Pairing New Fob

4 months 3 weeks ago #193416 by dert
Cannot recall if the last digit matched, also; I only actually use the fob with one TF, I programmed it to two just to see if it would :) Oddly, just checked the bar code on the barcode checker would state it was a valid code and it says no...yet it programmed :) bar code was/is *N71BAAD5BDC7766B092C7M* is NOT a valid Pektron barcode.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

4 months 3 weeks ago #193418 by mgillam
Ok. I'm even more confused now. I decided to try it again ..... and it works even though it still said "programming failed" and the last digit was incorrect.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

4 months 3 weeks ago - 4 months 3 weeks ago #193419 by dert
Just programmed a spare (new) red fob I've got to a 06 plated TF PScan went through the motions said all programmed and works fine. Oddly, yet again with the barcode checker it comes up with *N24195AF6744B6AAE665FM* is NOT a valid Pektron barcode but it worked fine.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

4 months 3 weeks ago - 4 months 3 weeks ago #193422 by pscan.uk

mgillam wrote: Ok. I'm even more confused now. I decided to try it again ..... and it works even though it still said "programming failed" and the last digit was incorrect.


I think that I can explain this. If you program a new fob, and then program the same new fob again then the Pektron seems to be clever enough to recognise that you are programming a fob that it already knows about. Instead of burning one of its ten slots it refuses and that's why pscan says "programming failed". I can't be certain but that's my best guess. Concerning the last digit....

dert wrote: Just programmed a spare (new) red fob I've got to a 06 plated TF PScan went through the motions said all programmed and works fine. Oddly, yet again with the barcode checker it comes up with *N24195AF6744B6AAE665FM* is NOT a valid Pektron barcode but it worked fine.


I tried to program *N24195AF6744B6AAE665FM* on my T4 and it would not accept it.
The checksum digit does not actually get sent by T4 or pscan to the Pektron.
The algorithm is used on the T4 basically to check that you haven't entered it wrong. It prevents typos and as I said above a typo would cost you one of the ten slots in the Pektron key store.
pscan is different; it warns you that the checksum is wrong but lets you send it anyway if you want.
It seems that these cheap fobs have correct first 21 digits and they do (sometimes) actually work, but their checksum algorithm for the 22nd character is wrong.

If you were using a T4 to program one then you would be hosed, but because pscan allows you to enter the wrong one you get away with it.

So pscan is better for coding Pektron fobs than the proper dealer tool :woohoo:

and we (not me, the other guy in pscan) were better at reverse engineering the checksum algo than keydiy :woohoo:
The following user(s) said Thank You: mgillam

Please Log in to join the conversation.

4 months 3 weeks ago #193442 by pscan.uk
I think I have spotted a pattern.

The 22nd digit on these red keydiy fobs is always an M.

am I right?

Please Log in to join the conversation.

4 months 3 weeks ago #193448 by dert

pscan.uk wrote: I think I have spotted a pattern.

The 22nd digit on these red keydiy fobs is always an M.

am I right?


Likely to be as the two codes I've still access to here both end with M

Please Log in to join the conversation.

4 months 3 weeks ago #193449 by pscan.uk
One of the ebay sellers who sells this was kind enough to come back to me and tell me that they are always an M.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

3 months 3 weeks ago - 3 months 3 weeks ago #193685 by Kiwi2001MGF
Has anyone paired a remote for a Japanese Import MGTF?
I went to help someone tonight with a 2004 TF and the remote code starts with a P, the options on the PScan are N & O

After looking at the instructions we decided not to go any further.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

3 months 3 weeks ago #193686 by pscan.uk
The 'N', 'O' or 'P' do not actually get transmitted from the diagnostic tool to the car, and neither is the last "checksum" character.
They are there simply to check that you entered the central 20 digits correctly.

If you want to you can select 'N' or 'O' instead of 'P', enter the next 20 digits very, very carefully, and double check them, and then commit.

You should be okay, but it's at your own risk.

Provided that you don't press the buttons on the fob two many times it doesn't really matter if it doesn't work.

so what could go wrong:-
If you press the fob buttons too many times then the rolling code "rolls" and the initial 22 digit code is no longer useful and so the fob is useless.
The Pektron has ten memory slots with two taken from the factory and so you have eight left to play with. Adding a new fob burns one of the eight. But hey you still have six left, and Technozen can clear them.

So I would say it's worth giving it a go.

I will add the 'P' in a future update.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

3 months 3 weeks ago #193687 by Kiwi2001MGF

pscan.uk wrote: The 'N', 'O' or 'P' do not actually get transmitted from the diagnostic tool to the car, and neither is the last "checksum" character.
They are there simply to check that you entered the central 20 digits correctly.

If you want to you can select 'N' or 'O' instead of 'P', enter the next 20 digits very, very carefully, and double check them, and then commit.

You should be okay, but it's at your own risk.

Provided that you don't press the buttons on the fob two many times it doesn't really matter if it doesn't work.

so what could go wrong:-
If you press the fob buttons too many times then the rolling code "rolls" and the initial 22 digit code is no longer useful and so the fob is useless.
The Pektron has ten memory slots with two taken from the factory and so you have eight left to play with. Adding a new fob burns one of the eight. But hey you still have six left, and Technozen can clear them.

So I would say it's worth giving it a go.

I will add the 'P' in a future update.


thank you for the quick response
I'm in New Zealand so about as far as possible from Technozen but it is good to know there is an option if required.
Martin

Please Log in to join the conversation.

3 months 2 weeks ago #193705 by Kiwi2001MGF
it worked
Thank you
The following user(s) said Thank You: talkingcars, cairnsys

Please Log in to join the conversation.

3 months 1 week ago - 3 months 1 week ago #193810 by mgtfbluestreak

Nik P wrote: When I was working at Longbridge the rolling code was seen as a security feature to prevent scanners getting the code. They also shortened the distance the FOBs worked to help prevent scanners picking up the codes from a distance.

Yes in the 90s scanners were common on the street....I owned one being a radio enthusiast...they would virtually pick any frequency that came in range of it...even mobile phones ... (not that I did😋)....the scanners themselves were harmless enough it was when they were plugged into a cub..
.the cub could be plugged inline with the scanner only receiving close frequencies. ...if a rogue operater with a scanner and cub was sitting by your car ...then the cub would certainly catch the frequency of the fob...so having a fob with a small range is better against this type of detection....
Scanner and cub pictured below.




And this is the cub

Attachments:

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Moderators: pscan.uk
Time to create page: 0.154 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum