355 Immobiliser defeat

I'm interested in permanently defeating the engine immobiliser on my 355. Is there anyone that can do this or point me in the right direction?
Communication via Private Message is fine too, if preferred.

 

Why would you want to do this?

I don't think anyone should help you figure this out. If you want to remove it, then remove it.

 

Alarm siren module is bad. I have only one remote (black). Eventually something else will fail and leave me stranded or I'll lose the remote. A simple blinking LED can often be as much a deterrent as an actual immobilizer and alarm. Not to mention the fact that there could be a previous owner out there that has the other two remotes to my car and the spare key anyway.

"If you want to remove it, then remove it." What the heck is that supposed to mean? Do actually believe you can just remove these parts and still drive the car?

 

Errrrr start with the wiring diagram. I would help but I only have 348 diagrams so not much help here.

 

I'd love to see DIY instructions for ditching the immobilizer. The risk of it getting stolen is near zero with where I park / store it. One black fob here also...and it's a pain having to remember to hit the button every time.

 

Same here and the value of our cars is not exactly shooting up....

 

Not me, I'd rather not see that type of information posted on the Internet, especially not in the most widely known Ferrari forum in the world.

If I were a bad guy this is the first place I would look.

 

Doesn't have to be posted on the Internet.

 

Step 1: Remove your M5.2 ECU.
Step 2: wire in your aftermarket engine computer to your ignition
Step 3: remove your alarm module and siren
Step 4: tune car

Done.

 

geee..... I already thought of that (Electromotive Tec3r) but don't really care to spend all the time/money/hassle.

 

There is surely an easier alternative but the sentiments expressed here are correct about privacy.

 

Motronic had a chip-level protection option way back on M2.7 (they simply chose to not activate it). Once activated, you can't read the code inside. M5.2 is several generations more advanced, so I'd be surprised if it could be hacked easily.

Without hacking the M5.2 box, you are pretty well left with scanning the signals sent from the immobilizer to the M5.2 ecu, copying them, and duplicating them. If those signals change with each start, then you are also going to have to learn the data pattern to replicate (upping the complexity considerably).

At that point you can then build a device to duplicate the engine turn-on signals from the car alarm.

Considering labor charges, equipment, and time involved, unless you can convince someone who has worked intimately with M5.2 systems to build your immobilizer-delete box/circuit, you are looking at your development costing more for the hack than to simply replace the M5.2 ecu with an aftermarket computer.

Just my opinion...

 

Alarms are for insurance companies, not drivers. I disagree with keeping the M5.2 alarm-delete secret private...but I don't know it.

It does exist, however...as do other ways to beat the alarm.

Thinking about 355 Challenge cars that had M5.2, if any, makes me laugh at running around the track with a car alarm.

 

I was hoping it was not serial data but this is what I was thinking. I'm an RF guy so there is an option there based on what is communicated. You could also integrate the FOB with the ignition circuit.

 

1. There is a designed way to tell M5.2 to start the motor without the alarm signal (e.g. for running in the Challenge race series). That's the secret.

2. There is a way to scan and replicate the alarm signal to M5.2. That's one hack to allow removing the alarm.

3. There is a way to hack and reprogram M5.2 even if you don't know the "secret." This is a much more difficult hack.

4. M5.2 can also simply be replaced by an aftermarket ecu...at which point the alarm can be removed, no problem.

 

Weren't all the Challenge cars 2.7?

That would be hilarious if a car stalled on the grid and couldn't hit his key fob to restart

Given that level of complexity I'll live with hitting the button, and live with the embarrassment of occasionally forgetting to hit it when I restart at the gas station.

 

Have your black remote cloned, it is the simplest and cheapest way to feel better.

IMO, the second esasiest way is the point 2 of No Doubt previous post : to scan, record and replicate the signal between the alarm ECU and the Motronic while all is working well. Not too difficult and should work because I don't think there is any rolling code there.

PS : No Doubt, I sent you a PM some days ago. Have you any answer?

 

This may be slightly off topic, but can anyone here tell me if the larm ECU and Motronic 5.2 have to be 'paired' in order to start your car? For instance, if you need to replace your Motronic (or want to), will the car start as long as your alarm electronics and phobs are in good shape? Or does some sort of mating have to be done by the dealer?

I ask because I no longer have cats in my 98 355 F1 and I'm investigating installing the 5.2 not-catalyst ECU to eliminate the cat and cat ecu warnings.

Thanks,

Nick

 

Its topics like this that make me extremely happy I bought a 95.......

 

I wonder if these two parts are in some way related to the immobilizer (or secondary o2 sensor defeat??)?

165269 1 Rear system wiring
172673 1 Jumper

Both of these are jumpers that appear to connect to the engine ECU on the '99 Challenge cars.
http://www.ricambiamerica.com/parts_catalogs.php?M=FE&P=&V=diag&I=3202

Anybody know what they're for?

 

I wouldn't do that, there's easier ways to defeat the check engine code for cats.

 

Do the OBDI cars not have the immobilizer system? If so, I'll buy a 95 and sell my 98 just to be rid of the OBDII pains of this car. My 612 (knock on wood) has been reliable thus far.

--Nick

 

I'm listening How about the slow down indicators? I've noticed that some way, some how, when the exhaust flow is unrestricted, the thermocouples throw flashing slow down lights when cruising at slow (around 45mph) speeds. If I throttle up, then the lights will go off. This first happened one day I wired open the bypass valve. Received code 1448 (I think that's right), which was the bypass valve warning code, and a blinking slow down indicator. I unwired the bypass valve and that code was eliminated. Now, I have straight pipes, giving me codes 1445 and 1449 which are the cat ecu codes for the left and right banks. Once again... after removing the exhaust flow restrictions. I also get, of course, the catalyst below threshold warnings 0432 and 0422.

Why wouldn't you use the non-catalyst ECU?

--Nick

 

Regarding the code generated with the bypass valve wired open..... the Y-pipe thermocouple is providing a certain voltage (based on how much it's heated) to the engine ECU at lower rpms. At higher rpms the voltage generated by the thermocouple is higher because it's getting blasted by the exhaust gas when the bypass valve is open.

If the engine ECU doesn't see some significant change in voltage when the bypass valve opens it "assumes" the valve is bad. With your valve wired open the voltage generated by the thermocouple will be pretty much the same all the time. That's not what the ECU is expecting to see....


QUOTE=Genyosai;139373452]I'm listening How about the slow down indicators? I've noticed that some way, some how, when the exhaust flow is unrestricted, the thermocouples throw flashing slow down lights when cruising at slow (around 45mph) speeds. If I throttle up, then the lights will go off. This first happened one day I wired open the bypass valve. Received code 1448 (I think that's right), which was the bypass valve warning code, and a blinking slow down indicator. I unwired the bypass valve and that code was eliminated. Now, I have straight pipes, giving me codes 1445 and 1449 which are the cat ecu codes for the left and right banks. Once again... after removing the exhaust flow restrictions. I also get, of course, the catalyst below threshold warnings 0432 and 0422.

Why wouldn't you use the non-catalyst ECU?

--Nick[/QUOTE]

 

agreed with eulk328, a wired bypass will throw a CEL. My concern with swapping the ECU is if *anything* else was changed that isn't widely known. Virtually all cars have some on the fly design changes to fix or improve something that was found.

It just seems cheaper, easier, and lower risk to do a cat CEL workaround instead of using a new ECU. OR even easier is don't look at the light