OBDII Software?

OBD II is a standardized specification that should work equally well on your Ford as it does on your VW. The connector under the dash on your VW is also used in essentially the same place on your Ford, and on your neighbor's Chevy and your Uncle's Dodge, and so on.

I don't know the package you use for you VW, but if it's a true OBD II package, then it will work on any vehicle offered for sale in the USA since the '96 model year, and some vehicles since the '95 model year. (OBD II was required for '96 production, but a few automakers cut it in during '95 production even though it wasn't required then.)

OBD II is a standard spec for the data that is presented and for the method of extracting the data.

I take it you are not aware that many builders, including VW have added to the ODB-II standard with their own "manufacturers" codes. I do believe that the Vag-Com also includes the "extended" codes for Audi I can't recall many "added" Ford codes though

But the device should at least give the standard Ford stuff that all OBD II cars have.

You're right, I was not aware that VW's unique codes were part of the package he has, but it doesn't really matter because the OBD II generic scanner will still report the Ford unique code even it if doesn't tell you what it means.

I have a generic scan tool that will tell me P0nnn, where the nnn might be unique to Ford. I simply go to a look-up table and find that P0nnn means the Acme Valve is stuck (VW) or the Widget Sensor is burnt out (Ford), and read the part in parenthesis if it exists to see what's worng with my car. I went to the autoparts store on the corner by my house and bought a scan tool that reads the codes. It does not care what the codes are coming out of.

A LITTLE HISTORY Early computer controls were different from make to make, and sometimes different from model to model within the same make. This was OBD I. The data set was not inclusive enough, the information provided was not uniform -- the same problem would be given different displays -- and the method of getting it was complicated and expensive. Consumers complained that the stuff they used to fix at home on Saturday could not be diagnosed, and the mechanic made assertions that the added training and equipment was expensive so it was fair to charge $100 just to lift the hood and figure out what the data said. OBD II standardized the data so that all cars that could produce a particular fault would do it the same way and give the same information -- a P0440 always means a malfunction in the Evaporative Emissions Control System, or a rich or lean condition at the O2 Sensor was always reported the same way, for example. The method of extracting the data was all over the ballpark too, sometimes requiring a diagnostic machine costing thousands of dollars and sometimes requiring a paperclip. Some cars have you turn the ignition ON and fully cycle the gas pedal five times within 3 seconds while whistling Dixie and spitting wooden nickles. The OBD II spec defines the method of extracting codes and standardizes the codes so that a technican can easily learn and understand them.

To be sure, there are still unique codes that VW might use that Ford does not use, or Ford uses but not VW, but the physical display of the code itself does not require special equipment, it only requires a look-up table if the text of the code can't be displayed.

Perhaps the package we're talking about here can manipulate the values of various data to affect a change in the way the car runs -- enhance the performance -- in a way that Ford will not tolerate, that is an area I can't address. But if the Ford is displaying the MIL (Check Engine Light), any OBD II device should be capable of extracting the data that has caused the light to come on.

Thanks for the post. Very educational. I didn't know the industry was this standardized!

MG.

Standardized only because the federal government forced them to be. That way the feds (and the states, at the fed's demand) could check emissions without having to buy specific equipment for each car/brand/model.

All vehicles sold in the US must be ODBII compliant. They may offer more (and many do!) but that emissions station that is plugging into your car (if you are in a place that requires emissions) is only ODBII.

Oh, and BTW, just for the record... I feel that the emissions testing is a crock...

On Ford products, AutoEnginuity does a fairly decent job.

Weak on GM, dismal on ChryCo but not too bad on Ford.

Priced at around what you'd pay for Vag-Com. $500 ish...

Like a diet of bread and water.

J1850 PWM, J1850 VPM, ISO-9141-2, ISO-14230 (KWP2000), and CAN 11 bit CAN 29 bit.

Six different communications protocols. Not so standardized.

There are levels of protocols, so there is more to the story than just the hardware level...

...

Now, my first tool required two different heads (and a laptop or PC)

One would need to actually understand the hardware levels. Jeff doesn't.

Actually, I do. Very well.

I'm not speaking to the tools needed to actually make money in the auto repair business, I'm speaking of the tools needed to do repairs that one is reasonably likely to undertake in his driveway.

When the Check Engine light comes on, the generic scan tools will give enough information to direct the guy working at home on his own car to the area where his attention is needed. If I was charging for repairs, then maybe my tool wouldn't get the job done, but when I'm seeking to avoid paying somebody for repairs, my tool works pretty damn good. And it works on my BMW, my Ford, by brother's Chrysler, and my neighbor's Toyota. It gives me codes and resets the codes. If the car is not exhibiting driveability issues, I generally make a list of the currently stored codes, then reset them. The car goes off and does whatever they need it to do, and if the Check Light comes on again, I pull codes and compare the new list to the old list and look at the components that appear on both. This strategy seems to work fine.

So, OBD II data display and placement of the data port is standardized enough that the home-mechanic can work on his own car. Anybody that seeks to service his own '96 or later motor vehicle should have a scan tool. One can spend as much money as he wants, and more money gives more data and sometimes gives the ability to manipulate the vehicle programming. I'd suggest that one should spend in the area of about $125 to get a good balance of features and functions for the dollars spent. Spending less can leave you wanting more information, and spending more can lead to diminshing returns. Just my thoughts on the matter.

I don't make any money fixing cars, so I can easily get by on a $125 peice of equipment. You seem to make your yacht payments fixing cars, you probably need equipment that costs $1000, or more. I understand the difference, and the OP didn't seem to be in your arena as much as he seems to be in mine.

So, get a life.

Funny.

Irrelevant.

Why would the location of the repairs make a difference?

And when said tool can not perform as needed, "the guy working at home" finds out quickly what a waste of time and money your recommendations are.

You know your limitations, I'll give you that...

That is exactly what got code readers banned to use by parts stores in California, and for good reason. So, someone comes to you with a common EVAP code which doesn't typically exhibit any driveability symptoms, you read the code, erase the code and kick it loose with no repair. Very amateurish. FWIW, a .040" diameter EVAP leak emits more hydrocarbon emissions per mile than what is exiting the tailpipe. As we suffer more draconian emissions regulations, we should all be thankful to you and your amateur 'I dunno' methods. What about an intermittent crankshaft sensor code, same deal? Do you offer to pay the tow bill when the car leaves 'em stranded a few days later?

Umm, the OP already owns Vag-Com, a tool near as advanced as the dealer level VW/Audi system. The tool I recommended is near Ford OE level and costs the same as what he spent on Vag-Com. I suspect that he'd be sorely disappointed in your $125 blinky box.

BTW, what -is- the diminishing return on 'oh f*ck, it won't do what I need it to?'

hah-hah... "yacht payments." Like I've never heard that dig before.

Or more. More like 4X more for the cheapest one.

Interesting. I would never think to diminish someone's abilities like that with out further evidence.

Will gas up the yacht forth with.

A leak of that size would generate a new code in very short order, so the emissions being spewed wouldn't be any different than ignoring the light in the first place -- and with no driveability problems that's exactly what many drivers do until the next smog test.

As to the intermittant crank shaft error, I was able to CORRECTLY diagnose a P0340 INTAKE CAM POSITION SENSOR ERROR and get the right part to fix it on the first try, using a scan tool that I paid $120 + tax to add to my tool inventory. .

The right part was acquired and installed with one bolt. I fixed a car for a friend for a cost of a sensor and a single bolt. Easy stuff that the dealership wanted $100 to diagnose and $85 per hour for labor -- maiking a nearly $200 repair bill (and that doesn't include the cost of the part) to replace a part held on by one bolt.

My point is that for general diagnosis of his Ford, the OBD II machine he already has should give him plenty of information, since he had to ask. If he didn't need to ask, then he'd already have gotten himself the same equipment targetted at his Ford.

Fine, you just made my point.

YOU need more features and functions than I do, and more than most people that try to keep up with their own car at home on Saturday morning. In the context of the OP that already has more equipment than I have, I was suggesting that he could do alot of the stufr that his Ford will need with the package he already has IF that package is a true compliant to the OBD II spec. It could exceed the minimum spec, and that' good. But the minimum spec of OBD II is that it does not take specalized equipment for every make and model that rolls in the door The spec does lots of things, one of them is to give the consumer a window into the going's on in his car.

Granted, I made a leap. But based on the original question -- do I need a different package to collect data from my Ford? -- I assumed he already had a package that he could use.

Let me try to p[ut this discussion onto some perspective that I think you are overlooking ...

The OP already has a PC-based OBD II package that I assume exceeds the basic scan tool that I have, and perhaps does not come to the level of the scan equipment that you have. His package is reportedly -- by him -- aimed at his VW, and he asked what package he might need to look into his Ford. My response was then, and I maintain now, is that if he has an OBD II package, then it should be able to collect data from his Ford BECAUSE the OBD II spec says precisely that.

I do not know what his c urrent package has in it, but because it is supposedly geaqred toward VW, then it perhaps has the ability to manipulate the firmware in some manner to affect changes to the performance of his VW. It's entirely possible that this feature will not work on his Ford, but I did not perceive that as the origninal question. The question I read gave me the idea that he has a Ford with the Check light on -- or he has a Ford and the Check light might come on in the future -- and he wants to read the code. The package from his VW should be able to read the code. End of story.

Can other packages do more? Perhaps. Does he need to buy something different to fix his car? Probably not because he already has an OBD II compliant system that by the OBD II specification should be able to read the code on any compliant vehicle.

You, and lots of other people, can't do anything with the $125 scan tool that one will find at the store down on the corner, but lots of people (like me) that try to keep repair costs down by fixing their own car can get tremendous insight into what the car is complaining about with a simple scan tool.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that position. Lots of stuff that people pay you to do, they could do themselves if they understood a little bit of mechanics. Obviously, lots of people can't tie their shoes if they don't do it everyday, but there is a huge subset of the population -- the OP included -- that can fix lots of stuff that happens to their car with a generic scan tool. The OP has a better scan package than I have, my only point is that the package he has can read the codes in his Ford if it is a true OBD II compliant package.

Don't forget your fishing poles.

Didn't you claim in your last post that you understood the hardware?

Not necessarily. EVAP monitors do not run when the fuel level is below

15% or above 85%, they don't run if the ambient temperature is below a defined threshold. It is entirely possible not to have an ECAP monitor run for an entire winter season. So, if the car shows up by you with 17% fuel level and you douse the P0440 code and being that that code is a two trip detection logic, it's entirely possible that before the monitor can complete the fuel level goes below 15% and then goes lower until the vehicle operator fills the tank and the level goes above 85% and remains there and then an arctic cold front settles in for three or four weeks and then due to the cold front, the battery craps out and odds are given your limited tooling you have no way or inclination to retain PCM memory so you being the neighborhood hero with a blinky box and a crescent wrench (same thing actually) swap out the battery again resetting all monitors to incomplete, and the tale goes on and the games go round and round...

We're not talking about "many drivers," we're talking about your flawed methods and flawed understandings. Yes, the emissions would be the same as ignoring the light in the first place, but that's not the same thing as your blatant tampering.

Even a blind pig finds the occasional truffle.

Naturally, the fact that you don't have multiple millions of dollars invested in infrastructure, tooling, training, etc. plays no part in the differences mentioned. Comparing your back alley Bob situation to a fully equipped and trained dealer service department is not just idiotic and ludicrous, it's desperate. What if your repair wasn't successful Jeff, where do you suppose your friend would have tried next when you couldn't deliver satisfaction? Yup, that "wants $200" dealership except when they see the new cam sensor with back yard Bobs autograph on it, they bump the bill to $400.

Really? Do you own a Vag-Com Jeff? Have you ever used Vag-Com Jeff? Without doing a Google search, do you even know the name of the company that makes and sells Vag-Com Jeff? Do you know what the "VAG" in Vag-Com stands for Jeff?

He asked because he already knew that his Vag-Com didn't support generic OBD2. He asked because he already knew from using Vag-Com that real tooling is light years ahead of silly little minimum function generic blinky boxes.

No I didn't. I never erase codes and send people on their way with a still not functioning vehicle spewing unburned hydrocarbons like you admit to.

What it really boils down to is; you don't know what you don't know.

That's right, he's tasted the forbidden fruit, drunk from the well, gone over to the light side.

You better call GM and scold them, my GM Tech2 has NO, NONE, ZERO provisions for doing generic OBD2 and it never was required to. One the other hand, call Chrysler and congratulate them on the fact that the [my] DRB 3 does have generic OBD2 capability, not that I'd be inclined to use it though. It also will perform as a 2 channel lab scope and a belt tensioning gauge.

You are suffering a great confusion WRT what is required of one size fits all tooling versus brand specific tooling and how miserably one size fits all tooling falls on its face compared to brand specific tooling. The best analogy I can make is; generic OBD2 is a wing nut. Think about that.

That is NOT what he asked. He asked for a recommendation on a Ford capable program similar to what he has experienced using on his VWs.

Because you don't know what you don't know.

As I stated earlier in another post, "his Vag-Com is at or very near to dealership level capability."

It -IS- aimed at his VW, it -IS- a VW only tool.

No it doesn't.

It is NOT a hackers tool, it is a serious repair tool meant to diagnose OEM configured systems.

It is a fact that it won't work on his Ford. If it did, I would have informed him so.

There is no reason that his VW package should or will read codes on his Ford and it will in fact not do so and any attempt to try to make it do so may very well cause damage to his Ford and his VW diagnostic program, the interface and the platform it runs on..

Not so. OBD2 is a minimum compliance requirement, it is possible to design and market legally a tool that exceeds the OBD2 minimum standards as defined by SAE.

Oh, really? Tell me Jeff, does your $125 tool show bank 1 and bank 2 fuel trims?

Yup, if everyone would just bring a flashlight to the ball game they wouldn't need all those power eating lights powered by greenhouse gas producing power plants. I guess I was wrong about you, you may have at this very point in time saved the entire world and actually be nominated for a special award presented by Al Gore himself.

As long as they subscribe to the notion that fixing cars is some sort of proof of manhood.

Well, lots of them have better uses of their time, lots of them have no interest in getting dirty, lots of them accept the responsibility of the costs of not having to walk, take the bus or ride a horse. Lots of them have a clue WRT the difference between price and value.

I can barely tie my left shoe. What does that make me?

Indeed. I'd hate to see him ham-strung by an inferior tool that does a little bit and everything instead of a lot on what he actually owns and is wanting to repair on. It is entirely possible that Old Iron's parents did not have to tie a pork chop around his neck so the dog would play with him.

Better on a VW, otherwise the comparison is pointless.

Not so.

Roger!

Okay, you're an idiot and I'm stupid, but tomorrow I can be smart and you'll still be an idiot.

Why don't you answer the points I raised? Blinky box let you down?

I've got nothing more to say.

You are right that there are better solutions than the one I use, but when one has limited funds and can't afford the multi-thousand dollar solutions you have, then we need to find alternatives.

The germain points that I make, and maintain, are that the OBD II specification was a move to standardize the data collection and presentation of error codes that come out of automobiles. Prior to OBD II, the means of connecting to the automobile so that the data could be analyzed was all over the ball park, and the data stream itself was wildly varied. The result was added cost to the consumer for diagnostics. Barring any other function or feature of OBD II, standardizing where the data was presented for analysis -- at a port located along the bottom of the dash in the driver's foot well -- and the presentation of the data stream, is a significant part of the specification and helps to limit some of the diagnostic costs. Bottom line, the consumer can obtain a single piece of equipment that will present error code data for all of the vehicles he owns that are made for '96 production, or later. You, specifically YOU, can also buy a single piece of equipment to analyze the data from all of the cars that come to you, albeit your equipment is hundreds of times more costly and feature rich than mine.

If your point is that the tools I buy are not as good as the tools you buy, I concede the point.

BACK TO THE ORIGINAL POST If the package used is a true OBD II compliant package, then it should read Ford DTCs along with the Volkswagen DTCs.