Hey all,

THIS APPLIES TO ALL ECUTEK REFLASHES, NOT JUST 06 CARS.

On the 2.5 forum, I hope I can catch all the 06 owners. (and others, but only from a informational aspect.)

In October, I had a new 06 STi. At the time, Cobb had not produced the AP for the 06s, and I was doing a stage 4 green setup. PDXTuning sold me an EcuTEK license and did a dynotune.

After much later installing a blowthrough, an EWG, WI, a header, and other items, PDXTuning felt that economics of the situation was such that with all the dyno tuning and the street tuning that I wanted, I could either buy a Cobb AP, Street Tuner, etc or pay them hourly to reflash EcuTEK. They made a good case for the Cobb, since I love to tune my car, know how, and would continue to make changes. PDXTuning would take my money, but Tim felt I'd have fun doing some of it myself.

So, two weeks ago, I bought a Cobb AP for my 06 STI and we proceeded to load the car up on the dyno. The Cobb AP would not marry to the PCM and we were afraid that the AP or the PCM was malfunctioning. We tried GreggPDX's AP (first we had to unmarry it from his 06, etc), and it would not communicate with the PCM either. Afraid that the PCM was broken, we plugged in EcuTEK and tried writing back to a stock program. Worked like a charm. With the stock program in place, the AP would still not recognize the PCM. We had to put my EcuTEK program back on the PCM and unload the car from the dyno. A call to Christian at Cobb didnt give any quick solutions. The next day I stopped by the local dealership and tried to have them re-flash the PCM. Their SPSC or whatever it was called wouldnt recognize my PCM either. I left before they started to ask further questions. I got home, and then sent the PCM off for analysis. Here is the final conclusion:

EcuTEK altered the handshaking such that no other program could enter the ECU. Not the Cobb AP, not Subaru, no-one except EcuTEK.

Apparently at least 06s (and possibly others) have some of the communication protocol instructions in a re-writable part of the ECU. Tuners currently DO NOT have the ability to put this back to stock.


Fortunately PDXTuning has refunded my $$$, and Cobb was able to get on the PCM (at their shop) and re-write it completely to stock.

I work at a company that sells shoes, apparel, and sports equipment. If we sold a shoe that you couldnt take off, you wouldnt buy it. If we sold you a shoe that you couldnt take off, and didnt tell you about it prior to you wearing it... well... everyone would sue us, wouldnt they? And they would have every right.

I'm disturbed by having a company do this to my car. Im angry that I couldnt reverse it and that I had to ask for a refund for something that I couldnt give back.

Rumor is that this was done to combat OpenECU. I dont care. Folks are going to copy you. You have to out-innovate them to stay in business, not take your customers hostage. Welcome to the 21st century.

Full Disclosure: Cobb determined what had been done, and reported it to me. I have no first hand knowledge of the changes made. Cobb competes with EcuTEK (somewhat). In this matter, based on my experiences with my PCM, they backup what was told to me, and I have no reason to distrust Cobb.

Good luck,
Chris

good info to know. have you contacted EcuTek about this?

....w 0 w.....THAT is interesting...


This NEEDS to be a stickie in the EM/tuning forum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Chris
I'm glad Pdxtuning was able to take care of you and that Cobb could fix the problem. I think you have every right to be upset.

good info to know. have you contacted EcuTek about this?

I did try. I was told that "Cobb would know what to do". EcuTEK is a british company, and their US presense depends a great deal (I think) for technical support from their re-sellers such as PDXTuning, and others.

it's good that cobb was able to take care of the problem. it'd be nice to see if someone can contact the boys across the pond for some info about this issue.

Well, thats one way to keep your customers loyal ;)

it'd be nice to see if someone can contact the boys across the pond for some info about this issue. Perhaps if enough people on NASIOC and IWSTI ask them about it, they will come on here and give us an explanation. I for one would like to know why they think that my purchasing a license from them is consent to have EcuTEK permanently take over my ECU? I own my car, and I own the ECU in it. Not EcuTEK. If I want to put on a Cobb AP, or OpenECU, or whatever, then that is MY choice, not EcuTEK's.

what a bunch of crock bull ****, I never did like the idea of ecutek and now I hate it even more =\, what kinda of company gets scared because of competition and ruins a customers ecu and tries to almost monopolize it. this is rediculous, anyone looking for tuning just buy Cobb Ap or Hydra. Utec sucks for various reasons since its a piggyback and now Ecutek pulls this. Just more reason for people to use openecu tools so they KNOW they can revert back to stock and not be scared there ecus are completely ruined.

very very good point.

^^I agree 100%, and i hope Ecutek does something to deal with this. They have also been saying that they are goingto come out with the map selector for the 04-05+ sti's but that STILL isn't out, and it's been almost 2 years. I asked them recently about when they expected it to be out and they said" very soon, but we can't give out an exact date", which is what they have been saying for 2 years. I own an ecutek license, but i am about to give up on them. Basically all the other EM's have a map selector option, but not ecutek. They need to get with the program or i am seriously done using their EM.

Wow - thats a pretty unsavory business practice there... Its one thing for them to do it to protect thier map, but giving you no way to back-out of it after the fact is completely assinine.
Kudos to Cobb for getting you back running - but EcuTEK should be footing the bill for your down time, shipping, and the rest.

let's not bash EcuTek jus yet guys. i'd like to hear what they have to say.

uhh hello this is nasioc! one guy had an issue so we must all hate ecutek now and be worried if we have it..... but it is complete bs what happened . glad it got worked out for you

let's not bash EcuTek jus yet guys. i'd like to hear what they have to say.


^^^^^^^^
what he said


On that note too, I'm really interested in hearing what ECUTek has to say because I've been trying to decide whether to go with an ECUTek reflash or just get a Cobb AP.

As we would all imagine, did not ECUTEK think that this would happen(SOONER OR LATER) and they would be exposed for doing this? (LAME BY MY JUDGEMENT)?????

Is this issue hidden in a manual somewhere? You know, a disclaimer, so they can say "you should of read the manual first"?

I will say props to COBB for getting you back to running.

I own ecutek right now. Had i known that ecutek was going to lie about when the map selector was going to come out, i would have bought cobb AP for sure. IMO ecutek is good but doesn't have the remote map selector feature, which is VERY important to me.
If you would like to have a map other than a DD map (race gas/alky) go with cobb. If you plan on not doing too much to the car, go for ecutek.

I guess Im disappointed that this was moved this far into the obscure forums.... "Stock ECU Reflashes"... I didnt even know it existed. What is the likelyhood now that someone will know what they are getting into when they buy EcuTEK.

Is that not reason enough to leave it where it was?

yes this should be in the main "Engine Management & Tuning" forum.

So if you have your 06 flashed, no one else can see or communicate with the ecu. Does that mean you will fail smog? I am confused.

mike

Someone should have tried the OpenECU stuff on that ECU. I'm wondering if flashing back an OEM flash with those tools would have fixed the problem at hand. Also, unless someone has actual data which shows the handshake change in the code I'll be a little skeptical... especially since it came from a competitor of EcuTek (Cobb).

I don't doubt that Ecutek would do this. Last year, they posted this on the openecu.org forums:

"EcuTeK LLP wishes it to be known that it owns copyright in EcuTeK software and its supporting documents and that it will act to protect these rights.

If you are concerned that you might have infringed our copyright or other intellectual property rights, or that you might do so in the future, we would be happy to discuss ways that a reasonable and amicable solution might be found.

David Power"

There has to be a work around for this, since I'm sure they wouldn't cause you to have a one flash only ECU - what if you want to get another Ecutek tune? Hopefully one of the great super computer nerds can figure it out (I say this with the utmost respect). :)

Heh, how long ago were we all bashing poor Cobb for their "vaporware" AP and singing the HOSANNAHS for EcuTEK? :)

There has to be a work around for this, since I'm sure they wouldn't cause you to have a one flash only ECU - what if you want to get another Ecutek tune? Their software modifies the handshaking protocol so only Ecutek software can reflash it. So you can get as many Ecutek reflashes as you want, you just can't get one from anyone else. And you can never entirely remove the Ecutek software and go back to bone stock.

I guess Im disappointed that this was moved this far into the obscure forums.... "Stock ECU Reflashes"... I didnt even know it existed. What is the likelyhood now that someone will know what they are getting into when they buy EcuTEK. Maybe EcuTek is a NASIOC vendor? :lol:

No, that can't be true, then they would have just deleted the thread and banned you... :devil:

Their software modifies the handshaking protocol so only Ecutek software can reflash it. So you can get as many Ecutek reflashes as you want, you just can't get one from anyone else. And you can never entirely remove the Ecutek software and go back to bone stock.
What I meant was, that if there is a way for Ecutek to read and reflash, then there might be a way for open source tuning to overcome this limitation.

Maybe EcuTek is a NASIOC vendor? :lol:

No, that can't be true, then they would have just deleted the thread and banned you... :devil:

It was my first thought.... :furious:

For all of you guys who doubt what I've said... if you have an 06...

Go get Ecutek... Prove me wrong :)

What I meant was, that if there is a way for Ecutek to read and reflash, then there might be a way for open source tuning to overcome this limitation.

Actually, if the OpenECU guys work out what they've done, they can VERY easily reverse it, if what I was told is correct.

Its really odd how little it will acheive, and how much irritation it could cause customers.

Heh, how long ago were we all bashing poor Cobb for their "vaporware" AP and singing the HOSANNAHS for EcuTEK? :)

thats what i was thinking the entire time while reading this thread. :lol:

i still prefer ecutek, mostly because no one anywhere near me does protuner, but also because i hated the original accessport and waiting for cobb get their s**t together. i have what i need from ecutek, so im happy.

i do think this is some tricky crap though. ecutek does seem to be taking the easy way out, when it comes to keeping customers. when was the last time they produced something, or made an upgrade?

when was the last time they produced something, or made an upgrade?

they jus came out w/a cai. looks bling but it also looks like it's 99.99% made by AEM. :rolleyes::lol:

I know Ecutek changes the "Calid" a little bit to identify it as their own, I wonder if this is what tripped up the AP and the dealers SSM system.

If they didn't recognise the Calid then maybe those systems don't allow for reflashing as a safety precaution.

If it is true that the comm's protocol is stored in a rewriteable section in the rom then that is great news for Openecu, maybe we can up the data rate to make logging, flashing etc. faster.

If it is the Calid then it won't affect Openecu tools in the least, so I can't see them changing that in order to combat Openecu as it would be ineffective.

Actually both changed items would be ineffective against Openecu, so it had to be done in order to monopolise against Cobb.

<--- Wants answers dammit (bangs fist on desk)

Amazing, but not shocking. I'm a two time ECUTek customer; with my 02 WRX and my 05 STi (both sold). With the 02, it was great. I could just swap ECU's when it came time to sell. The STi was another story. I went round and round with ECUTek asking how I could sell the license they sold me as I was getting rid of the car. Bottom line from them was sorry, you're SOL. They also had me going with the promise of map switching in the STi. Never happened. I would never buy another product from them again. This only confirms my decision. With the AP and OpenECU as options, why would you even consider them anymore?

I know in the EVO community, ECUFlash (OpenECU) is pretty much putting the other flashing companies out of business. With a download and a $80 cable, I now have 95% of the flashing capability of ECUTek in my own hands. My ECU was flashed by a well recognized tuner using the OpenECU software and it performs flawlessly. I think it will eventually take over.

I know in the EVO community, ECUFlash (OpenECU) is pretty much putting the other flashing companies out of business. With a download and a $80 cable, I now have 95% of the flashing capability of ECUTek in my own hands. My ECU was flashed by a well recognized tuner using the OpenECU software and it performs flawlessly. I think it will eventually take over.

its such an easy program to use too. i know very little of tuning but i understood everything going on in ecuExplorer. Anyone with the knowledge of how to tune a car can do it with ease. Im surprised more tuners dont offer this as a cheaper method, they still get the money for tuning, but dont have to worry about licencing.

whoa.

Fortunately PDXTuning has refunded my $$$, and Cobb was able to get on the PCM (at their shop) and re-write it completely to stock.It's too bad Colbey (cboles) at OpenECU wasn't given first crack at fixing this problem. I think he's relatively local (Seattle?), too.

You can be sure that Cobb hooked up a debugger and dumped the EcuTeK code before they fixed the problem. Perhaps this happened in time for Cobb to incorporate the ability to recognize and rewrite an EcuTeK ROM in the new AccessPort that is due out this year.

']It's too bad Colbey (cboles) at OpenECU wasn't given first crack at fixing this problem. I think he's relatively local (Seattle?), too.

You can be sure that Cobb hooked up a debugger and dumped the EcuTeK code before they fixed the problem. Perhaps this happened in time for Cobb to incorporate the ability to recognize and rewrite an EcuTeK ROM in the new AccessPort that is due out this year.

oh man, s**t would definitely hit the fan the day the accessport could load ecutek maps.

Well, this isn't really new news to me. I have been hearing for months that many EcuTek'd Subaru DBW vehicles are unreadable with the OpenEcu tools. There is a lookup table in the ROM for the seed/key algorithm - my guess is that they changed it. All EcuTek'd EVO ECUs are also locked down by using a non-standard initialization code - so those also can't be reflashed by dealers or other standard tools.

Of course all of these things are circumventable - it just makes for an inconvenience to the user. The really nasty problem is that people who want to stop using EcuTek can't - they are locked in because even the EcuTek dealer can't reflash their ECU back to a true "stock" configuration that is reflashable by other tools. You can't swap the ECU for a stock one easily either, because you need to transfer the immobilizer code to the new ECU.

EcuTek's problem is that they store the flash user license in the ROM, so if you were to flash your ECU back to a true stock image, you would lose your license. Due to their licensing scheme, they are somewhat backed into a corner in terms of dealing with this problem.

It's just yet one more example of heavy handed DRM getting in the way of letting people do what they want with their own property.

It's just yet one more example of heavy handed DRM getting in the way of letting people do what they want with their own property.

While Im sorta refreshed to hear that you have some understanding of whats going on... (I wish I had known too, and my friends had known, etc...)... I do not agree that this fits in heavy handed DRM.

Heavy handed DRM means over-restricting your rights to enjoy the information that you have licensed. Taking a purchase of a license and then turning it into permission to irreversibly alter ones automobile is irresponsible and does harm... far more than restrictions on your ability to enjoy what you had purchased.

Lets say I had an electrical problem in my car... the daytime running lights for instance. Subaru decides to do a full body control module check. I would have taken the car to Subaru with an un-married stock ECU. With EcuTEK, I would have found out after purchase that this is not an option.

Lets pretend that two years from now they start checksumming ECUs as part of the emmissions process. I cannot pass even if my car is "programmed back to the stock program".

*I* am lucky enough that I came out the other side without an issue (so far)... I sincerely hope that the OpenECU folks learn soon how to bypass and then reverse this alteration.

While I previously had little interest in the OpenECU project... I will now do whatever I can to help eliminate this.

-Chris

I don't buy the fact that they did this so people couldn't marry an Accessport. I mean, who would take an ecutek flashed ecu with their expensive license and marry an Accessport, completely erasing the ecutek ROM? Of course, with the openecu tools, you can download and backup your tune and do whatever you want with it. I think this was a direct attack on the open source project. They've seen how the project is coming. It is only a matter of time before realtime tuning is a reality and more and more commercial tuners will use this free tool instead of paying overpriced fees to ecutek. I understand why they did it, but I think, in the end, it is only going to piss off the people buying or considering buying their products, more than the opensource community, who will probably come up with a solution to circumvent in no time.

I think this was a direct attack on the open source project.

I think we agree. Cobb was (in my opinion) likely only able to work out the issue because the probably worked with EcuTEK to get through it. EcuTEK is not afraid of Cobb. They are afraid of OpenECU. Period.

This seems to be so since a collegue of mine have the same problem.

I'm still wondering why anyone would go with Ecutek, period. Cobb is a better solution, does more, resellable, and the Openecu stuff does everything Ecutek does cheaper.

Sounds like Microsoft, once you install it, no refund. OK, everyone let's all use linux. :)

Except in this case there is no way to uninstall, or install over it. It's like paying $100 for Windows, having it render your $1000 PC inoperable and having no way install another OS.

Sounds like Microsoft, once you install it, no refund. OK, everyone let's all use linux. :)

I think we agree. Cobb was (in my opinion) likely only able to work out the issue because the probably worked with EcuTEK to get through it.This is very unlikely, in my opinion. Cobb was able to flash a new ROM image on the bench the same way they do at the factory and without relying on what was already on the ROM.

Well, this isn't really new news to me. I have been hearing for months that many EcuTek'd Subaru DBW vehicles are unreadable with the OpenEcu tools.

Do you know if this has been happening on just the 06 DBW Subarus or if the 05s are affected as well?

']This is very unlikely, in my opinion. Cobb was able to flash a new ROM image on the bench the same way they do at the factory and without relying on what was already on the ROM.

Exactly... With certain bench tools there's no need for a bootloader to my understanding. So, if no bootloader is needed then there's not need to do any upload/handshake with the ECU first. Think of it like pulling an EEPROM out and just flashing or erasing it with an EEPROM burner. Programs like that don't care what's on the chip first. As a matter of fact, when a friend of mine did some tuning changes on a Honda the EEPROM was erased in the burner and then flashed with the new tune and then verified. Cobb can do this on the bench from what I gather because they have saved a few ECUs that were botched by the marrying process for some people when the APs first came out with crap ass cables and such, where the flash would stop halfway and render the ECU useless. These people would send in the ECU and AP and Cobb would send it back to them already married or unmarried... depending on what the customer asked them to do.

Is there any documentation at all of this problem occurring or not occurring to other people? So far this seems to be the first we've heard of such problems. There's a lot of speculation going around considering only one person has had such an experience. Did Cobb verify that the EcuTek intentionally crippled the cpu's ability to communicate with other programs? Is it possible that this is a one-time error? A bug or a glitch or something? Just throwing the possibility out there...

I do not think so, since I have came across it in the Caribbean.

We cannot monitor the ecu or even flash a stock image to tune, since the ecutek dealer flashed it..

I think this behaviour is unacceptable

I have heard of at least 3 other people having this problem. I thought the same thing at first.

Is there any documentation at all of this problem occurring or not occurring to other people? So far this seems to be the first we've heard of such problems. There's a lot of speculation going around considering only one person has had such an experience. Did Cobb verify that the EcuTek intentionally crippled the cpu's ability to communicate with other programs? Is it possible that this is a one-time error? A bug or a glitch or something? Just throwing the possibility out there...

I do not think so, since I have came across it in the Caribbean.

I'd like to have come accross this in the Caribbean. I may have been much more chill about it. Maybe in my 4th Pina Colada when I'd heard the news.

LOL LOL.

In my area, not that at all. A gallon of White Run or CockSpur finest LOL.

The thing is, I do not know if the users knows about this. This sounds legal.

I am really disapointed that this thread has come to bashing a company that paved the way for reliable ECU reflashes. You can not pursue legal action against a companies product that you used under your own free will. Did someone hold a bat to your legs and tell you to use this product? I have used Ecutek in the past and i will continue to use. Any time you modify your car, you should not expect to recover your investment. You do it because you enjoy your car and want to improve one aspect or another of its overall package. I still think, even knowing that I can not sell my ECU's to another customer with the license in it if I sell my car, I still made the right choice using the EcuTek product. I have yet to have an issue with any of their products since 2002. Not even a CE light whether related to the flash or not.

I do agree that if you were planning on recuperating money by selling an ECUTEK flashed ecu in the future that being SOL kind of sucks. On the other hand, it does offer the company a since of security that there software can not be copied and it protects their tuners work indefinately.

When 1000"s and 1000's of dollars are invested in a product, the company needs to protect that investement.

In my opinion, if this is true, EcuTek played a smart move by encouraging top end companies and their tuners by protecting their information. I am sure it is only a matter of time before other flash companies will start doing the same if they believe that there software is at risk of being hacked or copied.

If this does go into legal action, I fear that more damage will come then good to the aftermarket industry. Look at the situation for what it is. No one is trying to cheat anyone else. Company A is protecting their software and their tuners work. Person B needs to be aware of that fact before making his choice. He (or SHE) either agrees or not with the security features of the EcuTek ECU.

MY TWO CENTS WORTH ;)

I am really disapointed that this thread has come to bashing a company that paved the way for reliable ECU reflashes. You can not pursue legal action against a companies product that you used under your own free will. Did someone hold a bat to your legs and tell you to use this product? I have used Ecutek in the past and i will continue to use. Any time you modify your car, you should not expect to recover your investment. You do it because you enjoy your car and want to improve one aspect or another of its overall package. I still think, even knowing that I can not sell my ECU's to another customer with the license in it if I sell my car, I still made the right choice using the EcuTek product. I have yet to have an issue with any of their products since 2002. Not even a CE light whether related to the flash or not.

I do agree that if you were planning on recuperating money by selling an ECUTEK flashed ecu in the future that being SOL kind of sucks. On the other hand, it does offer the company a since of security that there software can not be copied and it protects their tuners work indefinately.

When 1000"s and 1000's of dollars are invested in a product, the company needs to protect that investement.

In my opinion, if this is true, EcuTek played a smart move by encouraging top end companies and their tuners by protecting their information. I am sure it is only a matter of time before other flash companies will start doing the same if they believe that there software is at risk of being hacked or copied.

If this does go into legal action, I fear that more damage will come then good to the aftermarket industry. Look at the situation for what it is. No one is trying to cheat anyone else. Company A is protecting their software and their tuners work. Person B needs to be aware of that fact before making his choice. He (or SHE) either agrees or not with the security features of the EcuTek ECU.

MY TWO CENTS WORTH ;)

Ok, first of all... what's uncool here is that you cannot even reflash the ECU back to OEM code when you want to sell the car. In other words, once EcuTek is on it you can't do isht with it. You can't even have your Subaru dealer try and troubleshoot a CEL for you because they can't connect and read anything off the ECU. This is the bad part... not that you cannot get your money back.

Also, there's no copying or hacking of their stupid ass software. The flashing method is a Denso one... not an EcuTek one. EcuTek didn't pave the way for anything... they just happened to be the first ones to sit in a garage and hack the Denso ECU. This is no different then what Cobb did.

If this is really happening, then the reasoning is probably for EcuTek to lock as many ECUs out as possible. That way if someone buys their product and then realizes that they can retune their ECU for free with OpenECU stuff (which they weren't aware of before they bought EcuTek) they cannot use that software, or for that matter, any other flashing software. So, not only are they monopolizig the market against OpenECU, but they are also doing it against Cobb as well. While people have posted that EcuTek isn't scared of Cobb in the marketplace, I tend to disagree with this. Cobb has a very good product with quick realtime tuning and changing of maps. A lot of people are going the Cobb route right now because of the access to user tuning software and the quick easy map switching. EcuTek's been dragging their ass for years on map switching for the 04+ cars, let alone a user tuning feature. Their money is not in this... their money is in the return customers to the tuners for new tunes/flashes. These customers have to pay a reflash fee as well as the normal tuner fees for their time. That's where EcuTek makes it's money from... not selling a user tuning version of their software to you.

Either way, I wouldn't be too worried... if the handshake was changed to something else which allows the new EcuTek software to interface with the ecu... it's just a matter of time before that change get's figured out. (Do you honestly think if Cobb found the problem they aren't going to implement the solution into their product? :lol: )

I am really disapointed that this thread has come to bashing a company that paved the way for reliable ECU reflashes. You can not pursue legal action against a companies product that you used under your own free will. Did someone hold a bat to your legs and tell you to use this product?...

If this does go into legal action, I fear that more damage will come then good to the aftermarket industry. Look at the situation for what it is. No one is trying to cheat anyone else. Company A is protecting their software and their tuners work. Person B needs to be aware of that fact before making his choice. He (or SHE) either agrees or not with the security features of the EcuTek ECU.
It seems that Ecutek isn't telling anyone the consequences of their new flash procedure. Obviously they didn't tell the OP. If they were upfront about it before anybody got the flash and told them they couldn't reflash back to stock or marry an AP or anything else, then I think it would be a different story. If they had it posted on their web site and made it clear for everyone, then that would be different. Maybe they could offer to give you free reflashes back to the stock map in the future from your local ecutek dealer. That might be more reasonable.

And it is not like someone got a copy of the ecutek software, hacked it, and that's how the open source project got started. Instead, open source hacked the ecu on its own and created their own software and even a cable. I don't feel sorry for ecutek, I guess because of the promised user tuning ability for years and not delivering and the heavy handed way they tried to intimidate the open source project. Cobb, on the other hand, I respect more. When AccessECU first came out, it undercut Ecutek's price. And Cobb finally delivered with the Streetuner. So, now with mounting pressure from the free tuning tools, what does Cobb do? Lowers the price on streetuner and is coming out with streetuner advanced, which will have more features and supposedly some features never before offered to the Subaru community. Ecutek's crap is basically the same offering it was years ago.

...

Ecutek isn't notified their customers that once they get an Ecutek, they're locked in and will never be able to get rid of the Ecutek or use any other reflash. That ECU is hosed for good. If you can't find an Ecutek tuner, or don't feel like paying whatever rate the Ecutek tuner feels like, you're screwed.

Really, get a Cobb. I still see no reason for anyone to use Ecutek anymore. Cobb's product is superior in pretty much every conceivable way.

Many after-market tuning companies with modern ECUs are started with someone that has an "In" for the map locations and knows somebody that can put together some code. Other folks have to go in and find all the maps, find the algorythms, and do a huge amount of legwork. The companies that have an "In" are most often one-trick ponies. They arent otherwise capable of developing larger featuresets and enhanced capabilities. If you only have that "In", and if that is your only competitive advantage, then you are justifiably paranoid that someone else will discover or rip off what you have. The problem is that at the root, you are protecting somethign that you DIDNT work that hard for... you are just trying to be the only one to profit off of a secret.

I'm not saying who is who, but I personally think its exceptionally clear. I don't advocate the theft of intellectual property, but how bad can you feel for someone when what was questionably "stolen" is something that you got through the back door anyways?

EcuTEK could have been moderately blameless in this situation. EcuTEK could have all licensees (prior to flash) sign a paper showing that they understand that their PCM is being irreversibly converted to an EcuTEK-only PCM.

But none of us would have bought it then, would we? :)

EcuTeK instigated the locking of the data in the ECU as a direct response to our dealer network across the world.

Our partners (the tuners) have been concerned that their intellectual property was being copied and perhaps would be programmed into vehicles to which it was not suitable therefore causing engine failures for which they might be blamed.

This is not an attempt to hijack the ECU but simply a response to a feature request by our tuning partners who have invested a huge amount of their time and effort into development of ROM files.

We are beta testing software to our dealers which will allow the ECU to be returned completely to standard with no locking. This will mean that it can then be programmed by the dealer or other hardware. This is being released in a few days.

In the event of a dealer reflash being required on a modified car then it would be advisable for the customer to visit his tuner in the first instance. He will be able to program the ECU using the latest version of ROM file but with his changes incorporated. We do provide EcuTeK dealers with the very latest ROM files which are as up to date as anything the dealers have. This is a far safer and more sensible option, as re-flashing a modified vehicle back to standard is not advisable.

We would also advise that Trey Cobb will be incorporating the same changes as us, thus allowing programming by Cobb products over EcuTeK and vice versa.

This is in direct response to requests from his dealers and allows him to protect his work.

Cobb's product is superior in pretty much every conceivable way.

Cobb is coming from behind on the number of maps made accessible. They dont have quite as many.

But thats what happens when you have to do the legwork and FIND the maps. It takes awhile, doesnt it?

EcuTeK instigated the locking of the data in the ECU as a direct response to our dealer network across the world.

Our partners (the tuners) have been concerned that their intellectual property was being copied and perhaps would be programmed into vehicles to which it was not suitable therefore causing engine failures for which they might be blamed.

This is not an attempt to hijack the ECU but simply a response to a feature request by our tuning partners who have invested a huge amount of their time and effort into development of ROM files.

We are beta testing software to our dealers which will allow the ECU to be returned completely to standard with no locking. This will mean that it can then be programmed by the dealer or other hardware. This is being released in a few days.

In the event of a dealer reflash being required on a modified car then it would be advisable for the customer to visit his tuner in the first instance. He will be able to program the ECU using the latest version of ROM file but with his changes incorporated. We do provide EcuTeK dealers with the very latest ROM files which are as up to date as anything the dealers have. This is a far safer and more sensible option, as re-flashing a modified vehicle back to standard is not advisable.

We would also advise that Trey Cobb will be incorporating the same changes as us, thus allowing programming by Cobb products over EcuTeK and vice versa.

This is in direct response to requests from his dealers and allows him to protect his work.


well there you have it folks!

We are beta testing software to our dealers which will allow the ECU to be returned completely to standard with no locking. This will mean that it can then be programmed by the dealer or other hardware. This is being released in a few days.

Thanks for the response. Please include PDXTuning in your Beta test. They are one of your most prolific tuners, and have communicated a lack of the capability to me.

While I understand a desire by the tuners to create tunes that cannot be "ripped off", the revenue that you are speaking of them losing is that of the more standard and applicable "stage 2 tunes" or similar.

In this case, I question the logic. You are irreversibly alterning a PCM of your customers without telling them so that you can protect a non-customer who has stolen the work of one of your tuners from his own ignorance. It sounds like horrible business logic.

OpenECU or others would quickly work this out. After that you would have accomplished nothing but the dissatisfaction of your own customers.

In a market where IP is the product and little hardware is required, the only way to keep customers is INNOVATION. I can't stress that enough.

instead of locking the whole ECU, all that would be required is the software to produce a master checksum and the tuner be required to keep that checksum on file after they tune a customers ecu. if they dont match, sorry, you modified your tune, you have to pay for us to fix it now.

Our partners (the tuners) have been concerned that their intellectual property was being copied and perhaps would be programmed into vehicles to which it was not suitable therefore causing engine failures for which they might be blamed.
That sounds like a bit of stretch. Someone going to steal a tune they didn't pay for, flash it to their car and then the shop can be held responsible when they blow their engine? That's like me stealing my neighbor's professionally installed sprinkler system, installing it myself in my yard and then expecting the company to fix it when it breaks.

I've noticed some professional tuners are now using the free tuning tools. If that catches on, and as these tools get better and better (especially when realtime tuning becomes a reality), why would anyone want to pay license fees for a commercial program. Not sure how Cobb and Ecutek set up their contracts with these tuners - over a period of time, per tune?

intrestesting thread. Subscribed

That sounds like a bit of stretch. Someone going to steal a tune they didn't pay for, flash it to their car and then the shop can be held responsible when they blow their engine? That's like me stealing my neighbor's professionally installed sprinkler system, installing it myself in my yard and then expecting the company to fix it when it breaks.


Sucks, but I have seen it happen first hand. There are some people out there that do try to do things that to the normal guys like us seems illogical and immoral, but they try it anyways. If the world was 100% honest, this would never be the issue.

Both COBB and ECUTEK in my opinion are on the right track, and I for one am happy that Mr. Power posted here and am anxious to see Trey's response as well. I thank them both for taking the time to read through this blurb of accusations and some valid points of discussion.

By the way we made this change to the software more than six months ago.

In that time it does not seem to have caused the huge number of problems that one might believe from reading this thread.

Just to follow up with what Dave @ EcuTek stated:

We will offer compatibility with EcuTek reflashed ECUs for our future releases, and visa versa. EcuTek and ourselves have enjoyed open communication for some time so while we don't share IP, we don't make attempts to work against each other in a way that might negatively effect our user base. Both companies have committed to disclosing protection mechanisms we have, or will, put in place as a means to protect our own, and our tuner's work.

While it is true we have all gotten into the ECU through one "back door" or another, the end result is a raw binary dump with no comments or documentation. The work necessary to define what all these values do, and HOW they work, takes an enormous amount of effort. To think that someone could suddenly decipher this information in the matter of a day or even a few weeks would be naive at best. Reverse engineering an ECU is a multi-layer process. Dumping data or reverse engineering a device to determine the methods to upload a boot program are only one small step in the entire process.

As for us feeling a threat from the "open" source community, I cannot honestly say my perception of threat is felt by those truly committed to the "Open Source" philosophy. I am actually open to those that endeavor to learn what we have and more, and wish to do so by actually walking the same path we have and learning, as we have, along the way. That is the nature of open source so far as I've always known it, a path to knowledge discovery.

My concern and threat is due to the fact that Colby Boles has been actively soliciting the work that has been performed by "OpenECU" for sale to other companies such as those that offer Handheld programmers. And not for a very small chunk of change I might add. As I am in constant contact with others in my industry, I have no reason to think the CEO's or COO's of these respective companies would benefit from lying to me about that fact. :huh: Competition is the way of life in business, so I'm far from bellyaching. I think half those companies started with information acquired from former employees of either a Big3 or another competitor so its the way of life in this industry I'm afraid. Furthermore, the info is for the most part free online, just some critical things like oh I dunno, source code, that Colby has kept to himself. Makes sense why, now...

I just think if I were an active member of the "open" community I'd feel a little deceived. Granted Cobly "figured out" how to get in (though he can't show his work or describe his methods which is odd for open source) but a good portion of the other work has been performed by others for free. I certainly hope if a sale is made all you get something in return. And please don't take this as an attack of the "open" community as I don't believe it is the majority of the member's intention to profit, or cause harm to others, with the knowledge.

As someone has already mentioned, we must continue to innovate to stay ahead. Our intentions are to do just that. However any innovations we may make within the ECU code is now open for others to simply copy without any work put forth on their own part. We have other innovations, aside from our Realtime tuning, we wish to bring to market soon. I can only hope it is somewhat understandable we'd like the ability to protect those innovations for as long as possible.

Best regards,
Trey @ COBB

The real problem here is not that they locked down the ECU. The problem is it was locked down and, in this case, we were not able to unlock it. It is not common for our customers to want to switch from EcuTek to AP or from AP to EcuTek. The solution to this problem is exactly what EcuTek has done. Get the authorized dealers the ability to undo the license and this would not have been an issue.

We have had more customers come back to us and ask us to reflash their ECU because the dealer wrote over it or installed a new ECU than we have had people switch. In this case the dealer would have not been able to flash the ECU, and the customer would not have been inconvenienced with coming back to us after a standard service to get their map loaded back on.

With regard to the openecu effort, we do not have a problem with that. If someone develops the technology on their own to flash the ECU and they want to make it open source great. What I personally have a problem with is people using the openecu tools and openly asking for our maps to load for free on the car. We support both Cobb and EcuTek in locking our intellectual property. There is nothing like spending 100s of hours refining maps and then seeing them being passed around for free.

Let’s look at one possible scenario. Someone gets their hand on one of our stage 2 maps, but he/she got one for an Injen intake vs. stock. Not knowing any different they run the map on the car for 2 months and the motor goes away. When that person is asked what EM they have they will say it is a PDX map. I seriously doubt they are going to advertise that they stole the map and ran it on their car, but they will likely say it is one we developed.

I am glad to see that EcuTek is going to release a tool that will allow us to avoid this situation in the future. Once this tool is in our hands I do not see a problem with what EcuTek is doing, and as a vendor/tuner I support it.

Both Cobb and EcuTek are going to have to improve their product; that is the only way either of them will survive the openecu effort. That is the beauty of competition, it forces all parties to either put up or shut up.

Jarrad

Thanks for addressing this. If tuners want to protect their IP, they should be able to do so. My only complaint here was the side effect of permanently locking customer's hardware. What you are proposing is probably the best comprimise solution.

I don't know how many times I can repeat this, but the purpose of the OpenECU project is not to enable people to copy other tuners/companies maps - it is to allow people to tune (or have others tune) their own cars without limitation or obfuscation.

EcuTeK instigated the locking of the data in the ECU as a direct response to our dealer network across the world.

Our partners (the tuners) have been concerned that their intellectual property was being copied and perhaps would be programmed into vehicles to which it was not suitable therefore causing engine failures for which they might be blamed.

This is not an attempt to hijack the ECU but simply a response to a feature request by our tuning partners who have invested a huge amount of their time and effort into development of ROM files.

We are beta testing software to our dealers which will allow the ECU to be returned completely to standard with no locking. This will mean that it can then be programmed by the dealer or other hardware. This is being released in a few days.

In the event of a dealer reflash being required on a modified car then it would be advisable for the customer to visit his tuner in the first instance. He will be able to program the ECU using the latest version of ROM file but with his changes incorporated. We do provide EcuTeK dealers with the very latest ROM files which are as up to date as anything the dealers have. This is a far safer and more sensible option, as re-flashing a modified vehicle back to standard is not advisable.

We would also advise that Trey Cobb will be incorporating the same changes as us, thus allowing programming by Cobb products over EcuTeK and vice versa.

This is in direct response to requests from his dealers and allows him to protect his work.

The solution to this problem is exactly what EcuTek has done.

Slight technicality...

EcuTEK has said they will do. ;)

I fully concur that if:

a) It was made known to me that a dealer could not access the ECU prior to the sale of the license, and

b) You (PDX) could reverse the lock so as to allow (even if only in your presence) the writing of the AP code right over your IP and their license,

we would have no issue today.

On a side note, thanks to each vendor (Cobb, PDXT, EcuTEK) for coming to the table in a civil manner. That alone speaks highly of your intentions, even when we argue about the results of actions.

Chris

Thanks for addressing this. If tuners want to protect their IP, they should be able to do so. My only complaint here was the side effect of permanently locking customer's hardware. What you are proposing is probably the best comprimise solution.

LS1 (GM) tuning software offers a "encryption" option that (IIRC) throws enough forwarding vectors to obscure maps and their contents. In that sense, anything can connect to the ECU, but little can understand the raw output.

I have no belief that PDXTuning and I will ever part ways, so to speak, but I would be hesitant to rest the future of my PCM on my ongoing relationship with *any* single aftermarket auto vendor.

I just can't not take the bait from you :)

1. I have not actively solicited anything for sale to other companies. Other companies have been contacting me. I have not signed any deals to do work with anyone at this point. In any case, I will continue to provide all of my software for free with source code - that will never change even if I was to help someone else on a commercial project.

2. You seem to be suggesting that I don't release the source code to my work. I do - it just lags a little behind on my releases. To date this hasn't been much of a collaborative project, and I don't have a lot of time to support all the questions from people trying to setup a complex build environment with no less than 5 compilers an tens of source libraries, some over 1GB in size. The code is also young and I also enjoy the freedom of completely changing and restructuring any of the code base that I wish if I think it is right without have to notify anyone. Once I can organize the source code into an installable project with a readme on how to set it up, I will do so. I do this project because I think it is fun, and it's always more fun to write new code and hack new ECUs than to document old work. I think it is unfair for you to criticize the timeliness of which I give away my hard work for free when you charge for the same things and provide no source code or information.

3. You seem to keep questioning how to reverse engineer ECUs, so let me tell you how. I expect the you will be sharing what you have learned as well...

a) 2001-2005 WRX - 68HC916Y5 based
* get the chip docs!
* get a BDM from P&E Microsystems
* solder a BDM header the ECU using the handy solder pads Denso left for this purpose
* read out the rom (including the TPU area) with a couple clicks of the BDM software
* get IDA Pro
* write your own HC16 module for IDA Pro because you don't want to spend the money to buy IDA Pro advanced
* publish the source of your HC16 module for free for others to use
* start disassembling - find all the references to code that accesses the serial port
* notice that there is TPU code that uses the serial port ???
* figure out that the TPU area is a bootloader!
* learn what the bootloader wants, including checksums, etc.
* learn how the bootloader keeps the WDT happy
* get a HC16 assembler (COSMIC)
* write a simple kernel program to read out the CPU
* write a better kernel program to reflash the CPU
* discover that your 02 WRX works, but your 04 WRX won't enter the bootloader
* read out 04 WRX with BDM and go through the serial code
* find seed/key algorithm before jumping to bootloader!
* add see/key to PC reflash program

b) 2004+ Subaru DBW - SH7055 and SH7058 based
* get the chip docs!
* try using the same initialization sequence as the WRX
* it works!!!
* build SH cross-compiler
* start writing test kernels - some trial and error here
* the ECU is being reset by a watchdog!
* start tracing pins on the board with a scope - PB15 is twiddling!
* add WDT code to kernel - it works!
* write flashing code - test - test - test
* reprogram using boot mode (solder into ECU) when you screw up
* write another kernel for SH7058 that uses built in reflash functions

c) EVO 7/8 - SH7052 based
* get the chip docs!
* borrow a MUTIII - very handy :)
* snoop a TSB reflash using the MUTIII (only get one chance!)
* identify init sequence and kernel upload - no seed/key - this is easy!
* Mitsubishi uses boot mode for bootloader, which makes development and flash failures easily recoverable...
* write a simple kernel to dump all of ram so I can see what the Mitsubishi bootloader looks like
* buy IDA Pro Advanced - don't want to write any more modules!
* disassemble bootloader completely to understand how it all works, including initialization codes
* modify Subaru SH7055 kernel to work with SH7052 - easy!
* done!

d) EVO 9 - SH7055 derivative
* get the chip docs!
* borrow a MUTIII
* snoop a reflash using the MUTIII
* same init sequence!
* try loading my SH7055 kernel, and the ECU takes it, but doesn't seem to run the code
* I am stuck in the bootloader for some reason!
* from the snooping, I can see how to read / erase / write with the bootloader, but I want to use my own kernel - but how - I need to be able to read out the bootloader to find out how to load a kernel...
* create a EVO 9 ROM with a trojan kernel in it.
* flash this into the ECU, but is doesn't respond
* start tracing board and discover that there is a WDT that needs to run off of PD8 - but only when not in the init mode
* add WDT code to trojan kernel
* flash it and it runs!
* read out EVO 9 bootloader still left in RAM
* see command to load a kernel!
* see that bootloader uses built in flashing function like SH7058
* make new SH7055 kernel to support new flashing method like SH7058
* it works!

Colby

Just to follow up with what Dave @ EcuTek stated:

We will offer compatibility with EcuTek reflashed ECUs for our future releases, and visa versa. EcuTek and ourselves have enjoyed open communication for some time so while we don't share IP, we don't make attempts to work against each other in a way that might negatively effect our user base. Both companies have committed to disclosing protection mechanisms we have, or will, put in place as a means to protect our own, and our tuner's work.

While it is true we have all gotten into the ECU through one "back door" or another, the end result is a raw binary dump with no comments or documentation. The work necessary to define what all these values do, and HOW they work, takes an enormous amount of effort. To think that someone could suddenly decipher this information in the matter of a day or even a few weeks would be naive at best. Reverse engineering an ECU is a multi-layer process. Dumping data or reverse engineering a device to determine the methods to upload a boot program are only one small step in the entire process.

As for us feeling a threat from the "open" source community, I cannot honestly say my perception of threat is felt by those truly committed to the "Open Source" philosophy. I am actually open to those that endeavor to learn what we have and more, and wish to do so by actually walking the same path we have and learning, as we have, along the way. That is the nature of open source so far as I've always known it, a path to knowledge discovery.

My concern and threat is due to the fact that Colby Boles has been actively soliciting the work that has been performed by "OpenECU" for sale to other companies such as those that offer Handheld programmers. And not for a very small chunk of change I might add. As I am in constant contact with others in my industry, I have no reason to think the CEO's or COO's of these respective companies would benefit from lying to me about that fact. Competition is the way of life in business, so I'm far from bellyaching. I think half those companies started with information acquired from former employees of either a Big3 or another competitor so its the way of life in this industry I'm afraid. Furthermore, the info is for the most part free online, just some critical things like oh I dunno, source code, that Colby has kept to himself. Makes sense why, now...

I just think if I were an active member of the "open" community I'd feel a little deceived. Granted Cobly "figured out" how to get in (though he can't show his work or describe his methods which is odd for open source) but a good portion of the other work has been performed by others for free. I certainly hope if a sale is made all you get something in return. And please don't take this as an attack of the "open" community as I don't believe it is the majority of the member's intention to profit, or cause harm to others, with the knowledge.

As someone has already mentioned, we must continue to innovate to stay ahead. Our intentions are to do just that. However any innovations we may make within the ECU code is now open for others to simply copy without any work put forth on their own part. We have other innovations, aside from our Realtime tuning, we wish to bring to market soon. I can only hope it is somewhat understandable we'd like the ability to protect those innovations for as long as possible.

Best regards,
Trey @ COBB

I am now concerned that the locking also is being performed on cars other than 06 DBW cars...

Is that true?

1. I have not actively solicited anything for sale to other companies. Other companies have been contacting me.
Fair enough. Definitely not the story I was told. At the end of the day it really doesn't matter to me what you do. It wouldn't be the first time a "open source" project was sold off by one of the developers for financial gain, I'm sure it won't be the last.

2. You seem to be suggesting that I don't release the source code to my work.
I just noted it hadn't be released, despite being an open source project and despite the many requests on your own forum. As an outsider looking in, it appeared the lack of source code was a clever, though questionable from an ethical standpoint, move to leave yourself a commercial option. Perhaps after receiving a phone call or two asking, "Do you know a guy named Colby? He just tried to sell us some Subaru and Mitsubishi reflash tech. Isn't that stuff you guys do?" from our friends in the domestic reflash industry I incorrectly made assumptions. For that, I apologize.

3. You seem to keep questioning how to reverse engineer ECUs, so let me tell you how.
I'm not isolated in my questions. Your own forum has several such inquiries. I'll defer comment as to the validity to the steps you've claimed to have taken for a more appropriate setting. ;) I really see no benefit in a public "pissing match".

Rainmaker - EcuTek can state their current software release status. I know we both have in place the ability, and have communicated our current or intended strategy, to prevent a Subaru dealer from overwriting a customer's license stored in the ECU. This would be in place for all 01/02 WRX onward. I know we will provide the ability with our AP, and it sounds like it'll be the case with EcuTek, to "uninstall" the license and revert the ECU back to Subaru's original methods. Thus, "leaving no trace".

I am definitely open to what input the community has.

Kind regards,
Trey @ COBB

Fair enough. Definitely not the story I was told. At the end of the day it really doesn't matter to me what you do. It wouldn't be the first time a "open source" project was sold off by one of the developers for financial gain, I'm sure it won't be the last.

Nothing is being "sold off" - any assistance I would provide to others *who contacted me for help* would not be done in a way that comprimises any of the open-source projects that I work on, or their being free.


I just noted it hadn't be released, despite being an open source project and despite the many requests on your own forum. As an outsider looking in, it appeared the lack of source code was a clever, though questionable from an ethical standpoint, move to leave yourself a commercial option. Perhaps after receiving a phone call or two asking, "Do you know a guy named Colby? He just tried to sell us some Subaru and Mitsubishi reflash tech. Isn't that stuff you guys do?" from our friends in the domestic reflash industry I incorrectly made assumptions. For that, I apologize.


No problem.


I'm not isolated in my questions. Your own forum has several such inquiries. I'll defer comment as to the validity to the steps you've claimed to have taken for a more appropriate setting. ;) I really see no benefit in a public "pissing match".


I have no interest in "pissing matches" either, however I feel that you have continued to include libelous accusations towards openecu and myself in your commentary on this forum and elsewhere. As much as I have no interest in entertaining them I would be negligent if I did not refute your accusations and innuendo. I am only responding to what has been directed at me. I understand that tuning technology is a competitive little niche, but I see no reason for animosity. I have nothing but good things to say about the people I have met from Cobb that I have interacted with. I think it's unfortunate that you don't know me, as you might be left with a different impression...

It wouldn't be the first time a "open source" project was sold off by one of the developers for financial gain, I'm sure it won't be the last. It really depends on the license. Personally, I will not contribute code to any project that is not licensed under the GPL. I have a moral objection to giving away my hard work to a company to use for financial gain.

Colby -- what license do you release OpenECU under?

On to the original topic -- what I want to see is EcuTek remove the locking altogether. The ECU belongs to the customer, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. I should not need to go back to PDX Tuning to reflash my ECU to stock.

Everyone should give up on the whole "intellectual property" angle -- it is not defensible. All you can do is anger your legitimate customers. Someone who is set on getting a pirated PDX tune is going to get it without much difficulty. Most people, however, who spend a good chunk of change on a nice Subaru are not going to be willing to risk it all on a pirated tune. What we are willing to pay for is the service & support that backs up the tune. That is where the real value is.

If EcuTeks sole response to this is to only allow EcuTek dealers to remove the tune, then I am going to continue with my plan to eventually switch to a Cobb AP. Partly for Street Tuner, and partly so I can have complete control my own ECU. I may move away from Portland some day, and I sure as heck don't want to have to mail PDX Tuning the ECU to have the stock tune put back on.

Dave

Here's what I propose to Cobb and EcuTek and it goes in line with some issues out there from some users of both products and also something that Trey pointed out. I think each of these companies need to implement something in the ROM to keep the goofy ass dealership techs from flashing our ECUs and screwing up all the hard work and time spent by someone tuning them. Not only that, but now the end user has to take the entire car or send the ecu out to the tuner to get reflashed... so it's dead time to the customer because some jackass at a Subaru dealership decided it was a good idea to update the ROM on a customer's car without notifying them first to get permission. (they don't own the car, the customer does.)

With that said it's also important to give the end user (customer) a much better way to deal with this lockout. In terms of the AP I'm sure Trey will implement the unlocking via the unmarry process which is excelent. You safeguard the customer from the accidental erasing of the code rendering the AP useless, while at the same time giving them the option to unmarry and do whatever they want after that with other flashing solutions or free tools.

On EcuTek's end I fear it'll be a little more complex to do this because they have been dragging their ass to come out with user tuning or even map changing so the similar "AP like" procedures they could implement to allow the end user (customer) to do whatever they want (without the need for a tuner to interact with) (how many of us live right next door to an EcuTek dealer anyway?) won't come as easy. At this point I think Cobb has a clear future on what they might want to do and because of thier current product design the change is not a major one to implement. EcuTek on the other hand needs to come up with something a little simpler then "Take your isht to an EcuTek dealer" to fix your problem. That's complete bullisht. Change your goddamn product plan... it's a little out of date by today's community standards. I suggest you change with the community or risk the chance of less and less people using your products because of the lack of easy/inovative support or for that matter CAPABILITIES... which Cobb simply currently kicks your ass at the moment in.

I think in the end everyone can play nice and provide the community with various solutions for what they want. After all, how many times do we get questions from noobs who don't have the money to spend on proper EM... in the end these same people blow up their engines because they cannot afford to do things right and get EM first before any major boltons. As the years go by even more constraints will be put in by Subaru or the EPA for bs tunes from the factory wich I fear will put an even bigger requirement on aftermarket EM necessaty. It's nice now that people have a choice... and while some of us don't mind paying for the retail products there are some out there that scraped the bottom of the couch for change on the down payment for their car... these are the people that will try and use the free stuff and I think that's a good thing.

Nuff said...

One last thing... when you do implement the flash lockouts, try and not lockout logging capabilities as well. That would just be stupid!... and I'm sure I don't have to explain why it would be...

It really depends on the license. Personally, I will not contribute code to any project that is not licensed under the GPL. I have a moral objection to giving away my hard work to a company to use for financial gain.

Colby -- what license do you release OpenECU under?

Dave


I'm working out the final details of the license header for all of my files before I release all of the new source I have written. It will basically be equivalent to the dual license model that Qt from Trolltech (EcuFlash uses Qt, so there are some inherent reasons I need to adopt their license). In short, the Trolltech dual license model basically works like this:

* If you are using the software in a open source project, for personal use, etc, you are free to use it however you see fit.

* If you are using the software in a non-open source or commercial project, you must obtain a license ($) to use it.

I think this model works well for this situation.

... because I'm stuck in a situation that speaks to ECUTek's business model, and how it doesn't work.

I bought a used ECU for my '02 which I sent to an authorized ECUTek tuner (who shall be nameless) to be flashed by mail. They had that ECU for almost 4 months while they were dealing with some "internal issues", and when I finally got it back and installed it in support of some modifications, found that it was flashed wrong. Sent it back to the same tuner to get fixed, and they have had it for another month... :rolleyes: :confused: :mad:

So, in the meantime I went and picked up an OpenECU cable and flashed my stock ECU with the basic parameters to run the car with bigger injectors and some other mods, but I still need functionality only the ECUTek flash can provide. Basically, I've got CELs that are preventing me from getting a pass on my state inspection.

SO... an ECUTek tuner is holding my ECU hostage, a rejection sticker on my car and money sunk into a company's technology which will not allow me to help myself out of the situation.

Now the question is, would COBB or PDX be interested in picking up a customer by giving me "side-grade" pricing on a AP/ST/ST Pro solution?

I think you'd have a bunch of people jump ship from ECUTek to the COBB side of the house if they made it cheap enough to make sense...

Trey, Jarred, your thoughts?

-Jason

WOW. I am flabbergasted by the level of pure bulls**t coming from both Cobb and EcuTek on this matter. Colby is being so incredibly gracious in this fiasco; he has much more patience I would ever show.


My concern and threat is due to the fact that Colby Boles has been actively soliciting the work that has been performed by "OpenECU" for sale to other companies such as those that offer Handheld programmers. And not for a very small chunk of change I might add. As I am in constant contact with others in my industry, I have no reason to think the CEO's or COO's of these respective companies would benefit from lying to me about that fact. :huh: Competition is the way of life in business, so I'm far from bellyaching. I think half those companies started with information acquired from former employees of either a Big3 or another competitor so its the way of life in this industry I'm afraid. Furthermore, the info is for the most part free online, just some critical things like oh I dunno, source code, that Colby has kept to himself. Makes sense why, now...

I just think if I were an active member of the "open" community I'd feel a little deceived. Granted Cobly "figured out" how to get in (though he can't show his work or describe his methods which is odd for open source) but a good portion of the other work has been performed by others for free. I certainly hope if a sale is made all you get something in return. And please don't take this as an attack of the "open" community as I don't believe it is the majority of the member's intention to profit, or cause harm to others, with the knowledge.
Colby has very adequately addressed this nonsense. However, what I find inexcusable is your repeated accusations, none of which has any basis in reality. Why do you rely on hearsay, rather than investigating yourself? In both cases, you took the word of some very sketchy sources. If Colby were not as nice, he would have an outstanding case for libel and slander. Be glad he feels no need to pursue it.

For all the other NASIOC users just tuning in to this mess, let me shed a little light on the history here, including EcuTek:

Jan 05 - David Power @ Ecutek makes an open threat (http://forums.openecu.org/viewtopic.php?t=26) to the the OpenECU community, saying they "owns copyright in EcuTeK software and its supporting documents and that it will act to protect these rights". This is before any publicly usable system is available.
May 05 - Colby releases OpenPort 1.0 for sale. Reflashing by users supported immediately thereafter.
Jan 06 - Trey @ Cobb accuses Colby of stealing (http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12226554&postcount=28) the reflashing technology directly from Cobb. He makes this claim based on what some mysterious trusted sources say. At this point in time, Colby has accumulated about 6 months of history of code, documentation, and support on www.openecu.org.

And now we have this. David@EcuTek and Trey@Cobb now claim that ROMs are being stolen, despite the fact that fuel and ignition tables are not patentable and the property of any commercial entity, period. Guaranteed if OpenECU was a company, you wouldn't be seeing this level of legal pressure.

EcuTeK instigated the locking of the data in the ECU as a direct response to our dealer network across the world.

Our partners (the tuners) have been concerned that their intellectual property was being copied and perhaps would be programmed into vehicles to which it was not suitable therefore causing engine failures for which they might be blamed.
Perhaps? Either there are specific cases of theft, or there are not. I think it's obvious now that this idea is designed to lock customers into EcuTek (against their knowledge I might add), and not addressing any sort of ROM theft.

This is not an attempt to hijack the ECU but simply a response to a feature request by our tuning partners who have invested a huge amount of their time and effort into development of ROM files.

We are beta testing software to our dealers which will allow the ECU to be returned completely to standard with no locking. This will mean that it can then be programmed by the dealer or other hardware. This is being released in a few days.

This is in direct response to requests from his dealers and allows him to protect his work.
So let me get this straight. For several months now, you have introduced a feature that locks in customers, and to a lesser degree, prevents users from recieving OEM Subaru ECU warrantee work (a major safety and warantee issue, and I bet both the NIHS and Subaru would be keen to hear about that). Then after a bunch of people finally complain, you claim that a return-to-stock feature is "released soon". Gimme a break. :rolleyes:

If the only goal is to prevent copying of the fuel/ignition tables (which it is important to note is legal in all forms in the US), there are simpler and more direct ways of doing so than changing the ECU boot loader to disable communication. The route you have chosen is the most drastic, and is a very suspicious method. If nobody can inspect the new ECU code, in theory there is nothing preventing you from datalogging anything the user does, and collecting it later for your own use. Major privacy issues there.

Additionally, if anyone should be complaining, it should be the tuners, not the SW vendors. Why have there been no posts on NASIOC or elsewhere by the tuners themselves? I would be happy to be proven wrong on this issue. However, searching has found no results here, and I know there have been no complaints on the OpenECU forums.

Most of what EcuTek and Cobb here does not add up. None of the supposed problems and their "solutions" make any sense.

One last thing... when you do implement the flash lockouts, try and not lockout logging capabilities as well. That would just be stupid!...Agreed. We will actually be offering a higher datalogging rate as an option when reflashing but we'll be using a standard baud rate and will be very public about it so any open source software can be easily adjusted to suit. In addition, we plan to add in some non-standard parameters such as IAM or Calc Load to a SSM parameter read so any open datalogging software can always call to the same SSM parameter address and get a known value in a known format. Save from trying to hunt down RAM addresses in each ROM revision.

Why do you rely on hearsay, rather than investigating yourself? In both cases, you took the word of some very sketchy sources.I hardly call the CEO of one leading domestic programmer company and the COO of another "sketchy sources". I have professional relationships with these individuals, we give each other "heads up" as to things we see in the market. I was given such notice and frankly made the professional mistake of making it public. Contact me directly if you wish, and I'll get you in contact with them so you may speak with them directly.

I'm working out the final details of the license header for all of my files before I release all of the new source I have written. It will basically be equivalent to the dual license model that Qt from Trolltech (EcuFlash uses Qt, so there are some inherent reasons I need to adopt their license). In short, the Trolltech dual license model basically works like this:

* If you are using the software in a open source project, for personal use, etc, you are free to use it however you see fit.

* If you are using the software in a non-open source or commercial project, you must obtain a license ($) to use it.

I think this model works well for this situation.Wow.... :huh:

So, in the meantime I went and picked up an OpenECU cable and flashed my stock ECU with the basic parameters to run the car with bigger injectors and some other mods, but I still need functionality only the ECUTek flash can provide. Basically, I've got CELs that are preventing me from getting a pass on my state inspection.We may be able to provide you something quick and easy, depending on the full story on your car and needs. Just contact me directly and I'll see what can/cannot be done.

-Trey

Also, there's no copying or hacking of their stupid ass software. The flashing method is a Denso one... not an EcuTek one. EcuTek didn't pave the way for anything... they just happened to be the first ones to sit in a garage and hack the Denso ECU. This is no different then what Cobb did.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opendiag/message/648

WOW what the hell! :huh:

:subscribed:

Why do threads like this primarily only happen in North America? Perhaps threads and situations like this are some of the deciding factors for the lack of high end international companies not bringing or promoting their products on our shores. (I am sure i am going to get an earfull with that comment!)

When you look at the scope of motorsport in the rest of the world as an example, we are still sevral years behind in terms of the level of competition we can offer at a professional level worldwide. (I do have a point here, bear with me)

Perhaps if more companies followed what COBB and Ecutek are doing in terms of protecting each others work and their relevant customers/dealers, we would start bridging that performance gap with the rest of the world by being able to offer a more stable and reliable distribution network without fear of the market place looking for a "cheaper alternative". When cost becomes an issue, it does two things. Sometimes good, sometimes bad.

1) On the good side, it can create a healthy competition between manufacturers that ultimately ends up in a better product from each. Like what has happened with COBB and Ecutek. Each company has new features to be released to keep raising the bar ultimatley providing a better product.

2) On the negative side, the more developement that goes into a product too offer a better end result for the customer means more investment, means higher purchase pricing. At what point do you sacrafice developement for cost? How do you protect your investment? Were does the funding come from to continue developement?

My point being at the end of this ramble is if more time and resources were devoted to the direct developement of the product without fear or risk that the manufacturer will have the "this product costs too much now, I am going to buy competitors "x's" part because it is 50$ cheaper" scenario, perhaps North America would start closing that gap with the rest of the world in terms of the level of products and technology we could offer. Maybe we would start seeing more top level, multi million dollar teams competiting world wide BASED out of NA !

I wish the best to all companies involved, and for the customers that are caught between a rock and a hard place. I am sure (for the manufactures sake) that if you continue working with your vendor / tuner / supplier, a fix or compromise can be made in the near future. Please be patient and I am sure all will work out in due time.

Agreed. We will actually be offering a higher datalogging rate as an option when reflashing but we'll be using a standard baud rate and will be very public about it so any open source software can be easily adjusted to suit. In addition, we plan to add in some non-standard parameters such as IAM or Calc Load to a SSM parameter read so any open datalogging software can always call to the same SSM parameter address and get a known value in a known format. Save from trying to hunt down RAM addresses in each ROM revision.

The thing with something like this is you have to make sure that you leave all OBDII and SSM logging capabilities were they are. Otherwise people might run into issues passing smog or seeing the dealer.

In all reality though... do you honestly believe this kind of lockout will work for long? I'm just wondering what your views are on this. Me personally... I think it would be too naieve to think that, but I could be wrong.

By the way we made this change to the software more than six months ago.

That's funny... why is it that PDX (or for that matter any other tuner/partner as you like to call them) didn't know or get notified about it? (I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that maybe PDX didn't update their software for over 6 months, but I doubt that... and I also don't see why you wouldn't send out a mass email or mail indicating such major changes to your software to all of your dealers.)

My point being at the end of this ramble is if more time and resources were devoted to the direct developement of the product without fear or risk that the manufacturer will have the "this product costs too much now, I am going to buy competitors "x's" part because it is 50$ cheaper" scenario, perhaps North America would start closing that gap with the rest of the world in terms of the level of products and technology we could offer.

Well, the problem here is only one thing... MONEY! Money is what drives the stupid world right now, it was the worse invention man could have come up with. Until money and anything else used as monetary units will go away and until the human race can just work with eachother to better the race without competition for something and without persecution there will never be peace anywhere and there sure as hell won't be less financial competition. Unfortunatly my friend... none of us here will ever see this happen before we die. Frankly I'd be very surprised if the human race ever evolves to that level... it sure as hell won't happen if we keep birthing Republicans. :lol:

To confirm and repeat:

This was done as a direct result of requests from our US partners, and as Trey has stated he is doing the same.

This was not our idea.

We have left all OBDII and SSM logging capabilities as standard.

We also had far more instances of the dealer programming a modified ECU and causing customer headaches than this has generated problems in six months.

In our new product the vehicle owner will have the option of returning the ECU to stock with no further protection, thus allowing programming by a dealer. Although I have no idea why you would want that when you will have the very latest ROM files available.

In our new product the vehicle owner will have the option of returning the ECU to stock with no further protection, thus allowing programming by a dealer. Although I have no idea why you would want that when you will have the very latest ROM files available.

When's this comming out... 2010?

* If you are using the software in a open source project, for personal use, etc, you are free to use it however you see fit.

* If you are using the software in a non-open source or commercial project, you must obtain a license ($) to use it.


whoa shift ...

not suprising ...
not totaly unwarrented you have put a ton of work in ...

To confirm and repeat:

Sounds like a good idea.

This was done as a direct result of requests from our US partners, and as Trey has stated he is doing the same.

This was not our idea.

That doesnt matter whatsoever. I found that I, PDXTuning, or Subaru could not access my PCM with anything other than ECUTek. Given the Live tuning capabilities of the Cobb AP vs. the "Stop and flash" mechanism of ECUTek, it was obvious to me that building a MAF curve from scratch on an expensive dyno (with an expensive (justifiably) tuner), the AP made more economic sense even though I had already purchased ECUTek . PDXTuning had *NO* knowledge of this change to software, and is one of your major US parters. Please have the US Partners who are requesting this join the thread. I know the folks that tune with ECUTek the most, and I cant believe they would ask you to do this. Net out, if it wasn't something PDXTuning wanted, why do I care who's idea it was? It sounds like something my kid would say.

We have left all OBDII and SSM logging capabilities as standard.

Now that would have been classic.... all ECUTek'd ECUs cannot pass OBD2 emmissions for an indefinite time period.


We also had far more instances of the dealer programming a modified ECU and causing customer headaches than this has generated problems in six months.

So this is the business logic? Thats fine. However, I don't have a worry in the world about folks getting overflashed by the dealer. That's between dealers and customers other than myself. Again... that didnt fix my problem. Now that people are finding that their ECUs are actually locked... which problem is going to be the bigger headache for you?

In our new product the vehicle owner will have the option of returning the ECU to stock with no further protection, thus allowing programming by a dealer. Although I have no idea why you would want that when you will have the very latest ROM files available.

I made it clear above. I hope your new product will be out soon for everyone else's sake... and that it will allow a tuner to choose NOT to lock down their tune. In the meantime, I've eliminated the issue.

The company that I work for is ripped off each year by copyright and patent infringement to the tune of over a billion USD. A billion. We have tried a number of different approaces to combatting this loss. Only ONE works.

You MUST out-innovate and out-develop the competition and the criminals WITH THE PRODUCT.

Everything else is temporary and not a systematic protection. Because the folks that are copying your work are a few months behind, your competition becomes copies of your old product. Only through innovation and low TTM can you win that battle. Technical controls like what you have done are only in-efficient speedbumps that have wasted your time and your customers good will.

Good luck...
Chris

When you look at the scope of motorsport in the rest of the world as an example, we are still sevral years behind in terms of the level of competition we can offer at a professional level worldwide. (I do have a point here, bear with me)

Perhaps if more companies followed what COBB and Ecutek are doing in terms of protecting each others work and their relevant customers/dealers, we would start bridging that performance gap with the rest of the world by being able to offer a more stable and reliable distribution network without fear of the market place looking for a "cheaper alternative". When cost becomes an issue, it does two things. Sometimes good, sometimes bad.

There's a lot of misunderstanding in this comment I think.

The original rationale for OpenECU was not money. It was tunability. At the time of OpenECU's development (Jan-May 05), there was not a product anyone could buy (anywhere) for individual users to tune their cars. Cobb's AP was a one-size-fits-all solution, and their StreetTuner was not available then. ECUTek's tuning software wasn't available (http://forums.openecu.org/viewtopic.php?p=5646#5646) to end users, and IIRC still is not.

Users capable of tuning on their own were left with no alternative. Most OpenECU users care more about the ability to tune all the possible parameters than any other factors. There are exceptions, but the majority are after the flexibility.

Also, your comment about "nationalism" made me laugh. ECUTek is a company based in the UK. :lol:

Cost is always an issue. People are always looking for a bargain. If someone can do it faster, cheaper, better, they win. Cost is always a key factor in a capitalistic society. Almost any software solution (or largely software related) will become cheaper over time. It's silly to think writing a flash routine for a car would be a free ticket to charge whatever you see fit for an indefinite amount of time. Eventually someone else is going to come along and figure out how to do it, and cheaper or even free. Especially in the software world, some lone geek (sorry Colby ;) ) is going to figure out in their spare time what took some larger company a staff engineers hundreds of hours and boatloads of cash to do. Some of the leaders in the software world followed this path.

Having absolute power over the ECU is a big plus as well. No negotiating, no locked out data based on tiered marketing. No getting screwed when some guy in marketing decides they're not going to include a certain parameter that I need in a given product. No need to pony up thousands of dollars for "professional" level software to get what I want just to tune my own car. It's all there for anyone to see. No reliance on a company staying in business or producing updates to software. The Openecu stuff necessarily changes less code as only what the tuner directly chooses to change gets modified. Less development time trying to write in custom code to write in protection.

I can read and reflash my ECU at will right now. I have 100% of the ROM now, and generalized tools that can be used to edit the data in any way I see fit in the future. Even though I don't know what dozens of these maps do right now, there will never be anything in my way besides the time and energy. It's plenty palatable to me at this point (creating XMLs, keeping organized, etc), even if it isn't to most people.

Please have the US Partners who are requesting this join the thread.


They are in fact posting in this thread Chris.

PDX were one of the many companies who requested this feature be added.

I was thinking on this issue, and remembering the controversy over the (stu?) legal map from cobb, and I think, as Rainmaker said, that it is critical that the tuner/user has the option of preserving stock access. That is the only way of verifying that a map is, in fact, class legal, by looking at boost tables. IMO, if a tune isn't accessible by standard, cheap tools, it cannot and should not be legal for this type of class racing.
I also find it interesting that ecutek is stating pdx tuning(et al.) requested this encryption feature, and they knew nothing of it. Seems like EcuTek isn't keeping their tuners/users very informed.

David Power,

There is one important question that has not been answered in this thread yet. When your "change" was made to your software that made EcuTek reprogramed ECUs unabled to be reflashed by Subaru or a Cobb AP; were the end users made aware of this? Were they given any documention that informed them of this change or that there was no way to return back to stock programing? (yes, you are changing this now, but I am asking about the time period when the "change" was implemented)

They are in fact posting in this thread Chris.

PDX were one of the many companies who requested this feature be added.

I read Jarrad's post. I am struggling here to not put PDXTuning in a difficult position.

Simply put, Jarrad, Tim, Mick, etc. were there trying to get the AP to overwrite (marry to) the ECU, and went around for hours (with Christian from Cobb on his phone late at night).

I refuse to believe that that was an elaborate act on all of their part.

I am quite sure that PDXTuning had no desire to see the ECU unwritable. I've read the post and I can hear that Jarrad wants his work protected. But it sounds clear that he doesnt want that accomplished by locking the whole ECU.

To confirm and repeat:

This was done as a direct result of requests from our US partners, and as Trey has stated he is doing the same.

This was not our idea.

This is in fact irrelevant to the accusations being leveled against your company. It does not matter if God himself came down and asked you to roll out software that secretly locks out people from accessing their own property. The accusation is that you did just that, and that it was wrong.

It would be akin to me dumping an Ecutek rom, and flashing it to another car. If you said, "Hey, you are infringing my copyright!" Would you accept the excuse that "Sorry Dave, my friend/customer here specifically requested that I do that".

Of course you would not accept that excuse, because immoral (and probably illegal) behavior is not excused merely because someone else has asked you to behave that way.


The issue here is one of disclosure. If you disclose the fact that the customer must give up access to his physical property as a condition of using your data, and they agree, more power to all of you. If you secretly lock a customer from accessing their own physical property, then that is likely illegal - severity depending upon the state in which the act occurred.

The most recent high profile case that is similar is of course the Sony rootkit, in which they surreptitiously installed a program that monitored when a CD was copied, and hid itself, preventing its removal. Many attempted removals resulted in a disabled CD Drive (but recoverable via re-installation). Sony is involved in various lawsuits over this as we speak. Ecutek has gone much farther than Sony. If Sony had behaved in Ecutek fashion, then Sony would have disabled the user from accessing their physical hardware (CD drive, etc), and only Sony or an authorized sony dealer would be able to unlock your CD drive. Imagine how many lawsuits *that* would have incurred.

Ecutek might get away with this kind of behavior because of the relatively small number of customers. (thousands vs millions) But, it will be interesting if there is someone among that small number that decides to bring a lawsuit.

The other aspect of this is that any Ecutek data that is applied on top of Denso copyrighted ECU data is likely a "derivative work", and since you do not hold the copyright to the Denso data, and as far as I know, you have not licensed it yourself, you are not able to copyright a derivative work unless you are the original copyright holder.


WHO MAY PREPARE A DERIVATIVE WORK?

Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. The owner is generally the author or someone who has obtained rights from the author. See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html

My point is that under US copyright law, it is possible that you are locking people out of their own hardware to protect data that you don't even have any legal right to protect, in any fashion.

Ecutek isn't notified their customers that once they get an Ecutek, they're locked in and will never be able to get rid of the Ecutek or use any other reflash. That ECU is hosed for good. If you can't find an Ecutek tuner, or don't feel like paying whatever rate the Ecutek tuner feels like, you're screwed.

Really, get a Cobb. I still see no reason for anyone to use Ecutek anymore. Cobb's product is superior in pretty much every conceivable way.

I gotta agree with this. When I traded in my 03 WRX I would have been pretty unhappy :furious: if I'd been unable to get it back to stock before I traded it in. Fortunately I had an AP on it and was able to sell it locally to someone who is using it with no problems. +1 for Cobb.

Please have the US Partners who are requesting this join the thread.

If ECU tuning was easy then everyone would be doing it but it is not because it is an art. There is more to tuning than pushing the up and down arrow a few times, as there is more to painting the Mona Lisa with a canvas and a brush.

Various systems offer tools to real tuners to create a system around a driver and a vehicle. Each vehicle is different and even if they were the same no two drivers are the same. So no two maps will ever be the same, and creating the optimal tune for each person/vehicle is an art. You either have it or you don’t.

Name any of the most professional engine management systems in the world? MoTeC (password protected), Bosch (password protected), and Pectal (password protected). I would guarantee that ALL the engine management systems in the recent 24 Hour Lemans were password protected. So if professional companies like EcuTeK lock the ECU’s than we are glad to see them joining the ranks.

It is finally nice to see other tuning facilities stepping up to the plate to protect what their knowledge. Maybe other tuning shops will fall into suit and realize why we were the first company to offer “magical” 720cc injector tuning. Why we are the only company able to make reliable track proven power with the OEM ECU and why we have not and will not give out information about tuning.

We have supported what EcuTeK has done for many years now and NONE of our customers have ever complained. A little word of advice to some tuning shops out there, it helps to explain how the system works to your customers, they become well informed and don’t complain. ;)

Cheers,
William T. Knose Jr.
Lead Programmer
Crawford Performance / I-Speed USA

Password protected so that only the tuner who made the tune and a complete lock out of the ECU is two totally different things.

I might not be the one who creates my tune, but I sure as hell pay $500 to get it done, so doesn't that now become my property?

If I pay a painter to paint my house, that is now my paint, not the painters.

I might not have a Subie, but I would sure as hell be pissed if Hondata ever did anything remotely close to this.

Maybe other tuning shops will fall into suit and realize why we were the first company to offer “magical” 720cc injector tuning. Why we are the only company able to make reliable track proven power with the OEM ECU and why we have not and will not give out information about tuning.


Excuse me? You are the only tuner that can make a reliable track proven power with the OEM ECU? I think you should seriously reconsider that statement. Really.. You should seriously reconsider saying that. Here. To me. To every other EcuTek tuner out there. Seriously. Edit that post now.

I find it hard to believe you could actually say that. In a community that has strived over the years to be as open and helpful as possible, this kind of statement disgusts me. Really.. It makes me sick to read something like that.

Nasioc has for a long time, and will contiue to be, a great place for people to exchange information and ideas. Rest assured I will not go away. I will continue to collect and write as much technical information as I can. I look forward to learning something new every day from my friends here on nasioc. More and more people will come here to share their information and ideas as well. People will continue to agree and disagree with me. That is the wonderful part of it all. Everyone has a voice, right or wrong.

Let me be clear. I WILL give out information about tuning.

I have been a fan, supporter, and user of Ecutek ftools or three years. I have also been a fan and supporter of Cobb for the last year and a half. I have immense respect for the people who built us these products, and I support them in every way I can. I appreciate the technical challenges they have overcome, and I use their tools to help customers every day.

Jeff Sponaugle
PDXTuning.com

A little word of advice to some tuning shops out there, it helps to explain how the system works to your customers, they become well informed and don’t complain. ;)

Cheers,
William T. Knose Jr.
Lead Programmer
Crawford Performance / I-Speed USAExactly how many of your customer have learned from you that their EcuTeK reflash cannot be overwritten by any other system, including Subaru's, and that it can't be returned to stock until EcuTeK releases some software that's currently in beta?

If ECU tuning was easy then every<...snip...>

You either have it or you don’t.

Sorry, nobody is born knowing how to tune, and given enough dedication and intelligence, anybody can learn. It's not an art. I expect in my lifetime to see applications that autotune vehicles, and later on that retune them on the fly, at anytime.


Name any of the most professional engine management systems in the world? MoTeC (password protected), Bosch (password protected), and Pectal (password protected). I would guarantee that ALL the engine management systems in the recent 24 Hour Lemans were password protected. So if professional companies like EcuTeK lock the ECU’s than we are glad to see them joining the ranks.

So was this password protection done by a third party, to a racecar with a MoTeC that the 3rd party does not own, and done in secret? I highly doubt it. The equivalent scenario that Ecutek has done would be if I bought a racecar with a motec, then went to XXX tuner to have it tuned. Then I went out to the track and on race day I decided to adjust something myself. Much to my surprise I find that my motec has been secretly password protected without my knowledge, and I can no longer access hardware that I own. You missed the entire point of what the actual misbehavior is. There is nothing wrong with password protecting what YOU own. However, you cannot password protect what OTHERS own without their permission.


It is finally nice to see other tuning facilities stepping up to the plate to protect what their knowledge.

There was no "stepping up to the plate". I think a more apt description would be "snuck in the back door".


We have supported what EcuTeK has done for many years now
What have they done for years? It's my understanding that the practice of locking people out of their own ECU is relatively recent, ie <6 months.


A little word of advice to some tuning shops out there, it helps to explain how the system works to your customers, they become well informed and don’t complain. ;)
I agree here, but that's the only thing you got right.

I read Jarrad's post. I am struggling here to not put PDXTuning in a difficult position.

Simply put, Jarrad, Tim, Mick, etc. were there trying to get the AP to overwrite (marry to) the ECU, and went around for hours (with Christian from Cobb on his phone late at night).

I refuse to believe that that was an elaborate act on all of their part.

I am quite sure that PDXTuning had no desire to see the ECU unwritable. I've read the post and I can hear that Jarrad wants his work protected. But it sounds clear that he doesnt want that accomplished by locking the whole ECU.


Allow me to claify. We (PDXTuning) over the period of three years working with Ecutek have discussed at length methods to protect other tuners from reading and reselling maps that are written to the ECU by a different tuner. The Cobb product has a similair issue, and we discussed our concerns with them as well.

Like many software processes, the initial requirements were simple, but the implementation holds many details. We and many other tuners were concerned about maps that we develop were getting copied and sold by other tuners. I had no intention or idea that an ECU should be made unflashable.

When EcuTek implemented the security upgrades, I did not know it would prevent a complete flash overwrite. That was an implemenation detail, and we were just involved in offering some opinions on the requirements.

We now move to today. EcuTek realizes the marketing requirements for being able to overflash the ecu, and has indicated to us that they have a new product for this market place. It is a user flashable version of their product, which allows for 'divorcing' of the ECU. This solves the problem that this thread started with, and I think is a good solution. It is actually something I think is a good idea, because it is a product that includes the flash cable, as well as deltadash for datalogging. Obv iously the cobb product support this workflow, and it seems to be a reasonable one.

I hope this issue can be considered solved, as there are many other things we can and should spend time working on. It is always difficult to balance security, especially when it comes to IP. That being said, I am still a beliver in openness where possible. Look at what it has gotten us so far. ;)

Jeff Sponaugle
PDXTuning.com

Allow me to claify. We (PDXTuning) over the period of three years working with Ecutek have discussed at length methods to protect other tuners from reading and reselling maps that are written to the ECU by a different tuner. The Cobb product has a similair issue, and we discussed our concerns with them as well.

Like many software processes, the initial requirements were simple, but the implementation holds many details. We and many other tuners were concerned about maps that we develop were getting copied and sold by other tuners. I had no intention or idea that an ECU should be made unflashable.

When EcuTek implemented the security upgrades, I did not know it would prevent a complete flash overwrite. That was an implemenation detail, and we were just involved in offering some opinions on the requirements.

We now move to today. EcuTek realizes the marketing requirements for being able to overflash the ecu, and has indicated to us that they have a new product for this market place. It is a user flashable version of their product, which allows for 'divorcing' of the ECU. This solves the problem that this thread started with, and I think is a good solution. It is actually something I think is a good idea, because it is a product that includes the flash cable, as well as deltadash for datalogging. Obv iously the cobb product support this workflow, and it seems to be a reasonable one.

I hope this issue can be considered solved, as there are many other things we can and should spend time working on. It is always difficult to balance security, especially when it comes to IP. That being said, I am still a beliver in openness where possible. Look at what it has gotten us so far. ;)

Jeff Sponaugle
PDXTuning.com

Well said Jeff, the show must go on and all that, lets get on with it.


-Z

I know which of the two professional's that have spoken in this thread would get my business, and it sure isn't the one associated with bobbleheads.

If ECU tuning was .....
Crawford Performance / I-Speed USA

Holy cow!

I am pleased with this thread. It has gotten a few things out in the open:

1. No tuner has admitted that they knew about the EcuTEK lock. If they did know they arent saying, because Ive not heard once where a customer was told.

2. EcuTEK are beginning to understand that the mechanism they have chosen to "protect" the IP of others is not hitting the mark. They are announcing an impending solution (an unmarry-able handheld) that sounds great, but is vapor-ware until I know where to buy one.

3. Until we've been explicitly told so, I have to believe that this lock is part of buying an EcuTEK reflash. This thread will continue to serve as a warning. I hope the tuners warn (or inform, whatever your view) customers of this.

4. The folks at Crawford/I-speed really have their head where the sun doesnt shine. Sorry guys, but every paragrpah there misses the mark by a long shot. Every statement in the whole post irritates me. Irritates me like posting FWHP from a dynapack. Same kind of irritating. People with such a Holier-than-thou attitude will only find fools for customers. Sadly, the world is still full of them. Thanks for answering in the thread though... it was actually educational in a tangential kind of way.

Name any of the most professional engine management systems in the world? MoTeC (password protected), Bosch (password protected), and Pectal (password protected). I would guarantee that ALL the engine management systems in the recent 24 Hour Lemans were password protected. So if professional companies like EcuTeK lock the ECU’s than we are glad to see them joining the ranks.

Little bit of detail on these systems. THEY ARE ALL STANDALONES!!! If you make a standalone system, then fine do with it as you please because as far as I am aware of some of these systems cannot even pass OBDII diags so in the end it doesn't matter. Lockout someone else's property (Denso) from everyone that has the capability to overwrite it and that's another story. Hell, even the Hondata stuff isn't locked down and you don't see anyone complaining that tuners are stealing the other tuner's maps. You'll find that no professional tuner out there will ever copy someone's work and make it seem like their own because no real tuner out there will trust anyone's work but their own. What it will do (if you don't lock out the data) is how what a dumbass the previous tuner usually is because 9 times out of 10 people going to a new tuner go there because the previous one didn't provide them with what they wanted.

Rainmaker, or any other local NASIOC member interested, come to the shop next week and I will show you the new EcuTek product. As I still do not have it in my hand I can not talk in complete detail about it, but we have them on order. As I understand it we have the first shipment on the way to us tomorrow, and we are excited to see what EcuTek is delivering.

In regard to I-Speed's statement "Why we are the only company able to make reliable track proven power with the OEM ECU....", I have to go with Jeff on this, WTH is that about? IMO completing a 24 hour endurance race in 3rd place over all is a pretty damn good testiment of the EM and the machine. Jamie Thomas has been competing in Rally for 2 years with our EcuTek maps on the car. By competing I mean that she has been champion in her class for both of those years.

Sorry for side tracking the thread. Hopefully my opening comments will provide some benifit to the thread.


Jarrad

Rainmaker, or any other local NASIOC member interested, come to the shop next week and I will show you the new EcuTek product.

What? An INVITATION??? I'll need to stop showing up every OTHER day and start showing up *all the time*. I just needed an invitation! SWEET!

:lol:

Honestly, I'll be excited to see the product. What will happen though with the next fellow who wants his EcuTEK overwritten or returned to stock? Thats not a question for you... more for David at EcuTEK.

Rainmaker, or any other local NASIOC member interested, come to the shop next week and I will show you the new EcuTek product. As I still do not have it in my hand I can not talk in complete detail about it, but we have them on order. As I understand it we have the first shipment on the way to us tomorrow, and we are excited to see what EcuTek is delivering. I think I will take you up on that offer. Hopefully soon you'll have another batch of Torco in, so I can kill two birds with one stone ;).

Dave

What? An INVITATION??? I'll need to stop showing up every OTHER day and start showing up *all the time*. I just needed an invitation! SWEET!

:lol:

Honestly, I'll be excited to see the product. What will happen though with the next fellow who wants his EcuTEK overwritten or returned to stock? Thats not a question for you... more for David at EcuTEK.
when do the rest of the us get to see this long awaited product?

Well, once the new Ecutek software gets out I consider that perfectly acceptable. I really could care less if a system is in place to prevent reading as long as you can overwrite if you really want to. Getting roped in and locked in sucks, especially if it is without being informed. It's highly anticompetitive to bork an ECU permanently. The consumer would lose big time if that were to happen.

William K, you need an ego check. My lord.

when do the rest of the us get to see this long awaited product?

+1 for info on new product

Once we have it we will do a write up for people. Tomorrow once David is back online I will have more details, but we have an order placed for them that is promised to ship tomorrow. Seriously, anyone local is welcome to come down and check it out. Once we have played with it we will let everyone know what we think of it, and anyone who wants one is welcome to purchase it from us, or any EcuTek dealer who has it ;)

Jarrad

ok, one little bit of information to appease people until tomorrow.

EasyECU will be Flash Only and bundled with DeltaDash. It will allow programming of the ECU by the end user. No editing allowed. Basically it is closest to the AP, not the street tuner. It does not have real time maps, as I understand it, but with the flashing time of EcuTek I do not think that is a big deal.

As a tuner we can generate maps and send them out to the customer and they can flash it on the car. Also the product will include stock ROMs that will allow the car to be flashed by the dealership or flashed over with the AP. The MSRP of the product is $599USD, but that does not include the maps. It appears that EcuTek is going to allow the tuner to decide how much they are going to charge for the maps. EcuTek has never in the past generated maps, and it appears they will continue that policy.

I think that it rocks that you get Delta Dash with it. I know that there are other products available for free, <cough>ecuexplorer/dl1</cough>, but Delta Dash is nicer and I give credit to EcuTek for including the data logging tool needed for us to support our remote customers.

Jarrad

So EasyECU is like an crippled AccessPort which can only flash base maps (no switchable real-time maps) and has no StreetTuner-type upgrade path for people who can modify maps themselves. Why bother, unless it's free?

ok, one little bit of information to appease people until tomorrow.

EasyECU will be Flash Only and bundled with DeltaDash. It will allow programming of the ECU by the end user. No editing allowed. Basically it is closest to the AP, not the street tuner. It does not have real time maps, as I understand it, but with the flashing time of EcuTek I do not think that is a big deal.


Jarrad

Can you find out if there will be an upgrade to people who already owne Delta Dash?

You can switch maps, just that they are not "real time" which does not mean a whole lot. If the tuner gives the consumer 5 maps they can switch between those five just like you would with the AP.

Let's wait until we have one to play with, and then we will compare. For now there is no mention of the street tuner equivalent, but it is not my place to discuss that further.

Jarrad

This is one of the first questions I have for David, the other is what about people who are already licensed.

Can you find out if there will be an upgrade to people who already owne Delta Dash?

the other is what about people who are already licensed.

Thank you.... The original point of the thread was to warn people about locking their ECU with the EcuTEK license... and we still don't have a solution for those that dont buy the hand-held or are already "locked".

Chris

12345

You can switch maps, just that they are not "real time" which does not mean a whole lot. If the tuner gives the consumer 5 maps they can switch between those five just like you would with the AP.I had no idea before that there were so many unallocated bytes on the 2002-5 WRX ROMs that 5 independent sets of maps could be supported.

The MSRP of the product is $599USD, but that does not include the maps.

Well, goody! :rolleyes:

Gota love how EcuTek causes the isht to hit the fan only to come back a day later and state "Oh wait... we have a piece of software to solve this for a mare $599." WTH is that? I think everyone here just fell for the biggest kick you in the balls marketing ploy in the history of NASIOC. So for $599 I can basically just flash my ECU with EcuTek maps generated by a tuner, but can't edit or back my current tune up. That's just feaking GREAT!... NOT! I don't care if you get DD with it or not... considering $395.95 for DD the price of $203.05 for flashing alone is overpriced in my viewpoint.

Here's a better pricepoint David. $99.00 for the "flashing only" plugin and $199.00 for the user tuning plugin.

I mean goddamn man, ST is only $195.00 right now. What are you money hungry? Freaking Brits! :lol:

']I had no idea before that there were so many unallocated bytes on the 2002-5 WRX ROMs that 5 independent sets of maps could be supported.

He probably means you can "flash" each of the 5 maps. There no way in hell it can switch between 5 onboard maps on the fly.

So, basically the short story here is that Cobb and Ecutek banded together to protect their business model with no regard (or warning) for the penalties to the end user. Whats next, price fixing?

The only thing that will get this situation back into the control of the end user is a boycott of their products.

We are the people who have the power to make or break you with our buying decisions.

Don't ever forget that Cobb/Ecutek.

So let me get this straight as I've been trying to figure out what EM to use when I start the engine work.

EcuTek is going to run ~$800 for the license +$600 for the ability to "divorce" my ECU +$$$$$ for tuning?

Christ....why can't there be a COBB PT somewhere within 500 miles of me ARGH!!!!!!

Let us ignore the semantics of right vs. wrong here and just acknowledge this astute observation.


More and more people will come here to share their information and ideas as well. People will continue to agree and disagree with me. That is the wonderful part of it all. Everyone has a voice, right or wrong.
Jeff Sponaugle
PDXTuning.com

It’s certainly obvious that some people can weave a good post and others cannot. As such, I will not bash Bill for saying what he says and I will not ask him to alter/edit his opinions. Sure, he may be a little proud of his work, but no more-so than some other people on this forum. I mean Bill is only an ecu-programmer who scored perfect on his math SAT (don’t ask his engrish score, yes I said engrish! ). Maybe if we asked him to post up codes and equations it will come across more palatable? Anyway, being the Mayflower American he is, he is entitled to voice his opinions. Certainly no one has to agree with it, but at least people should respect people’s voices and agree to disagree.

Thank you for your time….back to the drama

Chris

So let me get this straight as I've been trying to figure out what EM to use when I start the engine work.

EcuTek is going to run ~$800 for the license +$600 for the ability to "divorce" my ECU +$$$$$ for tuning?

Christ....why can't there be a COBB PT somewhere within 500 miles of me ARGH!!!!!!

EcuTek license is $595... At the moment I'd say do yourself a favor and maybe wait this out a little... or get a current AP and have PDX do your tuning via email, or get an AP $595 + ST $195 and have your tuner tune with that. If he can't then he's lame for not knowing his isht. Any tuner should be able to tune with any of these software packages... they are not rocket science and pretty similar in layout.

Bottom line... 6 pages of posts and Cobb and EcuTek basically just kicked everyone in the nuts... real hard.

^^^^luckily there are a couple of tuners not to far way from me that are doing Protune (I couldn't find jack before 5 minutes ago). It's going to be awhile before I do anything anyways so this will all be worked out by then anyways.

12345

So, we have:

COBB SOLUTION:
Accessport $595-$645
StreeTuner $195
Total $790-$840

Pros
1. Base map and real time maps
2. A number of maps included for different mods. Also includes anti-theft and valet maps. Maps are updated and available for download for free (like the recent FP 16g maps)
2. Ability to tune the car, including realtime tuning
3. Logging included, including live tracing
4. Cheaper

Cons
1. Missing some features in logger including graphing and road dyno

ECUTEK SOLUTION:
Ecutek license $595
Deltadash/flasher combo $599
Cost of the off-the-shelf map from tuner $150
Total $1344

Pros
1. Marginally better logger with graphing and road dyno

Cons
1. More expensive
2. Does not include any free maps
3. No real time maps
4. Cannot tune and no live tracing

Hmm, wonder which solution I would go with?

So, we have:

COBB SOLUTION:
Accessport $595-$645
StreeTuner $195
Total $790-$840

Pros
1. Base map and real time maps
2. A number of maps included for different mods. Also includes anti-theft and valet maps. Maps are updated and available for download for free (like the recent FP 16g maps)
2. Ability to tune the car, including realtime tuning
3. Logging included, including live tracing
4. Cheaper

Cons
1. Missing some features in logger including graphing and road dyno

ECUTEK SOLUTION:
Ecutek license $595
Deltadash/flasher combo $599
Cost of the off-the-shelf map from tuner $150
Total $1344

Pros
1. Marginally better logger with graphing and road dyno

Cons
1. More expensive
2. Does not include any free maps
3. No real time maps
4. Cannot tune and no live tracing

Hmm, wonder which solution I would go with?

Hydra? :lol:

I need to confirm the pricing structure before I post more.



I did mean that JUST like the cobb you could put ONE map on the ECU and load a new one on if you wanted a different one on.

At this point I will no longer post in this thread. It has run it's course. We will make a new post about the new product. Hopefully anyone with the same concerns as Rainmaker now understands what may happen if you have purchased a reflash in the past 6 months. Anyone in the future with a Cobb AP map or a EcuTek reflash can expect to not be able to copy the map off with openecu tools, but once returning to stock mode users of either will be able to load any map allowed by the openecu tools. I imagine those flashed in the past 6 months will have the option to return back to stock and flash the ECU with openecu tools, or by the dealership, but it is not my call to make so I am not promising anything.

Jarrad

So, basically the short story here is that Cobb and Ecutek banded together to protect their business model with no regard (or warning) for the penalties to the end user. Whats next, price fixing?
The only thing that will get this situation back into the control of the end user is a boycott of their products.

We are the people who have the power to make or break you with our buying decisions.

Don't ever forget that Cobb/Ecutek.


THAT has been going on FOR A LONG TIME, now....by MANY of the vendors.....if it isn't GLARINGLY APPARENT to you, by now :rolleyes:

...and why openECU is SOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooo appealing to SOOOOOOOooooooooooooo many.

Hopefully anyone with the same concerns as Rainmaker now understands what may happen if you have purchased a reflash in the past 6 months. Minor nitpick -- the window of time is likely longer than 6 months. Chris had his Ecutek flash closer to 9 months ago.

Thanks for posting details in this thread, Jarrad, we all very much appreciate it.

I am an evo owner logged on under a buddies account, but seriously, I KNOW that if it's going to cost 599 bucks to be able to reflash our ECUTEK's, EVERYBODY with an ECUTEK that has the slightest want to tune there car themselves, is going to jump on the ecuflash solution.


ECUTEK, basically, to make any money in the future and in order not to loose all your customers who will spend another 100 on top of the 650 they paid for there intial flashes, even if it means losing there ecutek flash and just gaining the self tunability features.


Make end user tuning cheap, or go out of buisness, that is as simple as it gets, if you don't listen to this, happy hunting(for customers).


Scorke

I may not have made this clear, but this issue of locking appears to be the case for ALL cars EcuTEK reflashed since they made the change.... NOT JUST 06 CARS, and while we have had the introduction of a new product made clear, we do not currently have a solution for those cars, like mine, that were locked up by EcuTEK.

EcuTEK: Can you PLEASE provide (if only to the tuners?) a way to give me back my PCM?

thanks,
Chris

I mean Bill is only an ecu-programmer who scored perfect on his math SAT (don’t ask his engrish score, yes I said engrish! ).
Thank you for your time….back to the drama

Chris
are you seriously trying to use a math SAT score as an e-penis measurement? :huh:

to be honest, I'm not impressed.
whats his total score?
:rolleyes:
I can guess the english part is low, he committed a huge faux pas (sorry, I'll dumb it down for you: mistake) when he said crawford was the only one making reliable power on the stock ECU. That was a huge insult, to many people. People who do check piston-wall clearances. People who actually KNOW their ****.
you guys are a joke.
bobblehead performance, bull**** dyno numbers, not giving out any information about AFRs or IDCs at all, and now you measure tuning ability with a math SAT score? ****, hire me, I bet my SATs are higher then your "lead programmer". not that they are a useful performance metric for measuring tuning ability. :rolleyes:
although I bet you couldn't pay me what my engineering abilities are worth.

ECUTEK SOLUTION:
Ecutek license $595
Deltadash/flasher combo $599
Cost of the off-the-shelf map from tuner $150
Total $1344



Please let me correct you on the pricing structure,

The Flash/DeltaDash combo DOES include a license and is a complete solution. you will not need to purchase anything separate, except if you would like your dealer to customize maps for you.

I will be suggesting that the current EcuTeK customer receive a copy of their current tune and a OE map so they revert back to standard as they wish.

The price you pay for maps will depend on the dealer; I cannot decide how much their work is worth...!

If you would like more information about this product, you should be looking for PDXT new thread about the subject

Please let me correct you on the pricing structure,

The Flash/DeltaDash combo DOES include a license and is a complete solution. you will not need to purchase anything separate, except if you would like your dealer to customize maps for you.

I will be suggesting that the current EcuTeK customer receive a copy of their current tune and a OE map so they revert back to standard as they wish.

The price you pay for maps will depend on the dealer; I cannot decide how much their work is worth...!

If you would like more information about this product, you should be looking for PDXT new thread about the subject
:huh: Wait, so you're saying the new software combo for $599 will have different stage upgrades for everyone to use so that if they don't want to see an EcuTek dealer they don't have to? If so, then that's fine for people that don't have anything right now? Here's a wild question for ya... What about those of us who already own a license for EcuTek? Why the hell should we pay full price for this?... or am I misunderstanding you? You guys have a warped sense of humor. :rolleyes: Please do correct me if I'm wrong.

Why the hell should we pay full price for this?... or am I misunderstanding you? Please do correct me if I'm wrong.

Why be aggressive in your comment ??

I haven't posted any more pricing, I am not a registered vendor so I am not "allowed" to post pricing. I was simply correcting an error.

Please visit th new thread from PDXT about the pricing structure of the new product.

Yes, there is a cheaper version for the current EcuTeK customer.

Why be aggressive in your comment ??

I haven't posted any more pricing, I am not a registered vendor so I am not "allowed" to post pricing. I was simply correcting an error.

Please visit th new thread from PDXT about the pricing structure of the new product.

Yes, there is a cheaper version for the current EcuTeK customer.

With the already in-depth discussion about the EcuTek huha in this thread I seriously doubt anyone's going to ban you for posting "mind-easing" information, including prices. After all, you just did that in the previous post. Tell you what, you post the prices and if a mod gets onto your case tell them to dock me the points. Either that or PM me the info and I'll post it if you're that concerned, or better yet... update your website with the info so the whole world can see the info.

On the other hand... since I've already paid my $595 for my license I'll send you $4.00 and you can send me the software.... because that's basically what you're saying it's worth at this point based on the info you posted.

BTW, I'm not being agressive, I'm being direct... ;) I think others will back me up on this.

Please let me correct you on the pricing structure,

The Flash/DeltaDash combo DOES include a license and is a complete solution. you will not need to purchase anything separate, except if you would like your dealer to customize maps for you.
Ok, so it would look like this:
ECUTEK SOLUTION:
Deltadash/flasher with license combo $599
Cost of the off-the-shelf map from tuner $150 (estimated)
Total $749

If so, that is a lot more resonable. And what if you already have a license?

where is this other thread that was started by PDX? i can't find it.

where is this other thread that was started by PDX? i can't find it.

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=720494&page=5&pp=50

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=720494&page=5&pp=50


that thread was started almost a year a half ago and from what i can tell contains NO new info.

_____

We will make a new post about the new product.

Jarrad

Once we have it we will do a write up for people. .............. Once we have played with it we will let everyone know what we think of it, and anyone who wants one is welcome to purchase it from us, or any EcuTek dealer who has it

Jarrad

Has anyone mentioned plans for a solution for folks with their PCM currently locked?

I am assuming that any future posts by PDXTuning won't get those of us in this mess out of it...(its not a problem of their making).

that thread was started almost a year a half ago and from what i can tell contains NO new info.

yeah i know. sorry. but that was the only thread i could find that they started.

Has anyone mentioned plans for a solution for folks with their PCM currently locked?

I am assuming that any future posts by PDXTuning won't get those of us in this mess out of it...(its not a problem of their making).

Notice how Ecutek, I-Speed, and PDX (unfortuately, because PDX is usually such an awesome community member) have completely ignored the real issue at stake here....which is what you stated above....that Ecutek and their authorized vendors (knowingly or not) have been modifying ECUs in such a way that is most likely illegal. It's obviously very deceptive since customers were not informed.

Not one post has been made about this fact by any vendor, and I really question how anybody with a conscience could sweep this kind of behavior under the rug, and continue to do business with, take part in, or represent such a company?

Why does Ecutek, I-Speed, or PDX, (or any other Ecutek partner) not speak about this possibly illegal trade practice? If it is legal, or Ecutek believes it is legal, why does Ecutek not inform us about how or why it is legal to implement technical measures to lock someobody out of their own physical property?

And as an aside, why does Ecutek not explain whether or not they have licensed the Denso copyrighted code/data, and why do they not explain their legal basis for considering a derivative work copyrightable?

I would also like for Trey Cobb to answer the above question, as well, if he could.

If anyone is confused about a derivative work, I'll explain. Say you have a book with 10 chapters written by Bob, and you write 5 extra chapters. So you package the book with all 15 chapters and sell it. That is illegal copyright infringement. The 15 chapter book is a derivative work, and only the copyright holder of the original 10 chapters can authorize you to sell it all together.

It is my understanding that a Cobb "base map" that you download would be only equivalent to those 5 chapters. Therefore Ecutek/Cobb can copyright that all they want, as they own it, and it is an original work. However, when Cobb or Ecutek combines their changes with the original work (the Denso copyrighted binary ECU image), they can no longer claim copyright over the binary image.

I understand that if you made a tune, you would not want people trading it around, you want to profit from your work. However, the hypocritical part of this is that Cobb/Ecutek is doing to Denso exactly what they are trying to prevent anyone else from doing to them. (Provided they have not licensed Denso's work, and nobody has yet affirmed they have)

If Subaru/Denso behaved like Cobb/Ecutek, then our cars would come locked from the factory and both of them would be out of business.

I was kind of ambivalent about the Ecu locking idea as long as one could unlock it themselves...but the more I think about it given the issues I mentioned above, the more it looks like collusion and hypocrisy to me.

If Subaru/Denso behaved like Cobb/Ecutek, then our cars would come locked from the factory and both of them would be out of business.

Actually, most ECU/cars *do* come "locked" from the factory. The 2004+ WRX/STi/other DBWs use a seed key algorithmic challenge to authorize you to enter the flash mode. Mitsubishi is simpler, but still requires you to know a sequence of bytes to authorize their boot loader as well. The security measures are weak however, as one can snoop / reverse engineer factory reflash tools (SSM/MUT) or even dump the CPU directly (or at least run trojan code in ram) using CPU hardware debug interfaces.

So anyone that wants to get into reflashing must overcome these (small) barriers. It certainly doesn't defuse your argument - it makes it more interesting, IMHO.

Hate to say it guys, but this might be a good idea to start work on that "one complete" OpenECU package that I've been bitching no one seems to want to put together. If you had that it would make it easier for people to use the OpenECU progs rather then other solutions and at that point a lot of this bs would be pointless.

Actually, most ECU/cars *do* come "locked" from the factory. The 2004+ WRX/STi/other DBWs use a seed key algorithmic challenge to authorize you to enter the flash mode.

That is interesting. That means it is also highly possible that companies selling tools that reflash are guilty of violating section 1201(b)(1)(A) of the DMCA.

Section 1201 of 17 USC contains the technological circumvention prohibitions. Section 1201(b)(1)(A) prohibits any person from manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing or otherwise trafficking in "any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof", that "is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner" under the Copyright Act. Since software or other information can be used to bypass or circumvent such 'digital locks', they are banned under this provision and their creators or distributors risk criminal prosecution when done for financial gain.

The "criminal prosecution" part is specifically triggered when done for financial gain, it's a "civil prosecution" otherwise. The punishment for criminally circumventing technological measures carries a fine of up to $500,000 and/ or up to 5 years in prison.

Ecutek is selling circumvention devices to all of their tuners, and Cobb is selling them to everyone. Then they turn around and reapply a new 'technical measure' to keep everyone from doing what they just did.

As a side note, nobody has been prosecuted under the DMCA's criminal provisions yet, only 1 person has been charged, and he was not convicted. (Dmitry Skylarov, if you want to check it out)

Notice how Ecutek, I-Speed, and PDX (unfortuately, because PDX is usually such an awesome community member) have completely ignored the real issue at stake here....which is what you stated above....that Ecutek and their authorized vendors (knowingly or not) have been modifying ECUs in such a way that is most likely illegal. It's obviously very deceptive since customers were not informed.


This is somewhat unfair to us (PDX). We, with the help of Rainmaker, discovered this problem. We talked to EcuTek, and they are working on a solution that would allow us to divorce from the ecu. I do not know how this would work with existing PCMs, but I suspect it would be a pretty easy process.

As Jarrad said many times, once we see some software that can address this, we will of course be sure to tell you. I realize some of you are unhappy with this development, but please don't shoot the messenger.

We will post everything we find out, as soon as we can. I do fully understant the issue that Rainmaker posted about, and there are no rugs to sweep it under.

Jeff

I would also like for Trey Cobb to answer the above question, as well, if he could.We(COBB) have not licensed any DENSO code or the Hitachi OS that runs on the DBW Subarus vehicles. The changes we make to the software and calibrations are done by means of "patching" the original code. We don't "sell" any DENSO code, we only sell our patches and installation/transportation device. The "maps" listed on our website are only patch files, not the original DENSO code.

Our patches include some original program code, in use today specifically being the Realtime code. Depending on the syntax you wish to use, we think of this code as its own "program" running within a Hitachi or Motorola OS.

Now back to the "locking" of ECU topic at hand, Subaru has DENSO utilize a unique routine for putting the ROM into a read/write state. This routinue is Subaru specific, the DENSO ECUs we're also working on for Mazda and Toyota vehicles do not share this same routine, or anything close actually. This read/write enable routine is also not something Subaru or DENSO make Public Domain through any of their own actions or wishes. In fact, I'd consider it closely guarded information. If they wanted their customers to have the ability to download the ROM data, they'd likely give it to you on a disk or tell you how to download it in the manual. Or maybe you can call a hotline and they'll email it to you, I dunno. ;) Fact remains they don't go through any steps to make the info available.

When Subaru finally complies with the federal laws requiring them to provide ECU software updates to third parties through the SAE J2534 interface standard, they will most definitely provide them as encrypted or incomplete ROMs, as is standard with all others in the industry.

I guess what I'm ultimately saying is this:
1) The ability to read an ECU is definitely your right.
2) Subaru and DENSO do not make the ability to read the ECU public domain, they do not provide source code, it's not "open source" and it's not protected by any GPL.
3) We're not removing the ability to read the ROM while the AccessPORT is installed...we're only changing it. If you want to read it, figure out how.
4) When you uninstall the AccessPORT, we'll return to the Subaru methods.
5) Subaru has the right and ability to change the "entry method" at any time as well with no notification to their customers. In the event they do, none of us really have the "right" to demand Subaru to tell us how to get in. If we want in, we have to figure it out.

Some companies, like Nissan for example, actually change their entry "passwords" and encryption schemes for every model and nearly every year.

If we didn't change the ECU back to 100% stock so you could read/write the ECU using other tools, including dealer reflash updates, then I would definitely see the issue. You've potentially caused the actual copyright holder the inability to update or alter their own work.

That means it is also highly possible that companies selling tools that reflash are guilty of violating section 1201(b)(1)(A) of the DMCA.I'm not lawyer but my impression of that law deals primarily with copy protection mechanisms designed to prohibit illegal distribution of the copyrighted material. The fines are primarily based on people trying to sell (or license) work they don't have the right to distribute (or did not actually do themselves) for a profit.

Whatever the case, sites such as OpenECU could be considered to be in question. They freely "offer to the public" exactly what that law states and furthermore COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL is available to be downloaded for free with no controls on who may have "rights" to said copyrighted material or not. If a company felt that was causing damaged, they'd have every right to take OpenECU and its members to court. That's happened before, game publishers if I recall did the same thing recently.

Our goods sold(AP) are patches to DENSO code that are designed to enhance its function. We do not profit from selling DENSO code, but rather patches or changes/alterations to a specific component.

Our exhausts are "patches" for the Subaru vehicle that are designed to enhance its function. We do not profit from selling Subaru vehicles, but rather the patches or changes/alteration to a specific component.

I understand the concerns and comments, and I'm not saying you're wrong to have them. I'm simply playing a little bit of "devil's advocate" on some of the topics here.

Cheers,
Trey @ COBB

This is somewhat unfair to us (PDX). We, with the help of Rainmaker, discovered this problem. We talked to EcuTek, and they are working on a solution that would allow us to divorce from the ecu. I do not know how this would work with existing PCMs, but I suspect it would be a pretty easy process.

As Jarrad said many times, once we see some software that can address this, we will of course be sure to tell you. I realize some of you are unhappy with this development, but please don't shoot the messenger.

We will post everything we find out, as soon as we can. I do fully understant the issue that Rainmaker posted about, and there are no rugs to sweep it under.

Jeff
Yeah, EcuTek has been _seriously_ unimpressive in their handling of this issue. Let me make sure I understand this:
1: get request for from various tuners that locking maps would be nice
2: implement ecu locking technique _without_ telling anyone, possibly violating the DMCA
3: allow one of their licensed tuners/users(pdx) to waste time($$$) because of #2
4: get pissy and say "we only did this because we were asked to do so" when called out.
5: at some unknown point in future release a AP-like product, minus the realtime map feature, and without supplying any maps. This product will in theory allow people to get free from #2, for extra money.
Wow. seems like great customer service _and_ great end user service. This is a winning company, people.
(and, if I was a tuner, I don't know why I'd screw with ecutek, considering that I could either use the cobb package that is very well supported and works well, or the open package. Just doesn't seem like it is worthwhile. )

Yeah, EcuTek has been _seriously_ unimpressive in their handling of this issue. Let me make sure I understand this:
1: get request for from various tuners that locking maps would be nice
2: implement ecu locking technique _without_ telling anyone, possibly violating the DMCA
3: allow one of their licensed tuners/users(pdx) to waste time($$$) because of #2
4: get pissy and say "we only did this because we were asked to do so" when called out.
5: at some unknown point in future release a AP-like product, minus the realtime map feature, and without supplying any maps. This product will in theory allow people to get free from #2, for extra money.
Wow. seems like great customer service _and_ great end user service. This is a winning company, people.
(and, if I was a tuner, I don't know why I'd screw with ecutek, considering that I could either use the cobb package that is very well supported and works well, or the open package. Just doesn't seem like it is worthwhile. )

nice summary, sounds about right!

Just a little correction to that list above... more then likely EcuTek won't be releasing an "AP Like" device. The new flashing software is probably just that... software and you'll need a laptop if you want to use it. So you'll get DD, EasyECU (flash program), and a cable for $599 as it sits now. With that you also obviously get a license to flash your ECU with. So, with that said, it's not such a bad deal, if and only if you don't already own a license. If you own a license you're pretty much going to get ripped off unless they want to sell you the package for $4. I say $4 because the current (cheapest I could find) price for an EcuTek flash (i.e. license) is $595. So one of three things will happen here... either EcuTek will seriously drop the cost of a license alone (if you don't want the "self flashing" package), they will provide an "upgrade" price for those with a license already (which will still cost you more because you bought your license before the new software release and there's no way they are going to sell it to you for $4), or simply just say... "Hey, this is the cost of our new product... what you bought before is our old product... there was no way for us to forsee this kind of advancement and there's no real need for us to offer it at any other price then what it's currently priced at." This last option is no different then what Cobb did when the AP came out. People not wanting the AP option would call them for a simple AccessECU flash and were told they no longer had that available... (hardly the case since it's the same technology, just not implementing the AP device itself) and were forced to buy the AP at a higher price then the AccessECU flash itself would have cost if they wanted the Cobb offered tuning technology. (Nothing wrong here, just the normal flow of product advancement, but still.)

I just don't think that it's fair for those of you with locked ECUs to be forced into a purchase of new software which you may or may not have wanted to begin with just because you want to unlock your ECU. My understanding here is that you cannot get a new (as in within the last 6 months) EcuTek flash without undergoing this lock. So, you don't even have an option to go back to your EcuTek dealer and say... "I want to keep my EcuTek license and tune, but want my ECU unlocked." That will not be an option. So, you either pay more money or you try and force your EcuTek dealer to give you your money back after revoking your EcuTek license and tune from your ECU. Either way... it's not a clean outcome. I think this is what people have a problem with the most.

We can argue about legalities until we are blue in the face. The point is, I highly doubt Subaru will act in any way. What would they have to gain? Even if they could make Cobb, Ecutek and openecu go away, what would be the advantage? Do you think people will stop modding their cars if no engine management exists? I think we know the answer to that one.

As far as Ecutek locking their tunes, I doubt anyone is going to front the money for a lawyer to sue over a locked ECU, for which a used stock replacement can be found for about $200. Even if there wasn't a solution coming out (which there is, apparently if you believe Ecutek), you could still trade your ECU with someone who wanted to get an Ecutek tune.

I can understand why the tuners are apprehensive about the openecu project. I mean, joe schmo and his tuner shop in his garage can now copy the off-the-shelf maps that tuners have spent countless hours revising and use them as a base map for tuning. Cobb and Ecutek are also worried, although I doubt they will admit it publicly, because the same joe schmo can flash and tune the car for free with no license fees. And the project keeps getting better and better and will eventually include real time tuning and be user friendly enough for the average noob to figure out. Once that happens, these vendors will need to either drop their prices drastically, or risk losing a lot of business.

Just a little correction to that list above... more then likely EcuTek won't be releasing an "AP Like" device. The new flashing software is probably just that... software and you'll need a laptop if you want to use it. So you'll get DD, EasyECU (flash program), and a cable for $599 as it sits now. With that you also obviously get a license to flash your ECU with. So, with that said, it's not such a bad deal, if and only if you don't already own a license. If you own a license you're pretty much going to get ripped off unless they want to sell you the package for $4. I say $4 because the current (cheapest I could find) price for an EcuTek flash (i.e. license) is $595. So one of three things will happen here... either EcuTek will seriously drop the cost of a license alone (if you don't want the "self flashing" package), they will provide an "upgrade" price for those with a license already (which will still cost you more because you bought your license before the new software release and there's no way they are going to sell it to you for $4), or simply just say... "Hey, this is the cost of our new product... what you bought before is our old product... there was no way for us to forsee this kind of advancement and there's no real need for us to offer it at any other price then what it's currently priced at."

I just don't think that it's fair for those of you with locked ECUs to be forced into a purchase of new software which you may or may not have wanted to begin with just because you want to unlock your ECU. My understanding here is that you cannot get a new (as in within the last 6 months) EcuTek flash without undergoing this lock. So, you don't even have an option to go back to your EcuTek dealer and say... "I want to keep my EcuTek license and tune, but want my ECU unlocked." That will not be an option. So, you either pay more money or you try and force your EcuTek dealer to give you your money back after revoking your EcuTek license and tune from your ECU. Either way... it's not a clean outcome. I think this is what people have a problem with the most.
I agree. There should be a free download for just the flashing program. It can query the ECU can make sure you have an ecutek tune, then allow you to flash back to stock or switch maps. Not all of us want or need deltadash either as we use ECUexplorer. So, make it a separate free program and charge for the cable and flash block only.

With that you also obviously get a license to flash your ECU with. So, with that said, it's not such a bad deal, if and only if you don't already own a license. If you own a license you're pretty much going to get ripped off unless they want to sell you the package for $4. I say $4 because the current (cheapest I could find) price for an EcuTek flash (i.e. license) is $595. So one of three things will happen here... either EcuTek will seriously drop the cost of a license alone (if you don't want the "self flashing" package), they will provide an "upgrade" price for those with a license already (which will still cost you more because you bought your license before the new software release and there's no way they are going to sell it to you for $4), or simply just say... "Hey, this is the cost of our new product... what you bought before is our old product... there was no way for us to forsee this kind of advancement and there's no real need for us to offer it at any other price then what it's currently priced at." This last option is no different then what Cobb did when the AP came out.

I just don't think that it's fair for those of you with locked ECUs to be forced into a purchase of new software which you may or may not have wanted to begin with just because you want to unlock your ECU. My understanding here is that you cannot get a new (as in within the last 6 months) EcuTek flash without undergoing this lock. So, you don't even have an option to go back to your EcuTek dealer and say... "I want to keep my EcuTek license and tune, but want my ECU unlocked." That will not be an option. So, you either pay more money or you try and force your EcuTek dealer to give you your money back after revoking your EcuTek license and tune from your ECU. Either way... it's not a clean outcome. I think this is what people have a problem with the most.

I put some thought into what you said. As indicated, there are a few different options. For new customers, there is a new solution that can be purchased for $599, and I suspect all new customers will purchase this option.

For existing customers, I have proposed two solutions:

(1) The customer can upgrade their old license to the new one, which will include the deltadash, flash cable, and software. We are awaiting pricing on this, but I suspect it will be a good fair price, given the hardware required. With said software, one can revert back to stock a given car, and then go back to a flashed map. This behavior is very simliar to many other products for other cars. Many of the VW/Audi roms are not readable while installed, but the end user can alwasys switch back to the stock rom for stock readability.

(2) For customers who purchased the license, and are interested in reverting back to stock, a dealer would be given a tool that allows the ecu to be reset to stock. This may or maynot recover the license, as that is a licensing issue that requires significantly more work. The primary purpose of said tool it to allow someone to revert back to a stock map. It is not intended to be equivilent to the 'divorce' feature of the Cobb. The Ecutek did not have that feature, and was never advertised to have it. We always knew that the license could not be recovered, and many customers sold their ECU as a way to recover some license cost.

In some ways, it really isn't possible to have a 'clean outcome' for a previous product. There are some things that can be done, but most tuners are in favor of making it not possible for some other tuner to re sell their maps. This has been a problem in some other car markets, and I don't think anyone is suggesting otherwise. We all understand the need to protect a product that we develope.. All someone like Rainmaker is asking for is a way to unistall the product, even if the license is not recovered.

I have passed my ideas on to Ecutek, and I am confident that they will help us to find a solution.

Like many things in the nasioc world, we should always remain as respectful as possible, and always be prepared to embrace change as it comes.

Jeff

The primary purpose of said tool it to allow someone to revert back to a stock map. It is not intended to be equivilent to the 'divorce' feature of the Cobb. The Ecutek did not have that feature, and was never advertised to have it. We always knew that the license could not be recovered, and many customers sold their ECU as a way to recover some license cost.

I don't buy that portion of EcuTek's design. While I haven't ever seen the actual EcuTek flashing software I just find it hard to believe that the so called "license" is anything more then some minor code change in the ECU rom that their software reads to make sure it's already been flashed once by EcuTek. After all, you don't get any paperwork that represents a license when you get an EcuTek flash. Surely a tuner needs to verify the validity of your claims (that you already have EcuTek) before he just reflashes your ECU with his new tune. Also, from what I have heard their flashing program that tuners use cannot read the existing flash (another let's not have any other tuner know what's in there from the previous tuner... kinda stupid, because if you only need to make a small change you can't... you have to start from another base map which may not be as good as the previous one, but that's another story) so all it does is flash and that's it. Flashes to EcuTek and flashes to stock...

Well, if I want to transfter the license from a WRX to another WRX (since you state that it cannot be done) why can't I take both cars to an EcuTek tuner, have him verify that one ECU has EcuTek on it... then have him flash that one back to stock and have him flash the second with EcuTek. I don't know exactly how the whole EcuTek license thing works or if it's serialized or whatever, but in theory... the procedure I just outlined would be a legal (from EcuTek's point of view) way to transfer the license. So why is everyone (including tuners) bitching that you cannot "miagrate" a license from one ECU to another. Sure, it's not a native menu pick from the software, but idealy the procedure does the same thing.

Please correct me on this if I'm wrong Jeff.

It's important to keep in mind here that the DMCA was put in place primarily to protect soft materials such as PC software, music, and video. All of these materials have something in common: If their copy-protections are circumvented, they can become widely distributed and utilized by individuals who did not license/purchase the original product. The reason is, that PC software, music, and video are all useable on common, standardized platforms that we all own and purchased independently from the content.

ECU code is a completely different situation. It only runs on the original platform (the car/ecu), which you already purchased from the copyright holders with some version of the code already in it. You can trade roms all you like, but you will never avoid paying Subaru for a new STi. The only real losses the manufacturer can experience would be due to fraudulent warranty claims resulting from poor ECU tuning, but there are plenty of other bad things people can do to their cars and lie about it as well.

I certainly don't subscribe to Trey's suggestion that OpenECU users sharing copyrighted ROM images for free is somehow more illegal than selling devices or software that contain those images to customers...

question to tuners using Ecutek tools:
are/were you able to READ a STOCK ecu? (READ explicity means a raw dump of the ecu)

If you bought a car in 2001 enjoyed it for awhile until the 2002 models came out. You went back to your dealer and said "I am only paying the difference between the two cars, give me the new one" what would he say?

my point exactly.

since the 05+ subarus have our VIN encoded on the ECU, I can't really sell my ECU to recoup $$ from my EcuTeK tune. as for this user flash program, I'd still have to buy it in addition to a laptop. that'll end up for a lot more than an AP.

If you bought a car in 2001 enjoyed it for awhile until the 2002 models came out. You went back to your dealer and said "I am only paying the difference between the two cars, give me the new one" what would he say?

my point exactly.

Apples to oranges my Canadian friend... "Depreciation Value" is not something you can easily put on a priece of software... because there's no ware and tear associated with running the software or owning a license for it. So, with that said, unless new software (with better capabilities then the last revison) comes out the old software cannot really be considered obsolete (the term necessary to warrant it at a lesser value then the current version). The new EcuTek package doesn't do anything that the old version couldn't do... they simply "pushed" a small portion (the flashing capability) to the end user... mainly because they needed to do something to stay competative with Cobb.

If you bought a car in 2001 enjoyed it for awhile until the 2002 models came out. You went back to your dealer and said "I am only paying the difference between the two cars, give me the new one" what would he say?

my point exactly.

He would say sure, and calculate the depreciation of your existing car, get you a deal on the new car, and sell your old used. Lucky for us, software doesn't depreciate.

Look guys... I appreciate the digital rights debate. Fundamentally, however, I went into the purchase of the EcuTEK license knowing a couple things, all of which PDXTuning made clear to me:

- This was an alteration to a protected Subaru PCM
- I was not likely going to be able to recoup any of the investment if I decided to no longer use the product. I understood the license would only get written over.

I am not looking for a mechnism to recoup that investment... and I personally dont want EcuTEK to think that I was merely wanting to sell the license.

What I wanted was a warning regarding the "captivation" of my PCM. Now, since I (and PDXTuning) didnt get one, I want my PCM either back to stock or written over with a Cobb AP. In *either* case, I don't care if the IP of PDXTuning's previous tune is overwritten and destroyed. I'm not looking to get ahold of it.

I merely want my PCM back and a mechanism for others to get the same thing if they wish it. PLEASE don't create priorites for EcuTEK that will get in the way of that... :)

-Chris

How many people here actually got any licensing docs with the EcuTek reflashes? I sure didn't... verbal or in writing. Does EcuTek even have such docs prepared for the dealers to send out to their end clients?

He would offer you a trade-in and give you well below market value on your 2001...

If you bought a car in 2001 enjoyed it for awhile until the 2002 models came out. You went back to your dealer and said "I am only paying the difference between the two cars, give me the new one" what would he say?

my point exactly.

Maybe i should rephrase ( I apologize for not being clear )
If you asked for the full value of your old car in exchange for the new model, you would not get it. But on the other hand, as was previously mentioned, a deprication value is alloted to make the deal happen......

Software does depreciate in value, when the new versions become available, superceeded ones are cleared out of inventory, stores put specials on, and that is the end of the product or version ... You can however buy "upgrades". I have been lucky enough to meet ecutek dealers and represenatives from all across the country, and I am sure that no harm was intended and that they will do everything possible to fix the locked ECU situtation.

I do understand both COBB / ECUTEK wanting to protect their interests, we are the same way. It is not fun when your work and effort that was intended to generate revenue becomes free game on the open market. Inevitable, perhaps, does not make it any more moral though.

As a manufacturer and importer, I take my hat off to PDX and the other vendors here for their effort towards working with the customers and the suppliers. Well done!

DMS North America, I'm not really arguing the validity of offering a free or discounted update or not offering one at all. That is a business decision, not a requirement, and EcuTek is free to do whatever they want. However, I still think you are confusing depreciation with obsolescence. A 6 year old piece of software will run just as good today as it did 6 years ago. There is no value removed from the license or software by operating it. By providing a new piece of software, you are not suddenly depreciating that software, you are obsoleting it. Even obsolete stuff can retain it's value if the new product is more expensive than the last. But I think we are stretching the analogy here. Software is not like physical equipment, hence the entire debate in the thread.

^^^ Not only that, but he's missing the big obvious point there. There's nothing new about EcuTek's software even with this new release "package". They haven't changed squat to the software nor have they introduced any new capabilities. All they have simply done is moved the flashing "capability" to the end user instead of just limiting it at the tuner/partner level. This is not a software revision or update... it's a business plan change made to appease the public due to Cobb's and OpenECU's current capabilities. EcuTek is currently 3rd in the capability running and 2nd in the "most used" running with Cobb being first in both and OpenECU respectively placed in the other groupings.

May I ask a stupid question (seeing as a good chunk of what has been posted sounds like gibberish to me)?

I have two Ecutek'd cars, and I want to the Ecuteks off both of my cars completely. It's not that I don't like the product, but I don't like the fact that my performance shop can't tune the cars. So, my shop informed me of this whole mess, and I started reading.


Here's my question:

What expectation of 'copyright' or protection does a tuner have? In a sense, tuners are chefs.. perhaps even iron chefs. They use the same ingredients (timing, a/f, boost.. etc), with the only differences being amounts and combinations. I have never heard of cooks protecting their dishes, which is why you can find the same recipes in numerous publications. How is tuning different?

Don't take this to mean that I am dinegrating tuners in any way. I'm not. But using tuners as an excuse for handcuffing customers is a little much to me. I really think that this is a case of a company trying to protect THEIR OWN work and going too far.

I'd keep my Ecutek if I could choose who tuned it. But I don't have that luxury. So I want it off. When is that going to be possible? I've heard a few days, but I haven't seen it happen.

May I ask a stupid question (seeing as a good chunk of what has been posted sounds like gibberish to me)?

I have two Ecutek'd cars, and I want to the Ecuteks off both of my cars completely. It's not that I don't like the product, but I don't like the fact that my performance shop can't tune the cars. So, my shop informed me of this whole mess, and I started reading.


Here's my question:

What expectation of 'copyright' or protection does a tuner have? In a sense, tuners are chefs.. perhaps even iron chefs. They use the same ingredients (timing, a/f, boost.. etc), with the only differences being amounts and combinations. I have never heard of cooks protecting their dishes, which is why you can find the same recipes in numerous publications. How is tuning different?

Don't take this to mean that I am dinegrating tuners in any way. I'm not. But using tuners as an excuse for handcuffing customers is a little much to me. I really think that this is a case of a company trying to protect THEIR OWN work and going too far.

I'd keep my Ecutek if I could choose who tuned it. But I don't have that luxury. So I want it off. When is that going to be possible? I've heard a few days, but I haven't seen it happen.

IMO, after determining the locked/unlocked condition of your ECU(s), if 'locked' buy a replacement ECU(s) and sell the current one(s) (with their license) for what the market will bear....and done.

I never did like the whole idea of the ecutek, anyway.

I always thought the ecutek was a ripoff, 1k just to flash your car? then paying dyno and tuner time on top of that? thats nuts.

I always thought the ecutek was a ripoff, 1k just to flash your car? then paying dyno and tuner time on top of that? thats nuts.

WTH do you get 1k? It's $595... it's been that amount since a couple years back as far as I know. Even the LGT ones are only $749. You must not shop arround. And until recently (this BS thread) EcuTek pretty much didn't have any faults as far as I'm concerned. For those of us that wanted a "set it and forget it" solution this worked best.

eh, i've always thought it was overpriced, and that you didn't get that much compared to the AP

Thanks for addressing this. If tuners want to protect their IP, they should be able to do so. My only complaint here was the side effect of permanently locking customer's hardware. What you are proposing is probably the best comprimise solution.

I don't know how many times I can repeat this, but the purpose of the OpenECU project is not to enable people to copy other tuners/companies maps - it is to allow people to tune (or have others tune) their own cars without limitation or obfuscation.

God bless you Colby...OpenECU has allowed users to make slight mods to their ECU.

subscribing

We always knew that the license could not be recovered, and many customers sold their ECU as a way to recover some license cost.


I have a question about this. In the computer world, if you buy a License, you have a right to a copy (or x amount of copies) based on the license. You never buy software, you only by a license. Are you saying in this case, if I buy a license, flash my ECU with it, then want to remove the software from said ECU and transfer the license I bought, to another ECU, I can't? The License is gone?

Wouldn't that be like if you bought Windows, but then your machine crached, you couldn't reload Windows from your install disks, you'd have to go buy another copy of Windows?

If that's the case, this shouldn't be called a License, but Labor, or even a Ticket (like Admission).

I have a question about this. In the computer world, if you buy a License, you have a right to a copy (or x amount of copies) based on the license. You never buy software, you only by a license. Are you saying in this case, if I buy a license, flash my ECU with it, then want to remove the software from said ECU and transfer the license I bought, to another ECU, I can't? The License is gone?

Wouldn't that be like if you bought Windows, but then your machine crached, you couldn't reload Windows from your install disks, you'd have to go buy another copy of Windows?

If that's the case, this shouldn't be called a License, but Labor, or even a Ticket (like Admission).

That's one way to put it...

This is somewhat unfair to us (PDX). We, with the help of Rainmaker, discovered this problem. We talked to EcuTek, and they are working on a solution that would allow us to divorce from the ecu. I do not know how this would work with existing PCMs, but I suspect it would be a pretty easy process.

I agree. I was not being clear actually. It is obvious to me that you guys have done everything you could to help, and RainMaker is lucky this problem happened at your shop. I guess what I was trying to get at was the future. Can a shop continue to use Ecutek products in good conscience, given that they have enganged in sneaky underhanded behavior? We know that Ecutek does not inform their dealers about drastic changes in their software. No shop can be sure of exactly what they are putting on their customers' cars.

On the other hand, I'm sure that Ecutek is a large portion of business for a shop, and it might be essential to keep that business....those are realities of life and while it's nice to live on principle, principles do not pay the bills.

I guess if I were a shop, I would demand a public apology from Ecutek for putting me in a ****ty position, and leave it at that.


As Jarrad said many times, once we see some software that can address this, we will of course be sure to tell you. I realize some of you are unhappy with this development, but please don't shoot the messenger.


I did not mean to shoot the messenger, I certainly did not mean to come off that way. As I said above, I think everything so far has been top notch....it's just if they do something else like this, we can't all say we did not know Ecutek shows disregard for their customers' property. Now we know.

so basically i am confused, i have an 04 sti with ecutek and i want to switch to accessport, is this possible, i have an appointment with an ecutek dealer to flash back to stock, the question is will i the be able to use the accessport i just purchased?!?!?!?

so basically i am confused, i have an 04 sti with ecutek and i want to switch to accessport, is this possible, i have an appointment with an ecutek dealer to flash back to stock, the question is will i the be able to use the accessport i just purchased?!?!?!?

For the time being i would not flash it back to stock but instead would first try to overwrite it, as is, with the COBB AP.

Tim - PDXT

Wow!!!!

As an ECUTek dealer, I have great interest in this thread. I feel I do a good job and am very happy with the capabilities of the ECUTek system. I look forward to the new hardware and support for my customers. I can't wait to make some true flex fuel vehicles using E100 and the like. I am sorry that so many of you are angry with ECUTek and Cobb for trying to protect the hard work of people like me. I am one of the requestees of this new protection.

Every customer I have ever had realized what they are get for their money. A great tune in a safe environment using state of the art equipment.We charge $650 for ECUTek including a dyno tune right now and so far everyone is happy.

Even a prolific poster in this very thread came to me for a retune because he thought his advance multiplier should always be pegged at 16. I am sure he now has the map and I am more than okay with it. In fact his ECU was just sold for a nice recoup of some of the cost of the tune. I am happy for him and hope he learns about the Subaru timing strategy and makes his own decisions on how to tune it. I am also happy for the rest of the OpenECU folks. I think this is great for those of you who understand how to tune. But I must say that I remember when other (unnamed)piggybacks gave end users the ability to do what they wished and many a motor popped. Also keep in mind that road tuning can have legal and fatal consequences. It is still important to get tuned well on a dyno and the rates are the same from our end no matter what management one decides upon.

Ultimately, I must admit that there are maps I have worked very hard upon and would be sad if they were made public.

One poster a few pages ago stated that a chef has no right to a dish once it is served. That is probably the best example I have seen so far. A great meal is great and the customer can enjoy the heck out of it. But if you think that after a few bites of your fois gras, you can storm into the kitchen and demand the exact recipee because you paid for a good meal, you are very wrong. I have owned a restaurant for over 15 years (and counting) and have seen many cooks who will grab their sharpest steel at the suggestion that they disclose a secret recipee, at best, they will give the wrong recipee to an insistent customer. Thanks for the analogy.

This chef is making up new recipees all the time, and happy that they are mine all mine. :banana:

I also think that customer service plays into this equation and I promise to take care of all my tunes whether done on COBB, ECUTEK, or OpenECU.

Thanks to Trey and David for opening the door for me to make both system's customers even happier.

Even a prolific poster in this very thread came to me for a retune because he thought his advance multiplier should always be pegged at 16. I am sure he now has the map and I am more than okay with it. In fact his ECU was just sold for a nice recoup of some of the cost of the tune. I am happy for him and hope he learns about the Subaru timing strategy and makes his own decisions on how to tune it.
Well, I guess you're talking about me. :) I haven't sold my ECU yet, though. :(

My IAM was dropping down to the point where boost control was disabled (below 6) with the Cobb map and wasn't much better with a Vishnu off-the-shelf map. My car just didn't seem to like a lot of timing. Harvey did a great job, starting with a stock map, to custom tune and my car made more power than Vishnu with a lot less timing. That was over a year ago, when I just started learning about logging (and hence my confusion about IAM and whether it should be pegged at 16 all the time).

Since then, I got into the open source project and learned a whole lot more about tuning. I started modifying my tune on an extra ECU and it is to the point that none of the values even resemble the original custom tune, save for a few cells of pulled timing on the base timing and ignition correction maps. Harvey's custom tune was pretty conservative because of my detonation problems, so it was pretty close to stock (fuel maps 100% stock, only boost/wastegate at 76%+ throttle changed, very few changes to timing). I've since modified the entire boost/wastegate tables at every throttle/rpm cell as well as closed loop parameters. I'm also slowly modifying my timing. I also have a bigger IC and P&P turbo as new mods.

I understand why the tuners wouldn't want their hard work posted all of the web. I will never post up Harvey's work or any other tuner's work without their permission. Since my detonation problem is pretty much solved (may have been a case of false knock), I've outgrown my original tune and I am having fun making changes myself. I'd like to get a retune on a dyno with my new mods, and then use the open source tools to make changes as needed.

I just can't see having to go back to tuner after you've spent over $600 on an Ecutek dyno tune, and pay more cash to make some additional, small changes. If I know Harvey, he would probably make the small changes for free, but you can't say that for all tuners. I think that Ecutek and Cobb are going to have to rethink their strategy on the custom tune, as I've already heard of commercial tuners using the open source tools to dyno tune cars. Once realtime tuning is added, then even more commercial tuners will start using it, only charging for the dyno tune time, which will end up being less than half the total cost of a Ecutek/Cobb solution. And the end-user will be able to edit the tune, unlike the current Ecutek block and Protuner's file format that doesn't allow ST to edit it.

Since then, I got into the open source project and learned a whole lot more about tuning. I started modifying my tune on an extra ECU and it is to the point that none of the values even resemble the original custom tune, save for a few cells of pulled timing on the base timing and ignition correction maps. Harvey's custom tune was pretty conservative because of my detonation problems, so it was pretty close to stock (fuel maps 100% stock, only boost/wastegate at 76%+ throttle changed, very few changes to timing). I've since modified the entire boost/wastegate tables at every throttle/rpm cell as well as closed loop parameters. I'm also slowly modifying my timing.

Sounds to me like you're having more success at making power with safety then a "professional tune" got you by having Open capabilities... I guess in this case you took that "secret recipe" and changed it to be even better then what the "master cook" put together. :lol:

One major incorrectness to what Harvey stated about chefs... some of them don't mind giving out their recipes... and if one was inclined to do so and allow the end user to change things they wouldn't be able to follow this track with the current restrictions put in place.

I'm all for safeguarding your work, but safeguarding your work at the expense of the customer for idealistic "job security" is silly and unetical in my book. Cobb and EcuTek should have implemented a CHECKSUM routine into the ECU which would have only allowed their flashes to work with the original ECU. If flashed on another ECU the car simply won't start. Much better "safeguard" implementation... the tuners would have been happy and the end user could still do whatever on their own property.

well can i get a stock ecu and put it in my car? what would i have to do to do that, that way i could sell the ecu i have now with the ecutek license?

You can't swap ecu's on (at least) 05/06 sti. I think those are the only immobilizer locked ecu's at this point. All others you can sell/trade ECU.

Sounds to me like you're having more success at making power with safety then a "professional tune" got you by having Open capabilities... I guess in this case you took that "secret recipe" and changed it to be even better then what the "master cook" put together. :lol:
Well, I wouldn't say that. They did an awesome job working with my tempermental car. I'm not sure what the issue was back then, although I suspect that it was false knock from one of the heatshields, which have since been removed and put back on several times. Or perhaps something else which seems to have resolved itself.

The bottom line is, I would definitely go back to them for retune, but not if my ECU was locked out so that I couldn't make adjustments myself later, which is the current issue with Ecutek's "solution". It also sounds like Cobb will be implementing a similar strategy. I understand the need to protect your work, but I think this is really only an issue with the off-the-shelf maps, as custom tunes are just that - custom to your car and aren't likely to work with another person's car (and possibly even cause damage). If some moron steals a custom tune and tries to run it on his car and blows his motor, then I hardly see how the original tuner could be held responsible. It is like someone hiring a consultant to come up with a plan for their busniness. But the consultant won't allow the CEO or any of the employees to know any specifics of the plan and won't allow any changes to it unless he is paid additional money. Even if the CEO gave the plan to another company, it wouldn't do them much good, as the plan was specific to the unique properties of his business, not someone else's.

Cobb and EcuTek should have implemented a CHECKSUM routine into the ECU which would have only allowed their flashes to work with the original ECU. If flashed on another ECU the car simply won't start. Much better "safeguard" implementation... the tuners would have been happy and the end user could still do whatever on their own property.There are logical limitations on what kind of protections are possible. I'm not sure there is any possible way to keep a flash working on just one ECU, besides the existing immobilizer, which to be honest I don't fully understand.

What you suggest is rather irrelevent anyway, because as soon as you can read out the ECU, you can just copy and paste map values. You don't need to have the ability to write the exact ROM, byte for byte, to another physical ECU to copy an ECU. You only need to be able to recognize the map data. Hell, just some screenprints of the data would be enough for someone willing to hand type them back in.

The nature of the data they're trying to protect means any ability to read out the ROM dump would negate most any sort of protection.

so does that mean ecutek wont lock your ecu on an 04 then? only an 05 and 06?

so does that mean ecutek wont lock your ecu on an 04 then? only an 05 and 06?
No, it sounds like Ecutek will lock out any flash, from now on, regardless of year.

Ultimately, I must admit that there are maps I have worked very hard upon and would be sad if they were made public.

One poster a few pages ago stated that a chef has no right to a dish once it is served. That is probably the best example I have seen so far. A great meal is great and the customer can enjoy the heck out of it. But if you think that after a few bites of your fois gras, you can storm into the kitchen and demand the exact recipee because you paid for a good meal, you are very wrong. I have owned a restaurant for over 15 years (and counting) and have seen many cooks who will grab their sharpest steel at the suggestion that they disclose a secret recipee, at best, they will give the wrong recipee to an insistent customer. Thanks for the analogy.

This chef is making up new recipees all the time, and happy that they are mine all mine. :banana:


:lol: :banana:, eh?

You're missing where I'm going with that analogy. Obviously I'm not gonna storm into the kitchen to demand the recipe, but if I'm a good enough cook myself, chances are I can get pretty close to it on my own. Same thing with music, all it is is combinations... eventually they will be repeated by necessity (just look at the current Red Hot Chili Peppers hit - I don't see Tom Petty freakin' out).

Ultimately, your right to your work is negated once it's put on someone else's car. It then belongs to them. It is up to you to choose who you will and will not work on to ensure the integrity of your work, but I truly believe that a customer's right to choose their engine management at any time outweighs your right to intellectual property on that flash.

Honestly, I, personally, wouldn't want different engine management if it weren't for the fact that I really believe there is someone out there who can tune my car way better than it sits right now. That someone can't tune my car until the ECUTek's off.. But I don't have that luxury.. yet.

~ Miranda

i just tried flashing with the accessport over the ecutek and it wouldnt work indeed, i spoke with a ecutek tuner and he said if he puts it back to stock it will loose the license and then will be able to be flashed by the accessport, is this true??

i spoke with a ecutek tuner and he said if he puts it back to stock it will loose the license and then will be able to be flashed by the accessport, is this true??Yes, that is true.

^^^^

See, I was under the impression that is not true. I was told that an ECUTek tuner can put a stocklike tune on the car, but it will always have that ECUTek license which will keep you from being able to put a competitor's flash over it.

Isn't that the whole point of this thread?

all i know is i keep getting different answers and its frusterating when you have a 2 appointments in 3 days one to flash back to stock and one to tune with the ap and you dont know even if its going to work, man i wish someone who tried this before would post their results!!

^^^^

See, I was under the impression that is not true. I was told that an ECUTek tuner can put a stocklike tune on the car, but it will always have that ECUTek license which will keep you from being able to put a competitor's flash over it.

Isn't that the whole point of this thread?

I think you can still tune over it, you will however lose your license if you do so.

It was Tea Cups. And I am really happy you have come so far with understanding and appreciate the route you are taking with my map. I am sure some pirate will buy the ECU from you soon. We will also be hosting another EFI101.com class here in the near future so I suggest all of you interested take the course some time.

I hope everyone in this thread comes out happy in the end. It sounds like soon we will be able to completely unmarry our flashes and make the ECUTek a transferable commodity like cobb. There is so much for all of us to get excited about here. Sorry about the wait though (all of us).

all i know is i keep getting different answers and its frusterating when you have a 2 appointments in 3 days one to flash back to stock and one to tune with the ap and you dont know even if its going to work, man i wish someone who tried this before would post their results!!

I don't think the "unlock" capability is out yet. EcuTek mentioned that they have a "BETA" program that should allow this and will send it to select tuners/partners "soon"... but we ain't heard isht to back up that statement.

I don't think the "unlock" capability is out yet. EcuTek mentioned that they have a "BETA" program that should allow this and will send it to select tuners/partners "soon"... but we ain't heard isht to back up that statement.True. I doubt that more than one or two US tuners have access to the "revert to stock" EcuTek option.

It was Tea Cups. And I am really happy you have come so far with understanding and appreciate the route you are taking with my map. I am sure some pirate will buy the ECU from you soon. We will also be hosting another EFI101.com class here in the near future so I suggest all of you interested take the course some time.


Ok, color me stupid but you toootally lost me.

Ok, color me stupid but you toootally lost me.
:lol: Translation. I was the one he was talking about. I'm selling my Ecutek ECU on AWDpirates.net (hence the pirates reference). His shop (Super Rupair) hosts the classes for EFI101 tuning course.

Ok, that makes me feel better. I'm a little slow if you haven't figured that out. :lol:


By the way, Ben at ECUTek, I sent you an email in response. Hit me back, yo!

Sorry, I like to speak in code.

so anyone know what it takes to swap ecus in an 04 sti, a stock one that is?!?!?

so anyone know what it takes to swap ecus in an 04 sti, a stock one that is?!?!?

Nothing at all. There is no immobilizer. This is a mixed blessing since it is an easier car to steal. But at least you can sell your current licensed ecu and swap it out. AFAIK.

hell yeah!! thats good!

']True. I doubt that more than one or two US tuners have access to the "revert to stock" EcuTek option.
everyone will probably get this after they get the map switching feature. and maybe launch control, too.

Hey all,

THIS APPLIES TO ALL ECUTEK REFLASHES, NOT JUST 06 CARS.

On the 2.5 forum, I hope I can catch all the 06 owners. (and others, but only from a informational aspect.)

In October, I had a new 06 STi. At the time, Cobb had not produced the AP for the 06s, and I was doing a stage 4 green setup. PDXTuning sold me an EcuTEK license and did a dynotune.

After much later installing a blowthrough, an EWG, WI, a header, and other items, PDXTuning felt that economics of the situation was such that with all the dyno tuning and the street tuning that I wanted, I could either buy a Cobb AP, Street Tuner, etc or pay them hourly to reflash EcuTEK. They made a good case for the Cobb, since I love to tune my car, know how, and would continue to make changes. PDXTuning would take my money, but Tim felt I'd have fun doing some of it myself.

So, two weeks ago, I bought a Cobb AP for my 06 STI and we proceeded to load the car up on the dyno. The Cobb AP would not marry to the PCM and we were afraid that the AP or the PCM was malfunctioning. We tried GreggPDX's AP (first we had to unmarry it from his 06, etc), and it would not communicate with the PCM either. Afraid that the PCM was broken, we plugged in EcuTEK and tried writing back to a stock program. Worked like a charm. With the stock program in place, the AP would still not recognize the PCM. We had to put my EcuTEK program back on the PCM and unload the car from the dyno. A call to Christian at Cobb didnt give any quick solutions. The next day I stopped by the local dealership and tried to have them re-flash the PCM. Their SPSC or whatever it was called wouldnt recognize my PCM either. I left before they started to ask further questions. I got home, and then sent the PCM off for analysis. Here is the final conclusion:

EcuTEK altered the handshaking such that no other program could enter the ECU. Not the Cobb AP, not Subaru, no-one except EcuTEK.

Apparently at least 06s (and possibly others) have some of the communication protocol instructions in a re-writable part of the ECU. Tuners currently DO NOT have the ability to put this back to stock.


Fortunately PDXTuning has refunded my $$$, and Cobb was able to get on the PCM (at their shop) and re-write it completely to stock.

I work at a company that sells shoes, apparel, and sports equipment. If we sold a shoe that you couldnt take off, you wouldnt buy it. If we sold you a shoe that you couldnt take off, and didnt tell you about it prior to you wearing it... well... everyone would sue us, wouldnt they? And they would have every right.

I'm disturbed by having a company do this to my car. Im angry that I couldnt reverse it and that I had to ask for a refund for something that I couldnt give back.

Rumor is that this was done to combat OpenECU. I dont care. Folks are going to copy you. You have to out-innovate them to stay in business, not take your customers hostage. Welcome to the 21st century.

Full Disclosure: Cobb determined what had been done, and reported it to me. I have no first hand knowledge of the changes made. Cobb competes with EcuTEK (somewhat). In this matter, based on my experiences with my PCM, they backup what was told to me, and I have no reason to distrust Cobb.

Good luck,
Chris

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

What a load of BS.

Especially this part: EcuTEK altered the handshaking such that no other program could enter the ECU. Not the Cobb AP, not Subaru, no-one except EcuTEK.

Thats complete BS. I interface DAILY with EcuTek flashed and cobb flashed cars more than 5 times a day with either the SSM2 (SUBARU Select Monitor 2) or the SDS (SUBARU Diagnostic System, aka the SSM3).

BOTH systems talk FLAWLESSLY with the ECUs. ZERO problems. I have even flashed OVER some ecutek cars that were taken in on trade that the dealer wanted back to stock.

Someone has fed you a nice line of BS.

everyone will probably get this after they get the map switching feature. and maybe launch control, too.

Everyone has it, its called THE STOCK MAP. and launch control is there, in ALL OF THEM.

It just so happens that the EVO takes to the LC better than the SUBARU. The ECU's dont like it...at all, so it doesnt work well.

This is a more recent change in EcuTek reflashes. You may not have seen it for that reason with the EcuTek'd you deal with. Or the change may have been made in a way that plays well with the SSM2/SSM3...

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

What a load of BS.

Especially this part:

Thats complete BS. I interface DAILY with EcuTek flashed and cobb flashed cars more than 5 times a day with either the SSM2 (SUBARU Select Monitor 2) or the SDS (SUBARU Diagnostic System, aka the SSM3).

BOTH systems talk FLAWLESSLY with the ECUs. ZERO problems. I have even flashed OVER some ecutek cars that were taken in on trade that the dealer wanted back to stock.

Someone has fed you a nice line of BS.

This is a more recent change in EcuTek reflashes. You may not have seen it for that reason with the EcuTek'd you deal with. Or the change may have been made in a way that plays well with the SSM2/SSM3...

I was still working with new 06's when they first came out and we started tuning the 06's. The only issue I am aware of...

Is the Ignition Timing Acceleration tables that are 'unfound' in the 06 WRX ECU. Everything else, Baja, Forester, and STi...seem to be fine otherwise.

We've flashed a great number of 06 legacy and sti with no problems...I have logged data with both delta dash and the SDS with no problems then, and no problems now.

Although...I know a secret about those hidden tables in the WRX ECU...;)

What a load of BS.

.


did you read the thread genius?

did you read the thread genius?

Yes. Its almost the most worthless thread ever. Belongs in OT next to the 'This is our thread' thread.

Yes. Its almost the most worthless thread ever. Belongs in OT next to the 'This is our thread' thread.


so i guess the OP is just making this up? And PDX's confirmation is more BS?

everyone likes to point fingers.

doesn't seem to have anything to do with pointing fingers to me. EcuTeK has admitted the change, are you denying it's existence?

What I know for a fact:

- Right now Shop X CANNOT tune my car because they are not licensed through ECUTek.
- Shop X CANNOT use the freeware/open ecu option to tune my car because it is ECUTeked and there is no way to remove the ECUTek besides swapping ecu's with someone else.

If I could, the car would have been retuned a million years ago. Unfortunately, I'm stuck in a holding pattern until whatever code keeping the ECUTek on my car is cracked, or until an ECUTek dealer can completely remove it from my vehicle... neither of which has happened yet.

Does anyone have any updates as to when that option will ACTUALLY be available?

~ Miranda

Yes. Its almost the most worthless thread ever. Belongs in OT next to the 'This is our thread' thread.
I don't get it, EcuTEK has confirmed with the OP said, but you are calling it BS? What gives?

WJM must be smoking crack. Interfacing for logging purposes has nothing to do with the lockout. You can still do this. Flashing back to a "Stock map" with EcuTek tools for a dealership has nothing to do with this. Here's the details in simple terms so that you SoG boys can easily understand.

If SoG has the latest EcuTek software (which should have this lockout implementation) then the following should hold true.

1) Once an ECU is flashed with EcuTek you cannot use an AP or Open source ECU flash to overwrite/marry or whatever on that ECU.
2) Once an ECU is flashed with EcuTek you cannot read the ROM with Open source software.
3) Once an ECU is flashed with EcuTek you cannot use a Subaru SSM handheld to flash an OEM (updated or not) ROM onto the ECU.
4) Logging with any software (regardless what it is) is not affected.

Now, if you guys don't have the latest software or if for some reason your software doesn't lock out the ECU (because it's not the latest version or you didn't get the latest version with lockout enabled, which I can't tell you why EcuTek didn't send you that as well) then that's probably why you haven't seen the problem. If you have the latest, then I suggest you flash an ECU with EcuTek and then try and flash it with Subaru's handheld back to an OEM rom. I bet you won't be able to do it... as you would have in the past.

Is it clear now?

As EcuTeK has stated in an e-mail to their dealers,

-----------------------------------------------------

Hello

There have been incorrect statements made on various forums around the world stating that once an ECU has been programmed using EcuTeK software then the Subaru Select Monitor is no longer able to communicate with the ECU.

This is not true.

If an ECU has been programmed using EcuTeK software then it is not possible
for another person using EcuTeK software or any other read/write/copy
software to retrieve your Tuned ROM data that you have programming into that
ECU.

This is a security measure to protect YOUR hard work and has no effect on
the customer or the Subaru dealers ability to work on the customer's car.

This Tuned ROM protection feature DOES NOT interfere in anyway with any
standard diagnostic procedures via OBD products , Subaru Select Monitor ,
Immobiliser reprogramming and other related procedures. They are not
affected in anyway at all.

If a customer wishes to have a dealer reflash performed at a Subaru dealer
(or any other reflash for that matter), simply return
their ECU to a stock OEM calibration beforehand.

Please be as vocal on any forums where customers are confused or people are
giving out incorrect information.

The Team @ EcuTeK

-----------------------------------------------------

If you have any questions please ask,

Regards,
Crawford Performance / I-Speed USA

that doesn't dispell anything. so ssm works... big deal! :lol:

fact is they have to "back out" of the ecu before the maps can be viewed/changed OR the ecu reflashed at all.

I think that is perfectly clear what they are locking down and what they aren't locking down.

Only flashing (read and write) are affected. Logging and OBD should be unaffected. Can we move on now?

WJM, I think you are confused. While you may have found a few 06 Ecutek cars that are not locked down, you're unlikely to find them as time passes and Ecutek dealers start using the newer software. It doesn't seem this update was hardset as starting on 06 models, that is largely circumstantial. This lock is real. Just because you haven't experienced it doesn't mean it does not exist.

I'm stuck in a holding pattern until whatever code keeping the ECUTek on my car is cracked, or until an ECUTek dealer can completely remove it from my vehicle... neither of which has happened yet.
Yes, this sucks. There is nothing you can do but wait.

As EcuTeK has stated in an e-mail to their dealers,

-----------------------------------------------------


If an ECU has been programmed using EcuTeK software then it is not possible
for another person using EcuTeK software or any other read/write/copy
software to retrieve your Tuned ROM data that you have programming into that
ECU.

-----------------------------------------------------

If you have any questions please ask,

Regards,
Crawford Performance / I-Speed USA
Wow. So ecutek has not only locked cobb, open ecu, etc out, but they have also chosen to lock themselves out. So if I get my car ecutek'd, then move, and want a new tuner to make some minor changes to the previous tune, they will have to start from scratch on the tune, as they won't be able to see what was previously done. This is probably the single stupidest thing from the end-user's point of view.
Basically it means that _any_ retune (with new tuner) will be starting from
scratch. This is even true if it is the same tuner but they have had a computer issue and lost their saved file for you(and that _never_ happens, right?). This is rediculous. I can't see why _any_ tuner would be selling ecutek at this point. I (as an enduser) sure wouldn't touch this crap at any cost.

So if I get my car ecutek'd, then move, and want a new tuner to make some minor changes to the previous tune, they will have to start from scratch on the tune, as they won't be able to see what was previously done.While this is probably the intent of the ROM lock, it is still unclear (to me at least) whether _any_ EcuTEK dealer can read/write the ROM or only the dealer who originally flashed the map.

If EcuTEK allows any tuner with EcuTEK software to read/write any EcuTEK map, they have a big wide gaping hole in the security of their lock.

Wow. So ecutek has not only locked cobb, open ecu, etc out, but they have also chosen to lock themselves out. So if I get my car ecutek'd, then move, and want a new tuner to make some minor changes to the previous tune, they will have to start from scratch on the tune, as they won't be able to see what was previously done. This is probably the single stupidest thing from the end-user's point of view.
Basically it means that _any_ retune (with new tuner) will be starting from
scratch. This is even true if it is the same tuner but they have had a computer issue and lost their saved file for you(and that _never_ happens, right?). This is rediculous. I can't see why _any_ tuner would be selling ecutek at this point. I (as an enduser) sure wouldn't touch this crap at any cost.
yep,but you won't be paying another tuner for the licensing fee.

Wow. So ecutek has not only locked cobb, open ecu, etc out, but they have also chosen to lock themselves out. So if I get my car ecutek'd, then move, and want a new tuner to make some minor changes to the previous tune, they will have to start from scratch on the tune, as they won't be able to see what was previously done. This is probably the single stupidest thing from the end-user's point of view.
Basically it means that _any_ retune (with new tuner) will be starting from
scratch. This is even true if it is the same tuner but they have had a computer issue and lost their saved file for you(and that _never_ happens, right?). This is rediculous. I can't see why _any_ tuner would be selling ecutek at this point. I (as an enduser) sure wouldn't touch this crap at any cost.
Ecutek gave the ability to the tuners to lock out their tune well before any of this happened. Basically, an Ecutek tuner had the option to hide their tune, so a different Ecutek tuner couldn't view their work. Note that this did not affect reading/flashing the ECU. The other tuner could still verify the license and reflash to one of his own maps. And you could still read/flash with the openecu tools. Just the Ecutek software itself would not show another tuner the tune.

yep,but you won't be paying another tuner for the licensing fee.
so? if the time is $150/hour, and my tuner has to spend an extra 2-3 hours to get back to where I was, that is quickly nearly the cost of the license that I am spending due to this, or money that could be spent on (for example) an AP and a protuner. There are _so_ many instances where this will cost _us_, the end user money, _AND_ cost the professional tuner time, money, _AND_ goodwill that it is just insane to do this. Again, I can not understand why a tuner would want to be associated with this crap. If someone doesn't want to use the open stuff(understandable, from a pro point of view), that is fine. buy PT or use the ap+st solution. Both of those have undo options available _now_. Also, as an enduser, consider this: with open ecu and AP you can _easily, _now_, recover your investment or at least 90% of it. With ecutek and an immobilized car, you cannot do this, and are unlikely to be able do so. That license money is thrown away if you want to unmod your car. (yes, at some point there _may_ be a box to do this from ecutek. Will probably be released after utec sti firmware).

As EcuTeK has stated in an e-mail to their dealers,

-----------------------------------------------------

Hello

There have been incorrect statements made on various forums around the world stating that once an ECU has been programmed using EcuTeK software then the Subaru Select Monitor is no longer able to communicate with the ECU.

This is not true.


This is not true. At least on this board, nobody has stated that the SSM is "completely" unable to communicate with the ECU. What has been stated is that SSM is unable to reflash the ECU. Reflashing does fall under the definition of the word "communicate".


If an ECU has been programmed using EcuTeK software then it is not possible
for another person using EcuTeK software or any other read/write/copy
software to retrieve your Tuned ROM data that you have programming into that ECU.

This is a security measure to protect YOUR hard work and has no effect on
the customer or the Subaru dealers ability to work on the customer's car.


This of course is a complete lie. When I "work" on my car, it may include reflashing my ECU. When a dealer works on my car, it may include reflashing my ECU. Both of these scenarios are not possible once EcuTek'd.


This Tuned ROM protection feature DOES NOT interfere in anyway with any
standard diagnostic procedures via OBD products , Subaru Select Monitor ,
Immobiliser reprogramming and other related procedures. They are not
affected in anyway at all.


Oh, but it does. SSM does in fact include the ability to reflash a vehicle. EcuTek'd ECUs disable one of the functions of the SSM. This seems to be "affected". How can a function of the SSM be disabled, and then claim is it "not affected in any way at all"? By lying, that's how.


If a customer wishes to have a dealer reflash performed at a Subaru dealer
(or any other reflash for that matter), simply return
their ECU to a stock OEM calibration beforehand.


Exactly. Because your software disabled part of the SSM's functionality.


Please be as vocal on any forums where customers are confused or people are giving out incorrect information.


Do not worry, I am doing my best!


Trey,
I apologize for not responding yet, but I will. I appreciate your response.

I pondered the Ecutek vs Cobb desicion for a long time before shelling out the $. Now I am soooo glad I went with Cobb. :devil:

Tuning the ECU is a major part of any mod, I can't imagine being locked out of MY, repeat, MY ECU just because I chose to use a certain companies product. Then getting $raped$ to change or get rid of it. :furious:

I pondered the Ecutek vs Cobb desicion for a long time before shelling out the $. Now I am soooo glad I went with Cobb. :devil:

Tuning the ECU is a major part of any mod, I can't imagine being locked out of MY, repeat, MY ECU just because I chose to use a certain companies product. Then getting $raped$ to change or get rid of it. :furious:
Yet Cobb has expressed, in this very thread, that they are going to something similar. Of course, you can unmarry your Accessport, although apparently Ecutek is coming out with the same capability with their flash module.

Yet Cobb has expressed, in this very thread, that they are going to something similar. Of course, you can unmarry your Accessport, although apparently Ecutek is coming out with the same capability with their flash module.

With Street Tuner, how will Cobb lock me out? I can understand not wanting someone to copy off of their talent, no problems there. Why not lock just the pro tuned map? That would seem like the logical solution. But to just lock me out of my ECU, NO WAY. Cobb if you are listening, I have yet to buy Street Tuner, (it is planned in the very near future), if you are going to lock me out of my car please let me know now, as I work hard for my $ and do not want to be paying you to let me in my car. :mad:

I am doing data logging with ECuexplorer now, free, no lock outs. Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't some tuners now doing work with OpenECU?

Either way, the AP provides more user end tuneability, while the EcuTek provides more security.

There are trade offs with everything vs everything.

I will admit I have not actually tried to flash over one of the newer cars with this new lockout....however, in the past it was not an issue.

I will admit I have not actually tried to flash over one of the newer cars with this new lockout....however, in the past it was not an issue.

No one said it was in the past. You simply assumed it. ;)

I have recently flashed cars...;) However, must have been before Super Scotty got the new version.

With Street Tuner, how will Cobb lock me out? I can understand not wanting someone to copy off of their talent, no problems there. Why not lock just the pro tuned map? That would seem like the logical solution. But to just lock me out of my ECU, NO WAY. Cobb if you are listening, I have yet to buy Street Tuner, (it is planned in the very near future), if you are going to lock me out of my car please let me know now, as I work hard for my $ and do not want to be paying you to let me in my car. :mad:

I am doing data logging with ECuexplorer now, free, no lock outs. Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't some tuners now doing work with OpenECU?
Obviously, you wouldn't be locked out of Streettuner, but you would be locked out from using the openecu free tools. If I understand correctly, the Protune formatted maps cannot be edited by Streettuner, so if you get a protune, you won't be able to edit your custom tune anyway, unless the tuner agrees to save in streettuner format. So, their future plan only affects the ability of those who want to use the openecu tools and also prevents the dealer from flashing over your married AP ECU.

The only maps that would be locked on the AccessPort would be the ProTune maps. Any maps done in StreetTuner you would obviously have access to.

The challenge will be finding a tuner willing to use StreetTuner, it seems that everyone is afraid of people copying their maps, running the same map on another car and blowing it up, but I can't figure out why they think that would be their problem.

has anyone found that obdII scanners are unable to communcate with these ecutek-reflashed ecu's? I can't seem to get mine to sonnect with my ecu for some odd reason... :confused:

Obviously, you wouldn't be locked out of Streettuner, but you would be locked out from using the openecu free tools. If I understand correctly, the Protune formatted maps cannot be edited by Streettuner, so if you get a protune, you won't be able to edit your custom tune anyway, unless the tuner agrees to save in streettuner format. So, their future plan only affects the ability of those who want to use the openecu tools and also prevents the dealer from flashing over your married AP ECU.

Let me see if I have this correct. As long as I am using Cobb AP/software, I can NOT use Openecu tools? No problem with that. But if I unmarry the AP I then will be able to use Openecu, or whatever I desire, right? Cobb doesn't plan on just locking everything out like has happened to some Ecutek owners and having to pay the tuner, or at the very least, make a trip to the tuner to get it unlocked???

Let me see if I have this correct. As long as I am using Cobb AP/software, I can NOT use Openecu tools? No problem with that. But if I unmarry the AP I then will be able to use Openecu, or whatever I desire, right? Cobb doesn't plan on just locking everything out like has happened to some Ecutek owners and having to pay the tuner, or at the very least, make a trip to the tuner to get it unlocked???

That is correct. With an AP, while married, you will be unable to read/write flashwise to your ECU with other tools, except Ecutek can, because they are going to collude to lock out the open source tools. Once you unmarry, however, you will be able to use whatever you wish.

Wait wait wait wait wait....


So you're telling me that there's a CHANCE that my tune was done before a new version came out that locks the ECU? So is there a chance that I mignt be able to have a shop tune over the ECUTek with the open ecu program? Both my vehicles were flashed over 6 months ago.

The only maps that would be locked on the AccessPort would be the ProTune maps. Any maps done in StreetTuner you would obviously have access to.

The challenge will be finding a tuner willing to use StreetTuner, it seems that everyone is afraid of people copying their maps, running the same map on another car and blowing it up, but I can't figure out why they think that would be their problem.
That is what I meant - ST can only edit the .stb file format. Cobb's stage maps in the AP are .ptb and tuners save the protune in the .ptb format. The .ptb files cannot be edited by ST. So, unless you can convince your tuner to save your custom tune in .stb, you won't be able to read any of those maps at all regardless.

So, once Ecutek comes out with their little flash device and Cobb comes up with their countermeasures, then basically Cobb and Ecutek will have exactly the same issue - can't be read by openecu tools and can't be flashed by a dealer until the devices are unmarried.