disruptive technology - following standards - Fuel Economy, Hypermiling, EcoModding News and Forum

e*clipse · 10-30-2016, 02:29 AM

As an introduction to the topic, I just bought a 2013 Fiat 500e.

It's an awesome fun little EV with a 24kWh liquid-cooled battery pack and an 83kW BLDC motor. It's quick and sporty and has a 90mile range - actually better than the Leaf!

The down side is that it has had some random shut-down problems that can only be fixed by bringing it to the dealer for re-programming.

No big deal right - I mean, I'm an Ecomodder.

I'll just plug in my OBD scanner and see what's going on, right?

NOOOOOOO!!!!! After a bit of research, I found that's a good way to "brick" the car!

In fact, that has happened to two people, one who was driving down the freeway at the time.

That's right - according to the engineer who did the original programming, the CEO of Chrysler apparantly wanted to make sure the car COULDN'T be worked on by anyone else.

Because EV's are not "emissions vehicles," they don't have to comply with the OBD2 standards. This is why EV's are not accessable by standard OBD2 scanners.

Anyone who has worked with both IC cars and EV's knows that EV's are actually simpler than modern IC engines. It should be possible to use the existing CAN bus technology to communicate with both IC and EV systems.

It seems Chrysler is using their same proprietary communication devices for the Fiat 500's. In other words, the hardware is the same, there's just something in the software to insure various commands absolutely DON'T go to the 500e's controller.

They are using this simple fact to scare people away from attempting to tune the car or fix things.

The truth behind this is that it is only the CAN messages that are causing both the intermittent problems AND the problems with standard OBD2 scanners. The controller's lack of CAN filtering ability is giving certain random CAN messages too high of a priority - one that will completely shut down the controller.

A good solution to the problem would be to log what's going on before the problem occurs. This would be possible with an off the shelf OBD2 data logger. However, this is not possible because of the STUPID decisions made by the CEO to ensure the car won't be a success.

So, the disruptive technology is to back-engineer the controller and other modules so that they will operate off standard OBD2 CAN messages. Thoughts?

There are many CAN messages used by IC engines that will never be used in an EV. If the EV community could get together and agree on which ones to "share" the whole process could be pretty easy. Thoughts?

- E*clipse

oil pan 4 · 10-30-2016, 11:14 AM

So an EVs drive line should have been simpler to work on than ICE drive line. But the manufacturers made sure that wasn't the case.
The more I lean about mass market electric vehicles the less I like them.

Fingie · 10-30-2016, 11:49 AM

that's why I've thought about schooling myself in EV technology.

Last self-fixability gets taken away.

Piotrsko · 10-30-2016, 11:59 AM

end of world life threatening theories abound. ignore them especially if they are internet derived.

mostly I believe you have a propriety can bus communication system that does not pass all millions of sensor data to the el cheapo scanner you possess. Heck, my 2000 F250 has 497 sensors that only a dedicated ford diesel scanner will detect. No doubt chrysler has the same style of implementation. your honda (slur intended) based scanner just is talking in pigdin while the car is full oxford english.

get a decent ELM 327 obd dongle and a decent CAN sniffer application. I like and use Torque for OBD2, I don't have anything CAN, yet.

jamesqf · 10-30-2016, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piotrsko

mostly I believe you have a propriety can bus communication system that does not pass all millions of sensor data to the el cheapo scanner you possess.

Having non-readable information on the bus is one thing, allowing ANY external input - whether from an "el cheapo" scanner or a hacker - to do bad things to the vehicle is quite another.

e*clipse · 10-30-2016, 02:12 PM

I won't be able to say anything more, as I am currently picking up the car.

The "theories" were based on statements made by folks who actually did plug the scanners in. The "theory" was posted by a real engineer who actually developed the system. I'm not sure one can get more real than that.

You have no idea what scanner I possess.

If you're willing to brick a car based on your unrealated "experience" with your pickup, have fun!!!

Having to drag a car 100 miles to the nearest tech who can fix my problem and then pay $500 for the favor is not my idea of fun.

I have used several scanners, for communication with a VW diesel, a Toyota V6, and my Honda Insight. They worked fine for everything but the VW diesel. Fortunately, they didn't cause problems with the VW. That is a perfect example of what I am attempting to say here - one should be able to plug in a generic scanner and NOT damage the system.

The suggestion of obtaining a good CAN sniffer is definitely a good idea.

It's going to require a lot of backing out what the CAN codes actually mean.

- E*clipse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piotrsko

end of world life threatening theories abound. ignore them especially if they are internet derived.

mostly I believe you have a propriety can bus communication system that does not pass all millions of sensor data to the el cheapo scanner you possess. Heck, my 2000 F250 has 497 sensors that only a dedicated ford diesel scanner will detect. No doubt chrysler has the same style of implementation. your honda (slur intended) based scanner just is talking in pigdin while the car is full oxford english.

get a decent ELM 327 obd dongle and a decent CAN sniffer application. I like and use Torque for OBD2, I don't have anything CAN, yet.

e*clipse · 11-01-2016, 04:35 PM

Exactly.

Kind of like someone barging in, speaking "pidgin" and freaking out a roomful of sophisticated Chrysler people speaking "full oxford english." The solution of the sophisticated Chrysler people? PANIC throw your hands in the air and run out of the room!!

- E*clipse

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Having non-readable information on the bus is one thing, allowing ANY external input - whether from an "el cheapo" scanner or a hacker - to do bad things to the vehicle is quite another.

redpoint5 · 11-01-2016, 11:27 PM

I would catapult my Fiat into their headquarters before I paid $500 to fix something that shouldn't have broken in the first place, especially since you didn't try something unreasonable. There should be a warning in big red letters if connecting a typical OBD2 reader to it will cause it to brick. Heck, there should be an orange cap with a warning imprinted on it.

That said, I assume EV comm protocols to progress like all emerging tech, which is to say that they will initially have proprietary protocols until clear winners and standards emerge. Even then, you will likely have some weirdo manufacturers that refuse to utilize industry accepted standards. I'm thinking of the Apple car here. They will invent their own stuff instead of utilizing USB so they can make another fortune in the accessory market. We'll all run out and buy the Apple car, because a single button is sexy and within our technical ability to operate.