Subaru Outback Forums banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
2006 Subaru OUtback XT
Joined
·
88 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This is my car, not Subarus or the federal governments. I want to disable the immobilize system on my 2006 Outback XT. So has anyone done it?
 

·
Registered
2005 OBXT Ltd Obsidian Black 5MT
Joined
·
1,079 Posts
This is my car, not Subarus or the federal governments. I want to disable the immobilize system on my 2006 Outback XT. So has anyone done it?
I'm a fairly paranoid person when it comes to my vehicle, but as far as I know the immobilizer system in the '05-'09 doesn't have anything to do with Subaru or the government controlling your vehicle.

I think you've been watching too much Mr. Robot, which is fabulous by the way. But you're misinterpreting what the immobilizer does in this generation. It's not like the OnStar system that can receive outside signals and can remotely disable your vehicle.

The immobilizer systems in these models are local to the vehicle and pair the transponder in the key to the ECU of the vehicle in an effort to prevent it from starting if there is a discrepency with the key such as in the event of theft. To the best of my knowledge it is not activatable by an outside entity without physical access to your vehicle. And I don't believe that the system can effectively be exized from the car without putting in a custom ECU system.

That said, I will never own a car with OnStar or similar without taking a good pair of sidecuts to a lot of things. So change the brand of tin foil you're using and make sure to keep the dull side out. :hide:
 

·
Registered
OBW H6 VDC, Tribeca, XT6
Joined
·
12,391 Posts
No. Not easily.

The OP never said they could control it - the OP just said it is his car.
It's additional, sometimes unnecessary, failure modes that could strand a driver. That's reasonable for someone to want to decline it.
 

·
Registered
Lawn ornament XT
Joined
·
14,366 Posts
The immobilizer systems in these models are local to the vehicle and pair the transponder in the key to the ECU of the vehicle in an effort to prevent it from starting if there is a discrepency with the key such as in the event of theft. To the best of my knowledge it is not activatable by an outside entity without physical access to your vehicle. And I don't believe that the system can effectively be exized from the car without putting in a custom ECU system.
Minor correction- the immobilizer doesn't actually prevent the car from starting. It will start, but a timer also starts and if the system doesn't get a clear read from the key transponder before timeout, the system activates and cuts out the fuel subsystem. I don't know what the timeout duration is, but the general idea is that the car can be started for diagnostic purposes, but can't be driven more than a half block or so to prevent property theft.
 

·
Registered
2006 Subaru OUtback XT
Joined
·
88 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I do understand how it works and such. I also know that "THEY" can not actively control my car. But they are still in control due to the factory setup.

This site is about "US" wanting to be different than the "SHEEP" that take what they give us. "WE" change things, sometime well beyond what Suzuki and the "Fed's" had in mind. "WE" make them ours.

I just do not like having to buy a $65 blank chipped key (each) and then pay the Stealership another $75 to program my keys. And if for some reason the system kicks out my keys link I end up with a $8,000 tin rock in my driveway until I can have that same Stealership tow my car and do their magic for another Flat Rate service call plus towing.

I have a nice collection of "Tin" hats. I inherited them from my Mother-inlaw from Salem OR. She worked at the State Hospital. They make the best ones in there. ;)
 

·
Registered
2005 OBXT Ltd Obsidian Black 5MT
Joined
·
1,079 Posts
Minor correction- the immobilizer doesn't actually prevent the car from starting. It will start, but a timer also starts and if the system doesn't get a clear read from the key transponder before timeout, the system activates and cuts out the fuel subsystem. I don't know what the timeout duration is, but the general idea is that the car can be started for diagnostic purposes, but can't be driven more than a half block or so to prevent property theft.


Yes, it is a fuel cut mechanism. But in the broader sense, simply an anti-theft device, not a remote control device. The time to fuel cut is mere seconds. No way to drive the car any distance, let alone get in gear.

On my previous car, I bypassed the GM Keypass3 system by simply removing the transponder from the valet key and gluing it to the reciever. I did this to allow remote start without a transponder bypass kit. This had the weird added benefit of making it so that the car wouldn't start with my normal key: since the system would detect the still-present transponder in my normal key and the transponder from the valet key at the same time when I started with the key and it would trip the anti-theft and kill the fuel as if there was no key at all. Won a few bets that way. >:)

But as far as what OP I believe is going for is the ability for someone remotely to disable the vehicle, and that's not possible on this generation of vehicle. Newer ones, yes, but these models don't have that ability.
 

·
Registered
2006 Subaru OUtback XT
Joined
·
88 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
A German friend of mine has a Suzuki motorcycle with the immobilizer system. He took the "RING" off the ignition switch setup and glued a chipped key in it and sealed it up under the dash. Now he can start it with a common cut key.
 

·
Registered
2005 OBXT Ltd Obsidian Black 5MT
Joined
·
1,079 Posts
I do understand how it works and such. I also know that "THEY" can not actively control my car. But they are still in control due to the factory setup.

This site is about "US" wanting to be different than the "SHEEP" that take what they give us. "WE" change things, sometime well beyond what Suzuki and the "Fed's" had in mind. "WE" make them ours.

I just do not like having to buy a $65 blank chipped key (each) and then pay the Stealership another $75 to program my keys. And if for some reason the system kicks out my keys link I end up with a $8,000 tin rock in my driveway until I can have that same Stealership tow my car and do their magic for another Flat Rate service call plus towing.

I have a nice collection of "Tin" hats. I inherited them from my Mother-inlaw from Salem OR. She worked at the State Hospital. They make the best ones in there. ;)
I stand corrected.

Well, to get rid of the transponder system, you'd have to gut the entire ECU system and put in a custom ECU. They do make them, and I think they're $1-2k.

I agree that the system can completely bork your day in more ways than one and that it's a poor anti-theft system at best. But if it were easily removable, it wouldn't be a very good system.

Yeah, lots of cuckoo's flying over nests around here.
 

·
Registered
Lawn ornament XT
Joined
·
14,366 Posts
I'm not sure the ECU is the biggest issue- I know there is a cryptographic link between the key transponder and the immobilizer- and I understand that the body-integrated unit is the hardware that actually executes the immobilizer logic. That device also has a cryptographic link to the combination meter (dash gauges) to ensure odometer integrity.

I've never tried to hack my XT into madmax-level dependability, but it strikes me that whether I can keep using the stock ECU or not isn't a big deal: a lot of work would have to be done to get gauges and body-electric equipment sorted.

But why stop there? Any common automotive ECU can be remotely fried with enough radiated RF or microwave energy.

There was a great example in the early 1970s. A VW Squareback (early fuel injected model) was brought via tow-truck to a dealer service bay with a completely fried fuel injection ECU, somewhere in the American west. The technicians scratched their heads, replaced the ECU under warranty and sent it back out. It came back the very next day with the same problem. The owner reported that the car lost power at exactly the same spot on the mountain road.

It turned out that the car was passing through a telephone company microwave beam that had been directed from one hilltop to another across the path of the road.

Modern automotive processors are much hardier, but still ultimately susceptible. Maybe time to rig up a distributor, points & condenser?
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top