Get creative challenge. Bye bye push to start button.

[Professor_Chaos]

This might be the first time I've ever seen someone try to compare a car forum to NASA. And if you think this Jeep mod is equivalent to the moon missions, that should tell you something right there. And let's not forget, the NASA engineers didn't say "I refuse to accept this fact" during their conversations and then toil in obscurity. They accepted facts, made realistic goals, and moved on. REALISTIC goals.

Look, nobody is saying you can't go out on your own and try it. But you are woefully underinformed to even start. And this "I don't accept no" mentality isn't an endearing quality. Quite the opposite actually. It makes you look ignorant and unwilling to accept reality. "I refuse to believe blah blah blah..." okay fine, but that doesn't make those facts any less true, and continuing to argue them doesn't do you or anyone else any good. That's why I say your goals are unrealistic.

You honestly need to step back, admit to yourself what you are truly capable of, what you do and don't have a grasp of, and accept that. It has become clear here that you do not have any grasp of the systems you are asking to modify. That's a bad place to start for anyone modding their Jeep. If you can't slow down and do that, nobody will be able to even discuss this with you let alone provide any insights.

If you come back with "I plan to do this, then this, then this, and I'll detail it as I go" that's awesome. But so far you are asking everyone else to do the work for you here and then biting back when you don't like their answers.

Not trying to be ignorant. I have heard and read what has been said.

I feel like I have been thankfull and appreciative even to those who haven't been to me.

Like I said from the beginning, this isnt easy and straightforward.

If people dont want to accept the possibility they can move on. This thread is for people who want to think on it. Nobody is asking you to do so.

Sponsored

 

[Professor_Chaos]

Sorry. Don't mean to disparage those who have given their thoughts here. Really it is appreciated.

The simple fact is, this is a thread to discuss how, not why not.

It is just frustrating to keep explaining that.

Yes I get it isn't ideal or even likely.

Still I'd like to talk about it if anybody else would. If not. That is cool too but don't really need to hear more about if not, that has been covered. Thanks.

 

[1996XJ]

Not trying to be ignorant. I have heard and read what has been said.

I feel like I have been thankfull and appreciative even to those who haven't been to me.

Like I said from the beginning, this isnt easy and straightforward.

If people dont want to accept the possibility they can move on. This thread is for people who want to think on it. Nobody is asking you to do so.

I like the cut of your jib sir. I personally dont like a lot of the new tech on vehicles either. The fact that tech is moving in a direction where some dude could just disable your car from a thousand miles away if they wanted to is disturbing. (i have to be vague as to not get banned for saying something "political") sorry i dont have anything more helpful to add other than a friendly comment.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

At least those who work in NASA are engineers and it's their JOBS to make things happen - and they work with totally different assumptions.
And - people cared if it could be done - and many wanted it to be done.

They were engineers, EEs, and more.

We have engineers here - but not to the depth that created these systems. There was no one person who designed these Jeep systems in a day.
Heck, it took them a while to fix the danged ABS freaking out with a brake controller!
They have teams working together. Asking a few forum members to reverse-engineer what took engineers years to come up with is, well, an interesting idea LOL

For something to have been done, there has to first be a real desire to do it - and the time and money and risk to a 50-60K vehicle trying it.
At least with different tunes you can buy an ECM and unlock it and program it and try things and if you mess up, you have your original to put back.
You are asking for a total tear-down of a working vehicle.
So don't be too surprised that no one has gone out and spend 50 grand, parked it in their garage and ripped all the wiring out.

 

[TwoSerious]

I guess I'm still kind of confused at the end goal. Do you just want to be able to crank the motor without pushing the button? Or bypass the whole security system in general (Fob and all). Sorry it seems like the goal post is jumping back and forth and just trying to get a clarification.

 

[mtudb24]

As a vehicle wiring engineer and a systems engineer for a major wiring supplier to all the OEM's (not only including Jeep, GM, Ford, etc), and while my personal team is currently on assignment to Commercial Vehicles (think class 8 trucks like Volvo, Mack, Freightliner, and Ag companies like JD and Case New Holland, etc), and my company does the electrical wiring for Jeep, this isn't something you as a individual or you and the "10" other people who think this is an important task is gonna solve.

I mean no disrespect, but serial data (CAN BUS) to all the modules in the vehicle is something you're not gonna crack unless you have a vast wealth of knowledge of how the "whole package" works together and even if you get a following of people, if its not people with the exact knowledge of FCA's/ Stellanis's CAN BUS protocol, you have no chance in solving this issue.

I applaud your persistence in trying to make your ideas come to fruition, but this is topic I don't think you can win.

As you said, their seemed to be 30 pages of this in a prior post on the subject and the 10 pages of this current thread, you have nobody who has really commented that this is a viable problem that they would be willing to put time and efort into solving. I know you keep asking for "Like minded people to respond to this issue "but you don't seem to be getting the traction of people who really deem this as a problem.

Just my observation.

 

[TwoSerious]

If you're trying to bypass the security you would need a fob in the car or a way to trick the computer that the fob is in the car. Being that it's all canbus (data vs discrete inputs) you would need to have a device similar to a tazer to send the okay signal to the computer. This would have to be something programmed. Either way short of going with a standalone engine management is basically just either intercepting/sending you're own commands to the computer to tell it to do what you want. Ultimately the system will function as it normally would just with a more complicated start/stop input. The ignition switch as we know it is no longer in play. All the button does is send a signal to the bus that hey I'm trying to switch things on. If the car is off and foot is on the peddle it goes straight to run and cranks. Otherwise it goes to aux and with another push (fob detected) goes to run. In which case you should be able to push start it. (At this point it just want cue the starter command because the foot is not on the brake or clutch is not engaged.) It's all command and response on the canbus. Someone else can chime in if I got something wrong with how a generic canbus system works.

 

[Rusty PW]

It can be done. Have buddies with track cars that have done it. BUT it takes deep pockets to do it. Need a MotTec ECU which is $$$. Rewire the motor, and find a MoTec tuner willing to tune the ECU. That's $$$$ You are looking at a minimum of $10K.

https://www.motec.com.au/m1-series-overview/m1s-overview/


I just spent an hour of my life that I ain't getting back reading this.

 

[ALVagabond]

I don't work for NASA or on moon missions, but I have been a professional rocket scientist for the last 25 years, so take this however you like....

This isn't impossible. It can be done. The level of complexity at a system engineering (system of systems) level makes a guy in his garage doing this completely infeasible. You'd need someone with high degree of understanding about the specifics of every module in the truck AND a whole bunch of specialized equipment, not to mention the proprietary software used in the jeep. It would literally take 3 or 4 jeep engineers with the right equipment to make this happen because it's unlikely one person knows everything they need to know to make it work. Even then, there would undoubtedly be things that didn't work right anymore because of unanticipated interdependencies between modes.

 

[eeTwidget]

Your best solution is to merry the gladiators body on a pre ‘87 J series frame.

or

Get a degree in embedded systems with a software minor. I can teach you binary if it helps.

The problem is, you’re asking for a “simple solution” that requires a complete redesign. The FOB/Ignition is tied into CAN && the security features.

Yes a solution can be developed. Sure, but time is money and those with the skills don’t have the time nor desire to “fix” what isn’t a problem. Maybe if 200,000 people wanted to ditch the NFC FOB, it would be profitable enough to invest the time.

Your FOB isn’t the weak link on the rig, there’s about 5,000 other lil bits of tech that will most likely fail before the FOB.

 

[IamPro2A]

The thing is an entire module that is on the BUS. Bypass the entire module?!?!

Personally, I think this would be the most feasible way to do what the OP asks. ALL that needs to happen here is replace this module with a logic circuit that takes the input from a standard key switch and outputs the responses the computer is expecting. The computer really doesn't give a F what the switch looks like, just what it sends to the bus. Flowcharting this is easy peasy lemon squeezy. As I said, coming up with the hardware and software is the problem. It's not impossible as so many others have claimed, the problem is it's impractical and not cost effective to develop. It's probably no less complicated than Zauto's Tazer, but instead of selling 10s of thousands (if not more) they might only sell a handful. a quick google and it looks like Z Automotive Technologies brings in between $5mil and $10mil a year. That's a lot of $300 Tazers.
So I think that it's totally possible, but development and implementation is probably far beyond the OP. You are probably talking dev and production costs well into the mid six figures, with no marketable finished product.

 

[IamPro2A]

Anyhow, love the handle. Lets change the subject. Just got a just right carbine 45 acp. Very excite.

That *IS* exciting. I love the idea behind those. Last time I looked into one, I was living in a state that deemed them too scary to own. Are they still in biz? Their website is there, but does not appear to have been updated since 2020.

 

[Ball_Ze]

Have you ever just though of wiring in a key switch and hiding the key fob inside the vehicle, maybe under the console?

I don't work for this particular company, but the car company I work for, doing this would be impossible without proprietary development tools. Our ECU has rolling seed and key routines that sync every keystart from the BCM - the BCM needs the telemetry of the key to send the correct value to the ECU so that we'll turn on ignition and spin the starter.

In our SW we do have a way to disable this on older vehicle communication architecture, but it's not something that is in HP tuner, or anything else I've seen.

I get wanting your JT to be how you want it - I hope you find a solution!

 

[redrider]

10 pages! I stopped at #1 with this comment-
"proven by the easy theft of Challengers and Chargers all across the country."
These vehicles are the 4 wheeled equivalent of the Hayabusa and Ninja series.

 

[IamPro2A]

10 pages! I stopped at #1 with this comment-
"proven by the easy theft of Challengers and Chargers all across the country."
These vehicles are the 4 wheeled equivalent of the Hayabusa and Ninja series.

and Jeeps?

Sponsored