Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: 2006 mustang GT. New cam, no read with mpvi2 OR bama device

  1. #1
    Tuner
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Lodi, CA
    Posts
    175

    2006 mustang GT. New cam, no read with mpvi2 OR bama device

    Yeah so as the title states my client has a 2006 Mustang GT that him and his buddy just installed a cam into. The vehicle is running fine before they started the install but of course now we get a crank no start It stumbles for a second here and there but for the most part I just will not stay idling at all. It doesn't even come to an idle. My concern is that what we're going to check is compression too but I'm unable to read his ECU with either my MPVI2 nor a device that was sent to him via bama. Both devices as soon as you go to try and read from the ECU not right but just read from the ECU it falls on its face. HP tuners gives their that it's not supported which it very obviously is. As far as I know there's no jumpers or anything weird that you have to do I know that you got to throw FEPS voltage or rather throw 18 volts at pin 13 on a bunch of mustangs in order to get it to right but I've never had that problem getting it to read.

    I've checked the fuses for the ECU and all that stuff's fine. I can scan it just fine and then I can date a log with no issues I can check for codes I can clear codes I can do everything with the VCM scanner the one would expect but I'm unable to actually read and it's failing before anything. It's like right as soon as it tries to get security access it falls on its face. But it doesn't give me like an unauthorized error It just says not supported or vehicle protocol not supported or something like that.

    And you guys ever run into this problem on these vehicles? If so where would be some problematic places to check? Is he maybe missing a ground or something simple like that or is it something more sinister?
    "Insert some inspirational or smart*** quote here..." - Some Dude
    software_engineer.net_sec.linux_hero
    www.dusette.net
    RoninDusette@github

  2. #2
    Tuner
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Lodi, CA
    Posts
    175
    And I'm sorry I was using speech to text cuz I was in a hurry but I think you guys get the gist of it. Lol
    "Insert some inspirational or smart*** quote here..." - Some Dude
    software_engineer.net_sec.linux_hero
    www.dusette.net
    RoninDusette@github

  3. #3
    Tuner
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Lodi, CA
    Posts
    175
    Well I managed to figure out what it was and since nobody else decided to respond all and post my findings here The problem was no FEPS voltage on pin 13 if the dlc. No considering not that many people complain about that and then find that to be the issue and post about it but I do see a lot of people complaining that they can't write to these ECUs and this is the likely scenario. It's kind of bugging me is the fact that like I've worked on a couple of forwards and I was able to either read and write to him with zero problem or read from them but not right but I never had one not read and not right especially for a Mustang GT because as far as I can tell looking at the supported vehicle matrix it shows that like HP tuners does support that platform pretty heavily It looks like every single Mustang with a V8 it is supported as long as it's OD2 or higher.

    So I guess the overall questions are:



    does pin 13 on the MPVI2 get 18 volts when trying to rewrite I guess it's just when trying to right to these ECUs?

    is it for all fords or only some of them require this voltage to write? If it's the latter, which ones?

    Is this voltage required for reading? From what I understand it's not.
    "Insert some inspirational or smart*** quote here..." - Some Dude
    software_engineer.net_sec.linux_hero
    www.dusette.net
    RoninDusette@github

  4. #4
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    351
    I can't say why your having problems, my MVPI2 is plug and play with my 06. I would have expected yours to be as well. I think the reason no one has responded is the problem isn't all that common.