Recent Posts

1

OBDLink MX+ / Re: MX+ reading 2016 Toyota Sequoia tire pressure

« Last post by SCysneros on Today at 08:33:41 pm »

Hi J,

Some Toyota vehicles return the pressure as an absolute value (not barometrically compensated). That means the value will be larger by the atmospheric pressure (nominally around 14.5 psi). When you read tire pressures with a gauge, the gauge experiences atmospheric pressure and only “sees" the difference between atmosphere and the tire pressure.

I have forwarded this case to the developer to see if this can be resolved in a future update.

2

OBDLink MX+ / Re: MX+ reading 2016 Toyota Sequoia tire pressure

« Last post by SCysneros on Today at 08:26:20 pm »

Thank you for your patience thus far.

I have forwarded this report to our app developer and I am waiting to hear back from them.

3

Developer Forum / Re: ATCF command error response

« Last post by STN-Brian on Today at 02:59:45 pm »

When using a 29 bit protocol (ATSP 7) ATCF and ATCM require 8 digits to be entered. It should look like the ATCRA command.

ATCF 17FE007B
ATCM FFFFFFFF

ATCRA 17FE007B

Also, the ATCRA command replaces the ATCF/ATCM command combination, so you should remove the ATCF and ATCM commands from your script if you are using ATCRA.

4

Developer Forum / ATCF command error response

« Last post by sillygoose on Today at 01:07:53 pm »

Working with a remote VW ID.4 and never had any luck getting a response beyond reading the VIN using service 09, PID 02. Tried many combinations of STPX, ATSH, etc and never saw a response..

Decided to go back to basics and try the AT initialization commands used in a public repo for the ID.4 that supposedly will work:

      "ATZ", "ATE0", "ATL0", "ATSP7", "ATBI", "ATSH FC007B", "ATCP 17", "ATCAF0", "ATCF 17FE7", "ATCRA17FE007B"

I dropped the ATL0 and ATBI commands as unnecessary and send the rest but get an error on the ATCF 17FE7 command:

  .atz [ATZ → ELM327 v1.4b]
  .ate(false) [ATE0 → ATE0OK]
  .atsp(7) [ATSP7 → OK]
  .atsh(FC007B) [ATSH FC007B → OK]
  .atcp(17) [ATCP 17 → OK]
  .atcaf(false) [ATCAF0 → OK]
  .atcf(17FE7) [ATCF 17FE7 → ?]
  .atcra(17FE007B) [ATCRA 17FE007B → OK]

Running on a bench setup to test as much as possible, the ID.4 is elsewhere and I have to push an app to TestFlight to actually run the code on the vehicle.

5

Developer Forum / Re: MY25 Mustang Mach-E lockout

« Last post by STN-Brian on March 11, 2026, 12:51:35 pm »

Thanks for the follow up! I'm glad you found them.

6

Developer Forum / Re: MY25 Mustang Mach-E lockout

« Last post by sillygoose on March 11, 2026, 10:41:37 am »

All sorted out, found the modules were moved from the HSCAN bus to the MSCAN bus.

7

OBDLink LX Bluetooth / Re: OBD LX won't connect from my phone

« Last post by Shawnf350 on March 11, 2026, 07:18:32 am »

Yes, that is correct
Same procedure.

Regards,
Shawn

8

OBDLink MX+ / Re: Latest MX+ scanner Model?

« Last post by rich121 on March 10, 2026, 11:58:57 pm »

The 3.1 and 3.2 don't have any purpose in the features of the tool.
As long as you have the latest firmware,  they will both function the same.
They may have had to make minor changes if certain components weren't available at the time but there's no difference.

Kind regards,
Shawn

Thank you Shawn

9

OBDLink LX Bluetooth / Re: OBD LX won't connect from my phone

« Last post by grahamleupp on March 10, 2026, 09:13:05 pm »

Thanks, Shawn.  Mine is an LX, will your directions apply to that model?

10

OBDLink MX+ / Re: Latest MX+ scanner Model?

« Last post by Shawnf350 on March 10, 2026, 05:38:40 pm »

The 3.1 and 3.2 don't have any purpose in the features of the tool.
As long as you have the latest firmware,  they will both function the same.
They may have had to make minor changes if certain components weren't available at the time but there's no difference.

Kind regards,
Shawn