Do NOT purchase an EcuTEK license for your 06 without reading this...

[Tea cups]

Originally Posted by k mier

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???

You CAN use the openecu tools with Cobb right now. At least until they come up with some way to lock it out, but that probably not happen until the next version of the Accessport is released. Right now you will have no problem reading the Cobb stuff and also flashing changes with the free tools.

* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.

[Tea cups]

Originally Posted by Midnight_Gold

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.

It's possible as this is the first I've heard of someone having this issue. In fact, with the openecu tools, you don't even have to flash over the Ecutek tune - you could just edit any part of the tune leaving the license intact, as long as you don't have one of the newly locked tunes.

[Pontios]

Thank you all guys for this very informing thread! I have been reading this the last 2 days and we now know the reason why we cannot use openecu to tune OUR cars here in Greece....

The think that makes angry is that nobody informed me about this (Ecutek dealer). If i want to break my car, to make it a fish bowl or a vase for flowers it is MY problem and not Ecutek's.... I own the car, not them. We do not have the Cobb solution here for some reason, but thanks to openecu, we will prevent many subaru and evo owners from this trap that Ecutek fixed for themselvs....

Thank you all again

[John XT]

Originally Posted by Pontios

Thank you all guys for this very informing thread! I have been reading this the last 2 days and we now know the reason why we cannot use openecu to tune OUR cars here in Greece....

The think that makes angry is that nobody informed me about this (Ecutek dealer). If i want to break my car, to make it a fish bowl or a vase for flowers it is MY problem and not Ecutek's.... I own the car, not them. We do not have the Cobb solution here for some reason, but thanks to openecu, we will prevent many subaru and evo owners from this trap that Ecutek fixed for themselvs....

Thank you all again

Kalf = cobb tuning...

[Samurai Jack]

Originally Posted by drees

... 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.

It is called liability and, @ least, the American court system.

People simply refuse to take responsibility for their own actions. Like has been said many times already, "if it's my car, then I should be able to do what I want with it. If I blow it up because I put a map from another car into my ECU, well, that's my problem.", or something like that.

So, there are many who will attempt to sue the originator of the map because "it's their fault".

If you were a tuner, would you want to have to deal with that? Of course not. You had nothing to do with that particular individual, but that individual is making it your problem because they screwed up, and someone is going to pay for it, but not them.

If you look @ some (make that a lot) of the ridiculous lawsuits today, and the awards that have been granted, even though the individual was @ fault and not the Company, well ...

[JRSCCivic98]

^^^ Won't hold up in court and for that matter, won't hold up in the lawyer office before court either so it won't even make it to a lawsuite level. Because the tune wasn't give by the tuner to the end user making the accusations there is nothing legaly binding the tuner to the individual.

And for that matter, how many times have you ever signed a Dyno Waiver in your life? Do you honestly think any tuner guarantees thier work on your car and will take full responsibility for any negative outcomes. Give me a break.

[ride5000]

Originally Posted by drees

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.

along those lines, people have been swapping maps with utecs for years... hell they're only 12k text files! self tuned, professionally tuned, you name it.

i've yet to hear of a legal issue wrt liability for damages.

[Tea cups]

Yeah, I don't buy the suing argument as we would have heard of a case by now. On the other hand, there are some stupid ass cases that have won in court. My favorite is a lady who bought a new motorhome. She was driving and decided to engage the cruise control. Then got up to make herself a sandwich. Of course, the motor home crashes. She sues the manufacturer stating that the owner's manual never mentioned that she had to stay behind the wheel when the cruise control was on. And she won a huge judgement from the jury!

I don't really see people trading commercial tuner's maps that often anyway. In the beginning, yes, people were posting up everything. But site owners at openecu.org and Enginuity.org have cracked down on this and will not allow a tuner's ROM posted up without their permission.

[hondaeater69]

Of course EcuTeK is going to say they're doing it to "protect" end users. That's the means to justify their ends.

We all know what the lockout is about. One thing and one thing only. You know what it is, i don't even have to say it.

[jkbrand]

Originally Posted by Tea cups

... My favorite is a lady who bought a new motorhome. She was driving and decided to engage the cruise control. Then got up to make herself a sandwich. Of course, the motor home crashes. She sues the manufacturer stating that the owner's manual never mentioned that she had to stay behind the wheel when the cruise control was on. And she won a huge judgement from the jury!

Urban legend, I contend! This story--and its derivatives--date back to the 70's.

http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/cruise.asp

Jeff

[Tea cups]

Originally Posted by jkbrand

Urban legend, I contend! This story--and its derivatives--date back to the 70's.

http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/cruise.asp

Jeff

Should have known.

[Samurai Jack]

Originally Posted by JRSCCivic98

^^^ Won't hold up in court and for that matter, won't hold up in the lawyer office before court either so it won't even make it to a lawsuite level. Because the tune wasn't give by the tuner to the end user making the accusations there is nothing legaly binding the tuner to the individual.

And for that matter, how many times have you ever signed a Dyno Waiver in your life? Do you honestly think any tuner guarantees thier work on your car and will take full responsibility for any negative outcomes. Give me a break.

A Dyno waiver? Nope. Never heard of it.
Do I expect a tuner to guarantee their work? Actually yes. If you bring your car to a tuner, and he blows the thing up on you, he's responsible. If I blow it up, I'm responsible.

Never said anything about anything holding up in court. It's simply the acts of undesirable people that make life difficult for others because they don't want to take the responsibility of their own actions; in this case, take a map off another car, damage their own, and look for someone to pay for their mistake. Doesn't mean it has to go to court, but you can make a tuner's life complicated/miserable.

Do I think that ECUTek should have locked out the ECU? no.
Do I think that a manufacturer/tuner has the right to protect their intellectual property? yes.

But those protections should not be at the expense of the person who bought the tune.

You go to a specific tuner to pay for their specific skills/expertise. The tuner has the right to protect that, but not to lock you out of the whole ECU, making you unable to return the ECU to stock, as is the point of this thread.

You may pay for the custom map installed in your car, but that doesn't mean that the tuner has to give you the specific info he installed. That is his intellectual property.

If you want it, find a way to crack the codes yourself and get it off your ECU. Nothing wrong in doing that.

[JRSCCivic98]

Originally Posted by Samurai Jack

If you want it, find a way to crack the codes yourself and get it off your ECU. Nothing wrong in doing that.

So tell me again why EcuTek locked the ECUs again?

[Samurai Jack]

Too bad you are so unwilling to see things from the other side of the mirror.

[seattle944t]

Originally Posted by Samurai Jack

A Dyno waiver? Nope. Never heard of it.
Do I expect a tuner to guarantee their work? Actually yes. If you bring your car to a tuner, and he blows the thing up on you, he's responsible. If I blow it up, I'm responsible.

Never said anything about anything holding up in court. It's simply the acts of undesirable people that make life difficult for others because they don't want to take the responsibility of their own actions; in this case, take a map off another car, damage their own, and look for someone to pay for their mistake. Doesn't mean it has to go to court, but you can make a tuner's life complicated/miserable.

Do I think that ECUTek should have locked out the ECU? no.
Do I think that a manufacturer/tuner has the right to protect their intellectual property? yes.

But those protections should not be at the expense of the person who bought the tune.

You go to a specific tuner to pay for their specific skills/expertise. The tuner has the right to protect that, but not to lock you out of the whole ECU, making you unable to return the ECU to stock, as is the point of this thread.

You may pay for the custom map installed in your car, but that doesn't mean that the tuner has to give you the specific info he installed. That is his intellectual property.

If you want it, find a way to crack the codes yourself and get it off your ECU. Nothing wrong in doing that.

Wow - everytime I have been to a Dyno I have to sign a waiver, guess your lucky in your state.

But I don't think the intellectual property protection for a pro/custom tune argument would hold up in court. If I hire some one to write me some software (and thats what an ECU re-program is), when that term of employment has ended *I* own the software. Its called 'Work for Hire' in copyright terms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire

So if I hire someone to pro tune my car, I legally own *all* property rights to that commissioned piece of software. What this is doing it limiting the owners rights so that tune can not be modified and given away. Now I would imagine that there are no contracts about the commisioned work (right now anyways) so the work may or may not fall into work for hire rules.

This protection isnt about IP rights, its about tuners making money (nothing wrong with that in itself, they are a business and that is what they are supposed to be doing). If I pay a tuner $500 for a pro tune, and then give that tune to my buddy 'Joe' then the tuner has "lost" $500. Not really, but that is how software piracy numbers get made up.

There is nothing to say that Joe was ever going to buy any tune, and nothing saying that Joe won't go back to the tuner and get a better custom map for his car. But then again if I had a highly customized tune taylored to my mods, I wouldn't give it to Joe in the first place - because I would potentially be to blame if it didn't work on his car. Me, not the Tuner.

Default/standard maps (like the AccessPort) on the other hand would not fall into the work for hire catagory and so could be protected.

But I think this protection is going to be driving away customers and making them more likely to use things like the open source tools.

[Samurai Jack]

Originally Posted by seattle944t

If I hire some one to write me some software (and thats what an ECU re-program is), when that term of employment has ended *I* own the software. Its called 'Work for Hire' in copyright terms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire

So if I hire someone to pro tune my car, I legally own *all* property rights to that commissioned piece of software. What this is doing it limiting the owners rights so that tune can not be modified and given away. Now I would imagine that there are no contracts about the commisioned work (right now anyways) so the work may or may not fall into work for hire rules.

Except that unless I read it wrong, "work for hire" is defined as being established when "iii) there must be a written agreement in advance between the parties specifying that the work is a work made for hire."

To me, that means that the author (tuner/employee) and the Company for which they work must sign over the property rights to you, the owner. Simply purchasing their services does not sign over those rights to you.

Originally Posted by seattle944t

This protection isnt about IP rights, its about tuners making money (nothing wrong with that in itself, they are a business and that is what they are supposed to be doing). If I pay a tuner $500 for a pro tune, and then give that tune to my buddy 'Joe' then the tuner has "lost" $500. Not really, but that is how software piracy numbers get made up.

I believe it's about both, protecting IP and making money. As you said, nothing wrong w/making money.

I wouldn't consider this piracy. If you bought it, you can sell/give it away to another party. Perfectly legal under contract law. Piracy would be if you copied it and started selling the copies w/out permission from the originating company.

Originally Posted by =seattle944t

But then again if I had a highly customized tune taylored to my mods, I wouldn't give it to Joe in the first place - because I would potentially be to blame if it didn't work on his car. Me, not the Tuner.

I agree w/that, but the point I was originally trying to make is that even thought that is true, it does not stop the undesirable people of going after both you and the tuner/company because the undesirable person is going to attempt to get eveything they can out of it, from as many as they can.

It doesn't have to make it to court (trial) to cause you and/or the tuner/company a lot of difficulty in your life. Many false claims get filed every day, and do make it through the lawyer's office because there are undesirable lawyers just as there are undesirable people.

There are plenty of examples of false claims in the news.

Originally Posted by seattle944t

But I think this protection is going to be driving away customers and making them more likely to use things like the open source tools.

Agreed.

[tcrown]

Originally Posted by Trey

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.

All of this makes sense, and I agree, since you are selling only patch files that do not contain any Denso code, you're in the clear. (which is always good

Now here is the tricky part about the "derivative work" aspect that I was alluding to earlier but did not really flesh out, and why when you guys lock an ECU, you are not locking your own data, from my perspective.

While the patch file is alone, Cobb is the sole copyright holder. But here's the money shot: As soon as you take that patch file and combine it with the original Denso copyrighted work, you have created a "derivative work" and that work is no longer copyrightable by anyone other than Denso. This concept has been beaten to death in the software world, espcially around Open Source software. (What is ironic is that in respect to OSS, you and the OSS movement would be on the same side of the argument, even though you are doing this to lock OSS out)

So, there are issues here. What is a "derivative work", when does one get created, etc? The US law will help us out here, to start with.

Originally Posted by http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html#derivative/

A "derivative work," that is, a work that is based on (or derived from) one or more already existing works, is copyrightable if it includes what the copyright law calls an "original work of authorship." Derivative works, also known as "new versions," include such works as translations, musical arrangements, dramatizations, fictionalizations, art reproductions, and condensations. Any work in which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship is a "derivative work" or "new version."

So that is the definition of a derivative work. Here is the part about who can prepare a derivative work.

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.

So, what this means is that since none of the aftermarket ECU programming vendors have licensed any code from Denso, none of them are legally able to create derivative works of Denso code. Now this is not a problem for Cobb (to start with), as they only distribute patch files. However, once that patch file is applied to the Denso code, Cobb nor anyone else except Denso has any rights to that work.

What this means is that, legally, flashing a Cobb/Ecutek "map" (patching) to your ECU and then taking that binary ECU image and trading it around has nothing to do with Cobb or Ecutek. The only people who have ANYthing to say about this is Subaru/Denso. Cobb and Ecutek have no legal authority to prevent anyone from trading any ECU image that has been patched with their changes, since it is not possible for them to hold the copyright to a derivative work. Remember, only the original creator of a work can delegate that copyright.

For some interpretations of what is a derivative work, and how that applies to software, the law firm of Rosenlaw & Einschlag can shed some light on that. There is a quote from their page about derivative works:

Originally Posted by http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj19.htm

Almost everyone agrees on this: If you take the copyrighted source code of any program and physically modify it – actually revise the program or translate it into another computer language – you have created a derivative work of that program. That’s the simple case. If you do such a thing with a program licensed under the GPL or the OSL, then you must honor the reciprocity provision and publish the source code of your derivative works that you distribute.

They are talking about the GPL of course, since the GPL makes heavy use of the derivative works clause in the copyright code. However, the highlighted part directly applies to what Cobb and Ecutek do, and I think makes it pretty clear about who holds the copyright to the ECU binary after it's been flashed by an aftermarket company. Denso does.

As a side note, Lawrence Rosen has also written a book about these topics and it is available free for download. Chaper 12 deals with derivative works, if anyone is interested.

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.

I read up on SAE J2534, and it does seem that way. The key word is "read" though, correct? As in pull data from, not flash or read out the entire image.

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.

Agreed.

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.

IMO, your justification for instituting such blocking should be that you are protecting your copyrighted work. However, since it is not yours by way of having created a derivative work, you are in effect locking people out from something you don't even own or have any rights to. My guess is that this is illegal, although I am not sure. I feel very strongly that it is unethical. Just like I think it is perfectly legal for people to publicly trade binary ECU images (because of reasons stated above), I also feel that it is unethical, too. I do not think being unethical (possibly illegal) to prevent legal unethical behavior is the best course of action for anyone to take. (Esp since you have hardware to sell, anyway)

4) When you uninstall the AccessPORT, we'll return to the Subaru methods.

+1 Cobb, -50 Ecutek

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.

I do wonder about this. When you buy software, you don't buy it, you license it. But there are no licensing agreements when you purchase a car...yet it comes with some software nowadays. I do wonder who actually owns the code in each car. A plausible case can be made that it is the owner of the car, as they purchased a physical item, and are not licensing anything.

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.

I am not sure who is the copyright owner of the base flash after a car has been purchased. As I said before, it's kind of odd that it has been 'sold' but has not been 'licensed'. Either way, there is 1 thing that is most for sure, and that is that Ecutek/Cobb are not the copyright holder of an ECU image at any point in time, and therefore should never be locking anyone out.

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.

The law actually deals with much more than that. I would suggest that you read up on the "anti circumvention" provision, and the interoperability provision inside of that, which might excuse what you are doing. This law is very draconian, and unfortunately, I think cracking the handshakes for flashing would definitely be a violation. It would in turn be a violation for anyone to crack your modified handshake as well, however I think you need to be the copyright holder of the protected data in order to prosecute. It's ironic, that Cobb breaks the law in order to create a product and make money, and then turns around and implements the exact same technology that they broke the law to get around. Do you find that a bit hypocritical? I do.

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.

I think the only thing OpenECU might get in trouble for is from Denso or Subaru. But that seems highly remote because they have not gone after you or Ecutek for breaking their ECU lock out features, so I don't know why they'd go after OpenECU either.

But you or Ecutek certainly cannot go after them, as long as they have full binaries that are mostly denso code with Ecutek/Cobb patches, it does not look like you have any claim on that at all. Now if they were trading Cobb patch files, that's a different story. Except you have them free for download, so that's probably not likely, either.

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.

I agree with you here, or more accurately, take your word for it..since I can't actually see in a cobb patch file

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.

Can you imagine if you welded the hood shut every time someone put a Cobb part on a car, so they could not measure your intake, or figure out how it worked, or modify it a little bit? I agree, your patch code is a lot like an exhaust. But your lock out code is also a lot like welding the hood shut on a customer's car.

Personally I do not understand why you would lock people out, since you are actually selling a physical device. You are not screwed like Ecutek is. Your device brings functionality that cannot be emulated in software or by a flash, and it's quite awesome. So people will buy your device whether they are trading maps around anyway, wouldn't they? I don't know the numbers, but maybe knowing how many people buy an AP for a stage 2 generic flash, and how many buy it because they can have 10 maps with them at all times would be useful.

Ecutek has nothing like an AP to offer their customers. They have been completely out-innovated by you guys, so why stoop to their level of desperation?

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

I appreciate you taking time to chat with us, and for being so friendly about it.

[qoncept]

Originally Posted by Bigspin

I am really disapointed that this thread has come to bashing a company that paved the way for reliable ECU reflashes.

Are you serious? They didn't "pave the way," they just happened to have access to it (in Europe) waaaay before we did in the states, then strongarmed their position. They charged as much as they felt they possibly could, ignored all of their customers' requests, and basically provided what they did in the worst possible way because they could fall back on "we're the only ones that can do it." Now, they fail to make a business model which can continue to compete, and, apparantly, are adopting practices that will totally destroy them.

[qoncept]

Originally Posted by WRX Harvey

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.

No, ecutek isn't protecting you. They're protecting themselves. If both companies were to go under, you could still reflash cars with the open source utilities, and still charge just as much to tune, and without having to pay any royalties.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Crawford/I-Speed

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

OK... since EcuTEK has modified the protocol used to read and write certain parts fo the PCM, and have admitted doing so, and I had taken my car to Subaru and they had tried to re-format the PCM with a brand new 06 STi image, and could not do so with the SSM...

Can you please explain how EcuTEK expects you to be vocal?

[k mier]

from our friends at Crawford,
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show....php?t=1036014

#59
David Power - EcuTeK
Scooby Newbie


Member#: 117936
Join Date: Jun 2006

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

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.



Is there a conflict here?

[PDXTuning]

Update:

As most of your are aware, once we discovered that a flashed ECU could not be reflashed, Ecutek responded by giving all the EcuTek tuners a new flash tool that allows the ECU to be flashed back to stock, which restores the factory flash protocol. This is now available, and any customer that purchases a flash from us can have their ECU reverted to stock at no charge, and we will cover the return shipping of the ECU back to you.

However, Ecutek has gone a step further in releasing a new product called EasyECU that allows the end user the reflash their own ECU. With the product, we will provide out customers with not only their tuned rom, but a stock rom that they can flash back in as needed.

See my updated thread: http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show....php?t=1046026

One other note: I personally use many different engine management tools to tune cars. I tune with the Protune, EcuTek, Utec, Motec, Hydra, Link to name a few. I would certainly use any other tool, including an open source tool, as a long as the tools worked well enough to tune with. It is about the tune and the tuner, not just the tools.

Jeff Sponaugle

[JRSCCivic98]

Originally Posted by PDXTuning

However, Ecutek has gone a step further in releasing a new product called EasyECU that allows the end user the reflash their own ECU. With the product, we will provide out customers with not only their tuned rom, but a stock rom that they can flash back in as needed.

If flashing back to stock "by the end user" does not return the ECU to 100% OEM functionality, then it still poses "limitations" to the consumer.

On a side note... Nice to see that tuners out there are not closed minded and easily pushed into monopolizing propaganda by the retail companies out there. I feel that if the tools are reliable and easily learned by the tuners in the community it should be the "customer's" choice on what he wants to use on their car. Thumbs up to your company for being so open minded to such things.

[PDXTuning]

Originally Posted by JRSCCivic98

If flashing back to stock "by the end user" does not return the ECU to 100% OEM functionality, then it still poses "limitations" to the consumer.

On a side note... Nice to see that tuners out there are not closed minded and easily pushed into monopolizing propaganda by the retail companies out there. I feel that if the tools are reliable and easily learned by the tuners in the community it should be the "customer's" choice on what he wants to use on their car. Thumbs up to your company for being so open minded to such things.

Not sure what you mean by 100%OEM? If you flash in a 'stock' rom image, the checksum code used by the flash software to start a reflash cycle is changed back to stock, which means the Subaru tools can reflash the ECU, as well as Cobb, OpenECU, etc. At that point, you could switch to the Accessport, use the OpenECU to tune your car, etc.

The change in the checksum and protocol only occurs if you have a modified rom flashed in. That is very similar to some of the VM Roms, where the modified roms are encrypted, but the stocks are not. Make sense?

As far as reliable tools, there is a lot more to that then perhaps anyone knows. There are tools I use a lot, and tools I use very little, and the hint is that the better software gets used much more often.

Jeff

[JRSCCivic98]

Originally Posted by PDXTuning

Not sure what you mean by 100%OEM? If you flash in a 'stock' rom image, the checksum code used by the flash software to start a reflash cycle is changed back to stock, which means the Subaru tools can reflash the ECU, as well as Cobb, OpenECU, etc. At that point, you could switch to the Accessport, use the OpenECU to tune your car, etc.

The change in the checksum and protocol only occurs if you have a modified rom flashed in. That is very similar to some of the VM Roms, where the modified roms are encrypted, but the stocks are not. Make sense?

As far as reliable tools, there is a lot more to that then perhaps anyone knows. There are tools I use a lot, and tools I use very little, and the hint is that the better software gets used much more often.

Jeff

Sounds good. At least EcuTek did one thing right in giving the end user the choice to swap EM solutions at will. Well, as long as you buy the new software.