The drive is reporting that GM has secured the ECU on the C8 to prevent anyone but GM from getting into it...
Psh... I'll believe that when I see it.
IMHO the aftermarket is too big for the car to keep tuners out. They'll find a way..
The drive is reporting that GM has secured the ECU on the C8 to prevent anyone but GM from getting into it...
Psh... I'll believe that when I see it.
IMHO the aftermarket is too big for the car to keep tuners out. They'll find a way..
It's kind of a bummer as an end user, but from the manufacturer's perspective this makes way too much sense. Locking down their IP, and keeping people from modifying the software (which has impacts on emissions compliance, warranty claims, etc) seems like it's been along time coming.
In reply to STM317 :
Oh I fully expect it to be broken..
Our forum sponsor HP tuners broke into the C7ZR1 after a year...
I bet they'll break this one too...
But will there be different ECUs for USA. Europe etc
Or even a way to sell you HP by setting the ECU from mild to race ?
Pay more get more HP with a factory software upgrade
If Chrysler’s “military grade” encryption can be broken, it’s only a matter of time.
They said the L5P Duramax ECM was uncrackable as well but HP Tuners can unlock those now too. It might take a little bit but they will figure it out. HP Tuners can't afford not to for the new Vette.
californiamilleghia said:But will there be different ECUs for USA. Europe etc
Or even a way to sell you HP by setting the ECU from mild to race ?
Pay more get more HP with a factory software upgrade
I chuckle when I see thinking like that- as if there's magically a GT race car hidden in a production car.
Power is what it is in the calibration to keep it as reliable as possible. There's a little more power, but you have to know you will break something, eventually (sometimes sooner than later).
But there's no such thing as a "race tune" for a production car. The peak of all peak power driving has no bearing on real world driving....
STM317 said:It's kind of a bummer as an end user, but from the manufacturer's perspective this makes way too much sense. Locking down their IP, and keeping people from modifying the software (which has impacts on emissions compliance, warranty claims, etc) seems like it's been along time coming.
It's not just IP. Technically, it's illegal to change the tune based on anti-tampering laws. HP sells their goods based on it being off road use only. And, for the most part, gas "tuners" keep their effects off the road pretty well. Whereas diesel tuners don't, which is why the hand of the law has clamped down on them a little more, recently.
RacetruckRon said:They said the L5P Duramax ECM was uncrackable as well but HP Tuners can unlock those now too. It might take a little bit but they will figure it out. HP Tuners can't afford not to for the new Vette.
I know someone that was working on that "project"
It's not a race tune, it's a cheap guy downgrade if he does not want to buy the top package.
And yes you are paying extra for a higher rev limit etc if you want it ,
It's easy money for the dealer if he can get few $1000 extra for a software upgrade.
Just an idea......
In reply to californiamilleghia :
Tesla owners may be willing to put up with that, but I'm not aware of real humans that are. If you pay for something, you want more than just code.
spacecadet said:In reply to STM317 :
Oh I fully expect it to be broken..
Our forum sponsor HP tuners broke into the C7ZR1 after a year...
I bet they'll break this one too...
Yeah, you're probably right that eventually it will be. But this isn't just a new ECU here. It's an entirely new electrical architecture intended to support advanced tech moving forward better than their current architecture could. The new Caddy sedans will have it as well, and it will gradually be incorporated into the rest of GM's stable. This is 5 times more processing power than their current systems, and obviously far more advanced and integrated. Higher voltage wouldn't surprise me either, but that's just a guess. This is the stuff that they're intending to use for future connected and autonomous tech, etc so it's more capable, but also more secure. It's going to take some time I'd guess to crack it and get it working well:
The current state of affairs, with "easily" reprogrammed ECUs, is temporary. They will get locked down. CAN communication will be encrypted before too long. This is partly to prevent people from screwing around with the tune on the car and breaking things, and partly to prevent hackers from doing Bad Things. Jeep learned that one the hard way. This is basic software security, and it's hard. But automakers now understand that it's necessary, so you're going to start seeing it.
We're already looking down the road to see what our business will look like when we lose the ability to reflash an ECU or play with the CAN bus.
alfadriver said:In reply to californiamilleghia :
Tesla owners may be willing to put up with that, but I'm not aware of real humans that are. If you pay for something, you want more than just code.
Remember the MINI One in Europe? The non-Cooper MINI had lower power levels. Turns out the difference was the max throttle opening. The One just didn't open the butterfly all the way. That was a car that responded well to a tune, which was basically just a software unlock.
Unlocked capabilities and OTA upgrades are pretty much a standard in computer applications. I think people will come around to accepting it in vehicles, especially when it's leveraging existing sensors.
The factory tune on my 'Guzzi was absolute garbage because it needed to meet emissions.
Sntachy throttle off idle, a surge at 3500rpm and awful popping on decel.
I remapped the ECU at home with a laptop and it's a totally different motorcycle now.
When I took it in for warranty service, I put the factory garbage tune back in.
I can understand why OEMs would want to put a stop to this, if Joe twelve pack doesn't know what he's doing, things can go badly in a hurry.
Keith Tanner said:alfadriver said:In reply to californiamilleghia :
Tesla owners may be willing to put up with that, but I'm not aware of real humans that are. If you pay for something, you want more than just code.
Remember the MINI One in Europe? The non-Cooper MINI had lower power levels. Turns out the difference was the max throttle opening. The One just didn't open the butterfly all the way. That was a car that responded well to a tune, which was basically just a software unlock.
Unlocked capabilities and OTA upgrades are pretty much a standard in computer applications. I think people will come around to accepting it in vehicles, especially when it's leveraging existing sensors.
Other than less power, what else do you get? Better FE? Better emissions? I don't realistically see putting a hold down on peak power would be something a person would be willing to save money over.
ShawnG said:The factory tune on my 'Guzzi was absolute garbage because it needed to meet emissions.
Sntachy throttle off idle, a surge at 3500rpm and awful popping on decel.
I remapped the ECU at home with a laptop and it's a totally different motorcycle now.
When I took it in for warranty service, I put the factory garbage tune back in.
I can understand why OEMs would want to put a stop to this, if Joe twelve pack doesn't know what he's doing, things can go badly in a hurry.
MotoGuzzi may not be a good example of a well calibrated/tuned powertrain. I just had a discussion in my office that using "emissions" as an excuse for poor driveability is BS. To get the most out of the emissions system, you need it to run perfectly all the time- no hesitations, no lean excursion, nothing but giving the driver exactly what they want. I've been doing thing long enough to know what is a good compromise for emissions really is- at at most, anymore, is a slight drop off in peak power to make sure the exhaust system does not over heat. Other than that, perfection is required.
In reply to alfadriver :
In the case of complex emissions systems, yes, that's the case. But on motorcycles and in some other cases, it's unfortunately not all that uncommon to end up with screwy tuning to get it "just good enough" for emissions while being able to avoid needing to add more complicated emissions control hardware.
alfadriver said:Keith Tanner said:alfadriver said:In reply to californiamilleghia :
Tesla owners may be willing to put up with that, but I'm not aware of real humans that are. If you pay for something, you want more than just code.
Remember the MINI One in Europe? The non-Cooper MINI had lower power levels. Turns out the difference was the max throttle opening. The One just didn't open the butterfly all the way. That was a car that responded well to a tune, which was basically just a software unlock.
Unlocked capabilities and OTA upgrades are pretty much a standard in computer applications. I think people will come around to accepting it in vehicles, especially when it's leveraging existing sensors.
Other than less power, what else do you get? Better FE? Better emissions? I don't realistically see putting a hold down on peak power would be something a person would be willing to save money over.
The MINI One was the budget option. So it was completely about spending less money and not getting the full power. That was the decision made by the customers. They don't care WHY it's not making as much power, just that they're not paying as much.
Actually, what it really was about was a way to upsell people to the Cooper model. But since both cars were mechanically identical from a powertrain standpoint, it certainly would have been a money-saving move by MINI for both development and production. Customer gets their choice of power levels vs price, MINI has fewer physical variations to develop, produce and support - everybody wins. Sure, it seems a little underhanded but it actually works when you think about it.
In reply to rslifkin :
You don't need much hardware to make really good emissions. And screwy tuning for "just good enough" is a note of a totally different problem. Good emissions hardware is cheap and common these days- a catalyst system, a WB sensor, and everything else it takes to run an engine well. Heck, taking some complexity out makes emissions even easier. VCT is way over rated.
Ranger50 said:If Chrysler’s “military grade” encryption can be broken, it’s only a matter of time.
Ah "military grade", talk about low standards.
I had to keep double checking what year these forum posts were, because this E36 M3's already happened. The latest BMW ECU's are essentially uncrackable already (something like 1024 bit encryption), which is why manufacturers like Dinan are moving to sensor spoofing or stand-alone ECU's to pull more power out of them. CAN messaging as well. I'm surprised it's taken this long for other manufacturers to keep up.
Hell, it's by a different mechanism, but the situation is essentially the same as it was for NA/NB Miatas. There was no way to reflash those ECU's either, and we still got along, either through piggy back systems or replacing the engine controls altogether.
Typically, "unbreakable" ECUs stay that way only until the car's brand manager decides he wants to see more cars on grid at events, or somebody on the ECU calibration team takes a bribe.
However, a lot of the newer model based ECUs can sometimes defy tuning by their shear complexity. I recall one story somebody who worked for Lingenfelter once told me about a project to develop a supercharger kit with official GM support. Part of the discussion ended up something like this:
Lingenfelter tuner: "I think getting this coefficient dialed in is going to be the key to getting this one tuned. Do you have any more documentation on what this number represents, exactly?"
GM calibration engineer: "I don't know; it was just part of an equation that MATLAB came up with!"
In Europe do they still pay different levels of taxes based on HP? If so, the MINI One is a terrific idea, all the reliability and most of the torque with lower peak and $ every year.
That all said, if the software gets too hard to crack something like Megasquirt is going to step up with hardware and a plug and play option to take out the locked up hardware.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s also part of an effort to get ahead of future potential for fines and liability for manufacturers allowing “foreseeable misuse” by not applying adequate security.
Basic risk management in other industries, such as medical devices, includes anticipating and mitigating “foreseeable misuse” in addition to risks during intended/normal use.
You'll need to log in to post.
