How intelligent is the engine computer? All these random Toyota acceleration problems got me wondering if it would be possible to program something like this into the PCM. Many of us have performance chips on our trucks which reprogram the computer. Do you think it is possible to program the computer to randomly accelerate at WOT for 30 minutes then return to normal? Just curious thought question.

 

most of the computer's duties are reactive based on inputs, it makes decisions within parameters on what should happen.

So basically no

 

Being a coder myself... a virus can be implemented on an ECU.

The common Ford Ecu is run on a Ford proprietary Black Oak Operating system running a 32-bit Motorola PowerPC CPU and is considered a Real-Time Operating System (RTOS).

You just need to know what you are doing and make it do something not in the "norm", which it then can be considered a virus, because it isn't in the "norm".

 

Yes you could. It would not spread itself like a virus but it sure could cause troubles.

 

It could possibly be transmitted like an actual computer virus with GM OnStar. Upload it to the OnStar server thingy to upload to car PCMs when contacted. This is just an assumption not saying that it can or actually could because I have no extensive knowledge on the Onstar system or PCMs.

 

It might not be able to spread, but suppose it was in the base code loaded that way at the factory. Then they would all be infected.

 

The next generation of virus... On star...

I had one on my cell phone!

 

im sure it could be possible. people hack things all the time. inputting malacious code into a car computer wouldnt do anyone any good. if you want someone to die, just run them off the road. hacking their ECU would be way too much work. the whole toyota thing can be anything. the possibility is that there could be way too many safety barriers in the way that could be interfering with each other.

 

I don't think it's a case of being hacked. These modern computer systems are adaptive in the programming in that they will change due to start cycles and mileage to compensate for wear on the components and emissions. I think there is a conflicting command in the system somewhere that effects certain vehicles as it progresses thru the programming. What I am hearing is that these units are defaulting to WOT and once in the default mode, the fail safes are gone. But any decent driver should be able to stop the vehicle with the brakes. It's been shown many times that the vehicles have the braking capacity to stop several times with the accelerator on the floor. And please remember, these vehicles are electronic including the transmission which won't shift out of gear.

 

Speaking of which.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...r-bricks-cars/

 

Good morning to you Labnerd.

If we take the example of Ford's ETC design, there are 2 separate TPS sensors (within 1 physical unit), 3 accelerator pedal positon sensors - APPS1-3 (also wthin 1 physical unit), 2 return springs, and mostly importantly, separate 'watchdog' processors such as the E-Quizzer and TPPC (throttle plate position controller) running within, but separate from, the PCM.

Continual 'sanity' checking takes place, where TPS1 & 2 and APPS 1, 2 & 3, are monitored for predetermined slope (+ and -) accuracy, cross-checked for agreement by the watchdogs - and kicking out P codes and triggering failsafe conditions to limit the vehicle speed and available power (inducing misfires is one such method) in under 5 seconds from the start of any fault.

I am going to make an assumption here that *any* properly designed ETC system, while not specifically identical to Ford's implementation, will still exhibit the same "mission-critical" redundancy and oversight design philosophy.

To my mind, it does not make sense to implement it in a more simplistic ( and possibly fault-prone) manner, when the general design principles and best-practices are so widely published. The whole concept of watchdogs and independent oversight/monitoring/override is not new at all. It's public-domain for the most part - except for the actual coding.

So - my personal perspective is that (Toyota's) issue is not a ETC software/design issue.

But - who knows what 'lowest-bidder' bean-counter mentality can do?

Just IMHO only - okay? Put yer dang guns away

Regards & Cheers


MGD v4.2

 

No guns, my friend, LOL. While I'm not versed on the entire workings of the Toyota system, I'm sure they also have redundancy built into it. And it could easily be the redundancy that is causing the issue. If the PCM is receiving mixed signals, it is suppose to default idle. But because of the adaptive curve in the PCM, it may be defaulting to WOT. I still don't see a mechanical failure causing a WOT condition. Now if the driver was at full throttle and it didn't come back- that's a probable mechanical issue but that's not what is happening. These vehicles are going from stop to WOT and from low speeds to WOT. Nothing mechanical is going to cause the throttle body to go into WOT position especially when it is electronically controlled.

 

MGD, when is v5.0 coming out?