GM trying to keep you from modding your vehicle

Campfire Time wrote:
But changing parameters like air/fuel mixture or taking off the torque management in the software is far different than modifying the code. So in the long run I think their stance will fall flat.

You are correct, the problem is say you have a 2 year old truck and go in a change a bunch of settings and it won't pass the smog check....manufacturers are on the hook with Fed law to warranty emissions equipment for 50k miles or something like that.

Not one to propose new laws, but we need to keep up with the technology. I would like to see all the vehicle's parameters changeable by the user without any special diagnostic equipment, but then the mfr should be 100% off the hook if the vehicle won't pass smog check, or the airbags don't work, or the motor blows up. Making those changeable variables instead of hard-coded numbers would allow the user to diagnose and repair without accessing or decompiling the code, kind of like Windows or like the BIOS on a laptop. I can change whatever I need to change to make it work best for my application without having to hack in and view the code to overwrite hard-coded variables. I can add memory, a second hard drive, etc.

OEMs need to look at look at making their vehicles' software more serviceable without restricting user repair access. They should be looking for better ways to support their customers rather than going to war with them.

Reason the aftermarket for tires, rims, aux fuel tanks, etc., is so big, because nobody uses their truck the same way, you customize it for your application. OEMs should be advertising the flexibility of their vehicles not how they are gonna sue you if you try to diagnose a check engine light yourself.

Bad journalism at it's finest. The title is very misleading: want to make tinkering, self-repair illegal.

The manufacturers are only talking about the software. Not the repairing the mechanical parts or replacing parts with after market enhancements by owners. Granted some of that may require software mods.

What's interesting to me that their argument is that software vendors have license agreements and they do to. So they say you can't modify it. But changing parameters like air/fuel mixture or taking off the torque management in the software is far different than modifying the code. So in the long run I think their stance will fall flat.

Its always risky to read parts of an agreement. The linked article only cited a sentence apiece from John Deere and GM. Without seeing the entire agreement/purchase document, it appears that they are saying that the purchaser only has a license to use the software embedded in the various control systems and not the right to modify (and or sell either altered or unaltered) the software.

I believe that's a reasonable position to take, but I also believe the suggestion of establishing licensed repair stations is a reasonable thing to do as well.

I understand companies wanting to control their IP. But they should have to make provisions to allow for repair. Sounds like the automotive industry should devise standards, such as ODB, that allow for diagnostics and repair. Now that vehicles are becoming more dependent on software it seems like we need some new standards. This is already done in computers. Create standards and follow them...shouldn't be too hard to protect IP and allow repair/modifications if they wanted to do that.

If companies don't allow access to troubleshoot and repair their vehicles by third parties other companies will come in and use that against them. As long as government regulation doesn't get in the way it seems like a good chance for one of the major manufacturers to step in and say, "hey you can repair and modify OUR vehicles!"

No surprise there

I know that article called out GM, but the other manufacturers are doing the same thing.

"Last September, Ford took steps toward consolidating such control, filing a lawsuit against Autel US Inc., a diagnostic-equipment manufacturer based in Huntington, New York. Ford alleges the company unlawfully copied trade secrets and accessed on-board computer systems that relay technical information on diagnostic codes and repair data. The EFF says consumers should have the right to have their cars fixed by independent mechanics"

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/04/20/automakers-gearheads-car-repairs/

So they say that we don`t "own" the vehicle. so does that mean if it is not touched they will guarantee/warranty it for life. sounds that way to me!

I don`t see this going anywhere! SEMA will step in and shut it down quick!

Well good luck on that GM.

As if anyone is going to "LEASE" A vehicle for the life of said vehicle at a 50+ k cost...laughable at best. This whole suggestion goes against any Property law that I am aware of. Who's next, your toaster manufacturer..??

But if they did, I would want to see a LIFETIME 100% TOTAL Coverage warranty for the lifetime of said vehicle, a replacement unit when the one I lease is in the shop and paid for lost time due to repairs etc. + A full FREE Replacement upon its demise...no.? Seems equitable to me.


Meh, I'll just keep my 06 LBZ That is somewhat modified / well looked after and continue to do what I want with MY vehicle. It has in my 10 year ownership, seen the inside of a dealership exactly once...and then only to program a Bose LUX TNR to my trucks VIN.

Still running original injectors-cp3-head gaskets..(filter THAT Fuel.!!)

stk

When we bought ours we got a letter from GM a couple of months later that said that modifying the vehicle (specifically "tuners," "chips," "exhaust systems," etc) would/could void warranty.

Ours is bone stock except for different floor mats and a back up camera.

Very interesting thread about what does ownership constitute and our ability to modify as per an owner's machinery needs...or simply desires to modify machinery. This thread should stimulate a lot of discussion.

Thanks for posting.