Interesting Stuff on OBDIII
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 894
Likes: 0
Interesting Stuff on OBDIII
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
Re: Interesting Stuff on OBDIII
Originally posted by Jaguar
Our trucks have OBDII correct?
Jag
http://www.me.umn.edu/~byronr/vw/obd3.txt
Our trucks have OBDII correct?
Jag
http://www.me.umn.edu/~byronr/vw/obd3.txt
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
From: Central Florida
We were talking about this a couple of days ago here at work.
With OBDIII you are correct, there is no reason why your vehicle couldn't report your speed AND location (GPS tracking) to authorities so they could either come visit you or mail you your greeting.
Here's an extension to that idea. Highway patrol COULD tell your vehicle that the speed limit is 70 (or whatever) mph. Now your truck won't let you go say five mph over the limit on a multi-lane road. All without your knowledge or consent. Talk about cruise control. No need to have that $200,000 Ferrari or Lambo with that 200mph top end because the law won't let you go that fast.
Another thought, a sensor on your truck goes bad causing you to be outside EPA limits. Guess what, another greeting from law enforcement telling you that you now have 30 days to get it fixed or you will be forced to park it or pay a hefty fine.
Here's one that will really make you nuts. Where were you on the the night of (pick a date)? Well, your truck driven with YOUR KEY in it was located at (pick a location) from 10:00pm to 1:00am. Think that would stand up in court?
Talk about invasion of privacy! Interesting stuff on OBDIII? I would use the word scary!
With OBDIII you are correct, there is no reason why your vehicle couldn't report your speed AND location (GPS tracking) to authorities so they could either come visit you or mail you your greeting.
Here's an extension to that idea. Highway patrol COULD tell your vehicle that the speed limit is 70 (or whatever) mph. Now your truck won't let you go say five mph over the limit on a multi-lane road. All without your knowledge or consent. Talk about cruise control. No need to have that $200,000 Ferrari or Lambo with that 200mph top end because the law won't let you go that fast.
Another thought, a sensor on your truck goes bad causing you to be outside EPA limits. Guess what, another greeting from law enforcement telling you that you now have 30 days to get it fixed or you will be forced to park it or pay a hefty fine.
Here's one that will really make you nuts. Where were you on the the night of (pick a date)? Well, your truck driven with YOUR KEY in it was located at (pick a location) from 10:00pm to 1:00am. Think that would stand up in court?
Talk about invasion of privacy! Interesting stuff on OBDIII? I would use the word scary!
Technical Article Contributor
Joined: Dec 1997
Posts: 9,417
Likes: 11
From: Windsor,Ontario,Canada
Someone will get rich selling false senders. Disable the onboard system and install a new transmitter that says everything is OK. I have no problem with the emissions part of it nor the where were you part. I do not like the idea of getting a speeding ticket in the mail. It could also get interesting in accident investigation where; VIN 123456 was shown to be 0.6 meters behind VIN 568791 traveling South on I75 at 10:30 PM at 80+mph.
Regards
Jean Marc Chartier
Regards
Jean Marc Chartier
Trending Topics
Former Sponsor
Joined: Mar 1998
Posts: 13,385
Likes: 4
From: Virginia
That article appears to be *years* old, as it talks about 2000 being the first year that OBD-III could possibly be required, etc.
To date, OBD-III still is not finalized in it's functions or implementation timeframe, and one of the big problems are the "Big Brother" aspects.
I have no problem with monitoring vehicles emissions in real time, as long as there is no ability to disable the vehicle - we still need proper enforcement apparatus that is cognizant of reality, we need to get where we have to go, and there always have to be time frames allowed to implement repairs, etc. in general - except for something blatant like trying to operate with no catalytic converters in 1975 or newer vehicles, there are already many places in which the police can stop you from driving right there on the spot for not having catalytic converters, which is as it should be.
I'm no tree-hugging clean environmental freak, but I must confess that I can't stand those who will arrogantly ignore others rights to breathe the same air to do things like remove or gut catalytic converters, block off EGR, etc. - you can have very high performance and power and *still* maintain a clean exhaust - we've been doing it for years & do it every day. There is *no* excuse for deliberate tampering or disabling of any emissions equipment for anything other than strictly temporary troubleshooting work in the process of valid vehicle diagnosis & repair. For example, we will *not* turn off the downstream O2 sensor so you don't get a check engine light when you remove the cats as almost every other tuner will - I refuse. Hell, sometimes you don't even get a check engine light from removing cats, that's just one example of how poor OBD-II works. We will not knowingly help *anyone* to subvert emissions requirements on any street-driven vehicle, as we like to breathe clean air, too.
OBD-III isn't here yet, and probably won't be anytime soon as they can't agree on it for the reasons mentioned here and many more - but it is something we need to stay on top of, and let our elected representatives know just how we feel.
To date, OBD-III still is not finalized in it's functions or implementation timeframe, and one of the big problems are the "Big Brother" aspects.
I have no problem with monitoring vehicles emissions in real time, as long as there is no ability to disable the vehicle - we still need proper enforcement apparatus that is cognizant of reality, we need to get where we have to go, and there always have to be time frames allowed to implement repairs, etc. in general - except for something blatant like trying to operate with no catalytic converters in 1975 or newer vehicles, there are already many places in which the police can stop you from driving right there on the spot for not having catalytic converters, which is as it should be.
I'm no tree-hugging clean environmental freak, but I must confess that I can't stand those who will arrogantly ignore others rights to breathe the same air to do things like remove or gut catalytic converters, block off EGR, etc. - you can have very high performance and power and *still* maintain a clean exhaust - we've been doing it for years & do it every day. There is *no* excuse for deliberate tampering or disabling of any emissions equipment for anything other than strictly temporary troubleshooting work in the process of valid vehicle diagnosis & repair. For example, we will *not* turn off the downstream O2 sensor so you don't get a check engine light when you remove the cats as almost every other tuner will - I refuse. Hell, sometimes you don't even get a check engine light from removing cats, that's just one example of how poor OBD-II works. We will not knowingly help *anyone* to subvert emissions requirements on any street-driven vehicle, as we like to breathe clean air, too.
OBD-III isn't here yet, and probably won't be anytime soon as they can't agree on it for the reasons mentioned here and many more - but it is something we need to stay on top of, and let our elected representatives know just how we feel.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 894
Likes: 0
Mike,
Although this article seems to be *years* old as you stated, I still felt that it was important to post it here. We should all be aware of what is going on and what the feds are up to. It may be dated, but it just shows you where all the technology is going.
I am all for clean air as well, but do you honestly think that they will stop it there? When does it end? How far will it go? Only time will tell but I just hope that it does not happen for a LONG time to come.
You obviously know your stuff with performance stuff etc. However, with all due respect, you always seem to have a condescending tone with posts I have done. I really liked the one you posted the other day telling me I need help with the 'search' feature. Well I do not. I work in IT for a living and think I know just a wee little bit about how this stuff works.
You may know performance and are probably a great guy. I was even thinking about getting a Microtuner from you one of these days. But for all the good things you do and say, it's always the one or two negatives that people always remember.
Jag
Although this article seems to be *years* old as you stated, I still felt that it was important to post it here. We should all be aware of what is going on and what the feds are up to. It may be dated, but it just shows you where all the technology is going.
I am all for clean air as well, but do you honestly think that they will stop it there? When does it end? How far will it go? Only time will tell but I just hope that it does not happen for a LONG time to come.
You obviously know your stuff with performance stuff etc. However, with all due respect, you always seem to have a condescending tone with posts I have done. I really liked the one you posted the other day telling me I need help with the 'search' feature. Well I do not. I work in IT for a living and think I know just a wee little bit about how this stuff works.
You may know performance and are probably a great guy. I was even thinking about getting a Microtuner from you one of these days. But for all the good things you do and say, it's always the one or two negatives that people always remember.
Jag
Former Sponsor
Joined: Mar 1998
Posts: 13,385
Likes: 4
From: Virginia
Hi Jag,
You've gotten a completely incorrect impression my friend, so let me try to clear that up.
My apologies if the tone of my post made it seem as if I was somehow attacking you, or the fact that you had posted that link to that article, etc. - that impression is completely incorrect, and was never intended. Heck, I didn't even know (and didn't care) about who posted it (nor does that matter IMHO) until you just posted what you did. To me, that was and is completely immaterial.
I went back and re-read my post, and to some I guess it could have seemed harsh, and like I was on a bit of a rant - oops! But that wasn't intended at all in reality - I write how I talk, how I speak - and in doing that, it sometimes doesn't convey what I actually intend I guess- I'm just not a very good writer, is the bottom line.
When I wrote my response, I guess at the time I was thinking about a couple of things that may not seem directly germaine to your post - the fact that so many people will do things to deliberately tamper with & disable emissions equipment - things like stripping off catalytic converters, gutting the cats, etc. - we hear from people about that kind of thing virtually every day. And then there's the sometimes flakey functionality of OBD-II in the real world - the example of not getting SES's for cats being completely removed on some vehicles is an excellent example. The driver sometimes gets no warning of an emissions problem as serious as non-functional catalytic converters, or inoperative downstream O2 sensors, which are there for the purpose of checking for catalytic converter function.
The overall point being, not all that is being considered in OBD-III is good - which was the *exact* point that I felt posting that link to that article made. The reality actually is I *liked* the fact that someone (in this case, you) posted that link - we the public need to try to keep ourselves up to speed on OBD-III's progress - if we enthusiasts don't speak out about all the various potential abuses of some of the basic inherent technology & capabilities that technology brings with it, then *nobody* will. And I think the feedback in this thread certainly reflects that very same concern that you obviously had upon reading that article, and it's a concern we share as well.
My post was a bit off the basic point, & I confess that I do that sometimes - if I have something on my mind that's even remotely related, I do tend to just speak right out, & sometimes I'm not on the intended point - sorry 'bout that! Don't let that make you think I'm somehow being critical of you, as that isn't the case at all, that literally never entered my mind.
You've gotten a completely incorrect impression my friend, so let me try to clear that up.
My apologies if the tone of my post made it seem as if I was somehow attacking you, or the fact that you had posted that link to that article, etc. - that impression is completely incorrect, and was never intended. Heck, I didn't even know (and didn't care) about who posted it (nor does that matter IMHO) until you just posted what you did. To me, that was and is completely immaterial.
I went back and re-read my post, and to some I guess it could have seemed harsh, and like I was on a bit of a rant - oops! But that wasn't intended at all in reality - I write how I talk, how I speak - and in doing that, it sometimes doesn't convey what I actually intend I guess- I'm just not a very good writer, is the bottom line.
When I wrote my response, I guess at the time I was thinking about a couple of things that may not seem directly germaine to your post - the fact that so many people will do things to deliberately tamper with & disable emissions equipment - things like stripping off catalytic converters, gutting the cats, etc. - we hear from people about that kind of thing virtually every day. And then there's the sometimes flakey functionality of OBD-II in the real world - the example of not getting SES's for cats being completely removed on some vehicles is an excellent example. The driver sometimes gets no warning of an emissions problem as serious as non-functional catalytic converters, or inoperative downstream O2 sensors, which are there for the purpose of checking for catalytic converter function.
The overall point being, not all that is being considered in OBD-III is good - which was the *exact* point that I felt posting that link to that article made. The reality actually is I *liked* the fact that someone (in this case, you) posted that link - we the public need to try to keep ourselves up to speed on OBD-III's progress - if we enthusiasts don't speak out about all the various potential abuses of some of the basic inherent technology & capabilities that technology brings with it, then *nobody* will. And I think the feedback in this thread certainly reflects that very same concern that you obviously had upon reading that article, and it's a concern we share as well.
My post was a bit off the basic point, & I confess that I do that sometimes - if I have something on my mind that's even remotely related, I do tend to just speak right out, & sometimes I'm not on the intended point - sorry 'bout that! Don't let that make you think I'm somehow being critical of you, as that isn't the case at all, that literally never entered my mind.