Mike@Diablosport

iTrader: (2)

FWIW...until last Tuesday, anyone with a 2011+ Chrysler vehicle with the NGC4a or GPEC2 PCM was stuck in the land of the 'untunable'...until we cracked their encryption after 2+ years of development.
Mopar released their own tuning software, which will still require the tuner to have the file uploaded to the Chrysler server to have the file 'signed', so it can be flashed to the ECU without bricking it, yet we are able to get in, read the stock tune, apply our changes, and get out with no problem.

I dont know if you are familiar with the encryption they used, or if it is in any way similar to what you are dealing with here, but I work with a lot of really talented people that have lead me to believe NOTHING is impossible, and they prove it to me time and time again.

You wont ever convince people around here that the car will come with 'enough power'....there is no such thing
As long as people want more, and there are talented people out here working to bring them more, it will happen

MeentSS02

iTrader: (11)

You could make a lot of Gen IV Viper owners very happy if you could do the same thing to that ECU.

Wnts2Go10O

iTrader: (12)

do we know who is supplying the ecm yet?

Mike@Diablosport

iTrader: (2)

either they'd have to start selling 10X more Vipers then they do, or we'd have to be selling $1500 handheld tuners to be able to justify the engineering costs....its a shame they dont use a common PCM in any of the newer Vipers, like GM does with Vettes/Camaros/Trucks/etc...

firebird99

iTrader: (2)

As bad as $1,500 sounds its a lot cheaper then the stand alone's they are forced to buy....

mshadow

Seems like the most likely scenario




Not to nerd this back up but like I mentioned in previous posts there are ways around SSL/TLS


http://www.roe.ch/SSLsplit

:-)

SSLsplit is a tool for man-in-the-middle attacks against SSL/TLS encrypted network connections. Connections are transparently intercepted through a network address translation engine and redirected to SSLsplit. SSLsplit terminates SSL/TLS and initiates a new SSL/TLS connection to the original destination address, while logging all data transmitted. SSLsplit is intended to be useful for network forensics and penetration testing.





And to put some of this in context the US government forgot to encrypt videos feeds from predator drones and they had no real budgets...I'm more then will to bet GM and their design team has very limited security exposure.

LSXNV

iTrader: (1)

Ok, I like simple. Wouldn't it be easier to convert the heads back to plain old fashioned EFI then to worry about hacking the new ECU? I mean what would you really have to do? Weld the injector boss shut, convert or design a new intake manifold and get a set of non DI pistons? You could go stand alone or modify the harness on an LS ECU. Maybe AFR or someone could do a retrofit top end kit.

ZTwentyAteU

iTrader: (12)

Yep, just like I thought, its going to be a boat anchor

Paul Bell

iTrader: (9)

I mentioned this above.

While these do look like very nice heads, once converted to port injection, I don't think they'll out perform the current crop of LS3 heads as they've matured in the area of development.

One of the "tricks" of the new LT1 DI head is the fact that it's direct injected-which cools the cylinder and allows a higher compression ratio.

Going back to port injection allows you to use the head with an "normal" ECM but you'll lose the main advantage of the design.

Paul Bell

iTrader: (9)

To do the conversion, some shop like LPE would need to do the following:

-Purchase a 2014 Corvette.
-Pull the engine, new lower compression pistons, weld the DI ports shut.
-Fabricate a custom intake manifold with port injection.
-Fabricate a fuel system.
-Fabricate a harness for a regular PCM.
-Test and choose a camshaft to work with the lower compression.

Who's gonna do all this? Who's gonna spend that kind of money?

I'll say that the aftermarket for new gen V LT1 is gonna be geared more towards bolt-ons, exhaust and intake manifolds.

Bigg_Gunz

Good Morning to all I was asked to come back here by higher authority to answer your questions.
However my personal preference is to ONLY answer questions that hasn't been asked regarding various grey areas.

If you only wish to VENT and carelessly empty your emotions regarding operations of such new implemented changes than please sit in silence. I am not here for such reasons or action.

Warmest Regards,

Bigg Gunz

Bigg_Gunz

Thinking evolves through a process. Reader's thinking changes as they gather more information. Your conclusion is sound & correct.

Bigg Gunz

Bigg_Gunz

Cost vs Performance Gains. In short not feasible.


Bigg Gunz

Bigg_Gunz

A stand alone for the engine in debate would be profoundly expensive.
A hand held tuner does NOT have the capability of programming the "ECM92" for the engine in debate.


Bigg Gunz

GMCHammer

iTrader: (4)

That GM will want to install and sell you tunes for......

LT1Altered

iTrader: (3)

Perhaps the same companies that already do these same things for just about every performance engine in existence?

caseypayne69

So it sounds like if you want to tune it. You will have to get it off the grid. Aka one key and no relations to GM server. I'm sure it would void the Warrenty. All programs can be cracked.

Ford talked about how encrypted there ecoboost motors are and yet tuners have the wide open now.

Wnts2Go10O

iTrader: (12)

Gunz, who is supplying the ecm's?

Jon5212

iTrader: (2)

This is what they said about the 2012+ LML Duramax. It's already been done and they are tuned.

To say an ECM can't be cracked and figured out is flat out stupid, where there's a will there's a way. Especially when companies will make money on it.

Edit: To add from reading your prior posts about "Safety" because of fuel pressure. Do you know what duramax diesels run for fuel rail pressure? About 10-15 TIMES more than this motor. We've been tuning duramaxs since 2001.
My biggest tune holds about 22000 PSI rail pressure at wide open throttle.

Also another thing, why would this vehicle be in "contact" with GM? Is that only when its in for service, or all the time the car has a connection to GM? I think that'd be the first thing I'd remove just like the onstar system.

Paul Bell

iTrader: (9)

Mr Gunz, I have a question: During development of this engine, at any time was testing done with these heads and a port injection system?