Removing Computers from Modern Vehicles

[Shaina11]

I'm starting to learn about cars/pickup trucks, engines and such, and I am aware that most modern vehicles have a ridiculous amount of processors in them.... including 4G LTE and WiFi. I'll tell you one thing. I will never buy a modern vehicle due to the risk of getting hacked.

Here's my question. I've heard car companies can remotely disable vehicles via computer chips. How would they do this, and which chips in the car control this? And, would it be possible to disconnect and remove that chip while maintaining a running engine?

Imagine this. A modern vehicle gets way up in age, it is now 20 years old. The manufacturer decides to end support, like computer manufacturers, only worse. They disable the vehicle so it no longer runs. Unless some how you disconnect that computer, and modify the engine to run like the computerless vehicles of the 70's and below.

Would this be possible, or will manufacturers eventually try to screw us all? And hackers have too much time to hack vehicles and kill numerous people by driving them off a cliff.

My question is essentially, can certain computers in vehicles be disabled/disconnected/removed, while keeping the engine running. Or can engines be modified to run without most computers like in the 70's?

I will forever hate auto companies if they screw with us like this, and I will never buy a "modern" vehicle.

 

[kyzarvs]

Okay... a little bit tinfoil hat

Short answer is it depends on the car, the features you want to keep (onstar or whatever it's called that the Americans have?) and your paranoia. Take my 13 year old Merc E-class commuter hack for example, it has computerised systems to control the SBC brakes, traction control, stability control, climate control, stereo, seat / mirror / wheel positioning, interior and exterior lighting, trip computer, power management, gearbox, alarm, parking sensors - that's off the top of my head and I've deliberately not gone near the engine systems. You could in theory 'disable' all of those systems and the car would run, but it wouldn't be worth driving (and in the Merc's case be dangerous as the SBC brakes depend on electronic information to work).

There are plenty of tech'ed-up cars that are near or over 20 years now, I don't think that any company would be interested in the negative press of 'disabling' cars as they age - quite the opposite. Merc, Jaguar, Lamborghini (a stretch I know) and several other manufacturers are dedicating resource to providing maintenance specifically for older vehicles. It's a small, but very lucrative market and a great mobile advertising - am I going to be more or less interested in a Jag for my next car because I regularly see old ones in great health? It adds an air of reliability to the brand.

 

[Shaina11]

Thanks for the response. I'm just starting to jump into learning about vehicles, engines and such. I'm already quite knowledgeable with computer hardware,(diagnosing, repairing.) and I'm pretty much self-taught. (Thanks to the web.) However I'm struggling to find decent sources to learn about many different types of engines, such as older models, and what has changed transitioning to newer models. Along with change comes different ways to diagnose, repair, tune, build, and find a reliable year/model/brand.

I'm hoping to eventually get a 60's/70's pickup, possibly Ford or Dodge. But before then, I want to have a general idea of how to diagnose, maintain, and repair them before I really get into it. Do you know of any good sources that explains how different year engines, and engine types/parts work?

And I hope you're right about auto companies not disabling old vehicles. And surely there will be people that if that ever happened, would find a workaround.

I also wonder how car companies are going to prevent viruses/hacks. And how consumers can remove the viruses themselves.

 

[kyzarvs]

Well certainly my old merc isn't going to get any viruses - it's a closed system and you would need physical access to the car.

Newer cars with data connections will hopefully be well designed with two (or more) tier systems that again physically separate out the vital systems (engine management etc) from the niceties so that security is maintained. I know that has already epic-failed for some cars this year and I agree with you to some extent about the worries / risk of owning an externally-accessible vehicle, but I hope this is a temporary period while manufacturers wake up to the fact they also need to be on the remote-security bandwagon. They've made massive leaps in physical security in the last 20 years or so (something you may want to consider if you end up with an old car), I'm sure they will get there.

You could of course remove the wifi / LTE aerials of a newer car in the meantime so the car just thinks it is out of range and carries on?

Good luck with your plan - I don't know a great deal about old American pickups (being from the UK), but if you ever need to strip down a 50s, 60s, or 70s UK roadster, look me up

 

[Shaun o]

It`s pretty simple, the more electronics and computer controlled parts you fit to a car.

The more dependant in order for that car to run, or if it develops a fault with it the more you need or have to spend with the maker of the car to put things right.

Since for most people it is far beyond there understanding to be able to fix the problem.

So the manufacturer of the car ends up making more money out of the person who bought it off them.
Insuring that the company or manufacturer will make more profit even after the initial sale of the car.

The more dependant the car and all the parts are controlled and tied to things like EMU chips to control the functions of the engine it`s a winner for the car manufacturer.

 

[Shaina11]

Well certainly my old merc isn't going to get any viruses - it's a closed system and you would need physical access to the car.

Newer cars with data connections will hopefully be well designed with two (or more) tier systems that again physically separate out the vital systems (engine management etc) from the niceties so that security is maintained. I know that has already epic-failed for some cars this year and I agree with you to some extent about the worries / risk of owning an externally-accessible vehicle, but I hope this is a temporary period while manufacturers wake up to the fact they also need to be on the remote-security bandwagon. They've made massive leaps in physical security in the last 20 years or so (something you may want to consider if you end up with an old car), I'm sure they will get there.

You could of course remove the wifi / LTE aerials of a newer car in the meantime so the car just thinks it is out of range and carries on?

Good luck with your plan - I don't know a great deal about old American pickups (being from the UK), but if you ever need to strip down a 50s, 60s, or 70s UK roadster, look me up

That's something I read about. Keeping the multimedia connection/computer separate from the engine control processors, and never linking the two computers in any way, otherwise an intelligent hacker will find a way around the security to hack it remotely, amplified due to including wireless and internet capability in new cars. Aren't our "phones" enough? IMO, Social Media is already overused and obsessed over. (I typically have nothing to talk about to anyone lol. I'm relatively boring. Plus, I can find better things to waste my time with than reading about other peoples lives.) Phones used to be just that too. Phones. Calls, and that's it.

Thanks for the luck wishing, and hopefully I can find some good sources, and I'll definitely keep you in mind if I ever find a UK roadster.

BTW, that Mercedes is pretty fancy.

It`s pretty simple, the more electronics and computer controlled parts you fit to a car.

The more dependant in order for that car to run, or if it develops a fault with it the more you need or have to spend with the maker of the car to put things right.

Since for most people it is far beyond there understanding to be able to fix the problem.

So the manufacturer of the car ends up making more money out of the person who bought it off them.
Insuring that the company or manufacturer will make more profit even after the initial sale of the car.

The more dependant the car and all the parts are controlled and tied to things like EMU chips to control the functions of the engine it`s a winner for the car manufacturer.

Yup, and with how cheap things are made these days, you'd swear they're designed to fail at a certain point. Oh wait....

*Sigh* Don't you miss the good ol' days, when things were built like tanks, we had real wood, and things actually lasted?

I am very much a DIY kind of guy, and absolutely hate being dependent on anyone, company or otherwise. Thus why I want to learn as much as I can on diagnosing, repairing, and maintaining everything I can, and finding the right tools to do so. So much to learn, and so little time....

 

[kyzarvs]

It`s pretty simple, the more electronics and computer controlled parts you fit to a car.

The more dependant in order for that car to run, or if it develops a fault with it the more you need or have to spend with the maker of the car to put things right.

Since for most people it is far beyond there understanding to be able to fix the problem.

So the manufacturer of the car ends up making more money out of the person who bought it off them.
Insuring that the company or manufacturer will make more profit even after the initial sale of the car.

The more dependant the car and all the parts are controlled and tied to things like EMU chips to control the functions of the engine it`s a winner for the car manufacturer.

I agree with that in principle, but with some qualification. For example, I'm more than happy to plug in an ODBII reader into the diagnostic socket on my cars, find the error reported and research / fix the sensor or actuator that is broken (actual CPU / circuitry failure is rare - it's pretty much always something that feeds data to the CPU). However, I'd struggle to balance a set of 70's carbs perfectly. Not saying it's easy or foolproof (there is a lot of interpretation of the raw data required), but I do well enough fixing the cars I've run (Fords, Toyota's and Mercs mainly in the last few years) to never worry about buying new - even on my 50k+ p.a. mileage. I only go to dealers for services to keep the history looking good. I am just too tight to buy a new car that will be an old trade-in within a couple of years

 

[anoncoward]

I am a hacker.

The most modern cars now have *complete* autonomous driving capacity.

Push a button next to your morning coffeemaker, and you car will drive itself out of your garage and patiently await for you to get in at your door.

Fully autonomous cars have killed (murdered?) several people so far, including innocent motorcyclists and the cars driver. So far, this has been blamed on software malfunction, not intentional malice; but hey; the smartest hackers think ahead and would no-doubt plan to make these incidents *appear* accidental even if they were not...

It's not manufacturer malice you need to worry about, it is their ineptitude (inability to secure their machines), and hacker cleverness.

Car computers are broadly called "IoT". These are extremely easy to reverse engineer and hack, and you are right - they're connected to many different networks and incoming digital data streams, including wifi, ble, 3g/4g, gps, keyless remotes, NFC keys, and probably more, plus they have electronic sensors controlling how the computers in the car behave.

You can get certain kinds of IoT computers which are not hackable over networks - specifically - chips which do not have any wireless networking in them at all. For example, a plain "Arduino" chip, like a "TINY85". These are versatile programmable mini-computers which can do almost anything once programmed. Every drone you see flying in the sky uses an Arduino brain, for example (other chips, *not* the Arduino itself, supply the drone with network data). Every brushless-motor speed controller also uses Arduino too. They're everywhere.

You cannot use a modern car without computers, however, you can *replace* all the computers in a modern car with Arduinos, once the Arduino is suitably programmed.

The result would be a car that cannot be hacked without the hacker getting physical access to the car (and if they wanted to kill you, there's plenty easier ways to do that if they've physically gotten in to your car!).

This is not "tin foil hat" conspiracy stuff - it's plain boring fact. Where once-upon-a-time spy agencies used to have to fly to the other side of the world to assassinate people (with all the risks of getting found out), they can now do this with the push of a button without going anywhere, and practically no chance of anyone ever knowing.

To make an Arduino-Car become reality, you would need to spur a "cottage industry" of "car modders" to reverse-engineer car systems and produce these replacement Arduinos for your vehicle though. The bad news: that's tricky. The good news: hackers are very clever, and cannot resist doing new and even cooler things: an Arduino-powered car would be capable of improve performance or efficiency or emissions depending on how you decided to program it, and have loads of other features you could enjoy.

 

[Ralston18]

One thought that I keep having is that the insurance companies will profit. They accept insurance premiums but will rarely pay out because legal actions via the courts will take years.....

Who is to blame for some accident or "event"? Hardware, software, firmware, the design, the manufacturer, the parts makers, a hacker, or the kids in the back seat playing online games?

We all pay extra for "uninsured drivers" as things are now - not really helpful when bad things do happen. Too much fine print and legalize.... Profitablily and campaign donations rule.

Conceptually the ideas are great and doable. Realistically, the cynic in me has doubts.