vehicle calibration
- Thread starter Tired Old Man
- Start date
What is curious, is that when I flashed Casper with TIS2000, everything was replaced except the O/S. None of the old files were kept; all were new. Look at the Calibration ID's, none match the original Calibration ID's that were on the truck when it was sold.
Of course all these "new" calibrations will show up on the CVN checker, but how could they be different? Unless GM got the CVN's wrong on their website.
Of course all these "new" calibrations will show up on the CVN checker, but how could they be different? Unless GM got the CVN's wrong on their website.
Pat now the question is how in to hell do I prove this???????
Victor Buick down the street done 2 updates on the ECM
Lake done the parking lot surge update
Look at your calibration 15904640
The CVN is 00003424
So is Casper. I can guarantee you that these two trucks are different.
The correct CVN for 15904640 is 3434. Not what that website says.
The CVN is 00003424
So is Casper. I can guarantee you that these two trucks are different.
The correct CVN for 15904640 is 3434. Not what that website says.
pat i get a completely differant cvn number for that calibration num.15904640 i get 00009f5b. this is through tis and check calibration page.
This is Pat:
Yes, the TIS Check Calibration website says 00009F5B.
Problem is, if you use a GM Tech2 to flash update a 2005 Duramax to the 15904640 engine operation calibration, then check the CVN using the Tech2, you will get 00003424 instead, and they will claim your warranty is void.
Yes, the TIS Check Calibration website says 00009F5B.
Problem is, if you use a GM Tech2 to flash update a 2005 Duramax to the 15904640 engine operation calibration, then check the CVN using the Tech2, you will get 00003424 instead, and they will claim your warranty is void.
WOW!!!
Look at the first CVN's I posted. This was a 10 second Race Only Big Charger Dual Fueler tune.
It has the same CVN as the stock tune!!! Exactly!
That is what I have been saying all along. The CVN doesn't know the file the file has been modified.
But why does GM have the wrong CVN's on their TIS website?
Look at the first CVN's I posted. This was a 10 second Race Only Big Charger Dual Fueler tune.
It has the same CVN as the stock tune!!! Exactly!
That is what I have been saying all along. The CVN doesn't know the file the file has been modified.
But why does GM have the wrong CVN's on their TIS website?
Ross has created a CVN explaination thread on our forum. http://forum.efilive.com/showthread.php?t=8471
Although his thread is specifically addressing the LMM programming history, the underlying CVN explaination is applicable for all vehicles.
Cheers
Cindy
Although his thread is specifically addressing the LMM programming history, the underlying CVN explaination is applicable for all vehicles.
Cheers
Cindy
Ok so how do we get this changed, or straightend out.
Is this a viable court case or is it just another way for GM to stick it to the people????
In court, GM would have to do 2 things:
Prove the vehicle was altered.
Prove the alteration was the cause of the failure.
Is it possible that the ECM might be changing an incremental field in the CALs every time it is re-flashed? This could explain the different CVN's every time the same cal is re-flashed. If that is the case, all this would tell you is that the ECM was re-flashed, not that anything was actually changed.
If you were to download the original engine cal and then flash it back into the ECM. Verify that the CVN changed. Then pull the re-flashed cal back out and use a byte comparison utility to see where the difference is between the original copy and the re-flashed copy, would you be able to see any difference? I think it's worth a try to see if one can start to make some sense out of this mess.
If you were to download the original engine cal and then flash it back into the ECM. Verify that the CVN changed. Then pull the re-flashed cal back out and use a byte comparison utility to see where the difference is between the original copy and the re-flashed copy, would you be able to see any difference? I think it's worth a try to see if one can start to make some sense out of this mess.
Pat,
Did ALL the CVN's change after you reflashed it, like they did on Tired Old Man's truck?
If the CVN truly is a checksum of the file, I can't see how it can change if the file is identical, unless the ECM increments something in the file while it's being re-flashed with the same cal's, in which case all this would tell you is that the ECM has been reflashed.
I sure would like to see what you would find if you were to compare the files using a byte comparison utility.
Tired Old Man - Did you buy the truck new?
If this were my truck, I would want to go back to the selling dealer and try to find out if the coach builder made any changes to those files before the truck was sold. It's worth the price of a new engine to find out the truth.
Three diferent dealers flashed different things before EFI came into the scene.
The reflashed tune is the one that I have saved as stock and is now in the truck that the dealer reported to GM as a non stock tune.
I pulled the truck from the STEALERSHIP and picked up my 03 and continued on my trip.
Now in Homer AK will go to lawyer when I get back and let him make GM pay the fiddler on this one, I have to prove that when the dealership flashed the ECM the CVN's changed and I think the whole thing will be a different story.
Man, I hope you are able to get this thing resolved to your satisfaction.
I have no problem with the concept of "You Play/You Pay" as long as the failure can be directly attributed to changes I made and/or non-OEM equipment I may have installed. But that thing about automatically denying warranty coverage simply because something is different from stock, even though it has no direct bearing on the failure is a crock of BS and companies need to be held accountable for abusing their customer.
I wish you the best on this.
Please, keep us posted on how things go for you. There are a lot of us pulling for you here.
I have no problem with the concept of "You Play/You Pay" as long as the failure can be directly attributed to changes I made and/or non-OEM equipment I may have installed. But that thing about automatically denying warranty coverage simply because something is different from stock, even though it has no direct bearing on the failure is a crock of BS and companies need to be held accountable for abusing their customer.
I wish you the best on this.
Please, keep us posted on how things go for you. There are a lot of us pulling for you here.