Facebook
Google
GitHub
Linkedin
Hacking your Deere tracktor.
- Thread starter shteii01
- Start date
Sounds like a political discussion.
This is exactly what I'm fighting in my Ford Explorer. It started years ago as, "Captive Parts" which could only be bought at a Dealership. Easy enough. That's what junk yards are for. Now it has evolved into, "You can't repair the car without paying a Dealership fee to change the computer program to allow you to replace the part". Just today I figured out you can't even roll up the windows without the speedometer installed. I'm trying to fix the dome light that never turns off and the obvious cure is $1000 for a whole instrument cluster replacement. I don't expect I can crack the PCM, but I can take ten or twenty functions out of the instrument cluster.
Anyway, the point is that the Manufacturer is acting in a way that is inconsistent with me being the owner of the car. There are dozens of parts with internal serial numbers that have to be entered into the onboard computers by the Dealership or the car will not start. This has nothing to do with safety or emissions. It is merely extortion to require a Dealership intervention to allow genuine Ford parts to be installed in a genuine Ford.
I expect Ford and John Deere are not the only manufacturers holding machines hostage after they have been bought and paid for.
Anyway, the point is that the Manufacturer is acting in a way that is inconsistent with me being the owner of the car. There are dozens of parts with internal serial numbers that have to be entered into the onboard computers by the Dealership or the car will not start. This has nothing to do with safety or emissions. It is merely extortion to require a Dealership intervention to allow genuine Ford parts to be installed in a genuine Ford.
I expect Ford and John Deere are not the only manufacturers holding machines hostage after they have been bought and paid for.
Are you sure the internal serial numbers were not an aid to deter theft? Stuff this crazy requires federal intervention to happen. I'd check the CFRs and USCs to see if the feds fat fingers are in this mix.
Remember ... the bureaucrats are from the government and they are here to help you.
That has to be one hell of a database Ford has on all their components.
Not surprising.
The big farmers I drive truck for in the fall have been 'chipping' their JD equipment every chance they get for fuel saving and performance for years.
One example is their huge tier 3 emission compliant combines. A simple reprogram can add enough horsepower to move ~10% more crop though while at the same time burning at least 10 - 15% less fuel to do it which for them was a fuel savings of over a 100+ gallons day plus getting 10 - 20 acres more crop in for it.
They say they run cooler and the oil samples they send out for testing always test cleaner for the same run times between change outs as well despite being ran harder. All from shutting down emissions related components and retuning for engine efficiency.
Not to hard to justify a $1500 black market program for a $150 - 300K+ machine when you can pay for it in a week just one fuel savings.
Last fall when I drove for them they had mostly new tier 4 emission compliant combines and they say they are just waiting for someone to come up with the software to retune them even if it costs $5000 a unit it will be worth it. #1 reason is the new tier 4 manchines have the worst fuel burn rates per bushel of crop put through them of anything created since the 1930's two cylinder powered tractors were in use.
The big farmers I drive truck for in the fall have been 'chipping' their JD equipment every chance they get for fuel saving and performance for years.
One example is their huge tier 3 emission compliant combines. A simple reprogram can add enough horsepower to move ~10% more crop though while at the same time burning at least 10 - 15% less fuel to do it which for them was a fuel savings of over a 100+ gallons day plus getting 10 - 20 acres more crop in for it.
They say they run cooler and the oil samples they send out for testing always test cleaner for the same run times between change outs as well despite being ran harder. All from shutting down emissions related components and retuning for engine efficiency.
Not to hard to justify a $1500 black market program for a $150 - 300K+ machine when you can pay for it in a week just one fuel savings.
Last fall when I drove for them they had mostly new tier 4 emission compliant combines and they say they are just waiting for someone to come up with the software to retune them even if it costs $5000 a unit it will be worth it. #1 reason is the new tier 4 manchines have the worst fuel burn rates per bushel of crop put through them of anything created since the 1930's two cylinder powered tractors were in use.
Last edited:
I don't think so. GM vehicles don't have this problem.
Well, a 1992 Federal Registry had this tidbit ...
The details in that "call for comments" in the 1992 registry will explain the details.
Then you can read the minimum requirements in 49 CFR Part 541 - FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT PREVENTION STANDARD
Do you agree that theft and parts prices have a proportional relationship?
How many pickup tailgates are stolen? I know I heard a number a few years back an it was more than I thought.
Last edited:
What's the difference between having my car stolen by chop-shop thieves and having a Dealership charge $1000 each for 6 bad microprocessors in a car that cost me $3000?
Both of them result in me not having the car.
You blamed FORD. They may rightfully need to brunt of the blame, but your political critters have their fat fingers into every aspect of your life to protect you ... since everyone requires government supervision. The problem is; we let this happen.
There are groups that call for the "federalization" of every problem, and the government responds to them because we the people haven't contradicted the "federalize the problem" groups.
Consider it a federal user fee .... which is not tax deductible.
Yay, nanny State.
[sarc/off]
As a near-lethal pragmatist, I can't get Ford to stop requiring my cash to allow me to repair my own car. I can't get the Federal Government to pay the fees they caused. I can defeat most of the microprocessors in my car. That's what I am working on.
You know the old, "Dog grant me" prayer?
Well, Dog granted me the ability to change the things I can, and I am.
You can work on the ones I can't change.
Here's an interesting fact: My 2005 is in the Ford top 3 most stolen year list.
© Ford Motor Company
Total thefts: 29,396
Most frequently stolen model years:
I wonder what the numbers are on, "Cars Junked for Dealership Fees".
Apparently nobody legislated the car thieves out of business.
They just changed which thieves.
The only thing that concerns me right now is whether my car gets stolen by a chop-shop or a Dealership, and the one I can do something about is the Dealership.
© Ford Motor Company
Total thefts: 29,396
Most frequently stolen model years:
- 2006
- 2004
- 2005
I wonder what the numbers are on, "Cars Junked for Dealership Fees".
Apparently nobody legislated the car thieves out of business.
They just changed which thieves.
The only thing that concerns me right now is whether my car gets stolen by a chop-shop or a Dealership, and the one I can do something about is the Dealership.
There ya' go ...
snowflake, a major contributor to the Senator: Bob, someone stole my car and it's on the most frequently stolen vehicle list. What can the you do to stop this.
Senator: Let me study it and I will figure something out.
Senator to Transportation and Justice: We need to fix the BIG problem of stolen vehicles. Figure out a way to track them and aggressively prosecute the bastards.
Transportation and Justice to Car companies: Help deter theft.
Ford: I know, we will tie all the electronics by ESN to the vehicle and if anything is replaced, the vehicle must be returned to a dealer to replace the part and enter the new ESN. Problem solved, and we keep our dealership mechanics game-fully employed. Problem solved. If the ESNs don't match, then we notify the police about the stolen vehicle.
Along comes #12, a competent, mechanically inclined, person who repairs his own car. #12 to Senator: WTF ... are you kidding me? I can't replace a part without disabling my used vehicle? What the hell were you thinking when you agreed to this stupid law?
The above is pure fiction, but when dealing with politicians, there is a high probability there are elements of the truth in the story.
snowflake, a major contributor to the Senator: Bob, someone stole my car and it's on the most frequently stolen vehicle list. What can the you do to stop this.
Senator: Let me study it and I will figure something out.
Senator to Transportation and Justice: We need to fix the BIG problem of stolen vehicles. Figure out a way to track them and aggressively prosecute the bastards.
Transportation and Justice to Car companies: Help deter theft.
Ford: I know, we will tie all the electronics by ESN to the vehicle and if anything is replaced, the vehicle must be returned to a dealer to replace the part and enter the new ESN. Problem solved, and we keep our dealership mechanics game-fully employed. Problem solved. If the ESNs don't match, then we notify the police about the stolen vehicle.
Along comes #12, a competent, mechanically inclined, person who repairs his own car. #12 to Senator: WTF ... are you kidding me? I can't replace a part without disabling my used vehicle? What the hell were you thinking when you agreed to this stupid law?
The above is pure fiction, but when dealing with politicians, there is a high probability there are elements of the truth in the story.
I don't believe it's fiction.
And I don't expect any change, except more of the same.
There is a lot of cash flow in having Dealerships tax the repairs on cars they don't own, and it's basically, "found" money. They don't even have to do the repairs. They just tax the vehicle after I repaired it.
Mine is 12 years old now, it's still the third most stolen year of Ford, and it's technically "totaled" by the fees I would have to pay a Dealership to allow my repairs.
Conclusion: The ESN method to prevent theft did not work, it merely enabled another player in the car theft business. That's why the most recent Internet term for Dealership is, "Stealership".
As an aside, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that serious car thieves (besides the Dealerships) have the necessary software to adjust the ESN lists. The real problem, as I see it, is that all levels of serious car thieves have the software, and legitimate vehicle owners don't. In the end, it's just a method to victimize the honest owners. It obviously hasn't victimized the car thieves.
The standard you referenced is for 'hard parts', doors, fenders, tail gates and such. No mention of electronics.
"The standard specifies that each manufacturer that is the original producer that installs or assembles the covered major parts on a line shall designate a target area for the identifying numbers to be marked on each major part."
From, https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...deral-motor-vehicle-theft-prevention-standard
And you will note that that is the MINIMUM ... and there is NO Maximum listed.
I'm betting that was written before the massive electronics implementation and the capabilities that rendered #12 to rant ON.
Does that bring this back around to: Ford created the system of making electronic parts, "captive" with no pressure from the government?
Rant? Did I come across as disjointed or emotional? I thought I was just informing whatever audience we have of the situation which is evolving in the automotive industry. Vehicles are being held hostage by their manufacturers who install, "proprietary" software which stops the machines if they are repaired by anyone except the manufacturer. I believe that is contrary to the idea that they do not own the machines and have no right to control them. It has also been demonstrated that the allegation of stopping theft is merely a pretense.
It was a mild rant ... a typical WTFO type rant.
Let's see. There is a law called "Theft by conversion" that can be used when a company converts something that doesn't belong to them for other uses. I'm sure we can find a "Theft by ......" that is applicable to your situation.
Let's see. There is a law called "Theft by conversion" that can be used when a company converts something that doesn't belong to them for other uses. I'm sure we can find a "Theft by ......" that is applicable to your situation.
