay $700 for something that should have been under $200. Toyota screwed you. What makes you think they won't charge $500 to program an ECM you get from someone else? The ECM for my 1987 GM is specific to the particular model, but I can get a replacement for $100 and transfer the data by plugging in a couple PROMs.
I agree that many modules in automobiles could and should be standardized for plug compatibility but the ECM is not one of them.
Parent
Volvo especially blows in this department (Score:5, Informative)
Do NOT buy a Volvo newer than '06 if you care about this sort of stuff. Any Volvo after about MY2006 requires something called "VIDA", which is the worst kind of crippled software. First, you need a several-thousand-dollar interface box. Second, the software requires a LIVE INTERNET CONNECTION. Cars after 2000 or so and before 2006 require "VADIS" and the same $$$$$ interface box.
Get a load of this: every module in the car (and there are a dozen plus) requires firmware or "coding". That coding is VIN specific, and the software is ENCRYPTED TO YOUR SPECIFIC CAR by Volvo before it is transmitted to you (the reason a live connection is required.) Further, the download requires a payment to Volvo! Just the ability to use VIDA is subscription based, and you pay separately for diagnostic abilities, wiring charts, and technical information. As in, you have to pay for each one if you want it- it's not a package.
On the Audi/VW side, there is an awesome program called VAG-COM which allows you to view all sorts of parameters, adjust values, read diagnostic codes, etc...almost EVERYTHING that can possibly be accessed or tweaked. Alarm motion sensor too sensitive? Tweak it. Want to be able to roll up your windows from the keyfob? Done. Want to enable one-touch-up on a window? Done. Want to install euro-code taillights with yellow turn signals? Done. Want to let your fog lights stay on with your highbeams, or run with the headlights off? Done and done. Costs a few hundred dollars, and that includes the adapter. You can buy the factory repair manual, and once you have, it's yours, and you can diagnose and repair many things yourself, replace components, etc.
On the Volvo side...guess what? VIDA required. "What about ODB2?" you say? Well, ODB2 only encompasses the most basic live engine information and diagnostic codes. If you want anything actually useful, you need to know the custom ODB2 data fields (very similar to how SNMP is an open standard, but nearly worthless without vendor OIDs.)
Truly, madly blows. There are a bunch of parameters that can be changed on my car, but they can only be done by the dealer, and they're guaranteed to charge for it. Nevermind that the whole car is networked with CAN-BUS and many of the mid-2000's models have huge problems with module failures, network bus problems, etc. Oh, and the best part: if a software update fucks up something, they can't roll it back. Volvo didn't design the systems to allow for going back a firmware revision. You can only install NEWER versions!
Re:Volvo especially blows in this department (Score:4, Interesting)
I second the motion that VAG-COM is awesome. However it shouldn't be used to contrast VW/Audi with Volvo, since (to my knowledge) VAG-COM was reverse engineered entirely independently of VW after frustration with VW's use of proprietary codes.
Parent
it's a perfectly fair comparison (Score:4, Informative)
I second the motion that VAG-COM is awesome. However it shouldn't be used to contrast VW/Audi with Volvo, since (to my knowledge) VAG-COM was reverse engineered entirely independently of VW after frustration with VW's use of proprietary codes.
Actually, it should - because VW/Audi's code is private/proprietary, but with a few exceptions (namely, encryption/encoding used to match the dashboard cluster to the ECU and the immobilizer, for anti-theft reasons) nothing is encrypted.
VW/Audi don't ship electronic modules and parts without software/programming. You may need to flip some bits, but VAG-COM can do it. And you can move parts between cars. And the software in a effing headlight (!!) isn't specifically and purposefully encrypted for one specific car. For Volvos, IT IS. And because of all that encryption, there will never be a "VLV-COM".
It's a fundamental design and business policy difference, and one whose only purpose is to bone the customer and lock them into servicing their car at mechanics who do enough volume to be able to afford the outrageous VIDA fees. And in ten years when they stop making modules for a particular Volvo, you won't be able to go to the junkyard and yank a module.
Parent
My two cents (Score:5, Insightful)
"The legislation, known as Right to Repair, is seen by car manufacturers as a threat to the lucrative service business in their dealerships and they are massing their lobbyists on Beacon Hill in an effort to defeat it."
Translation:
"We are getting rich off of keeping ourselves be the only ones able to fix our cars, and we don't want no smegging competition."
Personally I think that this is anticompetitive.
California's "Lemon Law" (Score:5, Interesting)
The motivation here is roughly the same as that which inspired California's so-called Lemon Law. Contrary to common perception, though, California's law covers EVERYTHING (past a certain cost of manufacture), not just automobiles, and for a period of no less than seven years.
For example, when my 21-inch Nokia CRT monitor died after six years, California's law explicitly guaranteed me a "right to repair". However, Nokia had sold their display brand to Viewsonic who, when I contacted them, politely told me to go fuck myself. Legally speaking, I could have sued Viewsonic for specific performance and the verdict would have been assured. I even spoke to one firm about the possibility of a class action suit (they decided the "class" wasn't large enough to be profitable for chasing that ambulance). Ultimately it wasn't practical to sue Viewsonic, but had I done so the state law would have guaranteed a slam-dunk verdict in my favor.
Perhaps Massachusetts should consider broadening the scope of its proposed law as well? Why arbitrarily restrict it to only ONE type of product?
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is very important, because if Ford* needs to release the information needed to repair the Focus* to the state of Massachusetts, they will basically make it available everywhere in the world where Ford sells this car.
Similar to other US state laws regarding pollution or safe materials, this will affect us worldwide
* Just as an example
Parent
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
Or they'll add a state-specific encryption key needed to unlock the computer for repair work. And they'll only release the key for vehicles sold in Massachusetts.
Parent
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Interesting)
I think I'd just replace the entire ems with the open source engine management system. [diyefi.org] This project has been around for some time, I'd sure like to put it into my car restoration.
Parent
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Yes! (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right that any mechanic can read the legislated OBD-II codes. However, manufacturers are allowed to use proprietary codes or protocols for anything that isn't emissions related, and it wouldn't be too difficult to lock you out of everything else, if they really wanted to. Reading OBD-II trouble codes is only the tip of the iceberg of what you can do when you have full read and write access to the ECU.
That is the point of this law, they currently "lock you out" by not publishing what those codes mean. I'm pretty sure that what you are suggesting would violate either the current OBD-II legislation or this new law. Additionally, the problem with releasing the key only for cars sold in Massachusetts is that the manufacturer can only know what cars are sold new in Mass, this law would also cover cars sold used.
I find this business practice on the part of automobile manufacturers very offensive. On the other hand, I am very skeptical of additional government regulation. My suspicion is that the problem this law is designed to fix is one that was created by government regulation in the first place.
Parent
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
Or it could just be that the corporations found a way to screw the consumer out of a quick buck, and that we don't live in a universe with unlimited resources and competition? Seriously, it is within the realm of possibility that a government can Do Good (tm).
Parent
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
Greetings and Salutations;
Actually, the car companies are doing exactly what they are mandated to do. We all have to remember that the job of the car companies is NOT to produce great transportation for Americans and the rest of the world. Their job, being a publicly traded company, is to make as much profit for their shareholders, at the lowest expense possible.
As long as this subtle difference in goals is in force, we will have the same situation of the car companies working to vacuum as much cash out of our pockets as possible, and, doing what ever they can to keep competition from rising.
Regards
Dave Mundt
Parent
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Interesting)
I've played with OBD-II a little bit, but... with the tools I've used, there are some standardized codes, which were required by law. There are others that are passed down the same bus, which can be decoded, assuming the decoder manufacturer or software developer knew what to use those values for.
Unfortunately, that only covers the OBD-II portion of the system. It doesn't necessarily mean that you have information for your transmission, brakes, airbags, etc, etc, etc.
You are absolutely correct about the state issue. I bought my 2000 car used in 2001. As it turned out, it had originally been slated to ship to California, as it was configured for California emissions. The actual delivery to the 1st customer happened in Florida. Since then, it's visited about 30% the states in America. Not that I'd intentionally drive it to another state just to get it fixed, but there's always the possibility that I would move or temporarily live in a state. Someday I may sell it, and the new owner may live in Mass. The twin to my current car (but the 1998 model year) was first sold in South Carolina, and I had it shipped to Florida for purchase. A couple years ago, I sold it on Craigslist, and the new owner happened to be down from New Jersey and his car died, so he bought mine and drove home. :) That car also had been up and down both the East and West coast of the US, as well as all across the Southern half of the country.
In reading the article, they're asking for OBD-II. They want a way to be alerted for the problem causing the "Check Engine" light, and to be able to clear it. Amazingly enough, every car sold in America since the 1996 model year has this ability. A friend asked me to have a look at his 1997 truck. I happened to have my $100 code reader in the car, so I plugged it in, and voila, "here's your faults". 3 codes were present. One turned out to be a transient error. One wasn't all that important. One is indicating a future repair will be necessary, but isn't urgent quite yet. He'll want to make the last one before a long road trip, or when he has a few extra bucks. :) It's about $50 in parts, and will take me about 30 minutes to do.
Ya, I can't always just diagnose a vehicle by feel any more, but having the right tools makes it easy. But hey, you always need to have the right tools. There's a reason I have several toolboxes full of tools. I went on a trip, and part of that trip involved repairing several cars with different problems. I brought a couple hundred pounds of tools with me, and used most of them at some point. I'd like it if we could standardize things like bolt sizes, belt sizes, and (oh my gosh) parts. How many different versions of parts do we really need on the market? Is it really necessary to specialize crap cars so much that you have to know the MONTH it was built in, because the manufacturer habitually changes design of many parts two or three times through a model year?? It can really be a pain. My preferred cars use the same parts across many years. It's not like the old days, when I knew a smallblock Chevy was interchangable for decades.
Parent
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
My suspicion is that the problem this law is designed to fix is one that was created by government regulation in the first place.
Uh, and you come to that conclusion *how*, exactly?
Here, let's play a little game. Let's pretend there were no regulations dictating the actions of car companies, no laws restricting reverse engineering (it's not clear to me that reverse engineering is actually illegal, here, but I can see it falling into a gray area), and no IP laws protecting their trade secrets. You know what would happen? The manufacturers would encrypt all output coming from their car computers, and would include decryption hardware on the gear they sell to the mechanics. Those mechanics would then be placed under a strict contract (which, according to Libertarian thinking, is perfectly reasonable... the government, after all, should exist primarily to enforce voluntary contracts between individuals) such that any attempt to break down, reverse engineer, or otherwise misuse the equipment would result in termination of their contract and repossession of the equipment in question. Voila! The consumer is completely screwed and they have absolutely no recourse (after all, the government getting involved would be evil socialism).
Now, if you can find some clever libertarian solution to this problem, or can otherwise find an issue with my logic, please, show it to me. Because I just don't see it.
And as an aside, one might say "Well, competition solves the problem! A competitor can just come in, keep their cars open, and voila they steal market share!" But, of course, that completely ignores fun things like barrier to entry (yes, believe it or not, it costs a fuckton to get into the car manufacturing business), not to mention good ol' fashioned collusion. 'course, libertarians do like to ignore inconvenient facts such as this.
Parent
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Informative)
What Congress mandated was that manufacturers use a standard communication protocol, document it, and release it publically (sorta -- it's not really fully public), to prevent them doing exactly what the previous poster said they'd do, and they were in fact doing: providing diagnostic tools that only their mechanics could use.
Parent
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes!!!! It is about damn time. I hope the rest of the country will follow suit.
My local Honda Dealership wanted over $350 to "fix" a busted key (the electronics in it were fine, but the metal shaft was bent) by selling me all new electronic components inside the car's ignition system as well as matching "new" keys. I thought that was outrageous, so I took it to a local mechanic who told me that he wasn't allowed to order the parts... but he took one look at the key and said, "take that to a smart locksmith," and then he recommended one. I followed his advice, and the locksmith fixed my key in less than five minutes FOR FREE.
That's one more reason why I don't trust dealership service.
Parent
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Funny)
And I'm guessing the fix involved putting the key on a hard, flat surface and hitting it with a hammer....
Parent
Re:Yes! (Score:4, Interesting)
And I'm guessing the fix involved putting the key on a hard, flat surface and hitting it with a hammer....
Almost. Certainly if I had had the courage, then I would have tried that myself. However, the local mechanic actually warned me not to try it myself and said that modern Honda keys have pretty tight tolerances.
The locksmith used a device that looked like two vices that could be stretched apart with a lever.
I'm sure that some of the more handy slashdotters could have fixed it themselves, but I'm not so good with that stuff... which is why I went to the dealer in the first place. I thought they would either straighten it or charge me $20 for a new key and then punch in some code tied to the VIN number... I guess they need a bigger markup, though.
Parent
Re:Yes! (Score:4, Informative)
I don't remember the exact procedure anymore, but it was something along the lines of- "With an already-programmed key- lock and then unlock the driver's door. Then lock and unlock it with the new key. Then insert the already-programmed key in the ignition and turn it to Run, then Off. Then do the same with the new key three times within one minute." All these steps tell the car's immobilizer and ignition RFID system that you have a new key and want to use it. There are similar procedures for all such systems.
I suppose it might be a bit difficult if you didn't have another working key, but you could probably fudge it by using the new key and just holding the broken one next to it so the car "recognizes" that you have a legitimate key.
As far as the topic of providing ALL of the error code information, instead of reserving key information to drive up dealer revenue- I definitely agree, although it is possible it would result in overall car prices going up. I can't help but think the additional revenue of these repairs helps to keep prices down to some extent, and I have little doubt that repair revenue is what keeps many dealers in business. I do remember when I owned a Volkswagen that it was almost impossible to get any relevant error codes out of it using standard ODBII equipment. My "regular" mechanic couldn't do a whole lot with it, and I had to take it to the dealer or an expensive "specialist" to diagnose many of the errors (and there were a LOT of them). To their credit- I've never had a problem with my Hondas that wasn't easily diagnosed with an ODBII meter from Pep Boys. I found a quote online once along the lines of: "A Volkswagen doesn't exist to give its driver pleasure- it exists to provide a constant revenue stream to the dealer." Not to just pick on them, I actually loved that car and you could probably plug any car manufacturer into that sentence.
Parent
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
People might accept that behavior for a $30 piece of software, but they will *not* accept it for a $18,000 car. I almost wish some car company would try it, but then they'd crash in flames and we'd have to bail them out again.
Parent
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Funny)
Educational BALs can only be used by somebody with a current learner's permit; but may be treated as evaluation VALs for up to three (3) hours/day if at least one VAL has been purchased for the car and no other BALs are in concurrent use on the same vehicle.
In order to ensure healthy demand for Small and Medium Family VAL/BAL licence packs, any single VAL holder of greater than eighteen (18) years of age is entitled to one "Guest BAL" for purposes about which our PR flacks will never speak plainly.
Parent
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Funny)
I'll be waiting for Ford Genuine Advantage to shut down my car, thinking it's stolen.
Parent
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Informative)
The FTC is holding hearings on whether or not to continue to allow DRM and EULA's.
http://action.theeca.com/t/2858/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=562
At that site you can write a submission to the FTC about why DRM / EULA's are bad.
I'm pretty excited to see how this turns out!
Parent
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope you're not suggesting that contracts revert to being bi-directional. We have a proud tradition of contracts being used to benefit us and screw you; if it's not broken, don't try to fix it.
Parent
Re:What? Letting people repair their own cars?! (Score:5, Funny)
A thousand times, yes. People seem to forget the extent to which industry (yes, *capitalist industry*) deserves credit for so many of the modern luxuries they enjoy. We should be happy enough that there are people willing to work hard enough to create and run companies like GM and Ford before we gang up and start punishing them for trying to make a buck. Consumer protections and safety standards are just marketing terms for the real agenda: the expansion of government regulation until you can't even build a house or open a theme park without getting a bureaucratic stamp of approval.
Parent
Re:What? Letting people repair their own cars?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Capitalism is good, extortion is bad. We support people trying to make a buck, it's when they hold your life ransom in order to make unreasonable amounts of cash that we have a problem. This is an example of the government doing what it's supposed to do: represent the people's will. The people think the car companies are taking advantage of them and want it to stop.
Also, in terms of capitalism, the car companies are muscling legitimate competition (the independent mechanics) out of the picture. This brings us to the ironic position of requiring regulation in order to maintain a free market. It's a good thing, though.
Parent
Re:What? Letting people repair their own cars?! (Score:5, Insightful)
A better way of looking at it is are the the car makers allowed to collude with the dealers to restrain the trade of the independent shops via lockout.
Posting the question that way even Adam Smith himself would say hell no. Markets have to be reasonably free for 'free markets' to work.
They all need to be publish all the diagnostic codes.
Parent
Re:This is Massachusetts, folks (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:That's no right (Score:5, Informative)
In the article, it mentions that the "Right to Repair" relates to your right to choose who repairs your car (yourself, your local garage vs. the official car company dealer).
Because cars have so many control units (eg. the Engine Control Unit [2carpros.com]), specialized (and expensive) dealers are given advanced scanners which have full access to all the computer systems, and have the ability to clear any internal firmware fault bits which make fault lights remain on even after the car has been repaired. Other non-dealer garages don't have access to this information. They may be able to repair a broken headlight, but the computer system won't turn the fault light off, and might even refuse to allow the ignition to start.
Some car companies were using DRM legislation to prevent owners from altering/checking/viewing the state of the system controller.
Parent
Re:OBD - On-Board Diagnostics (Score:5, Informative)
There already is a government mandated standard for getting access to engine information. It's called OBD [wikipedia.org] and you read codes off with a $100 reader. Your local AutoZone, etc. will usually even let you borrow a reader if you need to. OBD defines a set of specific codes for specific errors or measurements. It also allows manufacturers to define their own codes and measurements. I don't know of single vehicle whose manufacturer specific codes are not publicly available. Okay, you may have to pull out a book or look it up online (e.g. here is the list of codes for may BMW E46 3-series [e46fanatics.com]) but it's out there and it's an amazing thing. The newer cars will even give you details like your exact fuel/air mixture ... in real-time. 9 times out of 10 the code pulled off the reader will tell me exactly what's wrong my car.
It amazes me how many hobbyist and even professional mechanics complain about this. The tools are there, and cheap, just learn how to use them.
I went to that link, there were an awful lot of "UNKNOWN CODE" listed. I stopped skimming between 500 and 600 and found over 70 "UNKNOWN CODE" listings in that. Those "UNKNOWN CODE" listings are what this law is about. Those aren't unused codes, they are codes that BMW considers trade secrets and that are only published to mechanics working for BMW dealerships (other car manufacturers have similar codes).
Parent
Re:OBD - On-Board Diagnostics (Score:5, Informative)
Without the experience to understand what those codes imply I am still in the dark as to what the problem actually is.
That has nothing to do with this.
OBD-II means that you can talk to the Powertrain Control Module, or PCM. What you can talk to it about is what this is all about. Your code reader allows you to pull trouble codes, which will allow an experienced mechanic who has driven your car to make some educated guesses. A more advanced generic scan tool is usually able to additionally read the state of all of the vehicle's sensors, and view snapshot data that tells you what happened the last time the most serious code stored in memory occurred. The manufacturer's scan tool, which is usually based on one of about four [occasionally updated] models from the same people who will sell you generic or even vehicle-customized scan tools at outrageous prices, goes considerably further than this; however, there is much more than the tool itself involved.
First, it's important to note that the scan tool is not the only computer involved in tuning the computers of modern vehicles. Most vehicles have, if not field-reprogrammable code, then at least field-reprogrammable maps which dictate fuel delivery under specific vehicle conditions. This data is usually delivered to the PCM via the scan tool, but it is usually delivered to the tool from a PC at the dealership. If you want to reprogram the factory computer for high-altitude operation (yes, this is a real scenario, yes, I think the cars should be able to self-adjust by now, so they can keep up with my ancient mechanical turbo-diesel) you're going to need access to this stuff. In addition, on the rare chance you actually get any of those mystery codes, the factory scan tool will know what they are. In most cases they're probably going to be some internal error that has to do with why some component failed, like perhaps the PCM. In some cases, they might be vitally important to understanding what the problem is. Who knows? They're secret!
Eventually, some of this information sneaks out. Someone gets their hands on the tool and some OBD-II interfaces of some sort; maybe CAN, maybe the ISO or JEDEC standard, and they sniff the traffic and see what it looks like. You can plug in a module and reprogram a lot of diesels, for example, to be more efficient or more powerful. "Back in the day" when ECUs were simple and had an 8-bit microcontroller you had a lot of chip-replacement upgrades, but now you need to reprogram or replace the PCM because pieces of the car talk back and forth to one another in many cases, especially when there is traction control, an automatic transmission, and coil-on-plug (or often even waste spark) ignition.
Parent
Re:Unexpected (Score:5, Informative)
As someone who has dealt with OBD-II a bit, allow me to shed some light on the subject. The OBD-II standards specify a series of families of error codes. Codes within a certain range are chassis codes, another range for powertrain codes, another range for emissions control crap, etc. The precise details of what non-powertrain codes mean, however, are specific to each vehicle. For example, in most Chevy cars, C1780 means "Loss of Steering Position Signal". In Ford vehicles, it means "Temperature select failure". And IIRC, there are even some variations between specific models, though I don't have time to hunt for specific examples.
And even within the powertrain codes, the root cause can be vehicle-specific. For example, P0171 and P0174 are both codes for engine banks running lean on a '99 Windstar. They usually mean a vacuum leak caused by oil breakdown of port seals coupled with carbon deposits in the intake due to a flaw in the front valve cover. That's something the code number can't tell you.
Finally, some cars have multiple ECUs at multiple addresses. The chassis and brake codes might be in a different ECU, and AFAIK, that info is completely undocumented.
In short, generic scan tools generally give you a reasonable view of the powertrain codes and nothing more. Although it's better than nothing, it isn't a complete picture.
Parent
Re:This makes me happy (Score:5, Informative)
The mechanic is an idiot. There's no computer codes or special tools to determine if the problem is the master cylinder or the slave cylinder. It's literally a mechanical system; clutch linkage to the piston on the master cylinder, piston pushes fluid through the line to the slave cylinder, which has a piston which pushes the release fork. If the system was low on fluid when you brought it in (and it must have been, or filling and bleeding it without fixing the problem wouldn't have gotten it working temporarily), then the fluid leaked somewhere. Find the leak (using Mk I eyeball and other primitive tools) and you've figured out which one is the problem.
Parent