car finance pass time device fitted

goonarmy

patman99 wrote: »

There are 5 wires connecting the box to the wiring loom.
Red = permanent 12v live feed - keeps box active for comms.
Black = negative (ground)
Pink = linked into ignition
Blue = power in to start car
Purple = Power out to start car

The device works by preventing connection between Blue & Purple lines so long as the unit has an active code.
By joining the 2 wires where they go to the main loom (rather than forming a loop back into the box) you are bypassing the start inhibitor in the box.
The box still has the 12v + feed, ground & link from ignition. All it doesn't have is the ability to actually disable the car's ability to start.

The info was not gained from youtube.
As for the reliability, this is proven technology so should be 100% reliable. After all, it is not high-end tech. It is very basic circuitry and is made as un-complex as possible (keeps down costs).

One thing though, as it has a tracker built in, I am wondering if once the loan has been paid-off, the providers could leave it in place and reprogram it to become a security tracker with pin entry for starting the car and charge a small monthly fee for the service. As it is already installed, it would be a good extra security feature that could actually lower the insurance premium.

So you know the colour of the wiring system without knowing the manufacturer of the unit:eek:
any way, there are too many unknowns for me. If you were driving home at the end of the period, say last day of the month at 11.58 pm. Will the unit need a new code added mid journey, at the next stop, next time the engine shuts down etc etc? Is the unit going to interfere with anything else? In the event of car break down will aa/rac be able to sort it? Will it prevent bump/jump starts? What happens i the event of removing the battery? And many more questions.

BeenThroughItAll

patman99 wrote: »

There are 5 wires connecting the box to the wiring loom.
Red = permanent 12v live feed - keeps box active for comms.
Black = negative (ground)
Pink = linked into ignition
Blue = power in to start car
Purple = Power out to start car

The device works by preventing connection between Blue & Purple lines so long as the unit has an active code.
By joining the 2 wires where they go to the main loom (rather than forming a loop back into the box) you are bypassing the start inhibitor in the box.
The box still has the 12v + feed, ground & link from ignition. All it doesn't have is the ability to actually disable the car's ability to start.

The info was not gained from youtube.
As for the reliability, this is proven technology so should be 100% reliable. After all, it is not high-end tech. It is very basic circuitry and is made as un-complex as possible (keeps down costs).

One thing though, as it has a tracker built in, I am wondering if once the loan has been paid-off, the providers could leave it in place and reprogram it to become a security tracker with pin entry for starting the car and charge a small monthly fee for the service. As it is already installed, it would be a good extra security feature that could actually lower the insurance premium.

Afraid I have to be honest, I suspect that since this is a growing market there is every possibility that there is more than one supplier of such pieces of equipment.

patman99

The device is designed to fit in the ignition system in such a way as to make/break the power to the line that feeds the starting system (much like fitting a hidden switch in the live feed to the starter motor in order to prevent a car being started).

There is agood article on removing such a device here. It has a good photo of the item once it has been taken apart. As you can see, it is a very simple circuit with little to go wrong. I doubt that if these were unreliable that they would fit them. After all, can you imagine the outcry if the media were full of tales of cars not starting even though their owners had paid the bill.

As they use both GPS & GSM, then at a guess, I would suggest that they are totally unaffected by loss of signal from the GPS when the vehicle is parked inside a garage or underground carpark.
So long as it can get a GSM signal, it can still communicate with HQ.
The biggest issue would certainly be whether or not there is a safety fall-back should the driver drive into an area where the GSM provider has no signal.

BeenThroughItAll

patman99 wrote: »

The device is designed to fit in the ignition system in such a way as to make/break the power to the line that feeds the starting system (much like fitting a hidden switch in the live feed to the starter motor in order to prevent a car being started).

There is agood article on removing such a device here. It has a good photo of the item once it has been taken apart. As you can see, it is a very simple circuit with little to go wrong. I doubt that if these were unreliable that they would fit them. After all, can you imagine the outcry if the media were full of tales of cars not starting even though their owners had paid the bill.

As they use both GPS & GSM, then at a guess, I would suggest that they are totally unaffected by loss of signal from the GPS when the vehicle is parked inside a garage or underground carpark.
So long as it can get a GSM signal, it can still communicate with HQ.
The biggest issue would certainly be whether or not there is a safety fall-back should the driver drive into an area where the GSM provider has no signal.

You're still ignoring the fact that ONE example doesn't necessarily cover 100% of installations. There may be numerous manufacturers, and modular installations could mean the actual ignition interrupt is located behind dash panels, in the engine bay, under a carpet, etc etc. The control panel might be easy to get to but the immobiliser itself may not.


Don't forget that US vehicles are MUCH less secure than UK ones in many cases - for them, a simple ignition interrupt is commonplace as a security feature whilst we gave up on things like that in favour of ECU lockout and similar electronic blocks years ago.


I'm sure there will be some immobilised vehicles out there with a simple 5 wire system, but I seriously doubt the manufacturers won't have clocked on to the simplicity of bypassing them and beefed up security.

patman99

The system by design must be easy to install and to then remove (if the customer wants it gone). As time is money, I doubt the companies who have these fitted would want to pay out for a multi-module installation with modules in various parts of the car.

Remember, the company might be financing say, £6000 of credit @ say, 50% apr. The risk to them is that the customer could come into some money 3 months down the line and pay off the entire outstanding balance (or indeed just re-finance through a Bank at a lower rate). If the finance company pay out say, £150 for the device & a further £50 to have it fitted, then in theory, the first £200 of interest just ends-up covering the costs. So they would run the risk of making a loss.

Tbh, if I were designing such a device, it would be something that would be fitted to the ODBII port & locked into place with a key. Simple & quick to fit. A 2nd module with the GPS/GSM would then go in under the bonnet and be directly wired to the battery with a flying lead taking a GPS ariel to the front grill. The 2 devices would link via bluetooth & would allow the driver to enter a pin code via their mobile. Quick to install & remove & highly cost-effective as it can quickly be removed from one car and fitted in the next.

AdrianC

patman99 wrote: »

Remember, the company might be financing say, £6000 of credit @ say, 50% apr. The risk to them is that the customer could come into some money 3 months down the line and pay off the entire outstanding balance

Given that they've already ramped the pre-finance-hit purchase price _substantially_ (£5500 for a ~£3k car), I think they can stretch to fitting something a bit more complicated. Take aftermarket alarms/immobilisers as a rough comparison. Way under £200, no problem at all. Even Thatcham Cat 1 alarms can easily be found <£300, fitted and VATted - and they're based on a bespoke one-off mobile fitment, rather than having a fitter regularly doing a batch of cars together in your workshop.

BeenThroughItAll

AdrianC wrote: »

Given that they've already ramped the pre-finance-hit purchase price _substantially_ (£5500 for a ~£3k car), I think they can stretch to fitting something a bit more complicated. Take aftermarket alarms/immobilisers as a rough comparison. Way under £200, no problem at all. Even Thatcham Cat 1 alarms can easily be found <£300, fitted and VATted - and they're based on a bespoke one-off mobile fitment, rather than having a fitter regularly doing a batch of cars together in your workshop.

Bingo. You've said all that I would have done.

Herzlos

patman99 wrote: »

Remember, the company might be financing say, £6000 of credit @ say, 50% apr. The risk to them is that the customer could come into some money 3 months down the line and pay off the entire outstanding balance (or indeed just re-finance through a Bank at a lower rate). If the finance company pay out say, £150 for the device & a further £50 to have it fitted, then in theory, the first £200 of interest just ends-up covering the costs. So they would run the risk of making a loss.

But then if the customer was likely to be able to get sufficient credit to pay it off early, they'd have been able to get a better deal that didn't involve an immobiliser in the first place. We're talking about generally last resort lending here, for people with poor credit ratings. Some may come into the money to pay it off, but for the vast majority I imagine they will have paid more than the car is worth in interest before they can clear it.

However, if it got out that it took 5 mins or £20 to a friendly mechanic to bypass the thing, they'd lose a lot of money on defaulters.

Herzlos

I believe you can report the PMs

RichardD1970

sinbad182 wrote: »

Still getting PMs from goonarmy relating to this thread, just received this:



Its not enough he got half the thread deleted after being shown up for three pages, he's now begging for validation by private message.

Have a word please mods.

Probably best just reporting the PM rather than posting it on here (which might be against the rules :question:) and giving him more "air time".