Jump to content

Talk:On-board diagnostics: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Marine Industry: new section
Tesla cars without OBD-II
Line 429: Line 429:
It might even warrant it's own article
It might even warrant it's own article
[[User:Corsairblue|Corsairblue]] ([[User talk:Corsairblue|talk]]) 01:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
[[User:Corsairblue|Corsairblue]] ([[User talk:Corsairblue|talk]]) 01:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

== Tesla cars without OBD-II ==

I think there should be mention of the fact that we may be beginning to see the end of OBD-II.

My 2019 Tesla Model 3 doesn't have one. Evidently Tesla appealed the requirement to have the port on grounds that it's only LEGALLY required for emissions testing. Since electric cars are incapable of producing any emissions, the requirement to have the port is no longer valid...and since my car doesn't have one - it must now NOT be required for electric cars. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 00:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:45, 8 August 2022

WikiProject iconAutomobiles B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconTechnology B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Current discussion for improving OBD page(s)

Talk page restructure

I have refactored this talk page, (last edits were Jan 2008). I have retained some relevant suggestions, and moved the rest to the "Pre-2009 Talk" section, which I propose to remove/archive. Any comments appreciated. --Hbachus (talk) 11:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Main OBD page restructure

  • I have made some substantial structure changes to the OBD page, hopefully in line with many of the suggestions here on the talk page.
  • I have rewritten and generalised the old Scan Tools section as the new OBD Applications section.
  • I think that we need to move OBD-II protocol details to a new page - called "OBD-II protocol"? This would allow the current page to remain as an overview.

Any comments appreciated. --Hbachus (talk) 11:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legislation?

This page needs more info on the legislation and history which lead to adoption of OBD... from what I understand it was originally required by California emission control legislation, and later became a national requirement. KWH 03:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that the CARB required OBD (and later OBD-II) for all vehicles sold in California, and it didn't make sense for manufacturers to make different versions for California and the rest of the US, so they just incorporated it into all of their vehicles. Mouser 03:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The history section is mostly US centric. It needs to be balanced with info from other regions eg Australia. --Hbachus (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been much previous discussion and editing/removing of links to external scan tools etc. Please resist adding external links on the main page that do not enhance the content of the page. Your links may be added to the relevant section below. --Hbachus (talk) 11:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

kiloBaud should be kBd

kB is commonly used to mean kilobyte, which is not correct here. Use kBd (see the Baud page) or perhaps kbps (kilobits per second). 167.236.220.52 (talk) 08:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of OBD Applications

Commercially available scan tools

Software

  • ScanTool.net has links to software for ElmScan-compatible interfaces (including open source software).
  • PCMSCAN - the premier OBD Scan Tool software Tuner Tools is a registered distributor of PCMSCAN software & many other OBD products.
  • digimoto.com Claims to be "The ultimate solution for vehicle diagnostics, dynamometer readings and statistical analysis".

Pre-2009 Talk

Advertorial blog

216.138.192.60, please stop inserting your advertorial blog. --Treekids (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • _ Fine, but you have to remove all other links that sell products (indirectly):

[[1] [[2] [[3] [[4] [[5] [[6] [[7] [[8]

Their product pages are just one click away, just like my blog. Wikipedia does have a double standard. Please remove all pages that have indirect advertisement like the pages above. These page are not .edu and are for profit. Then I will stop putting my blog. 216.138.192.60 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.138.192.56 (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since you've identified other offenders, please feel free to remove them. This is not my focus- I fix what I come across, and I hope others do the same. That's mostly how Wikipedia evolves into a higher form. But kudos to those who take the time to do a thorough job! Sadly, I am not one of them. --Treekids (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not talking bad about you Treekids. I am starting to know how Wikipedia works. Lets just hope It is fair to everyone. Thanks.

There are a lot of external links, and seems (IMHO) to be to some extent because

  • there are those who are trying to sell high-margin code scanners and gauges
  • there is a lot of information that seems to be only available in these vendors' sites.

I'm wondering if it might be wise to incorporate here or in a couple of "List Of" pages information like...

  • For my make and model of car, do I have a variant of OBD available and if so, which one?
  • Which cables are available, and which software applications, and what are their system requirements?
  • What code-reader devices are available, and can they reset codes?
  • What leave-in OBD readers (gauges) are available, and can they display MPG?

--Treekids (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I went ahead and linked to new List Of articles. Those who agree please start collecting data there and retiring the vendor links a bit? --Treekids (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a new category?

With all the different onboard computer systems used in automobiles since the early 1980s, they should be collected under their own category.

There's OBD-II, OBD-I, Ford's EEC-IV and others used prior to OBD-I as well as all the systems used in other countries.

–I would like to add some information on the consult diagnostics interface used in Nissans between about 1990 and 2000. There was a period after about 1985 where the different car manufacturers had different systems, not cross compatible. Maybe if there was some type of menu to other pages explaining each of these systems would be good. The information will be helpful as I get many questions on the Nissan system. Im new to this, how do I go about doing this? ZCarJase 06:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Items such as EEC-*, Bosch Motronic, Denso Meden, Toyota TCCS, etc., would be appropriate for a seperate article, since it is a specific piece of hardware. The "OBDs" (ie OBDI, OBDII, EOBD) refer to standards of monitoring and communication- the hardware used to carry this out is irrelevant. As far as getting specific to each manufacturer, that is very difficult since those who have access to such proprietary information are usually bound by some form of confidentiality agreement. D2Ben 19:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone add information about the soon-to-come OBDIII? -Random outside user —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.88.122 (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is diagnosed, and how?

I would like to see a list of diagnostic systems, and the functions of each. It would also be nice to have an explanation of how they work and how to perform the diagnostics.

Legislation?

This page needs more info on the legislation and history which lead to adoption of OBD... from what I understand it was originally required by California emission control legislation, and later became a national requirement. KWH 03:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that the CARB required OBD (and later OBD-II) for all vehicles sold in California, and it didn't make sense for manufacturers to make different versions for California and the rest of the US, so they just incorporated it into all of their vehicles. Mouser 03:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CAN bus before 2004

The article says: Vehicles sold in the United States were not allowed to use CAN for diagnostics prior to model year 2004. Is this really true? I believe my cars (two are 1999 models) use CAN for diagnostics. Can someone point to the legislation that does not allow this? --Mikeblas 07:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modifications to Malfunction and Diagnostic System Requirements for 2004 and Subsequent Model-Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles and Engines (OBD II), Section 1968.2, Title 13, California Code Regulations
(3.4) ISO 15765-4. This protocol shall be allowed on any 2003 and subsequent model year vehicle and required on all 2008 and subsequent model year vehicles. All required emission-related messages using this protocol shall use a 500 kbps baud rate.
Vvmaks 18:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CAN has been around for some time, and has been used for inter-module communication, and some used it for diagnostics as well. However, it was not supported under the OBD-II standard until 2003, meaning there also had to be another line (J1850, K-line) to support OBD-II. The addition of the CAN data lines to the DLC forced Chrysler to relocate and reconfigure their SCI diagnostic lines, which were using the previously SAE-unassigned (or, manufacturer-discretionary) pins at the DLC. (See SAE J2610, Ch. 6.3) D2Ben 18:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems a little heavy on external links. Wikipedia isn't a shopping guide; so should these be removed? -- Mikeblas 02:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They definitely need to be removed. Also, the links to DTC listings should be moved to the [Table_of_OBD-II_Codes|appropriate page]. I'm planning a major re-write of this page, as it is in dire need of repair, but I keep having to put it off. I may get to it this weekend; if I start the re-write, I'll post here to request that people hold off on modifying it for a few hours. Mouser 15:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and 10 minutes later... I'm doing the re-write now. It will take me an hour or two at least, and all sections of this page will be mostly re-written. Please refrain from editing this article until 18:00 UTC today if possible. Thanks! Mouser 15:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, my initial attempt at a complete overhaul is now live. Have at it. Mouser 18:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yay for Mouser!! Thanks! I tidied up a couple of links and I'll make a copyedit pass. What you've done is awesome. -- Mikeblas 20:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a repository of links; please resist the temptation to post a link to your favorite scan tool in the article. I have moved all of the links to specific scan tools and software from the article to here. Feel free to add a link at this location.

Commercially available scan tools

Software

  • Software Page has links to software for ElmScan-compatible interfaces (including open source software).
  • PCMSCAN - the premier OBD Scan Tool software Tuner Tools is a registered distributor of PCMSCAN software & many other OBD products.
  • digimoto.com Claims to be "The ultimate solution for vehicle diagnostics, dynamometer readings and statistical analysis".

Wikipedia is not a link farm. Please stop adding links and reverting the deletion of the table of links. Edit it here, if you'd like. -- Mikeblas 15:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MikeBlas, here are some more link farms for you to change FPGA Graphic_design Flash_Memory just to name a few, I'll find more if you'd like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.84.207 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the pointers. I had a look at Flash Memory, and it had only one commercial link so I removed it. I left a note in the FPGA topic about cleaning it up, but I haven't had time to check out Graphic Design. You might want to do it yourself -- you can edit it just like you've edited this article. There's a great article on the meta site about when you should link externally, and will help you understand what links are appropriate. -- Mikeblas 03:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


No thanks, I'm done contributing to wikipedia. People add incorrect info, such as OBD 1.5, which is a slang term for OBD-1 with an OBD-2 connector, not a protocol. It still uses the OBD-1 protocol, not OBD-2. That incorrect info stays. Useful information is shunned. That shows this place is too inaccurate to be of any use for dealing with engine/powertrain computers. There is much more useful information out there that could make this article incredibly useful (not links) and its staying out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.84.207 (talk • contribs)
That's too bad. Wikipedia is what you make it. -- Mikeblas 18:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There, fixed. Could be a little better, but at least this is pointed out now. D2Ben 19:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scan Tools

This section is pretty bad -- no exposition of the subject, and POV. How are PC-based scan tools less expensive -- I suppose that's assuming you have a portable computer already? Are all stand-alone scan tools incapable of reprogramming, and if so, why? Where's the "advantages of stand-alone scan tools" -- surely there must be some?

A few links to examples of each kind would be good too, which would probably be external links.

-- jhf 04:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody still watching this? The section is bad. Based on experience as first a user and later a developer for both kinds, the only advantage to PC-based is not having to worry about physical storage limitations of the device on a PC. On a PC, though, there's no telling what other software may interfere with the application, opening up a new support problem. There are pros and cons each way, ultimately the end user must decide what works best for them. This whole section can probably be removed or at least heavily edited. D2Ben 15:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organize the scan tools

Can we organize the links above into nice lists with marketing terms removed at the pages below...

--Treekids (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Environment

Is it not mentioned, that OBDII is only used for Environmental reasons?

Essentially, yes. Codes, tools, communication, etc. were standardized to make it easier for shops to diagnose and reapir emissions related faults. D2Ben 19:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ALDL Category??

would an ALDL or OBD Category be useful? for a list of cars that use it--DarkAxi0m 15:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that ALDL could recieve its' own page. A list of cars using it, though, I think would be excessive- basically, every General Motors-built vehicle prior to ~1996 (at least for the US market) (remember, ALDL is a GM term for their diagnostic connector). Describing the variations and pin assignments I think would be more useful.--D2Ben 15:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I started a stub article at ALDL aka ALDL for the pre-ODB-standard material. --Treekids (talk) 02:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ODB-->OBD

I changed ODB to OBD at various occurences. However, there is also an internal link using ODB instead of OBD. I quick-fixed it, but eventually one should rename the pertinent page (I don't know how to do this). Peeceepeh (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturer Specific Diagnostics?

Would it be suitable to place manufacturer specific diagnostic information (pre-OBD II) in this section? For example, the Nissan Consult protocol (covering new Nissan car models built from 1989-1999), Subaru Select, VAG? etc. Also I guess, manufacturer specifc OBD-II extensions/codes? NPickett (talk) 11:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1981 History

Hi. In the History section under the year 1980 the article talks about ALDL being rolled out to the rest of the country in 1981. In the 1981 Cadillac vehicles came with a 6.0L Fuel Injected motor that in addition to having the ALDL connector had an On-Board Diagnostics system that was accessible through the climate control console. By holding the "OFF" and "WARMER" buttons simultaneously you could access a prompt that would give you DTC codes, sensor readings, and perform several switch tests. I don't know about foreign cars but for domestic models this was certainly a first-of-its-kind system and it is worth noting. I couldnt remember my password but you could email me for more details at the@machini.st

Thanks, Dave

The link Obd2blog Weblog about the OBD2 standard and news should be nuked per WP:ELNO number 11 (links to blogs). I removed it, but somebody else restored it. Glrx (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle security

OBD is at the very heart of a new approach to vehicle theft that allows thieves that are able to access a vehicle's OBD port to reprogram the security system to accept an arbitrary key that they bring along. OBD is at the root of the problem because the specifications make no provision for authentication. The system is legacy and inherently weak, and has not kept pace with security advancements elsewhere in the computing industry.

Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've pretty much always been able to steal a car if you can get inside it. The OBD port is on the inside of the car. The youth in my area don't need to hack around with OBD, since they can steal cars by just smashing the ignition lock. It's not the fault of OBD if vehicle manufacturers are using it for a non-diagnostic, security-related system. It would be interesting to see some non-Youtube, non-blog reliable sources that show how OBD is a threat to stealing vehicles. You might as well list the self-starter under "vehicle security" because we no longer have the option of taking the crank with us when we park our cars. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can't steal a new BMW by smashing the ignition lock, so you're not comparing apples with apples. The OBD port is an interface to a computer-based security system - hence like other areas of computing, this interface needs to be properly secured specifically so that bad guys with physical access to the vehicle cannot easily subvert the very anti-theft system that is meant to protect the vehicle in this exact scenario.
Regarding sources, there are more. And Bruce Schneier is not some arbitrary blogger - he's a well known and respected industry security specialist, so counts as a reliable source. Similarly, the SANS Institute is a well known computer security research body, and the BBC, Daily Telegraph, Star etc are reliable news sources.
OBD is fault because:
  1. The location of the port is in the standard - and the convenient location is part of the reason that the thieves can access the port without entering the vehicle and triggering the alarm system.
  2. There's no authentication, because the ODB specification requires anyone with a scan tool to be able to read and reset diagnostic codes. Fine, but the problem is that the highly sensitive areas are not adequately secured with a strong, vehicle-specific encryption key. The standard has simply not kept pace with advances elsewhere in computing, so now thieves have the advantage via a $30 OBD tool.
  3. Lastly, vehicle manufacturers are making all sorts of vehicle components accessible via OBD because it's cheaper and easier - advantage bad guys again. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting stuff, but since the lack of security is built-into the OBD standard, was it not the designer's responsibility to provide some other means of security? If you use a technology that you know is insecure for security purposes...you deserve what you get. Of course, key-cutters have not been hard to get so it's always an arms race. The radio in my old VW needed a 4-digit code typed in if it was to work correctly after power was interrupted - you mean to tell me that BMW didn't even include a simple password to authenticate changing the key? A lack of imagination on the designer's part, for sure. The better security model is always "something you have" plus "something you know". --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OBD was not designed by any one manufacturer - the designers and implementors of the standards are different parties. There's academic research to suggest that current weaknesses are caused by manufacturers both following the standards closely and by deviating from them - so it's both an industry problem and a manufacturer-specific problem.
When the security is not strong enough to begin with, applying two-factor authentication as you suggest is analgous to putting double locks on a weak door. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I meant, or should have said, "designers of the car", not implying "designers of OBD". Thanks for researching this, though I'll never have to worry about my BMW being stolen. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing dispute for 'Speaking scan tools' section

A new section 'Speaking scan tools' has been added by Techmaster4444 under 'OBD Applications'.

This has been reverted by Glrx with brief justification and then reinstated by Techmaster4444 without any discussion or justification. Before we have an edit war, please discuss here to justify why this content is or is not appropriate. I will remove the new section until agreement is reached. Further edits to this section without discussion will be referred to admins.

From my perspective (as a major contributor for the article), it was reasonable for Glrx to remove the section because

  • The speaking scan tool may be a new user-interface, but does not appear to provide any new general application for the OBD technology. So the placement of the new content and creation of a new section is inappropriate
  • A general discussion of new products is inappropriate for this article (and generally inappropriate for Wikipedia)
  • The new content seems to be intended as an advertisement of a commercial product, which is against Wikipedia rules
  • The new content enumerates features of a specific product, which features are not noteworthy for this article

I think at most a single phrase mentioning that tools may use an audio interface could be accommodated under the 'Hand-held scan tools' section. Hbachus (talk) 09:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support removal. I think any mention of the talking OBD scanner would hit WP:UNDUE. We need some independent sources that tell us the product is reasonable. Right now, there is just a marketing push. The offered description also sounded more in advertising. More detail about DTC and that ilk can be displayed on a screen -- it doesn't need to be spoken. Glrx (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scantools with audio interface

The scantools with audio interface range from simple code reader/reset functions to a more complete failure interpretation. They fill a gap between professional and consumer users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techmaster4444 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The use of speech instead of LCD is novel, but what can this device do that is significant that you cant do with an LCD based scan tool? Remember that this article is about OBD, including a description of the main capabilities of tools that use OBD. It is not a description of how you use those different tools. Sorry, but I still don't think that this product is noteworthy in this article, and we cant let the article become an advertisement for every OBD product on the market. Hbachus (talk) 00:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People has the right to know that speech is now part of OBD service tools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.48.58 (talk) 03:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not denying anyone the right to know about all the new products on the market. You are free to pay to advertise your new product in automotive industry magazines. But people have the right to a Wikipedia that is free from advertising every new product on the market. See Wikipedia:Spam.
Tools that could be notable applications of OBD:
  • A new OBD tool that controlled a robot to automatically repair engine damage
  • A new OBD tool using engine and vehicle diagnostic history to help the driver accelerate at optimum rate for fuel efficiency
New tools that would not be notable use of OBD:
  • A new scantool translating an existing scantool capability into French
  • A new scantool adding a feature to email you the same diagnosis as existing scantools
Both of these are just product features that while of possible value to customers, dont add anything to the general OBD capability of the tools. This article does not describe all product features of all OBD tools. Hbachus (talk) 09:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


"Simple fault code readers/reset tools are mostly aimed at the consumer level by using LCD readouts or audio interface" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techmaster4444 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I want to see some independent WP:RS that review this product favorably. WP should not indiscriminately cover every possible variation. But I'm only a lowly editor here; garner a consensus, and the product goes in the article. However, any text should have a neutral point of view. Glrx (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification Needed

(I hope this is the correct procedure and place to put this.)

In the "Mode of operation" section these two statements are somewhat contradictory:

• Mode $04 is used to clear emission-related diagnostic information. This includes clearing the stored pending/confirmed DTCs and Freeze Frame data.

• Mode $0A lists emission-related "permanent" diagnostic trouble codes stored. As per CARB, any diagnostic trouble codes that is commanding MIL on and stored into non-volatile memory shall be logged as a permanent fault code.

"Permanent" needs clarification: Are Mode $0A fault codes permanent "permanent" or only temporary "permanent" until erased by Mode $04 commands? If permanent "permanent", what is their purpose and who is the target audience?

BTW - I tried to insert a Wikipedia link to the section using the "link" tool and pasting the original URL but kept getting "Page does not exist" ArtKocsis (talk) 04:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Car to PC interfacing

I removed some material that is tangential[9], it was reinserted, and I removed it again. There should be a consensus on this page before it is reinserted again. The material sounds in advertising for some projects, and it uses primary sources. There is little reason to highlight these websites. Glrx (talk) 03:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If we promote a handful then, in fairness, we would have to list all the various free programs. That would unbalance the article and drift away from describing OBD itself. A possible solution would be to start a new article on OBD software (both free and proprietry), although to give reviews would be WP:OR, so it would have to be a simple list of features only.  Stepho  talk  09:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Insertion of Russian diagostic links text

For some time, there has been an effort to insert text about diagnostic interface/links. A typical example is

In addition, a large number of cars of 2000-2007 can diagnose simple inexpensive USB KKL Diagnostic Interfatse. There is a free software that works with data adapters, such as TECU-III[1] (for the diagnosis of Toyota, Nissan) or ChevroletExlorer[2] (for vehicle diagnostics Chevrolet), etc.
  1. ^ http://vdiag.x90x.net
  2. ^ http://samdiagnost.ru

Both links are in Russian, so they do not directly serve an English audience. The emphasis of the sites seems to about interfaces and programs to use in repairing vehicles rather than the topic of the current article (which is the OBD interface). The article already comments on the existence of hand-held and PC-based scan tools. I do not see the above links as being note-worthy enough to include in the article text or even as external links.

Consequently, I am opposed to the insertion of the paragraph. Glrx (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It is spam and consequentially we will keep deleting it. Notice that I added a comment (can only be seen when editing) that tells them to come to the talk page first but he/she/it ignores that. Typical spammer behaviour.  Stepho  talk  00:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested temporary semi-protection at WP:RFPP#On-board diagnostics. Glrx (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.  Stepho  talk  22:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Connector infobox

Could we use an infobox template for On-board diagnostics#OBD-II diagnostic connector section? 

{{Infobox connector
|name=OBD-II
|type=Digital communications
|image=[[Image:OBD 002.jpg|300px]]
|pinout_image=[[Image:OBD connector shape.svg|300px]]
|designer=[[SAE]]
|data_signal= [[SAE J1850]] PWM/VPW, [[ISO 9141-2]], [[ISO 14230]] KWP2000, ISO 15765 [[CAN]]
|pin1= Manufacturer discretion
|pin2= Bus Positive Line of SAE J1850 PWM and VPW
|pin3= ...
}}

I think it looks nice for quick connector information. Only pinout description will not be color-coded, but maybe we can do something to color it...

If I have time, will try to complete the template. xOneca (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on On-board diagnostics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article contains many lies

As usual the article is tilted to favor eurasian history rewrite. They sued GM and Ford to publish OBD (I/II) saying that GM was competing unfairly. After stealing the technology, Japan and Germany CLOSED (made proprietary) parts of their OBD, then later (around 2010), we saw for any german car it was REQUIRED to get a "hand scanner" that only Germany makes to work on any part of german vehicles. Part of their lawsuit against GM claimed that not only was it unfair to other car companies (who wanted the technology) but unfair to gas statiosn and DiY persons attempting their own repairs. Very bad behavior.

The truth was ... NOT as WIkipedia has depicted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:400:9CA0:6D1B:5ADD:B39D:B2A8 (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Care to point us at any citations for this strongly-held opinion? --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article cleanup

This article needs some serious attention from an expert on the subject. I don't know how on earth this was given a B grade -- I removed a sentence which literally started "Rumour has it that ...". I don't have the time to overhaul this article, but I can definitely assist with some of the menial tasks if any editor wants to take it on. I'm good at finding sources, and also good at removing badly written/badly sourced material.

This article also seems to be a target for spammers. The OBD-II dongle market is pretty crazy right now, so I think this page should be semi-protected. Also, it might be time to archive some of the talk page (the top comments are from 12 years ago!).

A few recommendations:

  1. Check sources to see if they are primarily commercial pages (selling a product)
  2. Remove the original research and badly written sections (for example I removed a sentence written from first person point of view)
  3. Possibly request semi-protection if more spam keeps being added
  4. Find some scholarly/good quality sources; also, possibly archive some of the existing sources (some of which were already done by a bot)
  5. Others have suggested that OBD-1.5 is a colloquial, unofficial term. If so, perhaps make a note of that, and rewrite that section to clarify, or just remove that section entirely. (After doing a bit of research, it seems that section definitely has undue weight ... it needs to be shortened or removed. It seems it was only a single model year that this hybrid OBD existed, and I cannot find any reference to it beyond car enthusiast forums).

If anybody makes changes and then wants review done, feel free to contact me on my talk page! -- Air♠CombatTalk! 00:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Military On-board diagnostics?

The military was using STE/ICE onboard diagnostics since the 1980's or earlier. These ports were present in the 1980's GM CUCV vehicles. Should these military specifications go here as well? Documentation from department of defense: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a181563.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kallisti05 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's more like a pre-cursor to OBD. From that document, STE/ICE is just a plug with lots of analogue sensors. The smarts is still off-board (mostly in wetware). But I'd be happy with it being briefly mentioned in a pre-cursor section.  Stepho  talk  21:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


J2534?

J2534 is a new(ish?) standard which uses the OBD2 port for reprogramming the firmware of devices within the car attached to the CAN network. Manafacturers must offer resources to consumers / independant shops to reprogram the devices in their cars. (acdelcotds.com is GM's). https://www.dgtech.com/j2534-reprogramming-faq/ "SAE J2534 is a standard for communications between a computer and a vehicle. ***Government regulations*** require all automakers provide a J2534 service to EVERYONE in the U.S. for reprogramming (also called reflashing) emissions related controllers. If you own a J2534 Pass Thru device, you can reflash and, in some cases, diagnose vehicles with factory functionality." Looking for which "government regulations" dictate this... but it has been in all US cars for a while now. Tesla's head unit seems to "update the firmwares" of components of the car over a J2534 tie-in.

This all seems relevant to the On-board_diagnostics article? J2534 provides "advanced diagnostics" *and* "vehicle firmware reprograming". One cheap clone adapter for this is here: https://www.vxdiagshop.com/wholesale/vxdiag-vcx-nano-for-gm-opel-wifi-version.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kallisti05 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marine Industry

I see no mention of the marine industry It is very different and not nearly as standardized as the auto industry It might even warrant it's own article Corsairblue (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla cars without OBD-II

I think there should be mention of the fact that we may be beginning to see the end of OBD-II.

My 2019 Tesla Model 3 doesn't have one. Evidently Tesla appealed the requirement to have the port on grounds that it's only LEGALLY required for emissions testing. Since electric cars are incapable of producing any emissions, the requirement to have the port is no longer valid...and since my car doesn't have one - it must now NOT be required for electric cars. SteveBaker (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:On-board_diagnostics&oldid=1103008176"