Video

Hope that gets you back on the road!

Out of respect for my customers privacy, I never disclose the cost of past jobs. You can get a general idea of the cost of the repair (at a dealership) from a web search. I was able to save my customer substantial money off the dealership cost. Thanks for your interest, feel free to call me if you would like an estimate!

Thanks! Sorry to hear you closed your shop. I was checking out your channel, and I was a heavy equipment mechanic years ago myself. If you're ever in the neighborhood with time to kill, give me a buzz, I'll buy you a cup of coffee.

Glad it helped

Thanks!

I'm most concerned with the fact that a manufacturer can call anything they want a security function, and that businesses only will be allowed to perform them (preventing individuals from working on their own cars.) What about car lots, and fleet shops, they can't work on their own cars without insuring themselves against damaging their own cars?! It's just a ridiculous power grab.

The car manufacturers are most definitely collaborating with nastf on this (their own site clearly states that what procedures are a security function will be determined by the manufacturers). Currently you may be able to do many functions through sps, but we'll see what is allowed once this takes affect (you'll note that most everyone is accessing sps via an aftermarket j2534). As for the insurance, it will prevent owners from servicing their own cars (nastf also requires proof of ownership of a buisness tax ID numbers etc.) FYI my information indicates that Autel is already on board with this, we will have to wait and see what companies do not choose to comply. What about gm's global a vehicles? They currently seem to consider any module with a vin programmed into it (on a network) to be a security protected against rewriting a used module. Will they require a nastf login to replace any module now? According to nastf it's up to them now. That's too much power for the manufacturers, and robbing car owners of their right to repair what they own. I don't have a problem with preventing felons from having access to program keys, if our justice system functions properly (right now that's a discussion all to itself for everyone to judge on their own). Personally, I think we ought to hold the criminals stealing cars to strict justice, and not punish the car and shop owners by making it more difficult (and expensive) to repair their cars. Scanners don't steal cars, people steal cars.

@JessClearyAutoRepairLLC The program is between the aftermarket scantools and nastf. I haven't seen anything about changes between oem software and nastf. Just the voluntary program with aftermarket scantools. I mean, they didn't send me any emails about changes with oem software and nastf. If cheverolet wanted to use nastf for security functions, they would have already done so with the newest security they actually made it easier if you use their own software and not aftermarket. And Ford made it impossible to do anything new security with aftermarket software until they find a way to hack it again. The global a bs is just to force people to buy new modules. I don't think it's for security, just a cash grab. Even the mdi2 is made by bosch. So, the j2534 devices are already aftermarket. I don't think they care about that, but they definitely care about selling new modules and making money off sps2. There exclusively using nastf for keycodes and other oems are using it for keycodes and security functions. But the key making software on aftermarket scanners is reverse engineered. To have nastf support them scanners and make it okay to use would be a spit in their face. Right now, 2023 vehicles are being done by everyone through sps2 without nastf and 2023 Ford with fdrs with nastf. If they wanted aftermarket scantools to do these cars. I don't think they would make these security changes. Gm is keeping their own records on who makes keys on what cars. Why would they change that? They make money off the job, and they got a record of who did it. If anything, I'd say they would push it. Nobody likes their software bootlegged, and now their own security partners are teaming up with the aftermarket bootleged key programmers. Yea, it's good for theif but not good for there own sales of there own software. Just my thought. I personally would be upset if I were them. But it doesn't matter whether the stuff is getting server based. Eventually, doing an american car will be like making a key for a euro car. You will he changing eeprom data unless you're using oem tools. I agree autel is probably on board, but there are not idiots. All they gotta do is put their software on another brand they have done that 2 times already. They will have their cake and eat it too. Hello otofix im1 and auro im600🤣

We"ll just have to wait to see what each manufacturer decides to give access to, and what scanner manufacturers get onboard. The oems are definitely in this though, check out the website for yourself. It's the oems way to start to get control of what's happening with the aftermarket tools. They want to get all the major aftermarket scan tool manufacturers onboard, then the oems can change their requirements to whatever they want. You might want to see who nastf is, their board of directors has people from toyota, gm, opis (drew technoligies) etc... www.aftermarketmatters.com/mechanical-repair/nastf-election-results-for-2023-board-of-directors/

@JessClearyAutoRepairLLC I support nastf and have a vsp. I'm just saying when they sent us all the email. They never mentioned oems changing anything on their end. Just between aftermarket scan tools and nastf. My beef is with the AM tools that do this because there being a secret about it, and it was never mentioned when purchasing these tools. I got 8 scanners. I only see autel doing it out of my 8, and autel makes up 2 of them.

We'll have to just disagree on that, I support car owners right to repair over nastf. None of this affects me in the least, I have a legitimate buisness, and can get a vsp any time I want to pay their fee. I just don't want people's rights taken away, even if it does drive more buisness to me. I don't want it that way. I want customers to come to be because they want to, not because they're forced to.

I agree, seems like a way around right to repair, and a way to promote planned obsolescence for the manufacturers.

Glad you liked it!

This cloning software will only do saab ecms, what kind of Dodge module are you tring to clone? Year/Make/Model/Module type.

The customer may want to do that at a later time, (they're known to cause ionization codes on some cars) but as of right now, they're not causing the issues the customer was trying to correct. His main complaint was going into limp mode from the (false) throttle position sensor codes, and reoccurring injector circuit fault codes. So far these codes have not returned since ecm replacement.

Thanks, I think the automotive industry should put much more emphasis on the importance of a thorough diagnosis.