Freelander 1 Additional Key and Fob

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
andyschleckscheshirecat

andyschleckscheshirecat

Well-Known Member
Full Member
Posts
380
Location
Cheshire
Afternoon all

Can someone please point me in the direction of an additional key and fob? i think the key we have has something inside it also

Cheers
 
Wasn't there mention about retaining the old key with chip and tape this inside the cowling next to the ignition. While before having two blanks keys made up to use. Could be wrong.o_O
 
saxavordian said:
Wasn't there mention about retaining the old key with chip and tape this inside the cowling next to the ignition. While before having two blanks keys made up to use. Could be wrong.o_O
Click to expand...
That's an option if you only have 1 key - if you lose it, you're knackered, so tape it (the chip) near the ignition and you can then get keys cut.

Will probably invalidate your insurance and make your car more liable to theft.

I've had a quick look around for confirmation on what Hawkeye can do. Haven't actually found anyone who has programmed keys. Nearest I can find is this...

https://www.landyzone.co.uk/land-rover/anyone-know-how-to-program-a-remote-fob.225880/page-2
 
I am about to release code to access the 27VT CCU. One of the things that it can do is code new fobs.
On a 1997 to 1999 that should be enough because the 27VT is also the immobiliser.
They also have an EKA code so that you still drive the car if the fob dies. pscan can also read the EKA.
From 2000 onwards the immobiliser was moved out of the 27VT, so the fob just locks and unlocks the doors and sets the alarm.
The EKA feature was also removed.
The immobiliser was moved to a separate immobiliser ECU and until about 2003 or 2004 this was the BMW EWS system which I think is basically the same as the Rover 75.
In this system there is a chip in the key that is activated and read by a loop in the ignition barrel.
There is no diagnostic tool (even factory) that can "add" keys into the EWS. BMW made the EWS preprogrammed with a number of codes (10 from memory) and if you loose a key then a Landrover main dealer has a way to contact BMW who will make a new key with a code matching one of the spare codes that's already in the EWS because they have kept records of every EWS ECU ever made.
From 2003 the EWS was replaced with a new immobiliser system that I know nothing about yet.
On these later cars (2000 on) pscan will still be able to code in door lock fobs, which is enough to open the doors but it won't allow the engine to run.
The new software will be out by the end of this week.
 
Last edited:
There are ways to hack the EWS, but it can't be done through the diagnostic port. You have to remove the unit from the car and use some special software and hardware to change one of the codes to match a code from some other key that you might have. I don't know much about this solution. I don't think that you can just change the EWS either because the engine ECU is matched to the EWS and they can't be reprogrammed.
 
pscan.eu said:
I am about to release code to access the 27VT CCU. One of the things that it can do is code new fobs.
On a 1997 to 1999 that should be enough because the 27VT is also the immobiliser.
They also have an EKA code so that you still drive the car if the fob dies. pscan can also read the EKA.
From 2000 onwards the immobiliser was moved out of the 27VT, so the fob just locks and unlocks the doors and sets the alarm.
The EKA feature was also removed.
The immobiliser was moved to a separate immobiliser ECU and until about 2003 or 2004 this was the BMW EWS system which I think is basically the same as the Rover 75.
In this system there is a chip in the key that is activated and read by a loop in the ignition barrel.
There is no diagnostic tool (even factory) that can "add" keys into the EWS. BMW made the EWS preprogrammed with a number of codes (10 from memory) and if you loose a key then a Landrover main dealer has a way to contact BMW who will make a new key with a code matching one of the spare codes that's already in the EWS because they have kept records of every EWS ECU ever made.
From 2003 the EWS was replaced with a new immobiliser system that I know nothing about yet.
On these later cars (2000 on) pscan will still be able to code in door lock fobs, which is enough to open the doors but it won't allow the engine to run.
The new software will be out by the end of this week.
Click to expand...
Yer about to release code... What a load of cr*p... Your actually copying another product and about to sell it as yer own, making out you created something as opposed to listening (eves dropping) into another product and copying it. The icarsoft thing did the same which it why it had all the earlier faults of the hawkeye. No surprise the hawkeye stopped production with it being ripped oft. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I have used the hawkeye on my FL1 to enable and disable my eggsisting keys and fobs. Also removed keys I didn't have but were still registered to my FL1. I also bought a second hand fob which worked on someone elses FL1 which I added to my FL1 and it worked. Never added another key to it myself but I know of others who did and it worked for them. All yer doing is going through a process of using the keys/fobs and it records it to yer FL1. If I remember correctly yer can have about 8 of each.
 
Hippo said:
Yer about to release code... What a load of cr*p... Your actually copying another product and about to sell it as yer own, making out you created something as opposed to listening (eves dropping) into another product and copying it. The icarsoft thing did the same which it why it had all the earlier faults of the hawkeye. No surprise the hawkeye stopped production with it being ripped oft. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Time of the month is it?

How the hell is anyone going to offer options if LR don't release info - they sniff what their diagnostic kit does and replicate it.

Its why regulators forced car manufacturers to conform to standards - at least some parts of the car are openly accessible. If poxy car manufacturers didn't try and rip their customers off by only allowing people they want to maintain the cars, there wouldn't be a problem.

Anyway, he's only replicating messages, not code - that would be illegal probably. Its what happened in the early 80's to IBMs PC and why you can go down the shop now and buy a cheap PC - otherwise you would be buying from a market with a single supplier and entry level PCs would be £2K. (how much is a Testbook T4 or what ever its called ?)
 
Hippo said:
Yer about to release code... What a load of cr*p... Your actually copying another product and about to sell it as yer own, making out you created something as opposed to listening (eves dropping) into another product and copying it. The icarsoft thing did the same which it why it had all the earlier faults of the hawkeye. No surprise the hawkeye stopped production with it being ripped oft. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I am not going to be drawn into a slanging match or keep an argument going. I have been on internet forums far, far too long to fall for that. However; you have accused me of "copying another product and about to sell it as yer own, making out you created something" and I must for the record state that this is 100% not true. It is my own and I did create it.

What I am actually doing is connecting a T4 to various Rovers and MG and now Freelanders. I inspect the data going between the T4 and the vehicle, and then I write my own code to send packets to the vehicle as if the packets came from a T4. There is no other way to do it. The vehicle expects queries in a certain format, and that's what I have to send it to get a response.

Every single line of code in pscan was written by myself, and every line of code in the firmware of our interface was written by a family member. There is absolutely no Omitec (or any other companies) code in pscan at all. Zero.

This process is 100% legal and is protected under EU law by EU Directive 2009/24

If Omitec or anyone else ever wants to sue me then it will be settled quickly as I will be able to show the judge my source code written in a completely different programming language to their product.

It might be that Hawkeye does things that pscan does not. At the moment I have only reverse engineered what a T4 can do, and if Hawkeye can do things that a T4 cannot do, then pscan (at the moment) won't do them either. Additionally no doubt Hawkeye will access the EWS immobiliser, but pscan will not because I haven't written the code for that yet. As you say you can enable and disable keys into the EWS, but there is no way through the diagnostic port as far as I know to add one in not known to the EWS; BMW have to make them.
The limit for the alarm/door remote fobs is four.
 
GrumpyGel said:
Time of the month is it?
Click to expand...
Yer need to do betterer than that for an insult. Its the false claims that got me.

GrumpyGel said:
How the hell is anyone going to offer options if LR don't release info - they sniff what their diagnostic kit does and replicate it.
Click to expand...
LR did release info o'fishally to many companies like auto logic. They then included it in their diagnostic products. The amount they choose to put in beyond the more basic items is up to auto logic and others.

They're not just eves dropping data. Its protocol sending and collecting data to find out info or send control. They're also collecting info on how things are done. Like where multiple commands are required to implement something happening as opposed to vector scan only. So they getting the research/stratagy done by someone else for free and claiming as his own. But on this occasion he's claiming he's doing the work. That's a dishonest claim. Also dismissing what the hawheye can do and claiming his can.

GrumpyGel said:
Its why regulators forced car manufacturers to conform to standards - at least some parts of the car are openly accessible. If poxy car manufacturers didn't try and rip their customers off by only allowing people they want to maintain the cars, there wouldn't be a problem.
Click to expand...
Are you seriously calling rover/lr poxy?

How many independent garages have bought test book T4 over the years? It was open for them to do. LR even allowed the hawkeye to be released to peeps like us, on sale in the open market. A version of it came with testbook T4. Now think about how many other manufacturers allow their diagnostic kit out in the same way?

GrumpyGel said:
Anyway, he's only replicating messages, not code - that would be illegal probably. Its what happened in the early 80's to IBMs PC and why you can go down the shop now and buy a cheap PC - otherwise you would be buying from a market with a single supplier and entry level PCs would be £2K. (how much is a Testbook T4 or what ever its called ?)
Click to expand...
ibm gave out their information as part of the ibm open architecture. It was a decision made to get peeps to take on and use their setup.

As above he's copying method and pinching it for his own gain. Gain which others have also taken when copying. It's the reason why Hawkeye sales stopped. I wouldn't eggspect you to appreciate this as you don't own one. So you haven't lost out on the free updates. Updates stopped as well when sales dropped. No point in furthering a product if theres no sales to support it.

This forum has never linked the hawkeye. It's confirmed at most opertunities. It's the best device we had, and had further potential. But its gone now. It was available a decade+ ago when we had nothing else anywhere near its ability. Few would have put in the effort back then to make a similar level device. If you had something to copy and claim its your work then its easier.

If copying is ok then it will be ok for me to get hold of his product and copy it? I can then sell it not for profit and under cut him?
 
pscan.eu said:
I am not going to be drawn into a slanging match or keep an argument going. I have been on internet forums far, far too long to fall for that. However; you have accused me of "copying another product and about to sell it as yer own, making out you created something" and I must for the record state that this is 100% not true. It is my own and I did create it.

What I am actually doing is connecting a T4 to various Rovers and MG and now Freelanders. I inspect the data going between the T4 and the vehicle, and then I write my own code to send packets to the vehicle as if the packets came from a T4. There is no other way to do it. The vehicle expects queries in a certain format, and that's what I have to send it to get a response.

Every single line of code in pscan was written by myself, and every line of code in the firmware of our interface was written by a family member. There is absolutely no Omitec (or any other companies) code in pscan at all. Zero.

This process is 100% legal and is protected under EU law by EU Directive 2009/24

If Omitec or anyone else ever wants to sue me then it will be settled quickly as I will be able to show the judge my source code written in a completely different programming language to their product.

It might be that Hawkeye does things that pscan does not. At the moment I have only reverse engineered what a T4 can do, and if Hawkeye can do things that a T4 cannot do, then pscan (at the moment) won't do them either. Additionally no doubt Hawkeye will access the EWS immobiliser, but pscan will not because I haven't written the code for that yet. As you say you can enable and disable keys into the EWS, but there is no way through the diagnostic port as far as I know to add one in not known to the EWS; BMW have to make them.
The limit for the alarm/door remote fobs is four.
Click to expand...
You have just admitted to listening in to T4 in order to gain method and strategy in order to reverse engineer a product, and create something of yer own form that information.

That is no different to me looking at a painting, then using my own paint and brush to make my own version of the same painting.

We will have to agree to disagree.
 
Hippo said:
You have just admitted to listening in to T4 in order to gain method and strategy in order to reverse engineer a product, and create something of yer own form that information.
Click to expand...
Yes I did. It's the difference between legal reverse engineering and copyright infringement.

Your actual earlier words were "making out you created something as opposed to listening (eves dropping) into another product"
I didn't make out that I created something. I actually did create something, it has taken thousands and thousands of hours finding cars, buying ECUs on ebay, figuring out how the protocols work and writing (creating) my own code to implement that same protocol.
It isn't "opposed to listening (eves dropping)" because actually, that is exactly what I did do. The words "opposed to" are important in what you said.

You might not like what I do, but it is legal and in my opinion not immoral. However morals are a matter of opinion and so as you say we have to agree to disagree.
Hippo said:
If copying is ok then it will be ok for me to get hold of his product and copy it? I can then sell it not for profit and under cut him
Click to expand...
Yes 100%. If you want to put the effort in then I cannot stop you.

Anyway I don't what to force the moderators to do anything to either you or me; I'm happy to leave it there.
 
Last edited:
Hippo said:
Yer need to do betterer than that for an insult. Its the false claims that got me.

LR did release info o'fishally to many companies like auto logic. They then included it in their diagnostic products. The amount they choose to put in beyond the more basic items is up to auto logic and others.

They're not just eves dropping data. Its protocol sending and collecting data to find out info or send control. They're also collecting info on how things are done. Like where multiple commands are required to implement something happening as opposed to vector scan only. So they getting the research/stratagy done by someone else for free and claiming as his own. But on this occasion he's claiming he's doing the work. That's a dishonest claim. Also dismissing what the hawheye can do and claiming his can.

Are you seriously calling rover/lr poxy?

How many independent garages have bought test book T4 over the years? It was open for them to do. LR even allowed the hawkeye to be released to peeps like us, on sale in the open market. A version of it came with testbook T4. Now think about how many other manufacturers allow their diagnostic kit out in the same way?

ibm gave out their information as part of the ibm open architecture. It was a decision made to get peeps to take on and use their setup.

As above he's copying method and pinching it for his own gain. Gain which others have also taken when copying. It's the reason why Hawkeye sales stopped. I wouldn't eggspect you to appreciate this as you don't own one. So you haven't lost out on the free updates. Updates stopped as well when sales dropped. No point in furthering a product if theres no sales to support it.

This forum has never linked the hawkeye. It's confirmed at most opertunities. It's the best device we had, and had further potential. But its gone now. It was available a decade+ ago when we had nothing else anywhere near its ability. Few would have put in the effort back then to make a similar level device. If you had something to copy and claim its your work then its easier.

If copying is ok then it will be ok for me to get hold of his product and copy it? I can then sell it not for profit and under cut him?
Click to expand...
That is complete codswallop @Hippo

This fella has done nothing wrong and brought the ability to people to maintain their vehicles.

If people like LR & Hawkeye had charged a reasonable price for their product then there would be no need for devices such as this and iCarsoft.

I do not single out LR as 'poxy' - the poxyness was endemic in the motor industry, they were all putting electronics into their vehicles that created a toxic maintenance environment for their customers. Legislation was needed to stop them - as it is when ever corporations take unfair advantage of their customers.

Anyway, should we always use 'genuine' parts when maintaining our cars? Should we never use OEM or aftermarket - even when JLR arbitrarily decide they can't be arsed to sell them any more? Surely going by your position they should be removed from sale.

I should add as well, that the question of whether remotes/transponders can be coded has been asked many times on this forum over the years with nobody being able to answer it. The cars are now 20 years old and finally someone has been able to answered it.

IBM were happy for people to build add-ons to their computers - bull bars and roof racks if you like - it meant they could sell more PCs - however, they took people to court to stop them copying their PCs. It was only after people reverse engineered the code for the BIOS that IBM compatible PCs could be made and competition created.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Reprogram manual Key
Replies
5
Views
753
andyfreelandy
andyfreelandy
T
Freelander 1 Spare Key Urgently Needed
Replies
2
Views
325
andyfreelandy
andyfreelandy
H
Freelander 2 2013 door locking
Replies
3
Views
429
Freddie17
Freddie17
L
Programmable key fob and blade needed
Replies
19
Views
1K
pwood999
pwood999
D
Key fob
Replies
0
Views
525
DAVID HICKIE
D
Back
Top