MACS Service Reports - 2016 - NOV3

a J-device is compliant," Potter shared. "In time, the service repair industry can expect the number of different J-devices to decrease, which will also reduce the amount of annual validation
testing and expense required by OEMs. In addition, depending
on the architecture, technology, capabilities and packaging involved, expect J2534 devices to get smaller over time."
Potter also identified some issues that are still outstanding
from a shop perspective. "One intent of the Massachusetts law
and subsequent 50-state MoU - which preceded the publication of J2534 v05.00 - was that a shop should be able to purchase one J2534 device that could be used to reprogram software
on all vehicle makes and models. However, as it's written right
now, the wording of the MoU does not precisely define what a
J2534 device actually is. Without clear definitions and boundaries, realizing that intent could be difficult. Any OEM can have
unique proprietary J2534-2 attributes or other protocols that
would require a shop to continue to have an OEM-specific Jdevice or accessory to reprogram its brands and models - a
GM device, a Ford device, etc., similar in nature to OE-specific
factory scan tools - and still comply with the MOU."
"It's crucial that the SAE Committee address this concern,
which was also problematic with all earlier versions of J2534,"
Potter emphasized. "A shop may have to own four or five Jdevices or accessories to service most, but still not all, makes and
models. For example, an aftermarket shop with one J2534 device
today may be able to reprogram all Toyota models with a $500
Mongoose cable. However, that shop's J-device and accessories
may not be able to reprogram unique GM's single wire CAN,
Honda's Diag-H UART and other automaker J2534-2 protocols.
"To make the MoU's intent a marketplace reality, continued
good-faith collaboration is needed by the SAE Committee to
complete the J2534-3 and -4 components," Potter added. "These
will complement and dovetail with the J2534-1 and -2 elements
to provide a solid foundation for improved performance, test
mechanisms, protocols, legal aspects. This is the type of industry participation that benefits all - automakers, tool vendors,
service repair facilities, other users and consumers alike. In addition, implementing a complete v05.00 standard will help avoid
a repeat of the painful history for Right-to-Repair diagnostics.
It will also simplify the lives of the shops and technicians who
service and fix the vehicles automakers build."

They are not plugged into.
* Cannot be as easily hacked as the underdash J1962 VCI.
* Have enough built-in intelligence and security/encryption protocols to discern whether or not users should get
access to vehicle data and what level of access should be enabled.
* Can allow simultaneous access by multiple users with
different purposes that can be secured, tiered, limited and
authorized by the automaker and car owner - whether the
connection is wireless or continues to be wired through the
underdash J1962 connectors. In other words, access to vehicle data would be governed.
Of critical note here, all of the proposed new advanced interfaces would be jointly managed by automakers and the aftermarket, except one - the ExVe. Why that is problematic will
soon become apparent.
"The new interfaces could also be potential game-changers for
J-boxes and other connected diagnostic tools," Potter explained.
"EPA and CARB currently require the J1962 connector for OBDII diagnostics. Just four of the 16 pins in the J1962 connector are
needed for OBD-II; the rest are not. The regulators also currently
require that OBD-II data only be communicated on the CAN
network within vehicles. Because CAN is the least secure and
most easily attacked of all onboard communication networks,
that may not always be the case."
Bottom line: Non-OBD-II data could be moved to the gateway SVI. For that matter, OBD-II data could too, at some point.
Consider these three possible scenarios:
* What functionality on the J1962 VCI might be turned off
by automakers, and when? - As of today, any and all functionality not mandated, such as OBD-II information, to be on
the SAE J1962 connector could be removed at the discretion
of any or all automakers. Being more security-conscious, any
of them could remove non-OBD-II proprietary diagnostics,
including remote diagnostics, from that connector and deliver it via an advanced interface instead. Dealer and aftermarket facilities in this scenario would both get data in the
same manner, but current J1962 tools, J2534 boxes and other
devices may no longer be viable.
* What if J1962 VCI functionality is limited or even eliminated?" - As the future rolls on and wireless connectivity
to vehicles becomes standardized and more universal, EPA
and CARB may well decide, "Wireless works for us," rather
than continue to support outdated insecure technology. It
might take years, or it could happen sooner. But experts say
more secure and functional alternatives will push everything
to being done wirelessly with the vehicle. Again, should this
occur, both dealer and aftermarket facilities would be on the
same competitive playing field.
* What if all non-OBD-II software reprogramming fixes
were delivered to both dealers and the aftermarket via OTA
updates from an automaker's centralized, secure location?
- This could kill J1962 by itself. Taken to the extreme, if automakers didn't provide any proprietary diagnostics to dealers, they arguably wouldn't have to provide them to the aftermarket either. All that would be necessary is the diagnosis
of what to replace and adjust. Think about all the tools,

Is the J1962 Connector Expendable?
Once the SAE and ISO began addressing standards for new
vehicle communication interfaces, OEMs began developing improved gateways for vehicles with telematics, connected, automated and ITS applications that are far more sophisticated than
the J1962 connector could ever handle. These new secure vehicle
communication interfaces are also capable of replacing or eliminating the J1962 VCI, should the OBD-II related regulatory mandate be lifted or updated to reflect modern realities that didn't
exist 30 years ago. In addition, these new gateway interfaces are
positioned onboard the vehicle, where it safeguards entry into
the vehicle's communication network topology and ECUs from
the current J1962 VCI and any future wireless entry.

In contrast to J1962, the advanced interfaces:
* Are internal and embedded into vehicle architecture.

November 2016

MACS Service Reports

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of MACS Service Reports - 2016