Iffy OBD2 adapters dangers and issues?

I bought one of the super-cheap ELM327 adapters and happily got some issues on my van sorted.

Hadn't used it in a while, then got a CEL on the '16 Mini. After looking up again what the paring code was and fumbling through some not-very-smooth Bluetooth pairing, the Torque app happily told me that the dingus at the gas station had managed to get the gas cap tether captured in the threads, creating a small leak. Yay, easy fix!

BUT!

Torque isn't clearing the CEL.

I went to look this up, and one of the first bits in the Torque FAQ was a couple of adapter recommendations, and the observation that the super-cheap ones aren't very reliable, and moreover, that they can introduce issues on up to "failure of engine to start".

On the $2000 van this worried me much less than the Mini.

So...

1. How scared of this adapter should I be? Any first-to-maybe-second-hand accounts of bricked or semi-bricked cars from bad OBD2 adapters?
2. Any other likely culprits for the failure to clear the code?

I'm mostly accustomed in my limited experience to hitting the clear codes process and watching the light go out a few seconds later. I get no error or anything, it's just like the car never gets or processes the clear code. My impression is that there isn't really a verification in the communication (i.e. Torque isn't going to tell me the car isn't listening to the clear command).

Code clearing is a lot more involved now so you can't clear the MIL just before your inspection.

If your tool didn't do it properly, you may have to either pony up the dough for a pro, or drive it for a while.  Evap code will generally bugger off if it sees several "no fault" cycles.

In reply to Streetwiseguy :

Has it changed much? My impression was that you never could just clear right before inspection because OBD2 would report "not ready" if it hadn't been through an appropriate drive cycle after the codes were cleared.

Hilariously, I actually have a much better CANbus tool I've picked up for learning to analyze vehicle info, but I haven't gotten around to learning to use its capabilities, and I'm sure it's less straightforward to use in terms of just clearing codes.

And just to clarify, what do you mean "pony up the dough for a pro"? Pro version of Torque (already have it)? Professional tech to do the job? Other pro-level tool of some kind?

Some cars are weird about clearing codes.  Some will only clear with the engine running, others will only clear with key on, engine off.  

Dude, its a BMW.  All of ze Germanz are weird about their OBD systems.  Its why many don't bother with the cheap OBD test systems unless they specifically work with ze German brand of choice.  Aka there's a reason why VAG-COM is so coveted by the VAG faithful.

I use an ELM327 on our '16 Ford and our '01 Yoda, no problems.  Even used it to datalog for the fun of it.  Works just fine.

In reply to Stefan :

Blerg. All too plausible.

Tried it not running, same; started it again and the CEL went out so early I find myself doubting whether I'd actually kicked off the clear yet. OTOH, Torque still showed it as a "historic" issue (which is how it showed it on scan today, suggesting that it was in some sort of status where it had stopped being thrown but the car wasn't yet ready to clear it of its own accord? Ah, a quick google suggests this what Streetwiseguy is saying; the CEL itself is out, but there's a history in the car of having thrown that code, which is fine.)

Still not sure why it wouldn't clear quickly, and can't say with any certainty whether Torque finally cleared the CEL or whether it was about to be cleared anyway, and the historic issue is correct, so I Guess the car's current and I don't have an annoying light for a resolved problem, so I'm... happy?

I have a MINI an ELM and Torque.  It usually takes two or three attempts to get the evap leak cel to clear.  You are lucky if it is only the cap being loose.

I use Torque Pro with the ActiveOBD plug in with a Panlong dongle for my Outback.  I initially had some problems with communication errors until someone on aa Outback forum told me to use a specific communications protocol rather than letting Torque Pro automatically pick one.

Hal said:

I use Torque Pro with the ActiveOBD plug in with a Panlong dongle for my Outback.  I initially had some problems with communication errors until someone on aa Outback forum told me to use a specific communications protocol rather than letting Torque Pro automatically pick one.

When you use the Wifi version for iPhones/iPads, when you connect to the wifi, note the IP Address and go into the settting and manually set the network to that IP, saves time trying to negotiate the IP Address info, etc.

Since clearing the code is in violation of federal law, it is becoming more difficult to clear the codes.  Seriously.  Many code scanners no longer have the ability to clear the code.  If you fix the issue, the code will clear itself.  

Kramer said:

Since clearing the code is in violation of federal law, it is becoming more difficult to clear the codes.  Seriously.  Many code scanners no longer have the ability to clear the code.  If you fix the issue, the code will clear itself.  

Do you have a reference for that?

I've had really weird issues on early 2000s hondas and using them with the ELM327. I think the only hondas I have gotten them to work are an obd2a and obd2b integra. The rest ranging from a 2000 civic, 02/04 civic, 05 accord and 01 odyssey all do not work. 

The WRX if you clear any code the next time you go to start it it will just crank and crank never fire. let it go back to "run" then turn to "start" it fires right off.  

Theres some odd things built in to OBD's

FYI, ECS Tuning sells a BMW/MINI-specific scanner that's quite good. I've only had occasion to use it a couple times, but it's astonishingly comprehensive.

In reply to 44Dwarf and O2Pilot :

Good to know about a better BMW/Mini scanner; fundamentally, both the odd issues with WRXs and the need for a "BMW" scanner bother me a lot given the fundamental idea that OBD2 is in theory a standard. Certainly it makes sense for mfrs to extend the basics with additional features, but the fundamentals should behave the same from car to car. (Of course I'm still haunted by Torque's observations that the cheap adapters may be at fault in terms of not adhering to the standards or other issues...)

My sense of what a standard should mean and how badly it sucks when it isn't adhered to are substantially informed by moving into web development during the days of Internet Explorer 6, when you had two versions of most any site's stylesheets, and scripts; one for IE6, and one for everything else that mostly behaved like standards mattered (not that the others were perfect either).

I understand/accept that the way forward for me may involve buying a specific tool (or better learning my MRS Electronics PCAN tool and supporting software, or reverting to "berk it, the new car is the dealer's problem"), but that doesn't mean I can't be seriously torqued off at the folks who made that a necessity.

The thing with the BMW system is that there is a massive amount of information available that falls outside the OBD2 standard. Where OBD2 gives a fairly basic diagnostic capability, the manufacturer-specific fault code detection allows for much more precision in identifying the problem component. It also provides active test options that can be very helpful in diagnosing an issue.

In reply to 02Pilot :

That's the sort of thing I was referring to by the notion of extending; but that shouldn't fundamentally make it incompatible with the basic operations *within* the standard. It's fine to add functionality or information outside the OBD2 standard; but it's not fine to change the way the system behaves with regard to the core operations and information. The additional functionality is likely worth paying for, but there's no good reason a generic OBD2 tool shouldn't be capable of the generic OBD2 functions.

In the same way that the protocols and standards defined allow your browser to request and process HTML over HTTP from a broad variety of webservers (Microsoft, Linux, Apple) because they adhere to standards, similar is the notion that the cars should adhere to a standard, even if they have additional functionality. Otherwise, there's little point to OBD2, and we'd just have manufacturers all having their own connectors, protocols, tools, etc... It would be like going back to having printers that only knew how to talk to a specific driver on a specific operating system, or if Windows machines on the Internet could only talk to other Windows machines.

They must at least be adhering to the standards as far as the DEQs of the world being able to read basic status, so there's that.

Kramer said:

Since clearing the code is in violation of federal law, it is becoming more difficult to clear the codes.  Seriously.  Many code scanners no longer have the ability to clear the code.  If you fix the issue, the code will clear itself.  

I went checking... all I could find is that it is illegal to clear the code if the problem still exists IF you are a repair shop or a dealer. Nothing about being able to do it at home

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is investigating sales of MIL( malfunction indicatotr lights) eliminator devices which can turn off the check engine light

In reply to Kramer :

I read that to refer to an installed device which defeats (or eliminates) the CEL, not telling the system to turn it off. The question being researched in the question is about removing the bulb which illuminates the CEL, but the research turned up defeat devices as the closest thing.

I remain firmly under the impression that it is entirely legitimate to turn off a CEL via code clearing, as this is a customary part of repair or service, and does not circumvent actual testing, since any formal test will turn up that the vehicle isn't "ready" after CEL clear until it's completed the appropriate drive cycle. If the problem isn't actually fixed, the CEL will return by the time the car is "ready".

Referring back to the actual text of the qustion:

What section of Federal Law says that it is illegal to tamper with the OBD system of cars newer than 1996? Specifically, where does it say it is illegal to remove the dashboard bulb?

They're talking about tampering. We're talking about normal usage. Removing the bulb or installing a device which would prevent a CEL is tampering. Clearing the code is a normal function of the system.

I would guess it's probably guess it's not illegal to remove the bulb (after all, you need to do that to replace if it burns out, right?), but it is almost certainly illegal to remove the bulb and then try to pass a smog test or sell the vehicle based on the fact that the bulb has been removed.  Clearing codes is legit, that's how you know it's been fixed -- you clear it and see if it comes back. 

Back to the original question, if the scan tool won't clear the code, can't you just do it by disconnecting the battery and standing on the brake for a couple seconds?  AFAIK they're all designed to lose the codes when battery power goes away so that you can't swap an ECU from a working car to a non-working one as a band-aid to make it pass.

In reply to Kramer :

that article is from 2009....  Our current EPA is more concerned with giving you asthma.. 

In reply to codrus :

It finally cleared; EDIT: I noted a few posts in that when it finally did I wasn't even sure whether I'd cleared it or the car had finally just gotten through enough running without the error to clear itself... And it took me three tries to rewrite this sentence to sound less like I was whining that you didn't see my earlier post about this, which I was trying to avoid... 

Good it cleared, 'cause you have to disassemble so much to get at the battery; I went way out of my way to get to annual tech so I wouldn't have to pull the cover more than once!