Which one is 1 and 4? Is this the diagram for the female? (In car connector?)



And male? (OP2.0 connector?)

 

I know it's not exactly topic related, but I'll ask anyways:


Does anyone know where I can find the specifications of the mid/high level protocol/message formatting mitsubishi is using over the various CAN buses?

Edit: I presume the only high level protocol that is known is the one used at the diagnostics port.

 

Correct, the top image is the female and the bottom image is the male connector (OP2.0).

 

UPDATE:

Soldiered pins 1,4 on my OP2.0 and am still unable to get v1.6 working on the Evo 10.

The logs looked the same as each of my prior attempts; I'll post them up if I still have them.

Any suggestions for troubleshooting are very welcome!

Thanks.

 

I picked up a EVO9 ECU this end today as all testing with MUT-Monitor is using a EVO6 ECU I have here.

I can confirm that it works fine with OP2.0 but also I did not have to short out Pin 1 to Pin4 as the ECU does not actually have a wire running to Pin1 of the ECU.

What proceedure are you using to try and log.

1.) Make sure Igntion is turned off and insert cable.

2.) Turn ignition switch on but do not start engine.

3.) Hit the Monitor button.

If someone else confirms it does not work then I will knock up a application that gives more logs on requests and answers.

Now I have the EVO9 ECU I also tried PCMscan that uses the OP2.0 cable and uses the OBD-II rather than MUT Protocol.

I can confirm that is VERY slow as well, if not slower than Mut-Monitor.

Is there any other programs that use the OP2.0 for logging OBD-II?

 

Thanks for the reply. I'm heading out to lunch soon and I'll give it another shot then.

PCMScan (general OBD-II)

ECUEdit (maybe, haven't heard back from them regarding support for the X)

ECUFlash (eventually)

This is off the top of my head, in a hurry at the moment...

 

Yes someone here who is in the ECUFlash beta has confirmed that he uses PCMScan for data logging using the OP2 cable, however yes it's only the basics as they don't support nor have an idea when they will support Mitsu PID's.

 

I believe the EvoScan crew was trying to get the Evo X to communicate in MUT mode as well. Not sure if they ever succeeded using the first gen Tactrix cable. You may want to chat with them.

Can I ask why you are shorting pins together to access MUT mode (Mitsubishi Factory Logging/Diag)?

Cheers,

 

Been playing more with PCMscan and it soes only seem to support OBD-II ISO 9141-2 commands via the OP2.0 and not the MUT requests.

So seems Mut-Monitor is the first with OP2.0 to do this, so I am happy for now

 

Up until today I have only had a EVO6 Bench ECU and you must short Pins 1-4 together to get it into diagnostics mode.

When I wired up the EVO9 ECU today, I noticed it did not have this Pin1 wire from the ECU and Mut-Monitor, Evoscan etc etc worked fine without it.

Later today it was confirmed that EVO 4-6 need these pins shorted and EVO 7 upwards do not.

All a big learning experience, but getting there

 

UPDATE:

Double-checked that I'd been connecting correctly and still nothing.

Regardless of how I connect and with or without the 1,4 short (which now appears to be unnecessary) I'm still getting the same 'Invalid Reply or Timeout' message.

This is the procedure I've been following; I've tried other variations to see if it changed anything without any luck.

I'll see if I can get someone else with a OP2.0 cable to give it a shot.

 

I can confirm that it DOES NOT WORK with OP2. I just went out after lowering the car on the lift just enough to reach the cable and OBD-ii port. And same problem:

 

Any updates?

 

I tried 1.7 with the OP2.0 on my X and I had the same results as you. It doesn't seem like the X is a priority right now, the developer seems like he is focusing on previous Evos.

 

Man that makes me sad... Looks like no one really cares about Evo X data logging. EvoScan is meh on Evo X support. Why is development on Evo X something people don't care about? I mean when future Evo's come out is it gonna revert back to the old system? We need to stop catering to past technology and help on working current and future builds...