95 Maxima is ODB-II !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
01-05-2001, 11:50 PM
#1
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
I was looking thru the site http://www.obd-ii.com and came across something very interesting. According to CARB, the 95 Nissan Maxima is OBD-II compliant and CERTIFIED. I thinking this pretty much ends the debate about the 95 Maximas being OBD-I and with the least restrictions.
Dave
Dave
01-06-2001, 05:05 PM
#3
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
Go to the site and you will see that ALL versions of the 95 Maxima are dertified OBD-II compliant by CARB standards. Also in the site they do describe how some 95 models can be OBD-I and OBD-II. The list they give is for confirmed OBD-II cars for 95.
Dave
Dave
01-06-2001, 05:22 PM
#4
why in the world did they do that
Would it make a difference of any kind if its obd-1 or obd-II. Because I do plan on buying a 4th gen max this summer like 95-96 maxima. So should I be in any kind of concern of this change with OBD-1 and OBD-2.
01-07-2001, 01:14 AM
#5
Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Greater Los Angeles Area
Posts: 97
Old news...
I've brought that up about the '95 cars being OBD-II compliant last August when I pointed out how Nissan had published relating TSBs to their dealers at the introduction of the 4th Gen '95 cars back in May of 1994 detailing how to work with the new models cars.
And it would only be logical for Nissan to design their cars to be OBD-II compliant from the beginning, so that they wouldn't have to redesign the car and spend more R&D money on it after one year of production. Right?
You can read my post and the reference site(s) at
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/nissanmaxima and click on the "Messages" section and enter Message #6528 to see for yourself.
And it would only be logical for Nissan to design their cars to be OBD-II compliant from the beginning, so that they wouldn't have to redesign the car and spend more R&D money on it after one year of production. Right?
You can read my post and the reference site(s) at
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/nissanmaxima and click on the "Messages" section and enter Message #6528 to see for yourself.
01-07-2001, 08:07 AM
#6
Donating Maxima.org Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,931
Well, Nissan didn't build the 4th gen to meet upcoming crash standards from the beginning. They revamped it in the middle of the generation ('97), so there's no reason for them to not change the engine management equipment. Carmakers are always fine-tuning and improving models during their production run- not just between generations.
01-07-2001, 09:27 AM
#7
Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Greater Los Angeles Area
Posts: 97
Re: Old news...
Crash worthiness of the chassis and on board diagnistics system compliance are two different things.
You can design OBD-II from the get-go and be done with it (as my Yahoo Maxima Club post showed as well as what Dave's post showed too), but you can't be absolutely sure about chassis crash tests if you're Nissan for example, trying to balance the design of a lightweight chassis (like that of the 4th Gen A32 chassis) against meeting the crash test parameters AND meeting a certain price point for the car without some finetuning like they had to do in '97.
And by the way, the 4th gens only needed minor beefing up of the front and rear bumper foam material to get upgraded, which doesn't require too much work anyway.
Which brings us back to the original point of this thread that given the evidence Dave and I have given, as well as how anyone with a '95 car can verify by looking under their steering wheel column and seeing the OBD-II mandated diagnostics connector which plugs into the standard OBD-II testing devices, logic would dictate that it's there. Otherwise, why would they have such a plug to connect dealers' diagnostics devices (Nissan CONSULT devices) if it didn't work?
And if you want additional info, ask anyone with a '95 Maxima factory service manual to have them read the section pertaining to this, and you'll have additional proof asserting the OBD-II systems being implemented for that year.
So from this point forward, anyone who wants to contend that the '95 cars did not have OBD-II system on them must get an official Nissan of North America document asserting this or just accept the evidence laid out to everyone in plain sight.
--Nabil
You can design OBD-II from the get-go and be done with it (as my Yahoo Maxima Club post showed as well as what Dave's post showed too), but you can't be absolutely sure about chassis crash tests if you're Nissan for example, trying to balance the design of a lightweight chassis (like that of the 4th Gen A32 chassis) against meeting the crash test parameters AND meeting a certain price point for the car without some finetuning like they had to do in '97.
And by the way, the 4th gens only needed minor beefing up of the front and rear bumper foam material to get upgraded, which doesn't require too much work anyway.
Which brings us back to the original point of this thread that given the evidence Dave and I have given, as well as how anyone with a '95 car can verify by looking under their steering wheel column and seeing the OBD-II mandated diagnostics connector which plugs into the standard OBD-II testing devices, logic would dictate that it's there. Otherwise, why would they have such a plug to connect dealers' diagnostics devices (Nissan CONSULT devices) if it didn't work?
And if you want additional info, ask anyone with a '95 Maxima factory service manual to have them read the section pertaining to this, and you'll have additional proof asserting the OBD-II systems being implemented for that year.
So from this point forward, anyone who wants to contend that the '95 cars did not have OBD-II system on them must get an official Nissan of North America document asserting this or just accept the evidence laid out to everyone in plain sight.
--Nabil
Originally posted by Nabil
I've brought that up about the '95 cars being OBD-II compliant last August when I pointed out how Nissan had published relating TSBs to their dealers at the introduction of the 4th Gen '95 cars back in May of 1994 detailing how to work with the new models cars.
And it would only be logical for Nissan to design their cars to be OBD-II compliant from the beginning, so that they wouldn't have to redesign the car and spend more R&D money on it after one year of production. Right?
You can read my post and the reference site(s) at
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/nissanmaxima and click on the "Messages" section and enter Message #6528 to see for yourself.
I've brought that up about the '95 cars being OBD-II compliant last August when I pointed out how Nissan had published relating TSBs to their dealers at the introduction of the 4th Gen '95 cars back in May of 1994 detailing how to work with the new models cars.
And it would only be logical for Nissan to design their cars to be OBD-II compliant from the beginning, so that they wouldn't have to redesign the car and spend more R&D money on it after one year of production. Right?
You can read my post and the reference site(s) at
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/nissanmaxima and click on the "Messages" section and enter Message #6528 to see for yourself.
01-07-2001, 09:38 AM
#8
The missing moderator
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,019
Re: Re: Old news...
Ok, then I have questions... what's the deal with the BS that JWT has been feeding us about no being able to crack OBD-II ECUs? Or even UPRD not being able to crack later ECUs? I am just wondering since whta I've heard in the beginning was that OBD II makes it somewhat more difficult to crack.
-Shing
-Shing
Originally posted by Nabil
Crash worthiness of the chassis and on board diagnistics system compliance are two different things.
You can design OBD-II from the get-go and be done with it (as my Yahoo Maxima Club post showed as well as what Dave's post showed too), but you can't be absolutely sure about chassis crash tests if you're Nissan for example, trying to balance the design of a lightweight chassis (like that of the 4th Gen A32 chassis) against meeting the crash test parameters AND meeting a certain price point for the car without some finetuning like they had to do in '97.
And by the way, the 4th gens only needed minor beefing up of the front and rear bumper foam material to get upgraded, which doesn't require too much work anyway.
Which brings us back to the original point of this thread that given the evidence Dave and I have given, as well as how anyone with a '95 car can verify by looking under their steering wheel column and seeing the OBD-II mandated diagnostics connector which plugs into the standard OBD-II testing devices, logic would dictate that it's there. Otherwise, why would they have such a plug to connect dealers' diagnostics devices (Nissan CONSULT devices) if it didn't work?
And if you want additional info, ask anyone with a '95 Maxima factory service manual to have them read the section pertaining to this, and you'll have additional proof asserting the OBD-II systems being implemented for that year.
So from this point forward, anyone who wants to contend that the '95 cars did not have OBD-II system on them must get an official Nissan of North America document asserting this or just accept the evidence laid out to everyone in plain sight.
--Nabil
Crash worthiness of the chassis and on board diagnistics system compliance are two different things.
You can design OBD-II from the get-go and be done with it (as my Yahoo Maxima Club post showed as well as what Dave's post showed too), but you can't be absolutely sure about chassis crash tests if you're Nissan for example, trying to balance the design of a lightweight chassis (like that of the 4th Gen A32 chassis) against meeting the crash test parameters AND meeting a certain price point for the car without some finetuning like they had to do in '97.
And by the way, the 4th gens only needed minor beefing up of the front and rear bumper foam material to get upgraded, which doesn't require too much work anyway.
Which brings us back to the original point of this thread that given the evidence Dave and I have given, as well as how anyone with a '95 car can verify by looking under their steering wheel column and seeing the OBD-II mandated diagnostics connector which plugs into the standard OBD-II testing devices, logic would dictate that it's there. Otherwise, why would they have such a plug to connect dealers' diagnostics devices (Nissan CONSULT devices) if it didn't work?
And if you want additional info, ask anyone with a '95 Maxima factory service manual to have them read the section pertaining to this, and you'll have additional proof asserting the OBD-II systems being implemented for that year.
So from this point forward, anyone who wants to contend that the '95 cars did not have OBD-II system on them must get an official Nissan of North America document asserting this or just accept the evidence laid out to everyone in plain sight.
--Nabil
Originally posted by Nabil
I've brought that up about the '95 cars being OBD-II compliant last August when I pointed out how Nissan had published relating TSBs to their dealers at the introduction of the 4th Gen '95 cars back in May of 1994 detailing how to work with the new models cars.
And it would only be logical for Nissan to design their cars to be OBD-II compliant from the beginning, so that they wouldn't have to redesign the car and spend more R&D money on it after one year of production. Right?
You can read my post and the reference site(s) at
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/nissanmaxima and click on the "Messages" section and enter Message #6528 to see for yourself.
I've brought that up about the '95 cars being OBD-II compliant last August when I pointed out how Nissan had published relating TSBs to their dealers at the introduction of the 4th Gen '95 cars back in May of 1994 detailing how to work with the new models cars.
And it would only be logical for Nissan to design their cars to be OBD-II compliant from the beginning, so that they wouldn't have to redesign the car and spend more R&D money on it after one year of production. Right?
You can read my post and the reference site(s) at
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/nissanmaxima and click on the "Messages" section and enter Message #6528 to see for yourself.
01-07-2001, 10:24 AM
#9
Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Greater Los Angeles Area
Posts: 97
Re: Re: Re: Old news...
Hey Shing,
The BS that JWT feeds anyone who asks about it is just that: BS.
Heck, remember that my car is a '96 (which is universally agreed upon that it is OBD-II) and it was I who had my car taken down to UPRD back in September and had them upgrade my ECU.
The challenge that UPRD pointed to with regards to upgrading the 97 and later ECUs lies in the fact that the daughterboard that UPRD had originally designed to solder onto the first Nissan ECU boards didn't fit the different design of the '97+ ECUs... That's the reason, and no other, and they even said to me and Cheston at the time that if they got enough demand on the ECUs then they would develop a new daughter board for the '97 and later ECUs. But that's not going to happen because there aren't enough buyers out there.
As for the programming itself, it was straightforward, as I've seen what UPRD did with my ECU since they were nice enough to let me and Cheston witness the whole operation.
They desoldered a chip from the ECU and put it on a reader machine they had and downloaded the stock air/fuel/timing maps onto their computer. They then resoldered that chip back where it was located.
Then they used their computer to analyze the tables, and with my input on how far the car can safely be tweaked with normal bolt-ons, they dialed in tweaks into the timing and fuel maps.
Once the modifications were completed to the tables, the engineer then uploaded those new tables onto the programmable UPRD chip which resides on their daughterboard and then he took that daughterboard and soldered it onto the ECU board itself to override the maps which the Nissan ECU reads for it's operation.
And so the challenge to '97+ ECUs that UPRD has pointed to is basically that a new daughtercard is needed as the pins to solder the current daughterboard they had would not correspond correctly on '97+ ECU boards such as the ones in '97 and later cars.
--Nabil.
The BS that JWT feeds anyone who asks about it is just that: BS.
Heck, remember that my car is a '96 (which is universally agreed upon that it is OBD-II) and it was I who had my car taken down to UPRD back in September and had them upgrade my ECU.
The challenge that UPRD pointed to with regards to upgrading the 97 and later ECUs lies in the fact that the daughterboard that UPRD had originally designed to solder onto the first Nissan ECU boards didn't fit the different design of the '97+ ECUs... That's the reason, and no other, and they even said to me and Cheston at the time that if they got enough demand on the ECUs then they would develop a new daughter board for the '97 and later ECUs. But that's not going to happen because there aren't enough buyers out there.
As for the programming itself, it was straightforward, as I've seen what UPRD did with my ECU since they were nice enough to let me and Cheston witness the whole operation.
They desoldered a chip from the ECU and put it on a reader machine they had and downloaded the stock air/fuel/timing maps onto their computer. They then resoldered that chip back where it was located.
Then they used their computer to analyze the tables, and with my input on how far the car can safely be tweaked with normal bolt-ons, they dialed in tweaks into the timing and fuel maps.
Once the modifications were completed to the tables, the engineer then uploaded those new tables onto the programmable UPRD chip which resides on their daughterboard and then he took that daughterboard and soldered it onto the ECU board itself to override the maps which the Nissan ECU reads for it's operation.
And so the challenge to '97+ ECUs that UPRD has pointed to is basically that a new daughtercard is needed as the pins to solder the current daughterboard they had would not correspond correctly on '97+ ECU boards such as the ones in '97 and later cars.
--Nabil.
Originally posted by Shingles
Ok, then I have questions... what's the deal with the BS that JWT has been feeding us about no being able to crack OBD-II ECUs? Or even UPRD not being able to crack later ECUs? I am just wondering since whta I've heard in the beginning was that OBD II makes it somewhat more difficult to crack.
-Shing
Ok, then I have questions... what's the deal with the BS that JWT has been feeding us about no being able to crack OBD-II ECUs? Or even UPRD not being able to crack later ECUs? I am just wondering since whta I've heard in the beginning was that OBD II makes it somewhat more difficult to crack.
-Shing
Originally posted by Nabil
Crash worthiness of the chassis and on board diagnistics system compliance are two different things.
You can design OBD-II from the get-go and be done with it (as my Yahoo Maxima Club post showed as well as what Dave's post showed too), but you can't be absolutely sure about chassis crash tests if you're Nissan for example, trying to balance the design of a lightweight chassis (like that of the 4th Gen A32 chassis) against meeting the crash test parameters AND meeting a certain price point for the car without some finetuning like they had to do in '97.
And by the way, the 4th gens only needed minor beefing up of the front and rear bumper foam material to get upgraded, which doesn't require too much work anyway.
Which brings us back to the original point of this thread that given the evidence Dave and I have given, as well as how anyone with a '95 car can verify by looking under their steering wheel column and seeing the OBD-II mandated diagnostics connector which plugs into the standard OBD-II testing devices, logic would dictate that it's there. Otherwise, why would they have such a plug to connect dealers' diagnostics devices (Nissan CONSULT devices) if it didn't work?
And if you want additional info, ask anyone with a '95 Maxima factory service manual to have them read the section pertaining to this, and you'll have additional proof asserting the OBD-II systems being implemented for that year.
So from this point forward, anyone who wants to contend that the '95 cars did not have OBD-II system on them must get an official Nissan of North America document asserting this or just accept the evidence laid out to everyone in plain sight.
--Nabil
Crash worthiness of the chassis and on board diagnistics system compliance are two different things.
You can design OBD-II from the get-go and be done with it (as my Yahoo Maxima Club post showed as well as what Dave's post showed too), but you can't be absolutely sure about chassis crash tests if you're Nissan for example, trying to balance the design of a lightweight chassis (like that of the 4th Gen A32 chassis) against meeting the crash test parameters AND meeting a certain price point for the car without some finetuning like they had to do in '97.
And by the way, the 4th gens only needed minor beefing up of the front and rear bumper foam material to get upgraded, which doesn't require too much work anyway.
Which brings us back to the original point of this thread that given the evidence Dave and I have given, as well as how anyone with a '95 car can verify by looking under their steering wheel column and seeing the OBD-II mandated diagnostics connector which plugs into the standard OBD-II testing devices, logic would dictate that it's there. Otherwise, why would they have such a plug to connect dealers' diagnostics devices (Nissan CONSULT devices) if it didn't work?
And if you want additional info, ask anyone with a '95 Maxima factory service manual to have them read the section pertaining to this, and you'll have additional proof asserting the OBD-II systems being implemented for that year.
So from this point forward, anyone who wants to contend that the '95 cars did not have OBD-II system on them must get an official Nissan of North America document asserting this or just accept the evidence laid out to everyone in plain sight.
--Nabil
Originally posted by Nabil
I've brought that up about the '95 cars being OBD-II compliant last August when I pointed out how Nissan had published relating TSBs to their dealers at the introduction of the 4th Gen '95 cars back in May of 1994 detailing how to work with the new models cars.
And it would only be logical for Nissan to design their cars to be OBD-II compliant from the beginning, so that they wouldn't have to redesign the car and spend more R&D money on it after one year of production. Right?
You can read my post and the reference site(s) at
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/nissanmaxima and click on the "Messages" section and enter Message #6528 to see for yourself.
I've brought that up about the '95 cars being OBD-II compliant last August when I pointed out how Nissan had published relating TSBs to their dealers at the introduction of the 4th Gen '95 cars back in May of 1994 detailing how to work with the new models cars.
And it would only be logical for Nissan to design their cars to be OBD-II compliant from the beginning, so that they wouldn't have to redesign the car and spend more R&D money on it after one year of production. Right?
You can read my post and the reference site(s) at
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/nissanmaxima and click on the "Messages" section and enter Message #6528 to see for yourself.
01-07-2001, 10:37 AM
#10
im gonna go see robert within the next week or so to get this stupid deal finished....
i also might have found a solution to the rear o2 sensor blip.. an o2 simulator.. need to try that out tho...
the best thing? i drove to LA using the UPRD ecu in the car: i got 32 miles a gallon. !!!!!!!!
doing 90 the whole way... that is amazing for me...
i also might have found a solution to the rear o2 sensor blip.. an o2 simulator.. need to try that out tho...
the best thing? i drove to LA using the UPRD ecu in the car: i got 32 miles a gallon. !!!!!!!!
doing 90 the whole way... that is amazing for me...
01-07-2001, 10:41 AM
#11
Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Greater Los Angeles Area
Posts: 97
Hey Doug,
With all due respect and I don't mean to bruise your ego or anything, but Dave and I have provided proof that corroborates our assertion saying the '95 Maximas have OBD-II, and all you've countered with is your opinion with no proof to back up your word.
Sorry, but that alone doesn't stand up as a fact. So guess who needs to back up their claim with some evidence?
And if you still feel so strongly about your assertion, I suggest going to the source and getting an official Nissan of North America document backing up such claims, and I'll happily agree with your point.
--Nabil
P.S. This was not a flame response, so please don't start with personal attacks.
With all due respect and I don't mean to bruise your ego or anything, but Dave and I have provided proof that corroborates our assertion saying the '95 Maximas have OBD-II, and all you've countered with is your opinion with no proof to back up your word.
Sorry, but that alone doesn't stand up as a fact. So guess who needs to back up their claim with some evidence?
And if you still feel so strongly about your assertion, I suggest going to the source and getting an official Nissan of North America document backing up such claims, and I'll happily agree with your point.
--Nabil
P.S. This was not a flame response, so please don't start with personal attacks.
Originally posted by doug
you boys can sit up here and argue all you want.. because as i said in my first post
the first 95 Maxima's had OBD-I and the later had OBD-II
how do you know?
you look for the OBD-II connector in your max...
some 95 maxes have them and some don't...
which ones don't?
my 95 Max did not.. you know why? because it was OBD-I
keep this going i like how you guys are trying to argue a point that is not there...
you boys can sit up here and argue all you want.. because as i said in my first post
the first 95 Maxima's had OBD-I and the later had OBD-II
how do you know?
you look for the OBD-II connector in your max...
some 95 maxes have them and some don't...
which ones don't?
my 95 Max did not.. you know why? because it was OBD-I
keep this going i like how you guys are trying to argue a point that is not there...
01-07-2001, 04:29 PM
#12
The missing moderator
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,019
Re: Re: Re: Re: Old news...
Nabil,
Gotcha, makes a lot more sense now. Heh, proves my point all along, that JWT does not give a rats *** about the Maxima community.
thanks,
-Shing
[/I][/QUOTE] [/I][/QUOTE] [/I][/QUOTE]
Gotcha, makes a lot more sense now. Heh, proves my point all along, that JWT does not give a rats *** about the Maxima community.
thanks,
-Shing
Originally posted by Nabil
Hey Shing,
The BS that JWT feeds anyone who asks about it is just that: BS.
Heck, remember that my car is a '96 (which is universally agreed upon that it is OBD-II) and it was I who had my car taken down to UPRD back in September and had them upgrade my ECU.
The challenge that UPRD pointed to with regards to upgrading the 97 and later ECUs lies in the fact that the daughterboard that UPRD had originally designed to solder onto the first Nissan ECU boards didn't fit the different design of the '97+ ECUs... That's the reason, and no other, and they even said to me and Cheston at the time that if they got enough demand on the ECUs then they would develop a new daughter board for the '97 and later ECUs. But that's not going to happen because there aren't enough buyers out there.
As for the programming itself, it was straightforward, as I've seen what UPRD did with my ECU since they were nice enough to let me and Cheston witness the whole operation.
They desoldered a chip from the ECU and put it on a reader machine they had and downloaded the stock air/fuel/timing maps onto their computer. They then resoldered that chip back where it was located.
Then they used their computer to analyze the tables, and with my input on how far the car can safely be tweaked with normal bolt-ons, they dialed in tweaks into the timing and fuel maps.
Once the modifications were completed to the tables, the engineer then uploaded those new tables onto the programmable UPRD chip which resides on their daughterboard and then he took that daughterboard and soldered it onto the ECU board itself to override the maps which the Nissan ECU reads for it's operation.
And so the challenge to '97+ ECUs that UPRD has pointed to is basically that a new daughtercard is needed as the pins to solder the current daughterboard they had would not correspond correctly on '97+ ECU boards such as the ones in '97 and later cars.
--Nabil.
.
Hey Shing,
The BS that JWT feeds anyone who asks about it is just that: BS.
Heck, remember that my car is a '96 (which is universally agreed upon that it is OBD-II) and it was I who had my car taken down to UPRD back in September and had them upgrade my ECU.
The challenge that UPRD pointed to with regards to upgrading the 97 and later ECUs lies in the fact that the daughterboard that UPRD had originally designed to solder onto the first Nissan ECU boards didn't fit the different design of the '97+ ECUs... That's the reason, and no other, and they even said to me and Cheston at the time that if they got enough demand on the ECUs then they would develop a new daughter board for the '97 and later ECUs. But that's not going to happen because there aren't enough buyers out there.
As for the programming itself, it was straightforward, as I've seen what UPRD did with my ECU since they were nice enough to let me and Cheston witness the whole operation.
They desoldered a chip from the ECU and put it on a reader machine they had and downloaded the stock air/fuel/timing maps onto their computer. They then resoldered that chip back where it was located.
Then they used their computer to analyze the tables, and with my input on how far the car can safely be tweaked with normal bolt-ons, they dialed in tweaks into the timing and fuel maps.
Once the modifications were completed to the tables, the engineer then uploaded those new tables onto the programmable UPRD chip which resides on their daughterboard and then he took that daughterboard and soldered it onto the ECU board itself to override the maps which the Nissan ECU reads for it's operation.
And so the challenge to '97+ ECUs that UPRD has pointed to is basically that a new daughtercard is needed as the pins to solder the current daughterboard they had would not correspond correctly on '97+ ECU boards such as the ones in '97 and later cars.
--Nabil.
.
01-07-2001, 10:58 PM
#13
Moderator running more PSI than all the boosted Maximas... combined
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,345
Re: Re: Re: Re: Old news...
Yep...this is the problem I'm running into with Autothority. They need to develop a daughterboard that their chip can plug into. Without it, their hardware/software is not going to work. I need to buy a ECU for autothority to send to Japan to get this daughterboard develop.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nabil
The challenge that UPRD pointed to with regards to upgrading the 97 and later ECUs lies in the fact that the daughterboard that UPRD had originally designed to solder onto the first Nissan ECU boards didn't fit the different design of the '97+ ECUs... That's the reason, and no other, and they even said to me and Cheston at the time that if they got enough demand on the ECUs then they would develop a new daughter board for the '97 and later ECUs. But that's not going to happen because there aren't enough buyers out there.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nabil
The challenge that UPRD pointed to with regards to upgrading the 97 and later ECUs lies in the fact that the daughterboard that UPRD had originally designed to solder onto the first Nissan ECU boards didn't fit the different design of the '97+ ECUs... That's the reason, and no other, and they even said to me and Cheston at the time that if they got enough demand on the ECUs then they would develop a new daughter board for the '97 and later ECUs. But that's not going to happen because there aren't enough buyers out there.
01-07-2001, 11:13 PM
#14
Turtle turtle... Moderator
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: San Bruno, Petaluma, SF Bay area
Posts: 4,857
ahhh
good info Nabil, Ive always argued that 95 Maximas were OBD-II but never have any evidence to show people. Ive used OBD-II scan tools to diagnoise a few 95 Maxima's including mines so i know their OBD-II but no proof.
good info Nabil, Ive always argued that 95 Maximas were OBD-II but never have any evidence to show people. Ive used OBD-II scan tools to diagnoise a few 95 Maxima's including mines so i know their OBD-II but no proof.
01-08-2001, 03:34 PM
#15
Donating Maxima.org Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,931
Re: Re: Old news...
Originally posted by Nabil
Crash worthiness of the chassis and on board diagnistics system compliance are two different things.
You can design OBD-II from the get-go and be done with it (as my Yahoo Maxima Club post showed as well as what Dave's post showed too), but you can't be absolutely sure about chassis crash tests if you're Nissan for example, trying to balance the design of a lightweight chassis (like that of the 4th Gen A32 chassis) against meeting the crash test parameters AND meeting a certain price point for the car without some finetuning like they had to do in '97.
And by the way, the 4th gens only needed minor beefing up of the front and rear bumper foam material to get upgraded, which doesn't require too much work anyway.
Which brings us back to the original point of this thread that given the evidence Dave and I have given, as well as how anyone with a '95 car can verify by looking under their steering wheel column and seeing the OBD-II mandated diagnostics connector which plugs into the standard OBD-II testing devices, logic would dictate that it's there. Otherwise, why would they have such a plug to connect dealers' diagnostics devices (Nissan CONSULT devices) if it didn't work?
And if you want additional info, ask anyone with a '95 Maxima factory service manual to have them read the section pertaining to this, and you'll have additional proof asserting the OBD-II systems being implemented for that year.
So from this point forward, anyone who wants to contend that the '95 cars did not have OBD-II system on them must get an official Nissan of North America document asserting this or just accept the evidence laid out to everyone in plain sight.
--Nabil
Crash worthiness of the chassis and on board diagnistics system compliance are two different things.
You can design OBD-II from the get-go and be done with it (as my Yahoo Maxima Club post showed as well as what Dave's post showed too), but you can't be absolutely sure about chassis crash tests if you're Nissan for example, trying to balance the design of a lightweight chassis (like that of the 4th Gen A32 chassis) against meeting the crash test parameters AND meeting a certain price point for the car without some finetuning like they had to do in '97.
And by the way, the 4th gens only needed minor beefing up of the front and rear bumper foam material to get upgraded, which doesn't require too much work anyway.
Which brings us back to the original point of this thread that given the evidence Dave and I have given, as well as how anyone with a '95 car can verify by looking under their steering wheel column and seeing the OBD-II mandated diagnostics connector which plugs into the standard OBD-II testing devices, logic would dictate that it's there. Otherwise, why would they have such a plug to connect dealers' diagnostics devices (Nissan CONSULT devices) if it didn't work?
And if you want additional info, ask anyone with a '95 Maxima factory service manual to have them read the section pertaining to this, and you'll have additional proof asserting the OBD-II systems being implemented for that year.
So from this point forward, anyone who wants to contend that the '95 cars did not have OBD-II system on them must get an official Nissan of North America document asserting this or just accept the evidence laid out to everyone in plain sight.
--Nabil
Exactly where is this OBDII port supposed to be on my steering column? I know that my car doesn't have a lot of the emissions equipment that the '96s have. And there still isn't any reason that Nissan wouldn't change the engine design in the middle of the generation- it has been done many times in the industry.
10-11-2002, 08:21 AM
#20
Originally posted by Aaron95SE
Sorry to bring up an old thread........
So is a 95 max (prod date 5/94) OBD II or OBD II compliant? Will a OBD II cable/sofware work? Im still searching for answers myself....
Aaron
Sorry to bring up an old thread........
So is a 95 max (prod date 5/94) OBD II or OBD II compliant? Will a OBD II cable/sofware work? Im still searching for answers myself....
Aaron
no..
early model 95's are OBDI
late models are OBD2
10-11-2002, 09:40 AM
#22
Originally posted by SprintMax
Ok....so mine is OBD I. Is there software and a pc link available that you guys know of? Im still looking on the web too.....alot of information is somewhat confusing, or misleading.
Aaron
no..
early model 95's are OBDI
late models are OBD2
Ok....so mine is OBD I. Is there software and a pc link available that you guys know of? Im still looking on the web too.....alot of information is somewhat confusing, or misleading.
Aaron
no..
early model 95's are OBDI
late models are OBD2
10-11-2002, 09:55 AM
#24
Originally posted by SprintMax
nope.. no scanners out for OBDI .. my 95 GXE was OBDI and it kinda sucked because i had it when delio had gotten his Scan tool.. and i couldn't do **** with it..
nope.. no scanners out for OBDI .. my 95 GXE was OBDI and it kinda sucked because i had it when delio had gotten his Scan tool.. and i couldn't do **** with it..
When did you have a 95 GXE? I remember Doug having one, but he totalled it.
10-11-2002, 09:59 AM
#25
Originally posted by Y2KevSE
Do you know if you had a port on the passenger side above the ECU area? That's where Matthel's OBD-II port is.
When did you have a 95 GXE? I remember Doug having one, but he totalled it.
Do you know if you had a port on the passenger side above the ECU area? That's where Matthel's OBD-II port is.
When did you have a 95 GXE? I remember Doug having one, but he totalled it.
Aaron
10-11-2002, 10:00 AM
#26
Originally posted by Y2KevSE
Do you know if you had a port on the passenger side above the ECU area? That's where Matthel's OBD-II port is.
Do you know if you had a port on the passenger side above the ECU area? That's where Matthel's OBD-II port is.
Originally posted by Y2KevSE
When did you have a 95 GXE? I remember Doug having one, but he totalled it.
When did you have a 95 GXE? I remember Doug having one, but he totalled it.
10-11-2002, 10:08 AM
#29
Originally posted by SprintMax
doesn't fit.. just let it go Aaron.. just let it go
doesn't fit.. just let it go Aaron.. just let it go
Scott Gould sent me this.....
"I ended up usings alex pepper's software and scan tool at www.obd-2.com Works pretty good, and if I ever get a CEL, I can just reset via the software. Great for troubleshooting and tuning also"
He has a 95 SE as well....and apparently OBD I
Aaron
10-11-2002, 10:56 AM
#31
Originally posted by SprintMax
doesn't fit.. just let it go Aaron.. just let it go
doesn't fit.. just let it go Aaron.. just let it go
Scott Gould sent me this.....
"I ended up usings alex pepper's software and scan tool at www.obd-2.com Works pretty good, and if I ever get a CEL, I can just reset via the software. Great for troubleshooting and tuning also"
He has a 95 SE as well....and apparently OBD I. Although his manufacture date is 11/94....
Aaron
Edited.....yet again.
Screw it....the Zex will be on soon.....who cares abour diagnostics when ya get more HP
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post