In DK, we have companies dealing with this kind of problems in cars. If we have it, I’m sure they exist in USA also.
A friend of mine has a Nissan Pick-up something diesel. He got a start/no start problem. Dealer said 'puter on the fritz. They were correct. New 'puter. 1400+ USD from Nissan + work. Friend said: hold on for a second, one from a wrecked car, similar to mine should work fine in my car. NOPE. Which was confirmed. Only new from factory.
Found another company which was working only with that kind of problems in cars.
Their response: get another unit from a similar car and we’ll have the car fixed and running in half an hour. And they did. Total price for repair: 452 Usd. They said that any electronic part, model for model, they can “flash it” (not sure if that’s the correct word) relating to the vin and it does not matter what kind/brand of car it is.
There is absolutely no reason what-so-ever that any electronic device has to be tied to the VIN. That’s just absurd.
Their position is to not allow the risk in the first place, end of story.
I know that’s true in many cases, but in the specific case of car manufacturers, I’d be much more inclined to believe they were risk averse if they didn’t cover up things like faulty ignition switches that turn the car off unexpectedly, and exploding gas tanks, etc. I can’t reasonably believe both that a car company would rather pay out a few wrongful death lawsuits than redesign a gas tank, but also considers swapping parts from identical cars to be too risky.
We were told twenty years ago to stop the practice of exchanging modules from one vehicle to another during diagnoses or for any other reason because it causes problems. This is one reason the ability to rewrite VINs has been omitted by some manufactures from dealer scan tools. Vehicles may appear to be identical but there are differences in configuration and different levels of emission calibration that people will ignore.
Alldata shows the hydraulic control module and the ECU to be available separately for this vehicle but the Ford catalog only show these parts as an assembly. This usually will occur after numerous engineering changes that result in the separate original parts no longer being compatible with updated replacements.
As for transferring data from one BCM to another, for vehicles that store the odometer display value this cannot be allowed. In the 1980s we had the ability to transfer the odometer value from one electronic cluster to a replacement cluster with the scan tool. This must have lead to abuse, this feature in the scan tool was taken away in 1988.
There is absolutely no reason what-so-ever that any electronic device has to be tied to the VIN. That’s just absurd.
You might feel differently if you go out to dinner and come back to find your car on blocks missing some ABS components, the transmission controller, and the factory radio and nav system. Or if you buy a used car that has 180,000 miles but someone hung a wrecking yard BCM in it to change the mileage to 70,000. One reason parts are tied to a specific VIN is to deter the black market.
One control module part number may operate in several trim levels of the same model, or even in different models. How does the BCM know if the car it’s in has a sunroof or heated seats? How does the ABS/Traction controller know the size of the wheels and tires and whether the car has speed sensitive steering? By the VIN and the as-built data.
We live in a day and age where a scan tool is required to replace the battery in cars.
We live in a day and age where a scan tool is required to replace the battery in cars.
And I for one find that regretable @asemaster. All too often technological gimmickry is a cheap solution to engineering problems like the Cadillac V-8 that shuts down cylinders based on temperature to protect the engine. The engine was advertised as the product of geniuses. It could be driven accross the desert southwest with a dry radiator. In reality it was a poor, weak, aluminum boat anchor. And the E4OD transmission from Ford that programmed the drivetrain control to use the torque converter lockup clutch to engage and disengage in time with shift points to make shifts less apparent. Funny how the cheaper all mechanical C-6 that was being phased out didn’t have such a problem.
But it’s been obvious to me for many years that I’m just out of touch with the mainstream so none of the car manufacturers sees any future in building to my taste. For now I’ll just throw my occasional rant here and move on. Thanks for the opportunity Carolyn.
This kind of technology is not used to improve the lot of the consumers. It’s shot calling by the insurance companies through their lobbyists.
Ahh, you’re getting old @“Rod Knox” Haha, just kidding.
I too often wonder what the designers were thinking when they built a certain system. But then I realize they had a specific and beneficial goal in mind. Sometimes the execution leaves something to be desired. But there is a reason behind it.
Mercedes and BMW require a replacement battery to be registered to the car because the car has learned how to keep the old battery functioning as long as possible. The charging requirements are different for a new battery and a 6 year old one, and are different depending if the battery is lead-acid or AGM. So while it may seem cumbersome and costly to do this procedure, the benefit is longer and predictable battery and alternator life.
The problems arise when the second, bargain-minded owner of the EuroLux just stops by AutoZone and drops in the cheapest battery he can find. The battery gets cooked, the alternator is burned up, and then somehow the blame gets placed on the system instead of the unqualified repairman.
You can no longer buy a car in this country without TPMS, ABS, and stability control. I don’t particularly care for that fact, but I do make a living fixing all these things.
As for transferring data from one BCM to another, for vehicles that store the odometer display value this cannot be allowed.
I agree with this. However, there’s a really simple solution to it: Don’t store odometer data in the BCM. It doesn’t need to be there.
You might feel differently if you go out to dinner and come back to find your car on blocks missing some ABS components, the transmission controller, and the factory radio and nav system.
There are other solutions to stop thievery instead of marrying the VIN to the vehicle that are just as effective.
Don’t store odometer data in the BCM.
Then what data do you want to transfer from one BCM to another?
Keyless ignitions seems to have reduced car thefts of new vehicles. There is a downside though. It means that if someone wants to steal your car, they need you in close proximity to the vehicle. That means it is more likely to be a violent encounter. The Atlanta PD gave this warning a while back.
Then what data do you want to transfer from one BCM to another?
Whatever programming the BCM has that they claim needs to be vehicle specific. If that’s only the odometer reading, then that reinforces my point. Odometer data does not need to be stored in the BCM. It can be stored in the odometer module. If the BCM needs to know what the vehicle’s mileage is, it can poll the odometer. Putting the odometer data into the BCM seems to be just an excuse to say that the very expensive BCM needs to be “protected” (at great costs) when it only needs to be protected because of a profit-grabbing design choice made by the manufacturer.
On a late model vehicle the equipment/features sometimes sent from the gateway model. On an older vehicle it may be necessary to program the RKE if the receiver is part of the BCM. There are also customer preferences that may need to be set up. This is for a new BCM, if you try to install a used BCM with the security system active good luck. Once some features are turned on they can’t be turned off, you don’t want someone to switch off your alarm. These are designed for quick assembly lines, plug in and go.
Manufactures have their reasons for storing the odometer value in the other modules. I doubt it is to profit from out of warranty sales, modules aren’t replaced that often. This has been going on for twenty years without much protest.
In today’s world, a vehicle should be serviceable for more than 8 years and 108,000 miles. For a brake component to cost $5300 when the book value is $5500 doesn’t make sense. Many dealer service departments do not seem to want to work on vehicles beyond a certain age. Parts specific to a particular vehicle should be made available at a reasonable cost. Now I realize that the Escape Hybrid wasn’t Ford’s most popular vehicle and is no longer being made, but this situation seems unreasonable to me.
OP here to report that with the help of someone who reached out to me via PM, I found a used part on eBay, have the reprogramming procedure, and got the vehicle to a more friendly dealership for the repair.
Fingers-crossed and am hopeful for a positive outcome this week.
That tentatively sounds like good news
Are you paying for the “friendly” dealership to simply install and program the part, without diagnosis?
OP update
Brought vehicle and replacement HCU to the “friendly” dealer in early November. They find a different code which indicates a general brake system failure. They reset the codes and it doesn’t repeat. They keep it for a week driving it all over town and return it to me without putting in the HCU.
I drive it for 350 miles or so over a few weeks and the warning lights return. Bring it back to the friendly dealer, they find the original C1478 and agree to put the HCU in. After the HCU is installed and reprogrammed, the same error message persists!
Dealer contacts Ford, omitting the fact that it’s a used HCU that has been installed, and are told to replace the brake lines (“could be restricted”). New brake lines installed, clear the codes and it test drives fine. Dealer won’t say so directly, but the original HCU is probably fine.
tl;dr - C1478/C1480 codes in 2008 Ford Escape Hybrid. Ford says replace Hydraulic Control Unit ($5,300 repair). Real reason appears to be “restricted brake line” cost of about $300. May have wasted $1,200+ on a used HCU/installation. Ford needs to change it’s procedure on this code. Cartalk member saved me $4,000+.
Restricted brake line is rubber line? Seen that on many cars. Or is this a steel line that has issues?
This sort of thing has convinced me I will never buy a hybrid.