Old cars and new engines: Catch me up

The0retical: Eavesdropping on the CAN bus is simple! In fact a decent ELM clone (scantool.net) can be used to monitor CAN network traffic. It isn't great at it, but it can do a lot! We use some higher priced adapters that just the chipset costs more than a eBay ELM adapter. This is pictured in Keith's post. Plug into the DLC (OBD2 connector for the uninitiated) and you'll see lots of bus traffic! Most vehicles ALL of the CAN networks can be accessed via the DLC. The standard location (pins 6 and 14) are the only "required" locations for CAN. There are lots of undefined spots on the connector that a manufacturer can use for a low speed bus for things like HVAC etc..

Why encrypt a data stream that is in a box that can't be opened? In reality its somewhat pointless. Unless you have physical access to a vehicle's wiring, you can't interface with the CAN bus. Manufacturers get in trouble when they forget certain vectors like bluetooth in radios cough Chrysler cough Jeep. Interesting side note, there is a new variant of CAN that is backwards compatible with CAN 2.0 (what we currently use predominantly) called CAN FD. This stands for flexible data. It can send 64 bytes of data in the same time CAN 2.0 sent 8. This opens the door for secure communication as each message now has room for unique keys etc.

To answer if its encrypted I'd have to ask you if you can understand this:

What if I told you that this data all contained MAP sensor reading, the absolute position of the steering rack, Steering effort, current gear, brake switch, estimated torque, accelerator position, engine speed, vehicle speed, and the X and Z axis acceleration of the vehicle. Hexidecimal without any reference point is one form of encryption.

A "consumer" solution is available today. Give me a ring :) It might be a bit to get you started but I have plenty of units on the shelf. Really if you want to mess with CAN things, get a RaspberryPi or Arduino and start there. When you want some advanced functionality, give me a call.

The process was rather simple to start. I spent four days at FM sitting in ND's poking and proding every function of the car. I had never looked at CAN data from an ND (or a Mazda for that matter) until then and I walked away with 40-50% of the know-how I have on the platform today. The rest of it came down to countless "Hey Keith, try this. Hey Keith try this and get me a log. Keith, did it do the thing? Keith, KEITH" The one nice thing is that I had already mapped out the GM values required from previous work with other conversions under private label.

Keith: In that photo we were listening to the vacuum pump module to simulate its CAN messages via our hardware so you could remove it from the vehicle without other modules complaining. This would be something that OP would need to do. Install that sweet new Skyactiv Engine in X car? It's going to complain it doesn't have a vacuum pump!

Also yes, I left FM and bought a ND about a month or so later as I'd always wanted a Miata but never felt like I fit...spending 2-3 days straight sitting in one helped me realize I do fit!

A foot of snow may not be a ton in a lot of places, but it's huge by Portland standards, and so my PCAN-USB adapter (which Colin apparently even had a hand in shipping) hasn't quite gotten here yet. I believe it to be in Portland, but even Starbucks on a main thoroughfare had to give me skim milk yesterday because their shipment hadn't happened... I do wish UPS wouldn't continue to show things with a delivery time of yesterday as "on time", but that's neither here nor there. Like the package. (EDIT: I was rash in reading the UPS page; it's apparently still in Illinois. Colin & Co got it out the door just fine, it just hasn't made reported progress since 1/10. It hasn't even had a chance to get tangled in Portland's inability to deal with snow yet )

Looking forward to poking and prodding the Mini to try to learn a thing or two about this approach. I've also got an inquiry in with a Link distributor about their GDI-capable ECU and what they know about using it for this sort of application. At least one reference I've found suggests the Valvetronic's input isn't too different to driving an electronic throttle body.

In short, regarding old cars and new engines, the can of worms is open, and the worms are everywhere...

Ransom wrote: A foot of snow may not be a ton in a lot of places, but it's huge by Portland standards, and so my PCAN-USB adapter (which Colin apparently even had a hand in shipping) hasn't quite gotten here yet. I believe it to be in Portland, but even Starbucks on a main thoroughfare had to give me skim milk yesterday because their shipment hadn't happened... I do wish UPS wouldn't continue to show things with a delivery time of yesterday as "on time", but that's neither here nor there. Like the package. (EDIT: I was rash in reading the UPS page; it's apparently still in Illinois. Colin & Co got it out the door just fine, it just hasn't made reported progress since 1/10. It hasn't even had a chance to get tangled in Portland's inability to deal with snow yet ) Looking forward to poking and prodding the Mini to try to learn a thing or two about this approach. I've also got an inquiry in with a Link distributor about their GDI-capable ECU and what they know about using it for this sort of application. At least one reference I've found suggests the Valvetronic's input isn't too different to driving an electronic throttle body. In short, regarding old cars and new engines, the can of worms is open, and the worms are *everywhere*...

Looks like you are getting it today!

Woohoo!

We've been taking about Ford crate engines in a couple of other threads around here. They do offer some modern DI/turbo packages that are supposedly designed to swap into older cars...which means they must offer some sort of programmable/adaptable controller.

Maybe the Ford Racing people can point you in the right direction?

In reply to LanEvo:

They certainly provide just what I want, if I wanted one of their crate engines (which isn't a terrible idea at all!)

But my impression is that with their resources, they get to sidestep my issue: Being the owner of all the pertinent info, they get to put the powertrain control logic in their crate controller and just leave out the bits that look for other items on the bus. Too bad all the manufacturers don't provide an ECU like that. For those that don't, I figure I'm stuck trying to work around those checks as we've been discussing.

Or am I missing something. Cause, uh, I do that sometimes. Are you thinking about using the Ford Racing controller with other DI/turbo engines? I wonder how different are the inputs/outputs between different types of engines (I'm assuming sensors differ, pumps want different modes of being driven/controlled, etc...). I assume the black-boxness of those would create a fair bit of difficulty, even while being type-appropriate helped.

I want to say at that point a full standalone ECU is a better bet, but I clearly don't know that definitively, and that's what we're here to ponder... I should read more, and maybe ask some questions, on one of the standalone mfr's forums where there's been at least a little discussion of this sort of thing, and see if there's info about the standards (if any) for the "new parts" (high pressure fuel pump, cylinder pressure?, etc...)

The Ford Racing engines are probably just like the GM Performance ones - the controller is running a custom OS that's been stripped down specifically for use in swaps. Alfadriver has even mentioned that they go from MAF to MAP (I think) as part of the process. It's not programmable without going to a third party.

LanEvo wrote: We've been taking about Ford crate engines in a couple of other threads around here. They do offer some modern DI/turbo packages that are supposedly designed to swap into older cars...which means they must offer some sort of programmable/adaptable controller. Maybe the Ford Racing people can point you in the right direction?

I looked into that thinking. Found out that they are not programmable. They are what they are.

So you can put a 2.0l turbo into something, pretty much as is, or a 3.5l turbo into something- with some hardware changes to make it run.

There is nothing to say that an engine controller from a stock vehicle won't work without other modules. GM is a good example of controllers being able to run standalone. Remove VATS (security), give it power and ground, jump the starter, you are good to go! If the engine controller sees everything it's expecting to see the engine will run just fine.

Really the best way to find out is to test what happens and report back :)

As the owner of a full race 2002 and a whole bunch of things with Rover V8s, I can't help but wonder what it would be like to have a daily 2002 with a nice 4.6L rover and 5 speed.

So this is horribly naive and I'm not serious; so what happens if one slaps in a new set of pistons, changes the manifold fit weber DCOE carbs and then runs a simple crank fire ignition to a new fangled engine? It would run but likely have less power but still make more power than the old original engine.

OR

What happens if you transfered everything over from the new car; my oh so defective over simplified thought is by new car with said drive train that's been wrapped around a pole and then simply swap the drive by wire throttle sensors et al?

Option 1: as long as the engine isn't too high tech, it'll work. People who are scared of EFI do this to LS motors. But once you get a motor with a highly adjustable cam, very high compression or something along those lines then you'll start having trouble.

Option 2: depends on the donor vehicle. Some car makers make the modules fairly independent, as Colin noted. Others have the entire car as a complete system, and if you take away one part the rest of it gets all worried. You may have to keep the donor gauges, or body control module, or odd sensors in odd places. Heck, the 2.5 turbo Skyactive in the CX-9 has closed loop fuel pressure control.

It's here! It's here!

The CAN adapter is here! Now if only I weren't getting on a plane first thing tomorrow...

Ransom wrote: It's here! It's here! The CAN adapter is here! Now if only I weren't getting on a plane first thing tomorrow...

Fittingly enough, sometimes I do hate CAN(s).

Ha! Nicely done!