Anyone heard of OBD III?
in [Toyota]
|
Prev: {BS} "The system worked."
Next: TSA - Pathetic, really
From: aarcuda69062 on 2 Jan 2010 09:52 In article <hhm6fs$ii9$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Can't even begin to imagine where you got that notion. > > > > OBD I gave us the emissions data, just like OBD II gives us. You really are dead set on intending to prove how little you've bothered to learn about this, aren't you? First of all, there is/was no such thing as OBD I. There was nothing prior to OBD II that gave us anything "just like OBD II gives us," There were no widespread post cat oxygen sensors, there were no widespread vent solenoids on the EVAP systems, there were no widespread misfire monitors, there were no standards for oxygen sensor monitoring and response time tied to failure detection. There was no mandated malfunction indicator light. In many state run IM programs, an illuminated SES or CE light was not an automatic emissions failure. > A major > complaint was that the data port It was not a "major complaint." It was something that 'could' be standardized. The reason for standardization had less to do with you or any other DIYer and a whole lot more to do with making things easier for the attendants at emissions test stations in states that run IM programs because they have land areas that are designated as non-attainment areas and the federal Government will withhold federal highway funds if they don't make an effort to comply. > and method of extraction was widely > varried, and the data was different. OBD II standardized the structure and > location of the data, This one I'll give you. (limited as that data may be) > it expanded the data too, but we're not discussing > that aspect of the specification. It did not expand the data. if anything, the SAE standards regarding transmitted data was a huge step backwards, but it was felt to be sufficient for the task proposed which was quick and simple emissions testing utilizing the sensors and processor carried onboard the vehicle. > The entire point of OBD II was to standardize the data and the means to > extract it And that has been done. The reason you are having such trouble with it now 15 years later is because you never did and still don't understand what it was intended to do. OBD II is/was/never will be intended for total vehicle diagnostics. > so that CONSUMERS were not raped by the repair center. Hogwash.
From: Jeff Strickland on 2 Jan 2010 14:46 "aarcuda69062" <nonelson(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:nonelson-94C841.08525702012010(a)news.eternal-september.org... > In article <hhm6fs$ii9$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > Can't even begin to imagine where you got that notion. >> > >> >> OBD I gave us the emissions data, just like OBD II gives us. > > You really are dead set on intending to prove how little you've bothered > to learn about this, aren't you? > First of all, there is/was no such thing as OBD I. > There was nothing prior to OBD II that gave us anything "just The original emission system diagnostics is commonly called OBD I. Sometimes it's just OBD. like OBD > II gives us," There were no widespread post cat oxygen sensors, there > were no widespread vent solenoids on the EVAP systems, there were no > widespread misfire monitors, there were no standards for oxygen sensor > monitoring and response time tied to failure detection. There was no > mandated malfunction indicator light. In many state run IM programs, an > illuminated SES or CE light was not an automatic emissions failure. > This is true, but beside the point. The issue is that the cars from 1981 to 1995 collected and stored diagnostic data that could be used to troubleshoot emissions problems. The fact that the system was limited in its function and features really isn't the point here. The real point is that the new components were difficult to diagnose because they were not standardized, and the resulting chaos was charged back to the consumer. >> A major >> complaint was that the data port > > It was not a "major complaint." It was something that 'could' be > standardized. THAT was the complaint. The data could be standardized, but was not. The reason for standardization had less to do with you or > any other DIYer and a whole lot more to do with making things easier for > the attendants at emissions test stations in states that run IM programs > because they have land areas that are designated as non-attainment areas > and the federal Government will withhold federal highway funds if they > don't make an effort to comply. > >> and method of extraction was widely >> varried, and the data was different. OBD II standardized the structure >> and >> location of the data, > > This one I'll give you. (limited as that data may be) > >> it expanded the data too, but we're not discussing >> that aspect of the specification. > > It did not expand the data. if anything, the SAE standards regarding > transmitted data was a huge step backwards, but it was felt to be > sufficient for the task proposed which was quick and simple emissions > testing utilizing the sensors and processor carried onboard the vehicle. > You just got finished saying that the early systems did not have post-CAT O2 sensors, now you are saying that adding them did not expand the data that OBD II provides. OBD II has a wealth of data that OBD I could not dream of capturing.
From: Jeff Strickland on 2 Jan 2010 14:58 "Ray O" <rokigawa(a)NOSPAMtristarassociates.com> wrote in message news:hhmlto$o8o$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:hhlhip$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 > But the paper clip in your tool box doesn't work on all cars and trucks sold. And the data strings that are produced are not all the same. And the location of the port where you connect the paper clip is not located in the same place. And ... >> 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. > That's not true at all. Nobody wants a feature stripped in the name of standardization. At least not me. There's no reason that in the name of standardization that some cars can turn the radio off and the dome lights on in an emergency, or lock and unlock the doors from afar. Using the argument you raised, we would have to remove cigarette lighters from cars until the cars that don't have them yet get them. Or, remove electric windows until no car has hand-crank windows. There's no reason a transmission can't have sensors inside that report the condition of various components, and there be a connector that allows a standard piece of test equipment to read what the sensors have to say. Some transmissions might not have the sensors, but so what? If the sensor is there, the means to extract the data it holds should and could be uniform. To suggest that only the data stored in the Engine Control Unit, or SOME of that data, is in the public domain while other kinds of data are proprietary is absurd on a good day.
From: Ray O on 2 Jan 2010 18:29 "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hho8ic$q5e$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "Ray O" <rokigawa(a)NOSPAMtristarassociates.com> wrote in message > news:hhmlto$o8o$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> >> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:hhlhip$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 >> > > But the paper clip in your tool box doesn't work on all cars and trucks > sold. And the data strings that are produced are not all the same. And the > location of the port where you connect the paper clip is not located in > the same place. And ... > You are complaining in the wrong group. Prior to OBD II , for Toyotas, the paper clip worked in all vehicles with an on-board engine control computer, the data port was located in the same place as the OBD II ports are now located except for pre-Sienna vans (the data port was right next to the engine access hatch under the driver's seat, and if you could see and count, the data stream was in the same format for all Toyotas. IOW, Toyota's OBD has always had the uniformity you are wishing for. For other automakers, the only places I've noticed data ports was under the driver's side of the dash and next to the engine compartment fuse box. Have you found them in other places? <snipped> >>> >> 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. >> > > That's not true at all. Nobody wants a feature stripped in the name of > standardization. At least not me. There's no reason that in the name of > standardization that some cars can turn the radio off and the dome lights > on in an emergency, or lock and unlock the doors from afar. Sure there is. BMW developed a body control computer that in addition to performing emergency functions, provides convenience functions like the ability to close windows from outside the drivers door, controls courtesy lights, auto window functions, etc. Do you think that BMW is going to give away that intellectual property to every other auto maker so that an independent garage that competes with their service departments doesn't have to invest in same equipment that their dealers had to? Automakers are not going to invest in development of technology that they have to give away, and they are not going to want to pay another automaker for royalties on something they could develop themselves for less money unless a big brother government made them. > Using the argument you raised, we would have to remove cigarette lighters > from cars until the cars that don't have them yet get them. Or, remove > electric windows until no car has hand-crank windows. I was talking about features that are controlled by a computer. Did you know that power windows and door locks, climate control systems, sunroofs, etc. are controlled by computers and logic controllers in most newer vehicles? > > There's no reason a transmission can't have sensors inside that report the > condition of various components, and there be a connector that allows a > standard piece of test equipment to read what the sensors have to say. > Some transmissions might not have the sensors, but so what? If the sensor > is there, the means to extract the data it holds should and could be > uniform. Transmission sensors are already uniform under OBD II and are accessible with and OBD II scanner. > > To suggest that only the data stored in the Engine Control Unit, or SOME > of that data, is in the public domain while other kinds of data are > proprietary is absurd on a good day. > All data, up to and including data that is used by dealership service departments and regional/zone/area service personnel, is in the public domain, including data that most independent shops and many service departments don't know how to use, even proprietary data. The only data that is not shared is data that is not needed for diagnostic purposes. In reading the context of your sentence, it seems as if you think that "proprietary" data is not available to consumers, but that is not the case. Proprietary data is available in the public domain for anyone willing to pay for access to the databases. For Toyota and Lexus, the cost for access is $15 per day, which seems reasonable to me. Most systems that require the use of special diagnostic equipment is stuff that most personnel at places like quick lube places, and probably 90%+ of shade tree mechanics don't have the fundamental understanding to understand and interpret what they would be seeing anyway. For example, how many people on the street understand the logic behind the controllers on a Pries? How many people on the street can name the conditions under which a vehicle is or is not under closed loop operation? -- Ray O (correct punctuation to reply)
From: Jeff Strickland on 2 Jan 2010 21:50
"Ray O" <rokigawa(a)NOSPAMtristarassociates.com> wrote in message news:hhol1m$iv3$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:hho8ic$q5e$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> >> "Ray O" <rokigawa(a)NOSPAMtristarassociates.com> wrote in message >> news:hhmlto$o8o$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> >>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> news:hhlhip$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 >>> >> >> But the paper clip in your tool box doesn't work on all cars and trucks >> sold. And the data strings that are produced are not all the same. And >> the location of the port where you connect the paper clip is not located >> in the same place. And ... >> > > You are complaining in the wrong group. Prior to OBD II , for Toyotas, > the paper clip worked in all vehicles with an on-board engine control > computer, the data port was located in the same place as the OBD II ports > are now located except for pre-Sienna vans (the data port was right next > to the engine access hatch under the driver's seat, and if you could see > and count, the data stream was in the same format for all Toyotas. IOW, > Toyota's OBD has always had the uniformity you are wishing for. For other > automakers, the only places I've noticed data ports was under the driver's > side of the dash and next to the engine compartment fuse box. Have you > found them in other places? > My Ford Bronco had the data port in the engine bay, near the power brake booster. My Mazda hasn't got a data port that comes to mind. My BMW has the data port in the engine bay on the right side shock tower. All have a different connector. All take a different tool to extract the data -- actually, I'm not sure how to get the data out of the Mazda, and the BMW takes a special tool that costs hundreds of dollars and can only be used on BMW, and the Ford can use a tool that only fits Ford, but one can buy the tool for $35-ish of one can tolerate blinking lights and transferring them to a code number for look up. You're getting off on a wild tangent. All I'm saying is that there is data in latge model OBD II cars that is useful in diagnosing problems in the drive train. This data takes unique equipment to extract, and the automakers are making a claim that the data is theirs, not the consumers'. I disagree with that position. Any and all data that the car can make is the property of the car owner not the car maker, and as such, that data should be available to the car owner or his agent -- who may not be the dealership service technician. |