Since this is out of Massachusetts so could someone translate this – I can’t write in Boston.
Massachusetts voters voted on the most important issue of all their Right to Repair law. They added to what already existed and those changes could spread across the country. Well, after the high dollar lawyers do their thing.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/massachusetts-voters-pass-repair-measure-202718975.html
This is a really good thing. I see a lot of automotive businesses becoming started "in Massachusetts"
I had a 06 dodge magnum: had a problem with wiring (Can-Bus.) Dodge proprietary electronics required dodge diagnostics software only available to the $20K dodge computer (w/$2000 per year subscription fees) And most dealer mechanics don't know how to use it (parts changers only) I did find the mom and pop guy in southside Richmond that uses it - dealers up and down the east coast use him when They are lost! so it worked out.
But a other brand, that DOES release their codes to the aftermarket, a $1200 diagnostics computer would hve been able to find the problem! We've been hoping for this for several years. it is singular to the Magnuson laws (if I'm spelling that correctly)
Hooray! A win for all.
If it is mandatory in one place it will be effectively mandatory for any vehicles sold in the US.
However, this is thorny. Essentially they are no longer allowed to encrypt data. If you have to make the keys public then you don't have encryption. Data encryption is a necessary feature to make vehicle theft more difficult, and something they had been starting to roll out in the past few years.
Beyond that, I don't see how this is different from the OBD-II standard, except over all systems.
03Panther said:I had a 06 dodge magnum: had a problem with wiring (Can-Bus.) Dodge proprietary electronics required dodge diagnostics software only available to the $20K dodge computer (w/$2000 per year subscription fees) And most dealer mechanics don't know how to use it (parts changers only) I did find the mom and pop guy in southside Richmond that uses it - dealers up and down the east coast use him when They are lost! so it worked out.
But a other brand, that DOES release their codes to the aftermarket, a $1200 diagnostics computer would hve been able to find the problem! We've been hoping for this for several years. it is singular to the Magnuson laws (if I'm spelling that correctly)
I think a lot of information got munged here.
Chrysler doesn't do anything super-proprietary. Lots of scantools work just fine with Chrysler over all systems. Where things get goofy is there is a gateway module that the scantool has to communicate "through" to get to the networks. It's an open secret that if that module is being a difficult bastard, you bypass it (as in, cuting and splicing some twisted pairs) and connect the scantool directly through the network and you can send and recieve data just fine. Now, I've never HAD to do this, because I never ran into an issue where I needed to, so I don't know the full details other than knowing that it's possible if necessary.
Either way, scan tools don't tell you what the problem is, people do. Scan tools just give you information. They don't set a code for C00-corroded-ground-behind-driver-side-headlight or P2-damaged-connector-under-carpeting, they just set the automotive equivalent of "My tummy feels weird" or "It hurts when I do this."
Right to Repair doesn't mean Right to Repair Cheaply. The information is available, for a fee, to anyone, unless it is involved in security. That is, correctly, not available to just anyone. Become a licenced locksmith, put up a bond, and you are generally good to go.
Unless you are working with European Cars. They are pretty tight with security stuff.
Streetwiseguy said:Right to Repair doesn't mean Right to Repair Cheaply. The information is available, for a fee, to anyone, unless it is involved in security. That is, correctly, not available to just anyone. Become a licenced locksmith, put up a bond, and you are generally good to go.
Unless you are working with European Cars. They are pretty tight with security stuff.
But also, a manufacturer shouldn't be charging a usury fee for access which then causes a monopoly on your product. FCA was/is leading the way on encryption for recoding a module. IIRC, they are using 256bit vs lesser bits for GM and Ford, which is why you have to ship off a pcm if you want to tune it for your charger or challenger vs just a standard handheld. But FCA shouldn't also be forcing independent shops to spend their money only with Snap-on for a scan tool that will work with their stuff.
Here is my takeaway in this, this is going to force a well known company, John Deere, to open up there systems for repair besides the dealership.
In reply to Ranger50 :
I've heard stories about Deere. Not a car. The cost of the information is the same as the dealership would pay. Why should I, as an independent, pay less than the dealership? And, I wouldn't be buying Snap on, I'd be buying the factory tool.
You are talking about reflashing and modifying programs, I think. I have no problem with manufacturers keeping their source code proprietary.
He's a witch! Burn him!
I voted against it because of the wireless aspect. I'm in favor of wired access to the data, but wireless opens up opportunities for malicious use.
Two other companies that I have been told are/were watching this very closely are Apple and Tesla.
In reply to Streetwiseguy :
The latest FCA tool is made by Snap-on.
In reply to Ranger50 :
A lot of other OE scan tools are Windows based. Maybe Android now, too.
They are also going to a pay per use model. Plug in to a new VIN, that's $75. Plug in to that same VIN four days later, that's another $75...
I pushed my family in Mass to be in favor of this because i'd rather we work to deal with security threats than fight to make it legal to work on your own car.
This could have been better worded, but I think it was a move in the right direction.
Now they have to address the security issues.. not strike down this effort because it makes it more difficult for them.
Tesla refusing franchises and Apple working harder every year to make it more difficult to repair your phone, not to mention the berkeleyery of the John Deere situation.
all makes me want to push back hard against the MFR's on this.
a big part of this was the right to have access to vehicle data NOT stored in vehicle. we already ahd right to repair in MA, but phone home data would have been excluded because its on the mfger servers.
car hits 50k tells mfger, mfg sends text to owner for a service. its cuts the middle man out.
You'll need to log in to post.
