ECU module programming guide using FDRS

[Bob_Mac]

FYI

SSM 50383 - 10 Jan 2022 - 2021 F-150/Mustang Mach-E - Over-The-Air (OTA) Failed Message In The Center Touchscreen / SYNC Software Does Not Download From The USB

Some 2021 F-150/Mustang Mach-E vehicles may display OTA Update Not Successful messages on the vehicle’s center touchscreen. Also, when a software update is being performed on the accessory protocol interface module (APIM) using the FDRS, the center touchscreen may not indicate the APIM software is downloading when plugging a USB drive into the vehicle. This may be due to an APIM software concern.Inform customers that Ford is currently working on a solution for this condition that is to be released via the Ford Diagnosis and Repair System (FDRS) in February 2022. Inform the customer that they can continue to drive the vehicle and only need to schedule a follow-up appointment if they are still experiencing the OTA Update Not Successful message in March 2022 or if the APIM is not able to be updated via the FDRS. Monitor OASIS for updates.

Sponsored

 

[JEB]

You're now thinking what I I'm thinking! I just messaged @tonesto7 to see what his port settings are and to do some more testing with changes that may help things out... You're not adding to complexity

@Bob_Mac. The speed issue continues to nag me. Then I remembered something I hadn’t given any thought to before. It’s admittedly a long shot. But, when you first install the FDRS software, the download page gives a bunch of laptop hardware and software specifications for its use—OS, RAM, Processor, internet speed, etc. One of those specifications is USB3. I haven’t been using USB3 to connect my laptop to the Nano. I’ve been using USB2 and reserving USB3 for the flash drive. I’m wondering if this might be a candidate for the corruption—because of the older USB2 standard I’ve been using, the data pipeline between the Nano and the laptop is too narrow/slow for FDRS’s liking when receiving data in the reverse direction from the truck for transmission to the Ford server. It would seem to be an easy thing to check. I’d test the theory myself but my license is expired.

EDIT: Nevermind. I just checked the Nano’s specification and it’s only USB2. But that might mean that it’s too slow to be fully compatible with FDRS. Again, a long shot.

 

[Jesse-Infotainment]

I would suggest to stay away from the current IPC update. There are issues with it. If you had a Fail of one file and a should of the second file and pass of the third. You have an issue.

I have done a lot of testing. The issue is even though the update seems to have installed the cluster didnt load all the files. Double check the files in your cluster. They are based on engine config but if you had a screen like this after the completion there is an issue.

 

[Bob_Mac]

@Bob_Mac. The speed issue continues to nag me. Then I remembered something I hadn’t given any thought to before. It’s admittedly a long shot. But, when you first install the FDRS software, the download page gives a bunch of laptop hardware and software specifications for its use—OS, RAM, Processor, internet speed, etc. One of those specifications is USB3. I haven’t been using USB3 to connect my laptop to the Nano. I’ve been using USB2 and reserving USB3 for the flash drive. I’m wondering if this might be a candidate for the corruption—because of the older USB2 standard I’ve been using, the data pipeline between the Nano and the laptop is too narrow/slow for FDRS’s liking when receiving data in the reverse direction from the truck for transmission to the Ford server. It would seem to be an easy thing to check. I’d test the theory myself but my license is expired.

EDIT: Nevermind. I just checked the Nano’s specification and it’s only USB2. But that might mean that it’s too slow to be fully compatible with FDRS. Again, a long shot.

Interesting... my laptop has USB3 on all 3 ports so this brings to question, what is @tonesto7 UCDS specs? I've looked into specs of the Mongoose and they show USB3 cables for the device so this is something else that may lead to the speed issue with the NANO...

 

[Bob_Mac]

I would suggest to stay away from the current IPC update. There are issues with it. If you had a Fail of one file and a should of the second file and pass of the third. You have an issue.

I have done a lot of testing. The issue is even though the update seems to have installed the cluster didnt load all the files. Double check the files in your cluster. They are based on engine config but if you had a screen like this after the completion there is an issue.

@Jesse-Infotainment , I'll add this to the doc... thx for the update. Question, what adapter did you use to see this issue?

 

[JScaro]

FML, can't even do the simple stuff.

I can't log into FDRS / license good till tomorrow.
- anyone else having issues this morning?

 

[Jesse-Infotainment]

@Jesse-Infotainment , I'll add this to the doc... thx for the update. Question, what adapter did you use to see this issue?

I’m using the VCM 3

 

[Bob_Mac]

FML, can't even do the simple stuff.

I can't log into FDRS / license good till tomorrow.
- anyone else having issues this morning?

Neither can I, I get the message "Cannot reach FDRS servers"

 

[JEB]

I have issues with CAN FD and the VXnano.

I wonder if this is because of the level of support the Nano provides for the J2534 specification. When I looked at the Mongoose sell sheet, it appears that it is compliant with J2534-1 and supports J2534-2. http://www.drewtech.com/pdf/sell sheets/2016_MGPro_Ford_EMAIL.pdf
The Nano specifications don’t say anything about these J2534 variations.

I don’t know if this explains why we can’t read the FD CAN or not but it’s probably worth looking into.

 

[JEB]

I would suggest to stay away from the current IPC update. There are issues with it. If you had a Fail of one file and a should of the second file and pass of the third. You have an issue.

I have done a lot of testing. The issue is even though the update seems to have installed the cluster didnt load all the files. Double check the files in your cluster. They are based on engine config but if you had a screen like this after the completion there is an issue.

Jesse, as we discussed in a PM, I had a failure after trying to update via USB, followed by an attempt to update via the CAN bus which also failed very early in the procedure. But the truck seemed to work ok except for a DTC relating to an unperformed configuration. I was able to clear it by running a PMI. Do you think I still have a problem? I haven’t had a DTC since the PMI.

 

[Bob_Mac]

I wonder if this is because of the level of support the Nano provides for the J2534 specification. When I looked at the Mongoose sell sheet, it appears that it is compliant with J2534-1 and supports J2534-2. http://www.drewtech.com/pdf/sell sheets/2016_MGPro_Ford_EMAIL.pdf
The Nano specifications don’t say anything about these J2534 variations.

I don’t know if this explains why we can’t read the FD CAN or not but it’s probably worth looking into.

I saw that as well and again makes me think that the speed issue is the problem with Network Scans and the NANO, FDRS and the FD-CANBUS speed...

 

[Bob_Mac]

Jesse, as we discussed in a PM, I had a failure after trying to update via USB, followed by an attempt to update via the CAN bus which also failed very early in the procedure. But the truck seemed to work ok except for a DTC relating to an unperformed configuration. I was able to clear it by running a PMI. Do you think I still have a problem? I haven’t had a DTC since the PMI.

Have you looked at what Jesse suggested after you did the PMI?

 

[JEB]

Have you looked at what Jesse suggested after you did the PMI?

I did. I see a corruption in the as-built configuration for the IPC strategy S/W (F188). Got this from @tonesto7 ’s widget. That corruption wasn’t there the last time I logged into FDRS on Thursday—the last day my license was valid. I was seeing no missing S/W part numbers—for the IPC or anything else. I checked FORscan yesterday and don’t see any DTCs or other irregularities in the IPC module. So, I don’t know what to make of this. I’m getting well out of my element here.

 

[Jesse-Infotainment]

Jesse, as we discussed in a PM, I had a failure after trying to update via USB, followed by an attempt to update via the CAN bus which also failed very early in the procedure. But the truck seemed to work ok except for a DTC relating to an unperformed configuration. I was able to clear it by running a PMI. Do you think I still have a problem? I haven’t had a DTC since the PMI.

Yeah speaking to you is what got me looking into this .. TGE cluster works but I think there is a mismatch of strategy and calibration.. I think.. it loaded only a portion of the update. I have spoken to a couple others with varied levels of the failure. I had one lose a gauge at the top. So I believe if you look at the three files you’ll see they aren’t all part of the same package. The update erases and rewrites and I believe the failure is happening in the erase portion. So that is why there is a difference in how badly some are affected. It’s a bad update. I have updated several job one to job 2 and never an issue. The update is supposed to bring the as build to the 14 lines. The failure I experienced brought the as build to 14 lines but again I could tell it didn’t load completely. Also it was obvious since one of my gauges was gone at the top. I only had three.


I’m just making a suggestion to ignore the update as of now. I am not doing it in my truck. Again these are decisions each person can make on their own I’m just giving my input. Even if the update seemed to complete and th cluster is working I don’t believe it was truly complete. If you had a screen like what I showed come up with a fail you didn’t have a complete update.

Typically when you have a fail as I explained to JEB it’s related to the ignition not being on long enough before verifying. This is a fail regardless. I tried and tried and tried I tried to manually load the update and it failed.

I believe there is a issue in the build of one of the files. All of this again is my theory.

I want to add this is regarding the digital 12” only. 8” update is perfect and works fine.

 

[JEB]

Yeah speaking to you is what got me looking into this .. TGE cluster works but I think there is a mismatch of strategy and calibration.. I think.. it loaded only a portion of the update. I have spoken to a couple others with varied levels of the failure. I had one lose a gauge at the top. So I believe if you look at the three files you’ll see they aren’t all part of the same package. The update erases and rewrites and I believe the failure is happening in the erase portion. So that is why there is a difference in how badly some are affected. It’s a bad update. I have updated several job one to job 2 and never an issue. The update is supposed to bring the as build to the 14 lines. The failure I experienced brought the as build to 14 lines but again I could tell it didn’t load completely. Also it was obvious since one of my gauges was gone at the top. I only had three.


I’m just making a suggestion to ignore the update as of now. I am not doing it in my truck. Again these are decisions each person can make on their own I’m just giving my input. Even if the update seemed to complete and th cluster is working I don’t believe it was truly complete. If you had a screen like what I showed come up with a fail you didn’t have a complete update.

Typically when you have a fail as I explained to JEB it’s related to the ignition not being on long enough before verifying. This is a fail regardless. I tried and tried and tried I tried to manually load the update and it failed.

I believe there is a issue in the build of one of the files. All of this again is my theory.

I want to add this is regarding the digital 12” only. 8” update is perfect and works fine.

So far, I haven’t noticed anything obviously missing. I’m wondering if the PMI restored what the update failed to load and now the IPC software is kind of a Frankenstein’s monster of two different builds—the original and the update. In any event, three things I have observed: (1) FORscan seems to be reporting valid numbers for all files; (2) I have all my gauges and menus (as far as I know); and (3) to my surprise, I did not lose any of the FORscan changes to the IPC I made last month to display digital engine and transmission temps. I expected those to be overwritten with new IPC software. That seems to suggest an incomplete installation. FDRS as of Thursday, however, was reporting that the IPC software was up to date. So, I don’t know where I’m at now.

Sponsored