ZR1 un-tunable?
10-18-2018, 01:57 PM
#141
Burning Brakes
p.s. On other projects has Hennessy even done their own tuning in-house? I just ask because often shops outsource tuning separately from their in-house fabrication.
Last edited by Palantirion; 10-18-2018 at 01:58 PM.
10-18-2018, 04:19 PM
#142
Melting Slicks
It's pure bs. Unless they are going around the a ton of encryption in the ecm, the bcm etc. They are all encrypted and timed so you can't just "get in" and have every other module in the car just fall in line. Hennecy is a rip off artist.
10-21-2018, 01:47 AM
#143
It is total Bull ****. The software used to protect the ECM and other engine components are some of the most sophisticated ever released. Since it is released that means the Government is now using encryption at least 2 maybe 3 generations beyond this technology. Once Quantum Computers are fully developed it would be interesting to see how long it would take to run through every possible combination. By that time cars will be something from the past and we will all be racing small spaceships around the moon and back using antigravity technology.
11-11-2018, 02:07 PM
#145
Burning Brakes
In the meantime, the LT5 has been released by GM as a crate engine. Rating is 750 HP and 715 ft-lb of torque. Honestly, why anyone would more that this is beyond me. That ECM is uncrackable with modern encryption - it would just be easier to use two of them like the boat guys.
The following users liked this post:
dee zed (12-03-2018)
11-11-2018, 04:18 PM
#147
Pro Mechanic
Pro Mechanic
GM needs to be able to prove that their ECUs are tamper resistant to modern security standards from a legal culpability standpoint.
If you listen to what GM execs (current and former - also execs from other companies as well) are saying, they envision a world where human driven cars are no longer legal for road use and transportation units in the form of self driving vehicles (which are owned by GM) provide transportation services.
Imagine what kind of legal issues GM would have if some nefarious entity were able to penetrate the security of these vehicles and systematically crash them. That makes the ignition switch debacle look like peanuts.
A reasonable defense, though, would be, "Hey, nobody in the world [had] circumvented this level of security, and these security models were considered state of the art. We did everything we could to prevent unauthorized access to our ECUs."
That's in contrast to the previous model used which would have been questionably secure in 1985. But back when all this aftermarket ECU reflashing started, GM was more concerned with leaving the door ajar enough for the aftermarket to do their thing. Now that goal is in direct conflict with the ECU security necessity.
The good news, though, if there is any here, is that if you read the patent about the ECU signing, they have designed it specifically to allow the ability to provide signing keys to third parties without having to reveal the root key. At the very least, it appears that they have given some thought to a scenario that might serve the aftermarket, though it's impossible to say if they will allow it, and if they do, under what terms.
At the very least, the era of using third party recalibration tools is at an end, though (unless somebody finds an exploit).
If you listen to what GM execs (current and former - also execs from other companies as well) are saying, they envision a world where human driven cars are no longer legal for road use and transportation units in the form of self driving vehicles (which are owned by GM) provide transportation services.
Imagine what kind of legal issues GM would have if some nefarious entity were able to penetrate the security of these vehicles and systematically crash them. That makes the ignition switch debacle look like peanuts.
A reasonable defense, though, would be, "Hey, nobody in the world [had] circumvented this level of security, and these security models were considered state of the art. We did everything we could to prevent unauthorized access to our ECUs."
That's in contrast to the previous model used which would have been questionably secure in 1985. But back when all this aftermarket ECU reflashing started, GM was more concerned with leaving the door ajar enough for the aftermarket to do their thing. Now that goal is in direct conflict with the ECU security necessity.
The good news, though, if there is any here, is that if you read the patent about the ECU signing, they have designed it specifically to allow the ability to provide signing keys to third parties without having to reveal the root key. At the very least, it appears that they have given some thought to a scenario that might serve the aftermarket, though it's impossible to say if they will allow it, and if they do, under what terms.
At the very least, the era of using third party recalibration tools is at an end, though (unless somebody finds an exploit).
I do not believe that GM has "...given some thought to a scenario that might serve the aftermarket..." Just the fact that GM now voids the warranty of any vehicle which has had its PCM calibration changed to one other than a GM cal supports that belief.
My feeling is that GM is increasing ECU security for a number of reasons:
1) To decrease warranty costs
2) To reduce exposure to potential litigation
3) As part of its need to develop more aggressive computer security measures for use in future autonomous vehicles.
- Not at all.
It depends on your context. Watch any video of a ZR1 tracking - they hook up remarkably well, even out of low speed corners.
(snip)
I suspect that GM's assertion that 755hp is the limit for the chassis was made primarily with an eye to the future performance goals vs exotics that will involve much more than 750hp
(snip)
It depends on your context. Watch any video of a ZR1 tracking - they hook up remarkably well, even out of low speed corners.
(snip)
I suspect that GM's assertion that 755hp is the limit for the chassis was made primarily with an eye to the future performance goals vs exotics that will involve much more than 750hp
(snip)
That tends to support the idea that, at least with the Corvette, engines with around 700-lb/ft of torque with gear ratios typical of the ZR-1, are the limit for the car's chassis configuration.
undoubtedly we will see a future hybrid ZR1 with 1,000+hp. Packaging alone would preclude a front-engine chassis in that scenario.
As for the subject of this thread...will the E99 and FICM be "tunable" by 3rd-party users? In theory, I think they might be, however, in a practical sense–at least the way we users of HP Tuners and EFI Live have understood the procedure in the past–they may end up un-tunable because of the cost.
Last edited by Hib Halverson; 12-20-2018 at 10:52 PM.
11-12-2018, 12:55 AM
#150
[QUOTE=Hib Halverson;1598318545]Neither of those statements are true, however, a "100 octane calibration" might be available for ZR-1.
I agree with the above–other than the next to the last paragraph.
I do not believe that GM has "...given some thought to a scenario that might serve the aftermarket..." Just the fact that GM now voids the warranty of any vehicle which has had its PCM calibration changed to one other than a GM cal supports that belief.
My feeling is that GM is increasing ECU security for a number of reasons:
1) To decrease warranty costs
2) To reduce exposure to potential litigation
3) As part of its need to develop more aggressive computer security measures for use in future autonomous vehicles.
With all due respect, both of my statements are 100% true. Prior to the release of the ZR1, Tadge Juechter and a number of Product Managers from Corvette held some sort of a meeting with Corvette owners at the Museum/Race facility. A friend of mine attended. I believe there may still be a video of the meeting on You Tube. Tadge or the PM said the car makes max power with 100 octane gas. When asked how much less will it make with 93 he was vague. It will make less but not that much.
The day they were installing the 100 calibration on my ZO6 I was in the garage with the technician. The local tech had to call into Corvette prior to the 100 Octane installation. They started asking him questions about what I was going to do with the car, so he handed me the phone. The engineer asked me if the car was going to be tracked on a regular basis and I said yes. He then asked if I understood that the car required a minimum of 93 Octane and that max power will only come with at least 100 Octane. I said yes and returned the phone to the tech. The calibration was installed. There is a big difference in power with the 100 as opposed to the 93.
It was the same information that Tadge or the PM said at the Kentucky meeting about the ZR1.
I agree with the above–other than the next to the last paragraph.
I do not believe that GM has "...given some thought to a scenario that might serve the aftermarket..." Just the fact that GM now voids the warranty of any vehicle which has had its PCM calibration changed to one other than a GM cal supports that belief.
My feeling is that GM is increasing ECU security for a number of reasons:
1) To decrease warranty costs
2) To reduce exposure to potential litigation
3) As part of its need to develop more aggressive computer security measures for use in future autonomous vehicles.
- Not at all.
It depends on your context. Watch any video of a ZR1 tracking - they hook up remarkably well, even out of low speed corners.
(snip)
I suspect that GM's assertion that 755hp is the limit for the chassis was made primarily with an eye to the future performance goals vs exotics that will involve much more than 750hp
(snip)/QUOTE]
Any of those videos you see of ZR-1s being tracked really fast were done with an automatic trans in "drive" and (more importantly) PTM in mode-5.
Recently, I spoke to a source familiary with some of the video GM has released and was told that the C7 ZR-1 is the first Corvette which, even in the hands of talented drivers, is quicker with the stability enhancment systems enabled than it is with SESes disabled.
That tends to support the idea that, at least with the Corvette, engines with around 700-lb/ft of torque with gear ratios typical of the ZR-1, are the limit for the car's chassis configuration.
I suspect that the "performance version" of the mid-engine car (C8) will have an IC engine of about 550-hp powering the rear wheels and 350 or so horsepower worth of electric motors powering the front wheels. That said, this type of IC/electric hybrid will not exist for fuel economy. It will exist for high-performance purposes, ie: once the driver reaches WOT with the IC engine, the electric motor(s) will begain to apply drive torque to the front wheels.
As for the subject of this thread...will the E99 and FICM be "tunable" by 3rd-party users? In theory, I think they might be, however, in a practical sense–at least the way we users of HP Tuners and EFI Live have understood the procedure in the past–they may end up un-tunable by many individuals because of the cost.
It depends on your context. Watch any video of a ZR1 tracking - they hook up remarkably well, even out of low speed corners.
(snip)
I suspect that GM's assertion that 755hp is the limit for the chassis was made primarily with an eye to the future performance goals vs exotics that will involve much more than 750hp
(snip)/QUOTE]
Any of those videos you see of ZR-1s being tracked really fast were done with an automatic trans in "drive" and (more importantly) PTM in mode-5.
Recently, I spoke to a source familiary with some of the video GM has released and was told that the C7 ZR-1 is the first Corvette which, even in the hands of talented drivers, is quicker with the stability enhancment systems enabled than it is with SESes disabled.
That tends to support the idea that, at least with the Corvette, engines with around 700-lb/ft of torque with gear ratios typical of the ZR-1, are the limit for the car's chassis configuration.
I suspect that the "performance version" of the mid-engine car (C8) will have an IC engine of about 550-hp powering the rear wheels and 350 or so horsepower worth of electric motors powering the front wheels. That said, this type of IC/electric hybrid will not exist for fuel economy. It will exist for high-performance purposes, ie: once the driver reaches WOT with the IC engine, the electric motor(s) will begain to apply drive torque to the front wheels.
As for the subject of this thread...will the E99 and FICM be "tunable" by 3rd-party users? In theory, I think they might be, however, in a practical sense–at least the way we users of HP Tuners and EFI Live have understood the procedure in the past–they may end up un-tunable by many individuals because of the cost.
With all due respect, both of my statements are 100% true. Prior to the release of the ZR1, Tadge Juechter and a number of Product Managers from Corvette held some sort of a meeting with Corvette owners at the Museum/Race facility. A friend of mine attended. I believe there may still be a video of the meeting on You Tube. Tadge or the PM said the car makes max power with 100 octane gas. When asked how much less will it make with 93 he was vague. It will make less but not that much.
The day they were installing the 100 calibration on my ZO6 I was in the garage with the technician. The local tech had to call into Corvette prior to the 100 Octane installation. They started asking him questions about what I was going to do with the car, so he handed me the phone. The engineer asked me if the car was going to be tracked on a regular basis and I said yes. He then asked if I understood that the car required a minimum of 93 Octane and that max power will only come with at least 100 Octane. I said yes and returned the phone to the tech. The calibration was installed. There is a big difference in power with the 100 as opposed to the 93.
It was the same information that Tadge or the PM said at the Kentucky meeting about the ZR1.
11-12-2018, 08:54 AM
#152
[QUOTE=Izzy1000;1598320605]
I think his quote is being misinterpreted. The 100 octane tune will keep the ZR1 making the full 755 HP longer than 93 octane but there is no overall HP boost. However, I've run multiple back to back sessions trying out 100 octane and seen no different in top speed on the straights or lap time. It's just not there.
Neither of those statements are true, however, a "100 octane calibration" might be available for ZR-1.
I agree with the above–other than the next to the last paragraph.
I do not believe that GM has "...given some thought to a scenario that might serve the aftermarket..." Just the fact that GM now voids the warranty of any vehicle which has had its PCM calibration changed to one other than a GM cal supports that belief.
My feeling is that GM is increasing ECU security for a number of reasons:
1) To decrease warranty costs
2) To reduce exposure to potential litigation
3) As part of its need to develop more aggressive computer security measures for use in future autonomous vehicles.
With all due respect, both of my statements are 100% true. Prior to the release of the ZR1, Tadge Juechter and a number of Product Managers from Corvette held some sort of a meeting with Corvette owners at the Museum/Race facility. A friend of mine attended. I believe there may still be a video of the meeting on You Tube. Tadge or the PM said the car makes max power with 100 octane gas. When asked how much less will it make with 93 he was vague. It will make less but not that much.
The day they were installing the 100 calibration on my ZO6 I was in the garage with the technician. The local tech had to call into Corvette prior to the 100 Octane installation. They started asking him questions about what I was going to do with the car, so he handed me the phone. The engineer asked me if the car was going to be tracked on a regular basis and I said yes. He then asked if I understood that the car required a minimum of 93 Octane and that max power will only come with at least 100 Octane. I said yes and returned the phone to the tech. The calibration was installed. There is a big difference in power with the 100 as opposed to the 93.
It was the same information that Tadge or the PM said at the Kentucky meeting about the ZR1.
I agree with the above–other than the next to the last paragraph.
I do not believe that GM has "...given some thought to a scenario that might serve the aftermarket..." Just the fact that GM now voids the warranty of any vehicle which has had its PCM calibration changed to one other than a GM cal supports that belief.
My feeling is that GM is increasing ECU security for a number of reasons:
1) To decrease warranty costs
2) To reduce exposure to potential litigation
3) As part of its need to develop more aggressive computer security measures for use in future autonomous vehicles.
With all due respect, both of my statements are 100% true. Prior to the release of the ZR1, Tadge Juechter and a number of Product Managers from Corvette held some sort of a meeting with Corvette owners at the Museum/Race facility. A friend of mine attended. I believe there may still be a video of the meeting on You Tube. Tadge or the PM said the car makes max power with 100 octane gas. When asked how much less will it make with 93 he was vague. It will make less but not that much.
The day they were installing the 100 calibration on my ZO6 I was in the garage with the technician. The local tech had to call into Corvette prior to the 100 Octane installation. They started asking him questions about what I was going to do with the car, so he handed me the phone. The engineer asked me if the car was going to be tracked on a regular basis and I said yes. He then asked if I understood that the car required a minimum of 93 Octane and that max power will only come with at least 100 Octane. I said yes and returned the phone to the tech. The calibration was installed. There is a big difference in power with the 100 as opposed to the 93.
It was the same information that Tadge or the PM said at the Kentucky meeting about the ZR1.
The following 2 users liked this post by Poor-sha:
Palantirion (11-12-2018),
SouthernSon (11-12-2018)
11-12-2018, 02:26 PM
#153
Le Mans Master
[QUOTE=Poor-sha;1598321283]
I think his quote is being misinterpreted. The 100 octane tune will keep the ZR1 making the full 755 HP longer than 93 octane but there is no overall HP boost. However, I've run multiple back to back sessions trying out 100 octane and seen no different in top speed on the straights or lap time. It's just not there.
I wonder if the car preemptively pulls timing based on things like coolant or engine oil temp (or heck, even gear). It's not like the car would know it's 100 octane. It may know knock/no knock, but if it's tuned to pull timing, octane won't change that.
I think his quote is being misinterpreted. The 100 octane tune will keep the ZR1 making the full 755 HP longer than 93 octane but there is no overall HP boost. However, I've run multiple back to back sessions trying out 100 octane and seen no different in top speed on the straights or lap time. It's just not there.
12-02-2018, 06:07 PM
#155
Ben,
I was thinking about the crate engine they are selling for the LT5. I have not researched it however I cannot imagine that there is not some type of a adjustable PCM control for people using this in a car project.
maybe that computer can be bought as a standalone unit. Also what about the idea of you using a Z06 PCM to control the LT5. Other than the additional injection system I don’t see how it was very that much from an LT4 Z06. Same car same transmission same everything.
Maybe the way to solve the untuneable LT5 computer is to go around it.
if anybody would know that would be you Ben
I was thinking about the crate engine they are selling for the LT5. I have not researched it however I cannot imagine that there is not some type of a adjustable PCM control for people using this in a car project.
maybe that computer can be bought as a standalone unit. Also what about the idea of you using a Z06 PCM to control the LT5. Other than the additional injection system I don’t see how it was very that much from an LT4 Z06. Same car same transmission same everything.
Maybe the way to solve the untuneable LT5 computer is to go around it.
if anybody would know that would be you Ben
12-02-2018, 08:16 PM
#156
Safety Car
Member Since: Jan 2012
Location: Cin City
Posts: 4,885
Received 481 Likes
on
317 Posts
St. Jude Donor '14
Ben,
I was thinking about the crate engine they are selling for the LT5. I have not researched it however I cannot imagine that there is not some type of a adjustable PCM control for people using this in a car project.
maybe that computer can be bought as a standalone unit. Also what about the idea of you using a Z06 PCM to control the LT5. Other than the additional injection system I don’t see how it was very that much from an LT4 Z06. Same car same transmission same everything.
Maybe the way to solve the untuneable LT5 computer is to go around it.
if anybody would know that would be you Ben
I was thinking about the crate engine they are selling for the LT5. I have not researched it however I cannot imagine that there is not some type of a adjustable PCM control for people using this in a car project.
maybe that computer can be bought as a standalone unit. Also what about the idea of you using a Z06 PCM to control the LT5. Other than the additional injection system I don’t see how it was very that much from an LT4 Z06. Same car same transmission same everything.
Maybe the way to solve the untuneable LT5 computer is to go around it.
if anybody would know that would be you Ben
trust me, I had high hopes too. we're in the process of adapting the LT5 blower to my ZL1 for now and even that is more than plug and play with the bypass valve TB
12-03-2018, 11:34 AM
#158
Drifting
12-03-2018, 12:10 PM
#160
