How I Missed the Biggest Automotive News Story of the Past Decade
Dieselgate. It was one of the biggest corporate scandals in recent history, resulting in billions of dollars in fines, CEOs stepping down in shame, a few scattered criminal charges, and the death of Volkswagen’s beloved TDI diesel engine line in North America. You could even argue that the current accelerated push for EVs is just ongoing fallout from the initial Dieselgate dirty bomb. But by far the worst thing about Dieselgate is that I saw things happening with my own eyes back in 2008, had no idea what I was looking at, and blew my chance to break the biggest automotive news of the decade.
Allow me to set the stage a bit.
In 2007 and going into 2008, I was living in Florida and working for Hartmut Feyhl at RENNtech. Hartmut and I don’t get along these days—that’s my fault, as I went through a nasty divorce and took stuff out on a lot of people that didn’t have it coming—but back then we were two little peas in a Mercedes-shaped pod, and that pod was fast AF. Hartmut was an AMG OG who once served as that company’s Technical Director until they were bought out by MB corporate and he decided to go off on his own. As such, he still had some juice in Affalterbach, and we were one of the first tuning firms to get our hands on the then-new W204 C63 AMG.
What a car that was. The naturally-aspirated V8 had a raspy, satisfying exhaust note that could make even the bleeding-est of hearts look past the abysmal 12 MPG EPA ratings. It was a genuine Teutonic muscle car of the first order, and (like the Lancia Stratos or Shelby Cobra) people will be writing about it for decades to come.
Obviously, we had to tear it apart and try to make it better. Or – faster, anyway. And, to us, that was the same thing.
The only problem was that AMG didn’t make that easy. Take the intake runners for example – in the C63, you had these variable-length intake runners that gave it good low-end torque and good high-rpm horsepower. Leave them closed (short), and you lost the high end. Leave them open, and it fell on its face at the line. We found some improvements by changing the airbox shape ( you can see the original 3D printed and hand-fabbed parts on our test mule, here) and worked on an 82 mm dual-throttle body swap, but the biggest gains were coming from removing the factory catalytic converters and replacing them with high-flow sport cats, all of which are still available on RT’s website. That, and chip tuning, which is how we unknowingly stepped into what would become Dieselgate.
The way it was explained to me, the C63’s Bosch TCU (transmission control unit) had some pretty fancy software in it that generated a 128-bit hash function based on the factory firmware settings that it would then compare to a stored value, called a checksum. You subtract the 128-bit hash from the checksum and you get 0 (they match) or 1 (they don’t match), and if you had a 1 the car wouldn’t run at all. In some cases, like with the V8 Kompressor cars (E55, G55, etc.), you didn’t have to tinker much with the TCU. On the C63, however, factory settings were a big problem for us because you’d put the car on a dyno, go into “dyno mode” (cars have dyno modes), and the power would just disappear.
That was it. That was a car that was cutting back on the fuel burned and kept running the secondary air pump that burns off the unspent fuel in the exhaust gasses to minimize emissions and was, in essence, the very beginning of the Dieselgate scandal—but we didn’t see it for what it was, at all.
Keep in mind: We were tuners. We were looking at this thing through the eyes of “Mercedes doesn’t want people messing with its cars,” and justified all this weird security on the TCU that way – I mean, 128 bits is huge. Libraries using 128-bit checksums should expect 1 collision once they hit 16 quintillion documents (that’s a 16, followed by 18 zeroes), and it’s ridiculous overkill in the context of keeping tuners from publicizing dyno numbers. In the context of the billions of dollars in emissions fines that got served up to VW, Mercedes, and their supplier, Bosch, for hiding emissions-cheating calibrations in their TCUs dyno modes? All that security starts to make a bit more sense, doesn’t it?
Tuners, though, don’t really do the “making sense” thing. And, with our tuner-guy blinders on, this could only be interpreted as a shot across the bow, letting us know that we wouldn’t be allowed to tinker with Mercedes’ finest cars any longer. Once we beat the checksum (hackers be hackin’, yo), we simply congratulated ourselves on our cleverness (Bill and D., you guys rock!) before going back to work on – I think it was the SEMA GLK. Another day in paradise, and absolutely oblivious to the fact that I was this close to the automotive news story of a lifetime.
Maybe next time.
[Image: UschiDaschi/Shutterstock.com]
I've been in and around the auto industry since 1997, and have written for a number of well-known outlets like Cleantechnica, the Truth About Cars, Popular Mechanics, and more. You can also find me talking EVs with Matt Teske and Chris DeMorro on the Electrify Expo Podcast, writing about Swedish cars on my Volvo fan site, or chasing my kids around Oak Park.
More by Jo Borras
Latest Car Reviews
Read moreLatest Product Reviews
Read moreRecent Comments
- Tassos Ask me if I care for the idiotic vehicles less than 10% of whose owners use as INTENDED.
- Brandon The 2024 Mercedes-Benz E 350 4Matic looks like a compelling addition to the luxury sedan market. From the drive notes, it’s clear that Mercedes-Benz has maintained its commitment to blending performance with comfort. The handling and acceleration seem impressive, reflecting Mercedes’ signature blend of power and smoothness.
- Jmanb52 In this case clearly a driver responsbile for the accident. Lawyer just trying to add confusion to jude and or jury to think about it. I was on a jury once for an auto accident and one of the attorneys tried a few stunts to shift blame. Same thing is happening here. The companies pushing autonamous want to deal with fleet markets like the autonamous taxi companies rather than individual consumers. In my opinion I think they belvie that would be more predictable sales. Car gets to xyz milage time to replace. In my opinion they could never sell a full autonamous car to an individual because of a back and forth legal battles between owner and maker when there is a crash. They need to foget about all these take over driver aids. It is just causing more issues than it could prevent.
- Jmanb52 Short answer is NO! It has been a tread for manufactures to basicaly glue a tablet to an area of the dash and call it an infotament system. However there is not one of us on here that doesn't ahve a smart phone or tablet. With the android auto, and the Apple Carplay and bluetooth that conencts car spekers and mic to our headset, do we even need an Infotament system or just bluetooth connection to use hands free mic and spearkers or wired connection to USB port for connection to spearkers / mic and charge the phone. So maybe the QOTD should be do manufactures even need to provide an infotanement system or should they just provide an in dash holder for a tablet or smartphone?
- Jmanb52 In the past year I did some more research on EVs. I already knew for years they were heavier than a ICE car of the same model / class. Like the F150 lightning can be 1000 LBS heavier than its ICE counterpart. In the last year I read more on the size of breaks, tires and other items that take more resrouces to create and polute more in their wear. This was another nail in my corporate EV caufin. I already didn't have much care for them due to my height (over 6 feet) and they all have a bad desgin, over dependency on gimics, over computerized driving experience. If I ever did get one it would be a low range in town only type vehicle that I would convert an older car. There is no manufacture making EVs that is worth a penny of my money.
Comments
Join the conversation
I'm in the information security field. How did you get around it, by forcing the ECU to accept the new checksum of your updated TCU software, or by disabling the checksum confirmation altogether in the ECU code? It appears that MB didn't encrypt the TCU code, it just used the checksum to validate that the code was unchanged from the factory. If you change just one character in hashed data the resulting hash will be completely different. This is the norm when it comes to validating software. It's not rocket science.
Der Fabrikleiter gibt Anweisungen.