Anyone figure out if it is possible to pull codes on the DIC in the C6. If not, do current consumer scan tools work? eg actron, autoxray?

 

The C6 doesn't report codes in the DIC. I hadn't tried an OBDII scanner on the car. Your post prompted me to go out and try my Actron III code reader on the car. I plugged it into the OBDII port, it powered up, but when it went to interrogate the car's computers for codes, it failed to establish communications and returned a comm error. So at least the Actron III does not work properly with this car.

Note this *should* have worked. By federal law, all OBDII cars have to have a standard connector with standard pin outs, standard signal levels, and standard communications protocols so that all OBDII scanners can work with all OBDII cars. Somebody isn't fully adhering to the standards here. I don't know if it is Chevrolet or Actron.

A further note, there are two separate diagnostic busses on the C6. One is the standard OBDII buss used by code scanners and your state's emissions inspection stations, the other is GM's proprietary CAN protocol buss. The latter is what the Tech II tool used by dealerships uses to talk to the car. Both busses are accessed through the same connector, but use different pins. I know the Tech II works with my car, but I hadn't tried an OBDII scanner until just now. It didn't work.

 

http://www.actron.com/faq_detail.php?pid=16150&id=10
the Actron page says the CP9145 is flash upgradable to work
with the CAN protocol. I agree that even their most basic tool
should still work on any OBDII vehicle. Ill probably give this
tool a try and see if it works. the FAQ also said that all
domestic vehicles must be CAN equipped by 2008, not just GM.

 

Requires a TECHII,and in addition a CANDI module that is hooked in series with the TECHII

 

I find this to be somewhat disturbing. By computer standards, an autombile produces a modest amount of data. Are these endless protocol changes an attempt to limit owners as well as private mechanics ability to service this car? What do you think?

 

You hit the nail on the head!! I have emailed both Actron and Autoxray to determine what, if any, scanners will work on the C6-Will post answers if and when I get them.

 

No motives,if the technology is there the engineers will utilize it

 

I don't mean to imply that there is some devious conspiracy here but removing the owners ability to access even basic codes on the DIC is bothersome. I understand however, that the Can protocol is a significant advance. If consumer level scan tools eventually work with a firmware update I don't have a major problem. Having said that, how difficult would it have been to have maintained some backward capability for basic code reading with current OBD II tools?

 

Its not the automakers have endless protocol changes it is EPA adding next round of requirements for 2007 and because of the added data moving across the car's network and the added OBD parameters.
GM increased data movement and speed with CANDIs and GMLAN for 2005 C6 to merge into the requirements for EPA in 2007.

Only fully functional VCM laptop scanner I have seen that supports the C6 is the one JR from Team ZR-1 has which he has had working for a few months now and it does report the torque parameters.

 

Thats a good point.Another prime example of the EPA turning the screws is the FFS fuel system that was released in mid 2003 and is in the C6.The fuel filter and return lines are located inside the left fuel tank.There are also fuel vapor lines routed INSIDE the cross over pipe that route to both tanks.The reason being that components have to be inside the closed fuel system to eliminate potential vapors escaping into the atmosphere

 

Thanks for the info!. I don't necessarily think that the manufacturers should make the extensive info available such as can be obtained from the Tech II. But since trouble codes are transmitted via on star it would seem to have been simple to display these on the DIC saving us all a lot of trouble for routine issues.

 

The EPA is also the cause for the hated 1-4 force shift

 

Incorrect. GM could have taken other routes, like all other manufacturers did. They chose not to.