Anyone heard of OBD III?
in [Toyota]
|
Prev: {BS} "The system worked."
Next: TSA - Pathetic, really
From: aarcuda69062 on 1 Jan 2010 15:53 In article <hhlhip$usl$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > "Ray O" <rokigawa(a)NOSPAMtristarassociates.com> wrote in message > news:hhlfnu$7lr$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > > > "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:hhjk4r$6iu$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > >> > > <snipped> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Fault codes are already available to anybody and everybody, even people > >>> who don't know how to interpret them, through OBD I and II. > >>> -- > >> > >> There is diagnostic data that isn't available through OBD, and this is a > >> problem because it forces people to the dealership for services that > >> could be done by whomever people want to pay, or done by the car owner > >> himself. > >> > >> I was just reading in the paper yesterday or the day before that > >> independent service centers do not have access to the same vehicle data > >> that the dealerships have, and the dealerships (automakers) are refusing > >> the notion that the customer has a right to it. The automakers are saying > >> that the data is proprietary, and the owners are saying it ought not be. > >> I side with the owners on this one. > >> > >> If there is vehicle data that is stored which helps diagnose problems, > >> then that data should be stored in a uniform manner and be made available > >> to anybody that wants to see it. It's my car, it's my data. If my data > >> helps the dealership fix my car, then my data should be available to me > >> so I can fix my car. > >> > > As a former district service manager, I can assure you that there is no > > secret data in a car that is not available to anyone who is willing to > > invest in the proper diagnostic equipment and information. The data is > > not available to anyone who is willing to invest in the special equipment > > needed to retrieve it. The dilemma for independents is that if they want > > to work on 10 different brands, they have to buy the equipment for 10 > > different brands, while a Toyota dealer only has to buy equipment for > > Toyota, therefore automakers should give the info to the independents so > > they don't have to spend so much money to service so many brands. > > > > That argument drags us back to the days of OBD I, where the data was > available, but the format and location of the data port, and the method of > extraction, caused service costs associated with the investment in the > training and specialized equipment needed. That argument could be made all the way back to the invention of the automobile. > The entire purpose of OBD II was > to make the data uniform so it could be extracted. Can't even begin to imagine where you got that notion. OBD II is a Federal emissions standard that among other things mandates that vehicles sold in the U.S. be so equipped that they have the ability to alert the vehicle operator when the vehicles emissions exceed federal standards by 1.5 times. OBD II mandates that certain emissions related criteria be monitored by either continuous or non-continuous monitors, such things as catalytic convertor efficiency, misfires, evaporative emissions, etc. The ability to interface and extract data and information related to OBD II emissions was also mandated to include a standardized connector, standardized communication protocol, standardization of emissions related trouble codes ad standardization of certain nomenclature associated with the emissions system and its components. Nothing in the law forbids a vehicle manufacturer from adding their own diagnostic routines, data PIDs, ability to access non-emissions related components. NOTHING. It is a free market. > Now there is more data > that is in unique and disparate formats and locations that require > specialized training and equipment to get at it. Just like the data in OBD > I. Yup. Entertainment functions, sat/nav such as Onstar, cruise control, HVAC functions, interior lighting, exterior lighting... the list is long. Non of these things have anything to do with compliance with federal emissions regulations. That such systems can be accessed thru terminals assigned inside the mandated SAE defined diagnostic connector is absolutely irrelevant to the emissions regulations. > Even if an independent Toyota Service center only works on Toyota cars and > trucks, it's probable that the equipment needed to extract the data is > costly beyond the realm of normal and customary costs to operate a garage. Yet there is plenty of proof that that is not the case. Nothing in the federal Emissions regulations addresses the notion that there are business owners out there that believe there is such a thing as a free lunch and rightfully so. > These costs cannot be reasonably borne by a guy that has the skill set > needed to work on his own car What you believe is reasonable is simply a matter of opinion, prejudice and priority. > -- which is one of the issues with OBD I that > was fixed under OBD II. Automakers made the same argument(s) under OBD I > that they are making now -- it's our data and we don't have to share it. Except that there is no such example of the manufacturers not sharing. If you have one, forward the violation to the complaint department at NASTF, they will act on it. FWIW, the number of complaints they -do- receive is so low that it is a non issue. > > > > > If you apply the same logic to medical care, it would be like saying an > > individual's physical symptoms are the individual's property, and > > therefore the individual should not have to pay for an interpretation of > > the symptoms; the person who took high school health class and has > > extensive experience providing first aid should be able to provide the > > same diagnostic service as a doctor without having to pay for the > > equipment and education because that is too expensive. > > > > There's nothing wrong with paying to interpret the symptoms, but the patient > is not forced to church to get them. He can go to any doctor to get the > diagnostic and interpretation of it. You can go to any properly trained and equipped repair shop and get a diagnostic and interpretation of what ails your car. > > > > The automakers require dealers to have a minimum level of special service > > tools, but those tools are available to anyone who wants to buy them. > > Service manuals and access to on line service manuals are also available > > tot anyone who is willing to pay for them. > > -- > > They made the same argument about the diagnostics available under OBD I. And it was freely available pre-OBD II. > The problem was that the CONSUMER was charged a C-note just to extract the > data because the test equipment was expensive and the training was unique. Isn't capitalism great? > Not only was it unique from brand to brand, it was sometimes unique from > model to model within the same brand! CONSUMERS were being raped under OBD I > because of the unique quality of where and how to gain access to the data. No one was being "raped." Extracting a trouble code could be as simple and costly as jumpering two terminals with a paper clip or my all time favorite, cycling the ignition key from off to on three times. The code definitions and flow charts for diagnosis were available at most public libraries. > Now -- due to the wonder of advanced technology -- there is even more repair > data that is collected and stored, beyond the OBD data or enhanced OBD data, > yet this data goes backward to the days of yesteryear because it is uniquely > located and formatted so that the data is different from maker to maker, and > maybe from model to model within the same maker. CONSUMERS are being raped, > again. Consumers are NOT being "raped again," although it may seem that way, what is really happening is they have not managed to stop using their reproductive organs when making their daily transportation choices. Frankly Jeff, I find your whole dissertation on this subject quite surprising. Your political posts certainly portray you to be a republican who shuns nanny statism, yet here you are proposing yet another version of welfare where the gummint should take over, free market be damned. On the other hand, congratulations, it appears that you now have some grasp of the points I was making in the "best OBD II scan tool" thread.
From: aarcuda69062 on 1 Jan 2010 15:55 In article <hhlfnu$7lr$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, "Ray O" <rokigawa(a)NOSPAMtristarassociates.com> wrote: > As a former district service manager, I can assure you that there is no > secret data in a car that is not available to anyone who is willing to > invest in the proper diagnostic equipment and information. The data is not > available to anyone who is willing to invest in the special equipment needed > to retrieve it. The dilemma for independents is that if they want to work > on 10 different brands, they have to buy the equipment for 10 different > brands, while a Toyota dealer only has to buy equipment for Toyota, > therefore automakers should give the info to the independents so they don't > have to spend so much money to service so many brands. > > If you apply the same logic to medical care, it would be like saying an > individual's physical symptoms are the individual's property, and therefore > the individual should not have to pay for an interpretation of the symptoms; > the person who took high school health class and has extensive experience > providing first aid should be able to provide the same diagnostic service as > a doctor without having to pay for the equipment and education because that > is too expensive. > > The automakers require dealers to have a minimum level of special service > tools, but those tools are available to anyone who wants to buy them. > Service manuals and access to on line service manuals are also available tot > anyone who is willing to pay for them. Well done!
From: Jeff Strickland on 1 Jan 2010 20:11 "aarcuda69062" <nonelson(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:nonelson-28C3EE.14532301012010(a)news.eternal-september.org... > In article <hhlhip$usl$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Ray O" <rokigawa(a)NOSPAMtristarassociates.com> wrote in message >> news:hhlfnu$7lr$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> > >> > "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> > news:hhjk4r$6iu$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> >> >> > <snipped> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> Fault codes are already available to anybody and everybody, even >> >>> people >> >>> who don't know how to interpret them, through OBD I and II. >> >>> -- >> >> >> >> There is diagnostic data that isn't available through OBD, and this is >> >> a >> >> problem because it forces people to the dealership for services that >> >> could be done by whomever people want to pay, or done by the car owner >> >> himself. >> >> >> >> I was just reading in the paper yesterday or the day before that >> >> independent service centers do not have access to the same vehicle >> >> data >> >> that the dealerships have, and the dealerships (automakers) are >> >> refusing >> >> the notion that the customer has a right to it. The automakers are >> >> saying >> >> that the data is proprietary, and the owners are saying it ought not >> >> be. >> >> I side with the owners on this one. >> >> >> >> If there is vehicle data that is stored which helps diagnose problems, >> >> then that data should be stored in a uniform manner and be made >> >> available >> >> to anybody that wants to see it. It's my car, it's my data. If my data >> >> helps the dealership fix my car, then my data should be available to >> >> me >> >> so I can fix my car. >> >> >> > As a former district service manager, I can assure you that there is no >> > secret data in a car that is not available to anyone who is willing to >> > invest in the proper diagnostic equipment and information. The data is >> > not available to anyone who is willing to invest in the special >> > equipment >> > needed to retrieve it. The dilemma for independents is that if they >> > want >> > to work on 10 different brands, they have to buy the equipment for 10 >> > different brands, while a Toyota dealer only has to buy equipment for >> > Toyota, therefore automakers should give the info to the independents >> > so >> > they don't have to spend so much money to service so many brands. >> > >> >> That argument drags us back to the days of OBD I, where the data was >> available, but the format and location of the data port, and the method >> of >> extraction, caused service costs associated with the investment in the >> training and specialized equipment needed. > > That argument could be made all the way back to the invention of the > automobile. > >> The entire purpose of OBD II was >> to make the data uniform so it could be extracted. > > Can't even begin to imagine where you got that notion. > OBD I gave us the emissions data, just like OBD II gives us. A major complaint was that the data port and method of extraction was widely varried, and the data was different. OBD II standardized the structure and location of the data, it expanded the data too, but we're not discussing that aspect of the specification. The entire point of OBD II was to standardize the data and the means to extract it so that CONSUMERS were not raped by the repair center.
From: Ray O on 1 Jan 2010 23:02 "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message news:pan.2010.01.01.15.38.47.598370(a)e86.GTS... > On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:20:14 -0600, Ray O wrote: > >> >> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >> news:pan.2009.12.31.19.03.10.105830(a)e86.GTS... >>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:27:15 -0600, Ray O wrote: >>> >>> >>>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>> news:hhg178$fe3$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>>> >>>>> "Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2(a)lycos,com> wrote in message >>>>> news:4b3a330a$0$25296$ce5e7886(a)news-radius.ptd.net... >>>>>> Vehicles have had that capability at least since 2000. Eventually, >>>>>> where there are enough of the newer vehicles on the road, there will >>>>>> roadside sensors much like they currently have for trucks at weigh >>>>>> stations where they need not stop, to determine if your vehicle is >>>>>> polluting and you will no longer have required emission inspections. >>>>>> The information is only recorded for around eight to ten seconds. >>>>>> Read >>>>>> you owners manual, that information is in there. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you dive by and the sensor picks up your car as a polluter, you >>>>>> will be sent an order to have your vehicle inspected and repaired >>>>>> within thirty days. If you do not you will be required to send in >>>>>> you license >>>>>> plate until you have the problem corrected. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> That's a highway-based system. They don't care that the MIL is on or >>>>> not, >>>>> they can look at the exhaust of all passing cars and trucks, and if >>>>> the emissions are too high, they take a photo -- sort of like the Red >>>>> Light Camera systems that are in use. >>>>> >>>>> Not to put too fine of a point on this, if the car was going to place >>>>> a call to rat you out for not reacting to the MIL, then they would >>>>> have to put a variant of OnStar on every car built, and retrofit >>>>> earlier cars. The >>>>> bottom line is, every car on the road would require a cellphone number >>>>> and >>>>> a GPS. That's alot of cellphone numbers. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> The communication could also be done with something like wi-fi or the >>>> system >>>> in EZ Pass automated toll collection systems. The notification >>>> wouldn't be >>>> instant, but it would be sent when the vehicle drives near the hot >>>> spot. This type of system wouldn't use up phone numbers although Big >>>> Brother would >>>> have to set up hot spots at various places like gas stations where >>>> vehicles >>>> have to eventually pass by. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure that even this type of system would provide an ROI that >>>> justified the huge cost of the infrastructure in addition to any >>>> additional >>>> cost to vehicle owners. >>> >>> >>> STOP GIVING THEM IDEAS!!! >>> >>> Glad you work in RE now!!! ;) >>> >>> >>> >> LOL! Fortunately, the infrastructure cost to provide instant >> notification >> as soon as a vehicle's MIL comes on would be hard to justify. > > With things the way they are now, yeah. Good thing they didn't have this > tech in the 50's... > > Would have been very easily done as they were building the Interstate > highway system... > > But, you have to remember, most data comm and fiber optics are laid > alongside the Interstate highways... > I think a potentially more useful technology would be for a way for nearby businesses to transmit info to vehicles like fuel availability and prices, restaurants, traffic info, hospitals, and other POI info. -- Ray O (correct punctuation to reply)
From: Ray O on 2 Jan 2010 00:25
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hhlhip$usl$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "Ray O" <rokigawa(a)NOSPAMtristarassociates.com> wrote in message > news:hhlfnu$7lr$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> >> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:hhjk4r$6iu$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> >> <snipped> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Fault codes are already available to anybody and everybody, even people >>>> who don't know how to interpret them, through OBD I and II. >>>> -- >>> >>> There is diagnostic data that isn't available through OBD, and this is a >>> problem because it forces people to the dealership for services that >>> could be done by whomever people want to pay, or done by the car owner >>> himself. >>> >>> I was just reading in the paper yesterday or the day before that >>> independent service centers do not have access to the same vehicle data >>> that the dealerships have, and the dealerships (automakers) are refusing >>> the notion that the customer has a right to it. The automakers are >>> saying that the data is proprietary, and the owners are saying it ought >>> not be. I side with the owners on this one. >>> >>> If there is vehicle data that is stored which helps diagnose problems, >>> then that data should be stored in a uniform manner and be made >>> available to anybody that wants to see it. It's my car, it's my data. If >>> my data helps the dealership fix my car, then my data should be >>> available to me so I can fix my car. >>> >> As a former district service manager, I can assure you that there is no >> secret data in a car that is not available to anyone who is willing to >> invest in the proper diagnostic equipment and information. The data is >> not available to anyone who is willing to invest in the special equipment >> needed to retrieve it. The last sentence should have read "The data is **now** available..." The dilemma for independents is that if they want >> to work on 10 different brands, they have to buy the equipment for 10 >> different brands, while a Toyota dealer only has to buy equipment for >> Toyota, therefore automakers should give the info to the independents so >> they don't have to spend so much money to service so many brands. >> > > That argument drags us back to the days of OBD I, where the data was > available, but the format and location of the data port, and the method of > extraction, caused service costs associated with the investment in the > training and specialized equipment needed. The entire purpose of OBD II > was to make the data uniform so it could be extracted. Now there is more > data that is in unique and disparate formats and locations that require > specialized training and equipment to get at it. Just like the data in OBD > I. > The entire purpose of OBD II was to make it easier for emissions monitoring and testing agencies to monitor vehicle emissions and top monitor more causes and sources of emissions. A side benefit was that consumers could now purchase one scan tool to pull codes instead of sacfrificing a paper clip to jumper to test connector terminals, and the scan tools gave a readout of codes instead of making the person doing the diagnostics count flashes. I dunno - the paper clip in my tool box cost fractions of a penny, while my OBD II scan tool cost a thousand times more than the paper clip > Even if an independent Toyota Service center only works on Toyota cars and > trucks, it's probable that the equipment needed to extract the data is > costly beyond the realm of normal and customary costs to operate a garage. > These costs cannot be reasonably borne by a guy that has the skill set > needed to work on his own car -- which is one of the issues with OBD I > that was fixed under OBD II. Automakers made the same argument(s) under > OBD I that they are making now -- it's our data and we don't have to share > it. > > > > >> If you apply the same logic to medical care, it would be like saying an >> individual's physical symptoms are the individual's property, and >> therefore the individual should not have to pay for an interpretation of >> the symptoms; the person who took high school health class and has >> extensive experience providing first aid should be able to provide the >> same diagnostic service as a doctor without having to pay for the >> equipment and education because that is too expensive. >> > > There's nothing wrong with paying to interpret the symptoms, but the > patient is not forced to church to get them. He can go to any doctor to > get the diagnostic and interpretation of it. > > > >> The automakers require dealers to have a minimum level of special service >> tools, but those tools are available to anyone who wants to buy them. >> Service manuals and access to on line service manuals are also available >> tot anyone who is willing to pay for them. >> -- > > They made the same argument about the diagnostics available under OBD I. > > The problem was that the CONSUMER was charged a C-note just to extract the > data because the test equipment was expensive and the training was unique. > Not only was it unique from brand to brand, it was sometimes unique from > model to model within the same brand! CONSUMERS were being raped under OBD > I because of the unique quality of where and how to gain access to the > data. > > Now -- due to the wonder of advanced technology -- there is even more > repair data that is collected and stored, beyond the OBD data or enhanced > OBD data, yet this data goes backward to the days of yesteryear because it > is uniquely located and formatted so that the data is different from maker > to maker, and maybe from model to model within the same maker. CONSUMERS > are being raped, again. > > Differences between manufacturers will never go away unless consumers want politicians, most of whom probably don't even change their own oil, to start designing cars and and telling automakers what features and methods of implementation to use. If the standardization you want came to pass, a BMW could,'t unlock the doors, turn off the radio, and turn on the dome light and emegrency flashers after an accident because the software, hardware, and logic controllers are unique and require different diagnostic skills and tools from the airbag in a Kia. -- Ray O (correct punctuation to reply) |