 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Chrysler Cars / January 2008remote entry -key fob programming
I have a 1999 Plymouth Voyager and my wife has a 2000 Dodge Caravan. Is it possible to program my key fob so that it will also open my wife's car? John Keith kd0gd@juno.com > I have a 1999 Plymouth Voyager and my wife has a 2000 Dodge Caravan. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > John Keith > kd0gd@juno.com No > > I have a 1999 Plymouth Voyager and my wife has a 2000 Dodge > > Caravan. Is it possible to program my key fob so that it will > > also open my wife's car? > > No It's not the fob that's programmed. It's the computer in the vehicle. I would think it's possible to program both vehicles to recognize each-others fobs. The only reason why this wouldn't work is if the fob's operate on different frequencies or use different coding techniques. > > > I have a 1999 Plymouth Voyager and my wife has a 2000 Dodge > > > Caravan. Is it possible to program my key fob so that it will [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The only reason why this wouldn't work is if the fob's operate on > different frequencies or use different coding techniques. Different part numbers, different software. if the part numbers were the same it could be done. >> > > I have a 1999 Plymouth Voyager and my wife has a 2000 Dodge >> > > Caravan. Is it possible to program my key fob so that it will [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Different part numbers, different software. if the part numbers were the >same it could be done. OK, as usual I didn't provide enough info on the original post. The fobs for the two vehicles were physically simialr so I thought they might be identical. The facts are: Chrysler P/N: 04686481AA Same for both Model/FCC ID: GQ43VT13T Same for both So my first assumption is that both fobs use the same frequencies and the same coding techniques. And I guess I knew that it was the computer in the vehicle that is programmed from what info I was able to find on the internet, so I misspoke when I asked if the fob could be programmed. But then the question is can this computer recognize codes from two different fobs? The last responder suggests that if the part numbers are the smae it can be done. So, can anyone point me to the web page that has the process for 1999-2000 vehicle? (I'll do a little more searching, but my first pass did not turn up anything for my vehicle.) And while I'm thinking about it another question comes to mind. My wife's car originally has 2 fobs that work with it. Are these 2 fobs coded identically or is the vehicle computer capable of responding to >2 different encoded fobs? Thanks for the info so far, hope I can get a little more. John Keith kd0gd@juno.com > OK, as usual I didn't provide enough info on the original post. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > programmed from what info I was able to find on the internet, so I > misspoke when I asked if the fob could be programmed. That was news to me too - I'd still like to have that confirmed. I was under the impression that when you went thru the reprogaming procedure with a vehicle and a working fob to get a second fob working with that one vehicle, that the second fob was changed (i.e., if it previously worked with a different vehicle, it no longer would work with its original vehicle) - I might be wrong. > But then the question is can this computer recognize codes from two > different fobs?... The answer to that is yes (regardless of whether it is the fob that changes or the computer). > The last responder suggests that if the part numbers > are the smae it can be done. So, can anyone point me to the web page > that has the process for 1999-2000 vehicle? (I'll do a little more > searching, but my first pass did not turn up anything for my vehicle.) If you have your owner's manuals, it should be in there. > And while I'm thinking about it another question comes to mind. My > wife's car originally has 2 fobs that work with it. Are these 2 fobs > coded identically or is the vehicle computer capable of responding to >> 2 different encoded fobs? 2 fobs will work with one vehicle. > Thanks for the info so far, hope I can get a little more. > > John Keith > kd0gd@juno.com Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > > The fobs for the two vehicles were physically simialr so I > > thought they might be identical. The facts are: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > So my first assumption is that both fobs use the same > > frequencies and the same coding techniques. I'd say that all 4 fobs (assuming you have 2 for each vehicle) would work interchangibly for both vehicles. Maxpower is invited to comment given the new information above. > That was news to me too - I'd still like to have that confirmed. > I was under the impression that when you went thru the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > vehicle, it no longer would work with its original vehicle) > - I might be wrong. I went through this a few months ago. One set of keys for my '00 300m was stolen - along with the fob. I ordered a new fob and key from the dealer. At the dealer, they reprogrammed the car's computer so that: 1) the car would no longer respond to the missing fob and the ignition key-sentry system would no longer function if the missing key was attempted to be used to start the car. 2) the computer was programmed to respond to the new key and fob. 3) our other key and fob for the car remained active in the car's computer. If the stolen key was used to manually open (unlock) the doors while the car alarm was armed, I'm told the alarm would disarm as normal. That would not be desirable. To prevent disarming, I can simply disconnect a wire in the door that tells the computer that the door was unlocked manually. > > But then the question is can this computer recognize codes > > from two different fobs?... Yes, because in my case, I had 2 fobs for the car (every new car comes with 2 sets of keys and fobs) and all fobs (and keys with electronic sentry-key) are unique. > > So, can anyone point me to the web page that has the process > > for 1999-2000 vehicle? (I'll do a little more searching, but > > my first pass did not turn up anything for my vehicle.) I've seen the dealer do it, and it requires some large-ish computer-looking thing that gets plugged into the OBD connector under the steering wheel. I don't think it can be done just by pressing the right combinations of buttons on the dashboard or console. > > And while I'm thinking about it another question comes to mind. > > My wife's car originally has 2 fobs that work with it. Are these > > 2 fobs coded identically or is the vehicle computer capable of > > responding to 2 different encoded fobs? > > 2 fobs will work with one vehicle. ALL fobs are unique, and so are the electronic parts of the keys (if you have the sentry-key system). It's a matter of telling the car's computer which fobs and keys to respond to. It may also be a matter of how many different fobs and keys the computer can be programmed for. >So, can anyone point me to the web page >that has the process for 1999-2000 vehicle? (I'll do a little more >searching, but my first pass did not turn up anything for my vehicle.) When all else fails RTFM! The following info was found in teh Owner's Manual fo rthe 2000 Caravan: 1. Turn ignition switch to the ON postion and leave vehicle in park. 2. Using a previously programmed transmitter, press the UNLOCK button for 5 to 10 seconds. While the UNLOCK button is being pressed, press the PANIC button and release bothbuttons simultaneously. You will hear a chime sound to signal you that programming on the new transmitter(s) may occur. 3. You may program up to 4 transmitters for your vehicle within a 30 second timed window. Press and release both LOCK and UNLOCK button of a transmitter at the same time; then press any of the buttons once, you will hear a beep when the transmitter has been successfully programmed. A chime will sound when the 30 seconds is over, or if you turn the ignition off. 4. You must repeat step 3 for all transmitters that will be used with this vehicle (up to 4 total). When it's not below freezing out in the garage I'll give the process a whirl. Oh, I did find a similar process on the web, but it did not include the step to press both LOCK and UNLOCK buttons at the same time. John Keith kd0gd@juno.com >So, can anyone point me to the web page >that has the process for 1999-2000 vehicle? (I'll do a little more >searching, but my first pass did not turn up anything for my vehicle.) When all else fails RTFM! The following info was found in teh Owner's Manual fo rthe 2000 Caravan: 1. Turn ignition switch to the ON postion and leave vehicle in park. 2. Using a previously programmed transmitter, press the UNLOCK button for 5 to 10 seconds. While the UNLOCK button is being pressed, press the PANIC button and release bothbuttons simultaneously. You will hear a chime sound to signal you that programming on the new transmitter(s) may occur. 3. You may program up to 4 transmitters for your vehicle within a 30 second timed window. Press and release both LOCK and UNLOCK button of a transmitter at the same time; then press any of the buttons once, you will hear a beep when the transmitter has been successfully programmed. A chime will sound when the 30 seconds is over, or if you turn the ignition off. 4. You must repeat step 3 for all transmitters that will be used with this vehicle (up to 4 total). When it's not below freezing out in the garage I'll give the process a whirl. Oh, I did find a similar process on the web, but it did not include the step to press both LOCK and UNLOCK buttons at the same time. John Keith kd0gd@juno.com >>> I have a 1999 Plymouth Voyager and my wife has a 2000 Dodge >>> Caravan. Is it possible to program my key fob so that it will >>> also open my wife's car? >> No > > It's not the fob that's programmed. It's the computer in the vehicle. Though you might be right, that seems counterintuitive. I have two 2nd gen. LH cars sitting in my driveway that use fobs of the same part number. If I took the fob of car no. 1 and followed the programing procedure using car no. 2 and its fob, then both fobs would control car no. 2, and car no. 1 would no longer respond to either. If what you're saying is true (that it is the car's computer that gets programed), that doesn't sound possible. Or would in fact both cars respond to what was car no. 1's fob after the reprograming? Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > >>> I have a 1999 Plymouth Voyager and my wife has a 2000 Dodge > >>> Caravan. Is it possible to program my key fob so that it will [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > programed), that doesn't sound possible. Or would in fact both cars > respond to what was car no. 1's fob after the reprograming? My '95 T&C and my '94 T&C are both programmed to use the same 2 key fobs, mine and my wifes. But I have to warn you - it seems line a useful thing - but the problem is that since both vans sit next to each other, when you click on the rear hatch button to unlock the rear hatch, both hatches on both vans open. Then what happens is invariably after getting the groceries in or whatever, you forget to slam the hatch closed on the other van - and then at 9:00pm at night your S/O looks out the window and sees the interior light on, and you get a yelling at, and have to go out in the cold and slam the hatch closed. Ted > >>> I have a 1999 Plymouth Voyager and my wife has a 2000 Dodge > >>> Caravan. Is it possible to program my key fob so that it will [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > address with the letter 'x') The RKE system and transmitter use a rolling code method for transmitting the information . Rolling code is a method used to provide extra security to a transmitted signal. The transmitter sends a randomly selected sequence code each time a signal is sent. The code increments vary depending on a unique algorithm that is preprogrammed to each transmitter at the time it was built. The sequence changes each time the transmitter is used. ( If a scanner is used to try to pick the signal up it can not be duplicated) because the sequence code cannot be calculated from the encoded transmission. The receiver module also learns the transmitter id code and initial sequence code at the time of transmitter programming. The receiver then expects the next transmitted sequence code to increment within a predetermined range of numbers Each Transmitter has its own code and the code is programmed and stored into the receiver memory. The newer key fobs transmit a unique rolling code id message to the RKE module. Transmitters and receivers are unique to each vehicle line and will not work. >>>>> I have a 1999 Plymouth Voyager and my wife has a 2000 Dodge >>>>> Caravan. Is it possible to program my key fob so that it will [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > message to the RKE module. Transmitters and receivers are unique to each > vehicle line and will not work. Thanks, Glenn. So, if I read that right, my two LH cars sitting in the driveway could not be programmed to simultaneously both work with the same remote? Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > >>>>> I have a 1999 Plymouth Voyager and my wife has a 2000 Dodge > >>>>> Caravan. Is it possible to program my key fob so that it will [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > address with the letter 'x') I cant see how you could defeat the system to allow it to work > The RKE system and transmitter use a rolling code method ... > The transmitter sends a randomly selected sequence code each time > The code increments vary depending on a unique algorithm that > is preprogrammed to each transmitter at the time it was built. > The sequence changes each time the transmitter is used. > the sequence code cannot be calculated from the encoded > transmission. The receiver module also learns the transmitter > id code So far, what you're saying is that the FOB sends out a different sequence each time it's pressed, and that the ID code of the fob can be uniquely calculated from the transmitted data stream based on an algorythm. I doubt that the fob actually does generate a completely different stream each and every time it's pressed, as I doubt that the designers would ever anticipate someone with enough electronic gear would be close enough to the car to (a) want to open/unlock the car without possessing the real fob or key, (b) be close enough to evesdrop and capture the transmission, and (c) possess the electronics required to replicate the transmission. Just consider a use-case situation. But even if the fob does generate a different stream each time it's pressed, then I guess the receiver in the car would have to never respond to the same stream twice. > and initial sequence code at the time of transmitter programming. > The receiver then expects the next transmitted sequence code to > increment within a predetermined range of numbers Now that has got to be total bullshit. I can see plenty of situations where the fob and receiver can get out of sync with each other. There would be no need for this syncronization if the fob simply generates different streams that algorythmically always reduces to the same unique ID code. > Transmitters and receivers are unique to each vehicle line and > will not work. I guess we'll have to wait and see if John Keith posts back his results. > 1999 Plymouth Voyager and 2000 Dodge Caravan And by the way, do those 2 vehicles have sentry-key? If so, would they/could they have the same physical ignition key? > > The RKE system and transmitter use a rolling code method ... > > The transmitter sends a randomly selected sequence code each time [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Now that has got to be total bullshit. Your right it has to be total bullshit, But it isnt, google rolling code!! No wait, I will do it for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_code > I can see plenty of situations where the fob and receiver can get out > of sync with each other. There would be no need for this [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > If so, would they/could they have the same physical ignition key? > > > The RKE system and transmitter use a rolling code method ... > > > The transmitter sends a randomly selected sequence code each time [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Your right it has to be total bullshit, But it isnt, google rolling code!! > No wait, I will do it for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_code maxpower, there is nothing in this description that would preclude the original poster from programming the same keyfob to open multiple cars - as long as the keyfobs were the same part number AND as long as the system didn't have a different set of pseudo random number generators. (PRNGs) If for example the transmitter had a table of, lets say 200 different PRNGs, and during keyfob programming the transmitter uploaded a selected PRNG to the keyfob, then you would have a problem doing it. What would happen is both vehicles would likely use a different PRNG. But, if the PRNG's are only different between vehicle models, and or years, and the PRNG was burned into the keyfob, then as long as both cars used the same PRNG you could do it. I can guarentee to you that at least up to 1995 Chrysler did in fact use fixed PRNGs in the RKE system. In fact the sequence generator was the same algorithim for multiple YEARS. That is why I was able to program both my '94 and '95 van to use the same keyfobs. They changed the remotes in 96, and I would assume the system as well. But, if the new keyfobs are transmit-only, then it would be very likely that keyfobs of the same part number would use the same PRNG and would work. Frankly the entire system is way overengineered. A thief simply walks up to the car and smashes the window with a rock, he does not bother fiddling around with sniffing RKE signals. Ted > Frankly the entire system is way overengineered. A thief simply > walks up to the car and smashes the window with a rock, he does > not bother fiddling around with sniffing RKE signals. LOL! Kind of like when Indiana Jones proved you don't have to learn martial arts or how to handle a machete as long as you carry a loaded gun around with you. Remember the saying: "Locks are for honest people". IOW - many people would steal if something's laying out there, but a large percent of people will, for several different reasons (laziness, some minimum level of conscience, etc.) not steal if they have to do some conscious act that crosses a certain line (like picking or cutting a lock or breaking a window). IOW - adding one more layer of security will be effective to some degree on the statistics - a certain percentage of would-be crooks would be deterred by the over-engineered system who otherwise would go to the trouble of obtaining and using some kind of simple code-breaking machine (on the pre-'96 system). But yeah - there will always be the gutsier scum who will break the window no matter what. I complain all the time about how cars are over-engineered in some areas these days, and that we've reached the point of diminishing returns in some areas of technology use, but in this case, if you think about it, the development costs of such systems are amortized over practically all new cars on the planet (I'm assuming the algorithms and chips all come from a handful of manufacturers), and the per-unit costs are probably not increased much at all. IOW, there is some slight benefit overall, but the cost is almost zero compared to a, say, pre-'96 system. It's not like some feel-good systems that are on our cars now or in the future from which the benefits are questionable but the added cost per vehicle is one or more hundreds of dollars. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > in this case, if you think about it, > the development costs of such systems are amortized over practically all > new cars on the planet (I'm assuming the algorithms and chips all come > from a handful of manufacturers), and the per-unit costs are probably > not increased much at all. Understandable, the problem is that this ALSO applies to things such as the human interface to the engine computer. Why does it take a $10,000 scantool to interrogate the computer? Car computers today could be fitted with an USB port and you just plug in the laptop and run some software on it that interrogates the computer. Or better yet as I've said before, put an ethernet port on the car computer and put a webserver in it, and jack in your laptop running a web browser and use that to interrogate the computer. > IOW, there is some slight benefit overall, > but the cost is almost zero compared to a, say, pre-'96 system. It's > not like some feel-good systems that are on our cars now or in the > future from which the benefits are questionable but the added cost per > vehicle is one or more hundreds of dollars. Systems like the car computer interface which would cost almost zero due to amortization, yet deliver massive benefits, are not implemented. Systems like powered running boards that do nothing other than make the vehicle look like a rolling Christmas tree, ARE implemented. Is it any surprise Chrysler is this close to bankruptcy? Ted > Why does it take a $10,000 scantool to interrogate the computer? > Car computers today could be fitted with an USB port and you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > laptop running a web browser and use that to interrogate the > computer. That's been available for years - I own a third party tool that plugs into the car's datalink connector and adapts to the USB port of a computer (typically a laptop) into which you load the tool's software (basically your computer and the software comprise the "tool"). Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') > > Why does it take a $10,000 scantool to interrogate the computer? > > Car computers today could be fitted with an USB port and you [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > computer (typically a laptop) into which you load the tool's software > (basically your computer and the software comprise the "tool"). Yes, I know about those tools but that isn't what I'm talking about. The CPUs today used for embedded electronics like a vehicle car computer have plenty of extra power and the entire software that is in the tool could be easily stuck into the car computer - thus turning your laptop into nothing more than a human interface device, and alleviating the need to buy the software and the adapter that goes from the datalink connector to the USB port (which if you were to take it apart you probably would find quite a lot of intelligence in the adapter) Remember, the software on the computer needs to read lots of different models of cars, so it's much larger than it would need to be if included in the car computer. The federal government standardized the OBD-II connector over a decade ago, today there's much more common computer industry standard interfaces - ie: USB, firewire, and ethernet - where the controllers for these interfaces are much cheaper due to the fact that they aren't single-sourced. It's high time that the OBD-II interface be retired and replaced with one of these so you can just use an off-the-shelf $5 cable to plug your PC into the car computer. Ted > > > > The RKE system and transmitter use a rolling code method ... > > > > The transmitter sends a randomly selected sequence code each time [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > or years, and the PRNG was burned into the keyfob, then as long > as both cars used the same PRNG you could do it. Keep in mind that when you program one remote on this system you have to program all at the same time. Or it wipes out the ones that you didnt program. > I can guarentee to you that at least up to 1995 Chrysler did in fact > use fixed PRNGs in the RKE system. In fact the sequence generator > was the same algorithim for multiple YEARS. That is why I was > able to program both my '94 and '95 van to use the same keyfobs. You were able to do your older vehicles because it was not using the rolling code system I would think. when program a key fob into that year you didnt have to have all of them to reprogram. You were able to add one > They changed the remotes in 96, and I would assume the system > as well. But, if the new keyfobs are transmit-only, then it would be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > walks up to the car and smashes the window with a rock, he does > not bother fiddling around with sniffing RKE signals. I beleive the key fobs were designed more to lock and unlock doors easier.... not to deter thiefs. The skim key is to deter thiefs from stealing the vehicle. and the vehicle theft alarm was to deter them > Ted >> maxpower, there is nothing in this description that would preclude >> the original poster from programming the same keyfob to open multiple >> cars - as long as the keyfobs were the same part number AND as >> long as the system didn't have a different set of pseudo random number >> generators. (PRNGs) >Keep in mind that when you program one remote on this system you have to >program all at the same time. Or it wipes out the ones that you didnt >program. This is the OP checking in. I've been following the discussion and I'm now at the point where I'm not sure I want to try the process for fear of ending up with no fob that works! My fobs do have identical Part # and FCC ID # for what that's worth (the vehciles were 1999 and 2000). And the process described in the owners manual gives the steps to program a different fob to work with the car but is silent about having to apply the process to the existing fob. I can't afford to have the dealer fix anything I screw up. Maybe I'll just continue using the low-tech key when I have to use my wife's car :-) John Keith kd0gd@juno.com > You were able to do your older vehicles because it was not using the rolling > code system I would think. when program a key fob into that year you didnt > have to have all of them to reprogram. You were able to add one No, in the older vehicles you have to program all the fobs in at the same time also. But the programming method is different, it involves grounding a wire and pushing buttons on the fobs, none of this business of requiring 2 working fobs beforehand. When I did it, I programmed the first vehicle then the second vehicle. The older system only allows a max of 2 fobs to be programmed. I'm also pretty sure it's a rolling key system, but I think it's a standard PRNG algorithm for all of the fobs. Ted > > The RKE system and transmitter use a rolling code method ... > > The transmitter sends a randomly selected sequence code each time [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > syncronization if the fob simply generates different streams that > algorythmically always reduces to the same unique ID code. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/remote-entry2.htm > > Transmitters and receivers are unique to each vehicle line and > > will not work. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > If so, would they/could they have the same physical ignition key? look on the rear case of the keyfobs if the part numbers are the same it may work > > I have a 1999 Plymouth Voyager and my wife has a 2000 Dodge Caravan. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.