Motor swap: 4s rear drive motor > Turbo S rear drive motor

[Archimedes]

Guys, stop crapping on his dream! Please, just hold his beer and let’s see how this plays out.

Sponsored

 

[tchavei]

Guys, stop crapping on his dream! Please, just hold his beer and let’s see how this plays out.

You sir, love watching the world burn

That being said, I agree. Never say never.

A couple of days ago, I saw a Tesla 3 Dual Motor at a supercharger at night. Foreign license plate (eastern)

What felt odd was that the car was using an adapter to charge. As far as I know, all teslas in Europe have CCS2 and so do superchargers. It didn't make sense.

Driver was in the car and since I had nothing better to do, I stopped and went talk to the guy.

Lovely person. Explained he imported the car from the USA as they were cheaper over there but then then got stuck because Mr. Elon wouldn't let those cars charge here. So apparently some "friend" hacked into the PCM and changed the chassis id to an European one and he started to be able to charge here (albeit with an adapter). The year after, his friend changed the VIN to a European 2013 model S with lifetime free charging so that's why he was "fueling" up that night.

Swapping a motor should be a piece of cake

 

[Avantgarde]

The OP does not sound like he is fully appreciating what he is up to because of the way he asked the question. On the other hand I also think many people seriously over-react to potential meddling with the Taycan software as if it is an untouchable nuclear reactor with secret code . In a separate thread i suggested potential third party battery swaps in the future and got similar reactions "highly doubt anyone but Porsche can do this" type. Guys in the end people who write these codes are people like you and me, they are not Einsteins, I spent some time in the industry and had close friends who optimize powertrain software for OEMs and Tier 1 suppliers. It is complicated if you are not familiar with the architecture (just like it is super complicated to change a water heater for me but it does not mean i can't get my water heater changed). There are 100 of millions of lines of code in ICE vehicles, they are being re-programmed for decades now, all over the world. There is a whole industry feeding off that. Iphones are similar, they get Jailbroken and tweaked in many different ways.

An EV, and particularly powertrain management of an EV is not more complicated (maybe a different story for something like Tesla's self driving algorithm). Yes you are dealing with more thermal management - but on the flip side, you don't have to worry about emissions management, which can be really complex. Make no mistake it will be done. And my expectation is these tuning businesses will pop up like mushrooms in the upcoming years. The reason they have not yet is because most of the car park is still under warranty. That seriously limits demand because most users don't want to take the risk...yet. Despite that some dudes in Germany already modified a GTS and got 800hp out of it.

 

[Archimedes]

BTW, this was most likely (obviously?) a troll thread.

 

[WasserGKuehlt]

The OP does not sound like he is fully appreciating what he is up to because of the way he asked the question. On the other hand I also think many people seriously over-react to potential meddling with the Taycan software as if it is an untouchable nuclear reactor with secret code . In a separate thread i suggested potential third party battery swaps in the future and got similar reactions "highly doubt anyone but Porsche can do this" type. Guys in the end people who write these codes are people like you and me, they are not Einsteins, I spent some time in the industry and had close friends who optimize powertrain software for OEMs and Tier 1 suppliers. It is complicated if you are not familiar with the architecture (just like it is super complicated to change a water heater for me but it does not mean i can't get my water heater changed). There are 100 of millions of lines of code in ICE vehicles, they are being re-programmed for decades now, all over the world. There is a whole industry feeding off that. Iphones are similar, they get Jailbroken and tweaked in many different ways.

An EV, and particularly powertrain management of an EV is not more complicated (maybe a different story for something like Tesla's self driving algorithm). Yes you are dealing with more thermal management - but on the flip side, you don't have to worry about emissions management, which can be really complex. Make no mistake it will be done. And my expectation is these tuning businesses will pop up like mushrooms in the upcoming years. The reason they have not yet is because most of the car park is still under warranty. That seriously limits demand because most users don't want to take the risk...yet. Despite that some dudes in Germany already modified a GTS and got 800hp out of it.

The problem is not whether the software is beyond the ability of others to understand and/or modify it; rather, it is the very real possibility of ending up with an expensive brick. As an example, it’d be trivial for the manufacturer to bind all of the components of the car to each other, and a lot harder for anyone outside to replace any of them. With all internal/private interfaces, the manufacturer would have no obligation to test “mismatches” (in their own definition) or guarantee continued functionality. Even right to repair laws don’t provide such guarantees. (Doesn’t mean it can’t be done - just like in your example.)

 

[violuma]

it’d be trivial for the manufacturer to bind all of the components of the car to each other, and a lot harder for anyone outside to replace any of them

Compounded if there's no way to unlock the bootloader. That greatly raises the probability that you'd need a factory signing key in order to get any modifications "blessed".

Furthermore, I don't care if Magisk or its modules add a tiny bit of latency to my phone. I really care if something similar interferes with the ability of the emergency braking system to stop my 5,000 lb. vehicle. And while I'm generally a "you do you" sort of cat, I also really care if the other people on the road can't control their vehicles because their homebrew mods are spamming their CANbus.

 

[Avantgarde]

The problem is not whether the software is beyond the ability of others to understand and/or modify it; rather, it is the very real possibility of ending up with an expensive brick. As an example, it’d be trivial for the manufacturer to bind all of the components of the car to each other, and a lot harder for anyone outside to replace any of them. With all internal/private interfaces, the manufacturer would have no obligation to test “mismatches” (in their own definition) or guarantee continued functionality. Even right to repair laws don’t provide such guarantees. (Doesn’t mean it can’t be done - just like in your example.)

I see your point and I don't necessarily see a physical motor swap to be common application to be clear. (maybe we will see them slight bit more than full blown ICE engine swaps some ambitious guys did once in a while in the old world). On the other hand I think two types of third party software meddling could easily be mainstream in the future 1- software tuning to enable more motor potential (Particularly for the models that are clearly artificially detuned like CT4, GTS or PB versions of RWD or 4s and/or "always on over-boost" like tweaks for entire line-up) 2- Battery management (to unlock more of the unused battery capacity for long distance trips) or complete battery swaps to the extent we see leaps on battery energy densities in the next 3-5 years (which could bring significant range and weight benefits even for the older cars that are on the road). I don't know what would Porsche or other manufacturer's stance would be on these applications. Apple does not lock your phone just because you swapped your battery with a third party product . They also don't have any major protection built in against jail braking...other than it voids your warranty. It is very possible Porsche would do the same (void your warranty), maybe disable some on-line functions like plug-n-charge etc, but don't know 1-why they'd go extra length to completely prevent intervention (they are not doing this for ICE) 2-even if they wanted to how would they manage to turn the cars into bricks...

 

[Jhenson29]

As an example, it’d be trivial for the manufacturer to bind all of the components of the car to each other, and a lot harder for anyone outside to replace any of them.

You know your talking about the same company that disabled the 3D surround view when not purchased by making the icons not visible ( but still selectable so you could still activate it), right?

 

[WasserGKuehlt]

@Avantgarde re: “It is very possible Porsche would do the same (void your warranty), maybe disable some on-line functions like plug-n-charge etc, but don't know 1-why they'd go extra length to completely prevent intervention (they are not doing this for ICE) 2-even if they wanted to how would they manage to turn the cars into bricks...”

I do agree with you that they wouldn’t go to such lengths just for the sake of it. That said, to your points:
1 why: if there were a safety or legal reason to prevent unauthorized tampering. We are talking about HV applications, and I could see how bricking an unrecognized component is a fail safe (safe for the user/hacker, and for the company against frivolous lawsuits). They’re not doing this for ICE because it’s much harder (spark+fuel=ignition). The extent they can do this for ICE is pretty much keys matched to the car.

2 how: say I had a per-car CA cert/signing key. Every module would have a burned-in key, and they all would have to have the same issuer. (Not practical, but definitely doable.) As long as you can protect the integrity of each component, binding each component to the car would be trivial. (Servicing would be a nightmare, but still doable.) Swap out -> 403/Forbidden.

 

[Fish Fingers]

BTW, this was most likely (obviously?) a troll thread.

 

[BigBob]

Probably the best solution is to buy a Turbo S badge and stick it on the back of the car. Simples.

 

[Avantgarde]

The best debates are the ones that get started by trolls There was one other couple weeks ago. Some troll started something like "anyone going back to Tesla? Taycan range not enough for my my 65 mile commute" and 10 pages of messages followed with no OP in sight.

 

[violuma]

say I had a per-car CA cert/signing key

I think another somewhat easier-to-implement strategy would go like this:

• locked bootloader
• has CA root certs burned in
• checks a signed "manifest" containing GUIDs of each component that is supposed to be present
• refuses to operate if somebody is missing/swapped

During an authorized replacement, licensed techs can get a new manifest signed by a trusted key and replaced while the vehicle is in service mode. An unauthorized swap would brick unless somebody has a rogue trusted CA, and if that happens Porsche issues a revocation certificate that all vehicles on the road will eventually pick up.

I think that's more or less how the generic internet web of trust for SSL works.

 

[WasserGKuehlt]

I think another somewhat easier-to-implement strategy would go like this:

• locked bootloader
• has CA root certs burned in
• checks a signed "manifest" containing GUIDs of each component that is supposed to be present
• refuses to operate if somebody is missing/swapped

During an authorized replacement, licensed techs can get a new manifest signed by a trusted key and replaced while the vehicle is in service mode. An unauthorized swap would brick unless somebody has a rogue trusted CA, and if that happens Porsche issues a revocation certificate that all vehicles on the road will eventually pick up.

I think that's more or less how the generic internet web of trust for SSL works.

A locked boot loader would imply a burned-in key, so no need for a guid . The components have already an identity - and the car does, too.

Many ways to design this, for sure, including a live authorization check at boot time after a repair: if the backend says this {set of measurements of the car’s components} is valid, then burn it in as the new base config. On each subsequent power-up, the car self-attests against the expected hash. (That’s how confidential compute typically works.)

It is all, of course, speculation in absence of the requirements; it’d be great to know what Porsche wanted to defend against (or not).

 

[Jayyvr890]

Why stop it there? Why not swap it for Hummer EVs 1000HP motors?

Sponsored