[carguy55]

GM's idea of a performance part is a different color engine cover. Ford's idea is a supercharger that gives 700hp and still has a warranty!

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by cmitchell17

With Global A GM vehicles, GEN 5 Camaro+, any control module is somehow locked to the VIN. I'm not sure how but before a module will talk to all other modules it has to be programmed through GM TIS web service which goes to a server and somehow allows the ECM to talk. So if you got a junkyard ECM to swap in it wouldn't work unless you connected it to GM TIS. I think the subscription to GM TIS is thousands of dollars per year.

I guess if you got a subscription or found someone or got a dealer to flash a spare PCM to your vehicle you maybe could do it? I would like to know if anyone knows any way around this?

With the 2019+ you have this security and any calibration written to the PCM has to have a encrypted digital signature before the ECM will accept it. This encryption is basically impossible to break, but yet GM still has a budget for their racing development programs even though they now have security that makes tuning impossible.

Software engineer here, not automotive, but still. Unfortunately the technical aspects of creating near unbreakable lockdowns have become trivial, my bet is the actual decision is driven by liability concerns and made by either legal or legal+marketing.

If this info about the 2019's is correct, this is pretty much the end of the road for PCM tuning, at least technologically. There's always the last ditch effort of exploiting bugs or oversights, as well as social engineering and the hope therein, though.

[DatBrotato]

Originally Posted by cmitchell17

With Global A GM vehicles, GEN 5 Camaro+, any control module is somehow locked to the VIN. I'm not sure how but before a module will talk to all other modules it has to be programmed through GM TIS web service which goes to a server and somehow allows the ECM to talk. So if you got a junkyard ECM to swap in it wouldn't work unless you connected it to GM TIS. I think the subscription to GM TIS is thousands of dollars per year.

I guess if you got a subscription or found someone or got a dealer to flash a spare PCM to your vehicle you maybe could do it? I would like to know if anyone knows any way around this?

With the 2019+ you have this security and any calibration written to the PCM has to have a encrypted digital signature before the ECM will accept it. This encryption is basically impossible to break, but yet GM still has a budget for their racing development programs even though they now have security that makes tuning impossible.

I guess the bean counters reasoned that the money saved from a drop in warranty claims by disabling tuning outweighs the money lost from losing prospective buyers(due to not being able to tune)

[cmitchell17]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

Software engineer here, not automotive, but still. Unfortunately the technical aspects of creating near unbreakable lockdowns have become trivial, my bet is the actual decision is driven by liability concerns and made by either legal or legal+marketing.

If this info about the 2019's is correct, this is pretty much the end of the road for PCM tuning, at least technologically. There's always the last ditch effort of exploiting bugs or oversights, as well as social engineering and the hope therein, though.

'

Thanks for the insight, i'm a mechanical engineer. But yes without someone on the inside giving the key to unlock the signature, I guess it should be 100% impossible.

Technically PCM tuning has always been not allowed ever since the government mandated ODBII. ODBII requires that there is security that prevents a non factory calibration from being written. Thankfully its easily crack able until now. Do we have any hope left?

[JamesNoBrakes]

4,370-pound curb weight puts it way down on torque compared to the Camaro, at the price of the Lexus, it should be a twin turbo V8 like Mercedes/BMW/Audi. Going to need more low-end torque IMO. Not in an attempt to beat the Camaro, just to really be up there performance wise for the weight IMO. That would make it a much better GT, even if the suspension remains softer and the weight is still there.

[oldman]

Originally Posted by carguy55

GM's idea of a performance part is a different color engine cover. Ford's idea is a supercharger that gives 700hp and still has a warranty!

You can go right now today and roll a camaro with supercharger, with a much longer than Fords 1 year if installed by Ford dealer hype. It is called the Zl1, plus you can actually race the zl1 and still have a warranty and it won’t even overheat, what a concept

[mbnwa]

Originally Posted by cmitchell17

'

Thanks for the insight, i'm a mechanical engineer. But yes without someone on the inside giving the key to unlock the signature, I guess it should be 100% impossible.

Technically PCM tuning has always been not allowed ever since the government mandated ODBII. ODBII requires that there is security that prevents a non factory calibration from being written. Thankfully its easily crack able until now. Do we have any hope left?

According to the U.S. Copyright Office’s “Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies”, manufactures should not be able to keep a owner from modifying the car (yes they can void the warranty) unless it directly relates to "control of telematics or entertainment systems"

Page 65953 / 69594
Proposed Class 21: This proposed class would allow circumvention of TPMs protecting computer programs that control the functioning of a motorized land vehicle, including personal automobiles, commercial motor vehicles, and agricultural machinery, for purposes of lawful diagnosis and repair, or aftermarket personalization, modification, or other improvement. Under the exemption as proposed, circumvention would be allowed when undertaken by or on behalf of the lawful owner of the vehicle.

Proponents explained that circumvention of TPMs protecting copyrighted computer programs in ECUs may be necessary to make noninfringing uses of those programs to diagnose and repair automobiles and agricultural equipment, and to make modifications, such as enhancing a vehicle's suspension or installing a gear with a different radius. They assert that vehicle owners are entitled to use the computer programs in ECUs to diagnose, repair or modify vehicles as a matter of fair use, or under section 117. EFF argues that absent an exemption, vehicle owners must take their cars to authorized repair shops, or purchase expensive manufacturer-authorized tools, to diagnose and repair their vehicles. Similarly, IPTC U.S.C. explained that TPMs restricting access to computer programs that run agricultural vehicles and machinery place the livelihoods of farmers and other business owners at risk, because vehicle owners must sometimes wait significant periods of time before their disabled vehicles can be repaired by an authorized technician.

The proposed exemption was opposed by the Association of Equipment Manufacturers, Association of Global Automakers (“Global Automakers”), Auto Alliance, Eaton Corporation, GM, John Deere, and Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (“MEMA”). In general, opponents argued that an exemption would not facilitate noninfringing uses, and was unnecessary in any event because vehicle owners have alternative options, such as manufacturer-authorized repair shops and tools. They also asserted that the proposal presented serious public health, safety and environmental concerns. For example, users might circumvent in order to avoid restrictions on vehicle emissions imposed by federal and state law.

In light of the commenters' observations, the Copyright Office notified DOT and EPA of the pendency of the rulemaking. DOT and EPA, as well as California ARB, responded with varying degrees of concern about the potential impact of an exemption. EPA opposed any exemption, while DOT and California ARB expressed significant reservations. The agencies' concerns were focused on potential adverse effects on safety and the environment. For example, EPA explained that vehicle modifications are often performed to increase engine power or boost fuel economy, but that these modifications increase vehicle emissions and thus violate the Clean Air Act.

In contrast to these other agencies, NTIA fully supported adoption of the proposed exemption. NTIA believed that an exemption was necessary to allow consumers to continue to engage in the longstanding practice of working on their own vehicles, and that the non-copyright concerns raised by opponents and other agencies could be addressed by those agencies in the exercise of their respective regulatory authorities. NTIA acknowledged, however, that a delay in implementation—as recommended by the Register and discussed below—might nonetheless be appropriate to permit other agencies to consider and prepare for the new rule, and urged that any such delay be as short as practicable.

Based on the record, the Register recommended granting an exemption. The Register concluded that reproducing and altering the computer programs on ECUs for purposes of facilitating diagnosis, repair and modification of vehicles may constitute a noninfringing activity as a matter of fair use and/or under the exception set forth in section 117 of the Copyright Act, which permits the owner of a copy of a computer program to make certain copies and adaptations of the program. The Register also concluded that owners of vehicles and agricultural machinery are adversely impacted as a result of TPMs that protect the copyrighted computer programs on the ECUs that control the functioning of their vehicles. The Register further found that while two of the statutory factors weighed in favor of the exemption (availability for use of copyrighted works and impact on criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship or research), and two of the factors were neutral (availability for use for nonprofit archival, preservation and educational purposes and the effect on the market for or value of copyrighted works), the fifth factor—under which commenting parties and federal agencies raised serious safety and environmental concerns—tended to weigh against an exemption.

Overall, the Register concluded that while from a copyright perspective proponents had made the case for an exemption, based on the record, the exemption needed to be carefully tailored to address a number of concerns. Accordingly, the recommended exemption excludes computer programs in ECUs that are chiefly designed to operate vehicle entertainment and telematics systems due to insufficient evidence demonstrating a need to access such ECUs, and out of concern that such circumvention might enable unauthorized access to creative or proprietary content. The exemption also excludes circumvention “on behalf of” vehicle owners, as a broader exception allowing third parties to engage in circumvention activities on behalf of others is in tension with the anti-trafficking provisions of section 1201(a)(2) and (b). Moreover, by passing the Unlocking Act—which amended section 1201 to allow unlocking of cellphones and other devices to be carried out by third parties “at the direction of” device owners—Congress indicated its view that extending the reach of an exemption to cover third-party actors requires a legislative amendment. The exemption also expressly excludes acts of circumvention that would violate any other law, including regulations promulgated by DOT or EPA. Finally, in light of the significant concerns raised by DOT and EPA, the recommended exemption will become operative twelve months from the effective date of the new regulation to provide these and other potentially interested agencies an opportunity to consider and prepare for the lifting of the DMCA prohibition. Acknowledging the views of the NTIA, the Register determined that a twelve-month delay was the shortest period that would reasonably permit other agencies to consider appropriate action.

Accordingly, based on the Register's recommendation, the Librarian adopts the following exemption:

Computer programs that are contained in and control the functioning of a motorized land vehicle such as a personal automobile, commercial motor vehicle or mechanized agricultural vehicle, except for computer programs primarily designed for the control of telematics or entertainment systems for such vehicle, when circumvention is a necessary step undertaken by the authorized owner of the vehicle to allow the diagnosis, repair or lawful modification of a vehicle function; and where such circumvention does not constitute a violation of applicable law, including without limitation regulations promulgated by the Department of Start Transportation or the Environmental Protection Agency; and provided, however, that such circumvention is initiated no earlier than 12 months after the effective date of this regulation.

[cmitchell17]

Well that's interesting, but I still think legally anytime you change anything in the calibration, the car is no longer "certified" to be emissions compliant. It should be where you can do it as long as it passes an emmisions test. Luckly I'm not in a state that does testing.

My main question is how hard is it to tune other manufactures cars, like Toyotas and BMWs etc. I know someone restoring a z3 BMW and he claims there is all kinds of aftermarket support for flashing other modules , and that GM stuff is actually the hardest to find support, even though they have EFI Live and HP Tuners. I would just like to know so I can no longer support GM. GM seems to have the "do gooder" driverless car mentality, which will definitely mean harder access to customization just due to liability and cars connected to the internet.

[cooper1965]

I've said it before, but in my opinion.. .. GM is, and has been,. some of the more difficult PCM's to modify. But,. it doesn't stop there. Its the system in its entirety, with the heart being the HMI. "IF" someone could figure out BCM tuning, it would go a LONG way....

[Boost or bust]

Originally Posted by cooper1965

I've said it before, but in my opinion.. .. GM is, and has been,. some of the more difficult PCM's to modify. But,. it doesn't stop there. Its the system in its entirety, with the heart being the HMI. "IF" someone could figure out BCM tuning, it would go a LONG way....

GM can tell if it was reflashed.

[20181le]

As stated flash counter will get you

[JonD]

That’s not a “tuner” I’d let play a game on my phone let alone tune a car

[TJay74]

Your tuner is full of it, the CVN # is unique to each tune. The OEM tune has a certain CVN #, when you tune the car it generates a unique CVN #.

That used to be the loophole to getting around being tuned, was to flash the OEM tune back into the car so the CVN values would match what was known in the system when the car left the factory. Then the manufactures got smart and added flash counters to the vehicles, so even if you put the tune back stock so the CVN value matched the flash counter would tell the tale then.

You have to pay to play, if you are worried about tunes and warranty then leave the car stock.

[Chris C 1SS 1LE]

Both my 4th gens I had two ECUs reading this said to myself I still have my second and custom tuned box for my Z28? And why... Turns out I pitched it a bit ago. Had the OEM box tuned by Ed Wright in Tulsa. Some legacy LT1 guys may know that name. Bought a second box with a mail order tune. Just swap them out.

Firehawk OEM box was left alone. Bought another box for the dyno tune. In case I needed to could put the OEM box back in.