Anyone into DIY ECU tuning?

[carbonBLUE]

Originally Posted by SkullWorks

the whole OPEN source ECU is interesting, and i actually believe it does mean that Toyota will release RAM addresses for (at least some) look up tables, there are companies that do this anyway so I can see toyota doing this to help ensure tuners atleast have good info that they weren't gorged for.


Now for the bad news, in the US (california for sure) you aren't allowed to have a programmable ECU, so for the US market (all have california code that i have seen) we will be getting locked ECU's, atleast as far as plug and tune via Toyota (or subaru) supported channels.

But don't worry I already have started on a soloution (full standalone) and I'm sure we will all benefit from whatever they layout for open source use.

or you can buy a new ecu from lets say, not cali and have it unlocked, switch ecus when you do inspection

[Genomaxter]

I dont live in Cali. I live in the larger part of the US where cars are free to be who they are and not what other people think they should be. You know, freedom.

[arghx7]

Originally Posted by SkullWorks

the whole OPEN source ECU is interesting, and i actually believe it does mean that Toyota will release RAM addresses for (at least some) look up tables, there are companies that do this anyway so I can see toyota doing this to help ensure tuners atleast have good info that they weren't gorged for.

Zero. Percent. Chance. They will not give away their intellectual property. There's a lot of wishful thinking in this thread.

What you have to realize about OpenECU is that both Mitsubishi and Subaru used similar hardware from the same supplier for their engine control module. So that made reverse engineering the hardware side easier.

Then maybe half a dozen people went through the trouble to disassemble the code and try to figure out memory addresses for logging data. Then they had to find actual maps and figure out what they did and what units they were in. On Subarus, there was one guy who did the largest amount of work (merchgod on Rom Raider forums). Cobb hired him, because they realized their biggest competition was a guy who did stuff for free. There are a couple really sharp guys who do similar OpenECU stuff with the Mitsu engines and have created modifications to the control logic.

Toyota spends millions of dollars developing their control systems. They won't give it away, not anything meaningful. If you want to log data on a FR-S they will tell you to go buy a dealer tool for a couple thousand dollars.

If you want to reflash the computer, they won't tell you what you can change or the hardware requirements needed to do so. Why should they when they could sell a special edition with a more aggressive tune? From their perspective, you're just going to damage things and increase warranty claims.

[AVOturboworld]

If it was really going to be that hard, then Cobb wouldn't have been able to make Accessports for the GTR. And you can bet they are already working on the Accessport for the BRZ/FRS. All the accessport is is a delivery vehicle for reflashing, the overall programming isn't terrible different from the opensource/romraider project. Thus the reason they hired Merchgod away (plus the need to try and shut it down somehow).

It won't happen overnight - but it will happen.

Regards,

Paul Hansen
www.avoturboworld.com
www.facebook.com/BRZSportsCarClub

[serialk11r]

Say, what do you experienced people think Toyota even means by an "unlocked ECU" (or whatever they said in the press conferences or whatever the rumors say)?

It would be pretty ridiculous and cool if it meant full access to literally everything, but that seems quite unlikely to me.

[AVOturboworld]

I've taken it to mean that they'll be working, at least partially, with companies like Cobb to provide some aftermarket tuning. Being able to tune for aftermarket parts is now necessary to fit nearly anything that affects the engine, and Toyota understands much better than Subaru that many potential owners would not be purchasing the car if they cannot modify it at all. If it was, say, a Corolla, that wouldn't be an issue. But this is an enthusiasts car through and through, and there's not many car enthusiasts out there that are going to leave their pride and joy totally stock.

There's quite a few cars out there that are popular because of the large availability of aftermarket parts. American makers know that much better than the Japanese makers, many of them release engineering details of certain models to aftermarket makers many months ahead of the actual car's release, just to make sure the aftermarket is ready to go.

Regards,

Paul Hansen
www.avoturboworld.com
www.facebook.com/BRZSportsCarClub

[SkullWorks]

Originally Posted by AVOturboworld

All ECU's are re-flashable at the dealer, so I'm not sure what you mean by not being allowed to have a programmable ECU. If that was the case, all of the current Subaru ECU's are illegal from the factory.

Standalones are great for making the most from a heavily built engine, but are not fun at all to program. If you are not going too far, reflashing the stock ecu is a lot easier and maintains a lot of the daily driver stuff that keeps it all sane.

Regards,

Paul Hansen
www.avoturboworld.com
www.facebook.com/BRZSportsCarClub

sorry "USER Programable"

running a full standalone in parallel with a stock ECU is a simple proposition, if you don't know this or think so you are not tuning street cars, i thought that would atleast be understood.

stock ECU's are great, I love modifying the stock hardware VS replacing it when at all possible,

there are channels that will produce all the info that will be needed and it will be available for purchase, if you pay, you can play, there are groups that do just this, it will be done.

[AVOturboworld]

This is probably a difference in definitions - in my view, a standalone means just that, stand alone ecu replacement. Running in parallel sounds like a piggyback system, like the perfect power, unichip and other systems.

Regards,

Paul Hansen
www.avoturboworld.com
www.facebook.com/BRZSportsCarClub

[arghx7]

using the term "piggyback" seems to ruffle some feathers when describing a parallel control unit arrangement

[Draco-REX]

Considering the strength of the Subaru opensource community, if the BRZ ECU is crackable, we'll see someone pick it apart relatively quickly.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by arghx7

using the term "piggyback" seems to ruffle some feathers when describing a parallel control unit arrangement

Parallel 'piggy back' MoTeC for example?

[SkullWorks]

Originally Posted by SkullWorks

sorry "USER Programable"

running a full standalone in parallel with a stock ECU is a simple proposition, if you don't know this or think so you are not tuning street cars, i thought that would atleast be understood.

Meant what I said.


there are alot of systems in a car best left to the stock ECU, it is not uncommon to leave an S200 ECU in place for: Push button start, throttle body control, dash interface...etc, then you have ALL of the fuel & Spark controlled by an AEM, Motec, Haltech, Vipec, whateverthefuctec...

a "piggy back" is generally just a fuel trim device that manipulates the ECU's signals to EITHER fuel or Spark...

and Yes the ECU will be hacked in short order, because that's what happens, no matter who's ECU it winds up being

[brufleth]

I develop control systems for engines that basically use car engine control system hardware. People are talking about all kinds of stuff in this thread.

Our systems generally require being put into boot mode to reflash them. That's done by shorting some pins into the ECU and cycling power. Typically that requires additional hardware and special loading protocols. Obviously this gets figured out for car ECUs all the time. I can't imagine a car company supporting consumers screwing with that and loading their own software though. The liability is just too great. We definitely do not support our customers mucking with the software. Sure they might own the engines but we have to certify them. On top of that we don't want to give our control algorithms away. To meet the requirements of the modern world (power, safety, efficiency, etc) engine controls are a complicated thing. It costs a significant amount of money to develop and build the control software. I can't imagine a company just giving that intellectual property all away. They'd at least make a token effort to secure it.