so it costs 2200$ just to unlock a 2019 silverado?

[3strokeEngine]

As a moderately professional tuner can someone please explain to my whats the use of spending 1300$ on an unlocked PCM and then spend ANOTHER 500$ to license it? Then if i want to even tune the transmission at all i must spend another 300$ for a TCM unlock "service".

2200$ Just to be able to tune the PCM at all seems quite high, i know someone has to pay salaries but that seems like an almost stupid amount of money to spend for a completely untuned ECU. Im certain the customer will have it tuned by another shop for the price of almost 3 grand im going to have to throw at them. kinda hard to sell 3000 grand for a simple cam and header tune...

It would honestly be cheaper to convert this thing to a carburetor and use some type of programmable controller to control the 10 speed at that price level. so maybe well see some carbureted 2019 and up silverados running around lmao

But maybe Im misinformed but once all the hardwork of figuring out how to unlock a PCM is done it phsyically costs nothing to do it from then on out.

[tunerpro]

You could certainly go to another company that offers tuning for the 2019 Silverado... Oh wait, there are none. But do let us know how the carb swap with the standalone A10 controller goes!

[Jon S.]

As a moderately professional tuner can someone please explain to my whats the use of spending 1300$ on an unlocked PCM and then spend ANOTHER 500$ to license it? Then if i want to even tune the transmission at all i must spend another 300$ for a TCM unlock "service".

2200$ Just to be able to tune the PCM at all seems quite high, i know someone has to pay salaries but that seems like an almost stupid amount of money to spend for a completely untuned ECU. Im certain the customer will have it tuned by another shop for the price of almost 3 grand im going to have to throw at them. kinda hard to sell 3000 grand for a simple cam and header tune...

It would honestly be cheaper to convert this thing to a carburetor and use some type of programmable controller to control the 10 speed at that price level. so maybe well see some carbureted 2019 and up silverados running around lmao

But maybe Im misinformed but once all the hardwork of figuring out how to unlock a PCM is done it phsyically costs nothing to do it from then on out.

You can put these additional tuning costs directly on GM.

GM decided to fully encrypt the control modules that they "sold" to the end consumer.

Despite the fact that the end customer owns the entire vehicle, GM is prohibiting them from making any modifications to the modules.

Perhaps GM would also like to dictate what colour that you are allowed to repaint the vehicle.

So, your options are either to only offer GM tuning up to the 2016 model year, or to clearly explain the costs of tuning the 2017+ GM controllers to your customers - which has been caused by GM.

Have you gotten a quote recently on a high quality body and paint work ? The cost of these services have also increased significantly in the last decade - but all you need is sandpaper, right ?

No sense whining about the costs - unless you are able to do this yourself - which quite clearly you cannot.

[LSChev]

I work at a fully professional shop and I agree with you. The price seems absurd but this is what we're stuck with right now.. It's not like the customer could take it to another shop and have them do it for less.

Also the 19+ trucks tune completely different from the 18 and earlier so that will be another learning curve.

I dont fully understand what is involved in unlocking these but it sounds as if there is no "unlock one and theyre all unlocked!" they have individual encryption.

LOL at the carb stuff

[Ghostnotes]

It's not all GM's doing. Don't forget the middle man. Being the only game in town leads to obvious greed. It also leads to some pretty smart people getting tired of getting gouged and figuring a workaround. If it's made by man, it can be hacked.

[Jon S.]

How is it not all GM's doing ?

GM decided to encrypt the computer that you own.

If you purchased an iPhone from Apple, but were not allowed to load an APPs, you would be irate about this inequity.

GM also marketed "Off Board Programming" equipment to many of us, who have been in the industry for a long time. Now, GM no longer "allows" off board programming - but they never bought back all of the equipment from the shops who purchased it - that they made obsolete.

[cmitchell17]

Yeah it does seem GM is the first ones to go all in and forever stop all module modifications for good. Not surprising given all there public statements from the CEO about "we believe climate change is real" and "zero emissions, zero crashes, zero congestion" stuff. I've been looking around and don't see any other evidence of any other manufacture doing the same thing, although I think HP also has a unlock service for some of the FCA stuff. Someone can correct me if im wrong but it seems GM is right up there with Tesla in turning this world into a do-gooder paradise. Obviously this driverless car utopia that is "supposedly" going to be here in a couple years according to the most smartest person ever Elon Musk will require a unhackable vehicle, so it seems every manufacture will have it soon.

Now we don't have to drive anymore so we can sit on instagram and social media all day while more people die of suicides, idolizing worthless celebrities and instagram influencers, than they did from crashes and "supposedly" emissions.

Its funny since it seemed like GM had the most accessible hardware for tuning and modding with the already strong aftermarket of the small block and LS1. Now I guess its easier to tune a toyota haha. I think there are still good people left at GM maybe, I know Mark Reuss said "we don't want to keep the aftermarket out", which I know they know it means sales.

[cmitchell17]

How is it not all GM's doing ?

GM decided to encrypt the computer that you own.

If you purchased an iPhone from Apple, but were not allowed to load an APPs, you would be irate about this inequity.

GM also marketed "Off Board Programming" equipment to many of us, who have been in the industry for a long time. Now, GM no longer "allows" off board programming - but they never bought back all of the equipment from the shops who purchased it - that they made obsolete.

What do you mean by "Off Board Programming", GM sold JTAG type stuff to modify the modules? I wonder if its the same stuff they use in house?

[Jon S.]

What do you mean by "Off Board Programming", GM sold JTAG type stuff to modify the modules? I wonder if its the same stuff they use in house?

GM has always done programming via a Tech 2 / MDI / MDI 2 / etc. No "JTAG" or "BDM" equipment was ever used / marketed by GM. Their system is VIN based - enter the vehicle VIN and you could then program the latest available calibration. The GM equipment did not allow for making any targeted changes to the calibration (i.e. you could not change the Fuel Injector Flow Rate).

The term "Off Board Programming" (sometimes called Bench Programming) refers to programming a control module in isolation, outside of the vehicle, on a work table.

The GM "Off Board Programming" kit (marketed through Kent-Moore tools as a "Control Module Stand Alone Programming Adapter") included a power supply system for the modules / interface, and various cables to interface with select modules.

Programming modules in isolation is the BEST method. There is no need to worry about "chatter" on the communications line from other modules - which could corrupt the programming and "brick" the target module. Also, you do not need to remove half a dozen fuses (hoping that you got them all, and the correct ones) before attempting to program a module, while still in the vehicle.

GM began prohibiting "Off Board Programming" several years ago. This is not some "green" initiative, unless by "green" you are referring to money. GM is attempting to make LS / LT conversions into older vehicles difficult - unless you purchase their kit.

What is the old phrase to reduce waste - repair, reuse, recycle ? People purchasing used engines and transmissions from wrecking yard for conversions into older vehicles is great example of a "green" initiative. These components are reused, and the older vehicle will have significantly reduced emissions with the newer drivetrain in place.

However, GM will not allow you to program the modules (ECM and / or TCM) for such a project, unless these modules are still in the original vehicle - which is impossible as the original vehicle has been converted into recycled metal.

I have purchased GM vehicles exclusively for over 40 years. My next new vehicle will be a Ford.

[tunerpro]

It's not really a question of encryption (at least now), they don't bother encrypting the data that gets sent to the ECU. What they do have, however, is a mechanism that allows the ECU to determine the authenticity of the flash that's being downloaded, and this is done through digital signatures. Forming the correct signature requires information that only GM has, and cannot be determined via reverse engineering in the time remaining before our sun goes Red Giant.

All of this may be back lash from the copyright office's decision to allow DMCA exemptions for ECU tuning and diagnostics. Remember that? Back in 2015 was it? For those that don't the summary is as follows: The EFF filed an application with the copyright office to allow a DMCA exemption for people wanting to access their own ECUs. Without the exemption in place, technically automakers could bring DMCA related claims against anybody that hacked or reverse engineered the software running in the ECUs of vehicles they owned. This application was similar in nature to the previous ones brought (and approved) for iPhone jailbreaking, etc.

GM and John Deere were some of those most vehemently against granting the exemption, along with some other auto trade groups. It's not like they (GM anyway) had previously been pursuing people for DMCA claims, but they probably saw the approval of such an exemption as an erosion of their rights and power, so they fought it.

They lost. The copyright office eventually approved the exemption, people could start hacking their cars and tractors with relative impunity. Two years later the T87A shows up in the market with digital signatures. Maybe GM was already on the path towards locking down their ECUs by the time the decision was made, but they sort of made it moot by dramatically escalating the effort and cost required to get into the ECUs.

What access we have now might not even be available in the future. To wit: we are still waiting and hopeful that C8 support will come about.

[cmitchell17]

So from what I understand now the only reason we have access now is because we connect to HPT's servers which spoof being on TIS web? I am assuming that's why you are saying we might not have access in the future if GM ever decides to fix this "loophole" that HPT is getting access with.

And I thought as long as GM provides access to a TIS subscription, than they aren't in violation of any right to repair? I'm sure there are a lot more intricacies than this, but technically someone needing a new module can buy one or obtain one from I guess any source, but has to buy a TIS subscription to program it with obviously only a GM calibration. But GM still has a monopoly over the process.

As far as modifying your own calibration before its flashed in that module, I thought this has been "technically illegal" per the EPA since the OBD 1 days anyway.

I guess it still goes back to what you said about them trying to claim they "own" and therefore I guess would have complete control over the software.

I haven't seen or heard much news about any new stuff besides the C8, so I guess its true that other manufactures are being fair, (besides Tesla of course) there's a lot of new stuff and I haven't heard anyone having issues getting in besides the C8 and Global B. I think they have access to all the new Ford stuff and the powerstroke stuff just like before. However, I see everyone doing the exact same thing there is way too much liability when it comes to the driverless (or really driver assistance) stuff. I think people are coming to acceptance that phones are no longer customizable and completely controlled by the carriers and manufactures now as well and people might give up.

[TriPinTaZ]

Don't forget that ECU's are now remotely accessible in modern cars. The Encryption work also includes keeping hackers out. As strange at that sounds, its 100% real. A malicious user with lots of skills and resources can hack an ECU remotely and cause bad bad things like 100% throttle no matter what the driver does. This was proven in the mid 2010's on the Dodge platform. Ever since the manufacturers have been in a race to make the ECU's uncrackable.

I have hope that the HP Tuners engineers will find a way to isolate and remove/bypass the security of the ECU like they did the ZR1. But if GM has incorporated the encryption work into the physical CPU itself, then this may prove to be impossible or close to it. If no one can crack the ECU, then there will be a market for a company that can successfully plug between the ECU and an aftermarket ECU and allow the aftermarket ECU to control the engine and bypass or send certain signals to the OEM ECU to make it think everything is fine. But this would take massive amounts of development and only company's like AEM or Holly would likely be able to build this sort of thing and it may take years.

[tunerpro]

GM's "Global B" electrical architecture is meant to plug all the remote access security holes of the type you're referring to by not only isolating critical safety system networks from other networks but also by making each vehicle's communications unique. Even if you knew how to hack the network the engine controller is on, you wouldn't be able to reach it from, say, an exploit in the radio software (like the FCT remote hack). But even if you could, you would only know how to send the messages based on the ONE vehicle you looked at. If you looked at 1000 of them, they would all be different with no discernible pattern.

For these same reasons, nothing that is Global B (C8, 2020+ CT4/CT5, 2021+ full size SUV at the time of writing, more to come with certainty) would have a remote possibility of working with a non-factory standalone engine controller unless you found yourself in possession of information that GM obviously wouldn't want you to know (at which point you can expect to be hauled into court to explain yourself).

Even "piggy backs" are going to be more difficult to create in the future now that they're moving to digital communications on most engine sensors. For example, the newest vehicles use a "LIN" based digital sensor for the IAT sensor. No more messing with resistors to change timing curves, you need to spoof an entire digital protocol, complete with rolling integrity checks in order to spoof the ECM. Turbochargers are now using electric wastegates now instead of pressure based wastegates which are essentially the same type of device that you have for a throttle body, complete with position sensors, digital protocol and diagnostics. They've hardened just about every signal and communication path possible on these new vehicles.

[Ghostnotes]

GM's "Global B" electrical architecture is meant to plug all the remote access security holes of the type you're referring to by not only isolating critical safety system networks from other networks but also by making each vehicle's communications unique. Even if you knew how to hack the network the engine controller is on, you wouldn't be able to reach it from, say, an exploit in the radio software (like the FCT remote hack). But even if you could, you would only know how to send the messages based on the ONE vehicle you looked at. If you looked at 1000 of them, they would all be different with no discernible pattern.

For these same reasons, nothing that is Global B (C8, 2020+ CT4/CT5, 2021+ full size SUV at the time of writing, more to come with certainty) would have a remote possibility of working with a non-factory standalone engine controller unless you found yourself in possession of information that GM obviously wouldn't want you to know (at which point you can expect to be hauled into court to explain yourself).

Even "piggy backs" are going to be more difficult to create in the future now that they're moving to digital communications on most engine sensors. For example, the newest vehicles use a "LIN" based digital sensor for the IAT sensor. No more messing with resistors to change timing curves, you need to spoof an entire digital protocol, complete with rolling integrity checks in order to spoof the ECM. Turbochargers are now using electric wastegates now instead of pressure based wastegates which are essentially the same type of device that you have for a throttle body, complete with position sensors, digital protocol and diagnostics. They've hardened just about every signal and communication path possible on these new vehicles.

If this is the case, the value of anything "pre" in regards to performance enhancement will go way up.

[Ghostnotes]

HOWEVER.........
On the other hand, there is NO reason GM cant keep all the autonomous systems and creating the logic to automatically compensate for changes or modifications.......NO REASON. It would be simply a matter of program parameters. Technically this could have been done already for years. You change the cam, heads etc and the VE changes. It already has enough multipliers but the constant can be read and changed.....or at least could. Aftermarket systems would be wise to work this way in the future

[Heavymetals]

Any sensor can be spoofed. Where there is a will, there is a way. It just may not be cost effective.

Like I said in another forum, I expect there will be an address in Arizona with about 160 cars registered to it.