When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Here's the procedure I use when helping Porsche independents and 993 owners;
.
.
6. If step #3 doesn't occur, the ignition switch is most likely bad. The immobilizer then needs to be
programmed externally.
Not quite.
When the light doesn't flash after step 3, a temporary bypass of the key switch may be all you need to do to complete the procedure. A lot easier than removing the seat, grinding off security bolts and sending your immo off. It's free too. The workaround is described here.
Not quite.
When the light doesn't flash after step 3, a temporary bypass of the key switch may be all you need to do to complete the procedure. A lot easier than removing the seat, grinding off security bolts and sending your immo off. It's free too. The workaround is described here.
"Try the easy things first"
Yes, that maybe helpful, but the problem might be bounce in the ignition switch itself and NOT the rear micro-switch. The same can occur when entering the four digit code, i.e. contact switch bounce.
__________________
Loren
Systems Consulting - Automotive Electronics
Specializing in Porsche cars http://www.systemsc.com/
In my experience, the "step-3-no-flash" thing has always been a flaky key switch. All it takes is a momentary opening and the procedure will abort - indicated by the warning light not flashing. True, if the ignition contacts bounce, the code can get entered in error, but the indication there is different - the light will fail to flash at step 4. Regardless, the switch bypass is easy to do and should always be tried before anything more complicated and costly.
Minor edit of your step 4: 4. If the code is correct, the light will again begin to flash on/off. Depress the button on each remote one at a time - and wait for the door LED to flash on and off.
In my experience, the "step-3-no-flash" thing has always been a flaky key switch. All it takes is a momentary opening and the procedure will abort - indicated by the warning light not flashing. True, if the ignition contacts bounce, the code can get entered in error, but the indication there is different - the light will fail to flash at step 4. Regardless, the switch bypass is easy to do and should always be tried before anything more complicated and costly.
Minor edit of your step 4: 4. If the code is correct, the light will again begin to flash on/off. Depress the button on each remote one at a time - and wait for the door LED to flash on and off.
Step #4 was very explicit!
4. If the code is correct, the light will again begin to flash on/off.
Hi Jay I got the test fob you sent, will do the group reprogram tomorrow and do the distance test. I now have 4 different ones, should cover most the ones available.
Thanks , Steve
Good, same mix I tested. Range is going to depend on how you hold the FOB relative to your body, so make sure to test each one the same way to get a good comparison. I found that holding the FOB at the hip was better than holding it away from the body. For example, the new design FOB got 57 ft holding it out and 80 ft holding it close to the hip. The best range of the 4 bearings tested was from the driver's side. The worst (by far) was from the rear. So for those with marginal reception, approach the car from the driver's side and hold the FOB at your hip.
Another interesting result: I tested one of the OE FOBs at 10.5v and 12.5 v. At 10.5v, range was only down 20% compared to 12.5v. That might make a difference from the rear of the car, but from all other aspects, it still works fine.
Last edited by jay@EZimmoblock.com; 03-18-2024 at 11:18 AM.
Hi Jay I got the test fob you sent, will do the group reprogram tomorrow and do the distance test. I now have 4 different ones, should cover most the ones available.
Thanks , Steve
Without knowing the state of the battery of each, and whether some may have experienced some water damage, causing oxidation (common) of internal PCB connections, comparative tests are basically meaningless.
Without knowing the state of the battery of each, and whether some may have experienced some water damage, causing oxidation (common) of internal PCB connections, comparative tests are basically meaningless.
Without knowing the state of the battery of each, and whether some may have experienced some water damage, causing oxidation (common) of internal PCB connections, comparative tests are basically meaningless.
The implication here wasn't with regard to whether an updated FOB can significantly improve range, surely that's possible, given my testing and repair of many OE FOBs, where the typical range is about 20+ feet.
Remember, the OE FOB design technology is over 30 years old. The point is that without a properly functioning OE FOB, range testing is of little value when comparing FOBs. In any case, one would expect any redeisgn
of the OE FOB to have some range improvement, whether some find it of value or not.
You're preaching to the choir.
Three of the 4 FOBs I'm testing are brand new. The 4th, another OE, is my primary, in like-new condition, with clean contacts and no corrosion. (It performs better than the new OE). All 4 have fresh batteries installed. Given the conditions, comparative tests ARE meaningful. Make sense?
You're preaching to the choir.
Three of the 4 FOBs I'm testing are brand new. The 4th, another OE, is my primary, in like-new condition, with clean contacts and no corrosion. (It performs better than the new OE). All 4 have fresh batteries installed. Given the conditions, comparative tests ARE meaningful. Make sense?
Not really! It was with regard to his post #20 and his FOBs. It's always helpful when reading a thread to understand the sequence of the posts' meanings.
03-13-2024, 03:35 PM
