FZJ80 won't start - help!

[cruiserdan]

Can you locate and remove the immobilizer, then try to start it?

That ain't happenin'. The ability to do that would render the system useless.
The whole purpose of the system is to make the vehicle "immobile" without serious legitimate intervention.

 

[BILT4ME]

That ain't happenin'. The ability to do that would render the system useless.
The whole purpose of the system is to make the vehicle "immobile" without serious legitimate intervention.

Dan, is it not "insertable" into the system, or does it replace section of wiring harness or ECU?

That's why I asked the question, if it was removable for diagnostic purposes. Do the immobilizers NEVER go bad? Or is it truly tied in with an ECU that won't operate without it?

 

[cruiserdan]

In Some models the function is bundled inside the engine ECU. In this case the module is free-standing. If it is not connected there is an open circuit and nothing happens.

 

[sbman]

Can you locate and remove the immobilizer, then try to start it?

As I understand from @Dave 2000 , there is no battery in the key, and it is required by law to have an immobilizer.

However, I'm sure you could unplug it and plug the factory harness back together to bypass it for "diagnostic purposes".....

This isn't an aftermarket thing that splices into some part of the harness, it's a factory designed and installed immobilizer computer that interfaces with the EFI computer and is party of the vehicles design. I don't think it can be defeated by simply unplugging it. The port installed RS3000 we had here could be removed that easily, but this is not that.

 

[sbman]

In Some models the function is bundled inside the engine ECU. In this case the module is free-standing. If it is not connected there is an open circuit and nothing happens.

On the free standing unit when unplugged, nothing happens as in the immobiliser is disabled or the vehicle becomes immobilized?

 

[Paul D63]

My, admittedly limited, understanding of it is the default state for the engine ECM is to allow the engine to run, but ONLY if it receives a signal from the immobiliser ECU. That signal can be one of two: either the immobiliser likes the key, sends the command to run, OR, it doesn't like the key, sends the command to shut down.

My theory - and it is just that - is that, just maybe, while it's waiting for a yes or no from the immobiliser, the ECM is allowing my engine to run if the immobiliser ECU is a little slow making its decision, but then the immobiliser decides it hasn't recognised my (defective?) key and sends the shutdown command to the ECM.

Might be complete bollocks of course, if you guys understand that word!

 

[cruiserdan]

On the free standing unit when unplugged, nothing happens as in the immobiliser is disabled or the vehicle becomes immobilized?

The vehicle is dead. The module is not there to facilitate communications.


EDIT:
Subsequent testing indicates this particular configuration will allow the engine to start and then die after 5-6 seconds of run time if the module is disconnected.

 

[Paul D63]

The vehicle is dead. The module is not there to facilitate communications.

Yeah, that. A little more succinctly put than I managed above!

 

[sbman]

My, admittedly limited, understanding of it is the default state for the engine ECM is to allow the engine to run, but ONLY if it receives a signal from the immobiliser ECU. That signal can be one of two: either the immobiliser likes the key, sends the command to run, OR, it doesn't like the key, sends the command to shut down.

My theory - and it is just that - is that, just maybe, while it's waiting for a yes or no from the immobiliser, the ECM is allowing my engine to run if the immobiliser ECU is a little slow making its decision, but then the immobiliser decides it hasn't recognised my (defective?) key and sends the shutdown command to the ECM.

Might be complete bollocks of course, if you guys understand that word!

That was my theory as well, having never seem this particular system before. On my GX470, I had a key cut that didn't contain a transponder and it would physically turn all the locks and the engine would crank but never even a hint of running, just like Dan said. But that one also had a flashing key icon that would let you know that the key wasn't recognized.

 

[Paul D63]

That was my theory as well, having never seem this particular system before. On my GX470, I had a key cut that didn't contain a transponder and it would physically turn all the locks and the engine would crank but never even a hint of running, just like Dan said. But that one also had a flashing key icon that would let you know that the key wasn't recognized.

And maybe, as I suggested earlier, that your later systems are just a bit more sophisticated, and quick enough to read the key before you could even crank the motor, hence no life whatsoever with the wrong key?

 

[sbman]

And maybe, as I suggested earlier, that your later systems are just a bit more sophisticated, and quick enough to read the key before you could even crank the motor, hence no life whatsoever with the wrong key?

That seems plausible. I kind of think the code 99 is the only 'indicator' that something is going on with the immobiliser.

 

[sbman]

So the particular part number for your stand alone 89780-60020 immobilizer ECU was apparently only used in:

01/1995-12/1997

FZJ80R-GNPEKW

VX, EUR, RHD, 1FZFE, EFI, ATM, LUB

I think @cruiserdan truck might be this one:

2006 TOYOTA LAND CRUISER (FZJ80L-GNPRK)
STD GEN LHD 1FZFE EFI ATM 4FC LUB

That model uses 89870-60010.

Here is a comparison photo of the two. They seem to be almost the same part, including the specifications that are on them. Of course I have no idea if they work the same. The 60010 version was used from 1999-2006. Both versions and years of the trucks used the same identical coil and amplifier part numbers. The part numbers for the keys and EFI computers were different. Probably not very useful information, but interesting nonetheless.

 

[sbman]

This gets a bit obscure, but the linked thread below related to an IMS-01 immobilizer in a 1999 OBD-1 Rav4 (Not a U.S. Vehicle) the owner describes a 5 second run time and shut down with 'original key lost'. I looked up a couple of european rav4 models and they use an identical looking immobilizer box also made by Tokai-Rika. They seem to make immobilizer solutions for many manufacturers.

Toyota rav4 2.0 3sfe 1996 please add key org key lost

 

[cruiserdan]

So the particular part number for your stand alone 89780-60020 immobilizer ECU was apparently only used in:

01/1995-12/1997

FZJ80R-GNPEKW

VX, EUR, RHD, 1FZFE, EFI, ATM, LUB

I think @cruiserdan truck might be this one:


2006 TOYOTA LAND CRUISER (FZJ80L-GNPRK)
STD GEN LHD 1FZFE EFI ATM 4FC LUB

That model uses 89870-60010.

Here is a comparison photo of the two. They seem to be almost the same part, including the specifications that are on them. Of course I have no idea if they work the same. The 60010 version was used from 1999-2006. Both versions and years of the trucks used the same identical coil and amplifier part numbers. The part numbers for the keys and EFI computers were different. Probably not very useful information, but interesting nonetheless.

View attachment 2150839

The 60010 is for LHD and the 60020 is for RHD. It is likely simply a mounting difference.

 

[cruiserdan]

NEWS FLASH!

OK, the result of my latest test:

I just disconnected the 89780-60010 ECU in our Autana. The engine started and ran "normally" for about 5-6 seconds and then shut down like the key was turned off.

So, disconnecting the airflow meter = starts and runs for 1-2 seconds and disconnecting the immobilizer ECU = starts and runs for 5-6 seconds.

This comparison suggests the problem is in the immobilizer system.

It also confirms that an earlier immobilizer-equipped vehicle will actually start (at least the type that uses a free-standing ECU) where the later ones only crank.

 

[Dave 2000]

Calling @Dave 2000 to the party for info about the immobilizer......

Bilt4me - great minds think alike! Reading through other threads on here about similar issues, it seemed to me that he may be the one who can shed more light on this, and I've already messaged him, so hopefully, with a nudge from yourself as well, he'll be along in due course to give his thoughts.

sbman has already proved to be a font of useful info, and already I know stuff I didn't know a few days ago, so hopefully, between us, we're heading towards a solution.

It occurred to me, after some of sbman's comments, to try something I hadn't tried before, and maybe the results do indeed point towards this being the immobiliser causing my issue. See what you guys think: I disconnected the battery and left it for long enough for everything to be cleared. Now my thinking was that, if it is the immobiliser, and this is essentially a computer - and a pretty old one at that - then, like other computers, it may need some time to 'boot up' after power is first applied. So, with the help of an assistant who was ready with the key at the ignition barrel, I connected the battery and immediately had my assistant insert the key and go straight to cranking. My theory was that, just maybe it would run for a bit longer under these circumstances, as the computers would be busy getting their acts together as they had only just been powered up. And guess what? It ran for about five seconds, which is a couple of seconds longer than it's ran for since this problem appeared. To be sure this wasn't a fluke, I went through the same procedure three times in total, and every time, it fired immediately and ran for around five seconds each time.

Now bearing in mind that previously, attempts to start it, even the first attempt of the day (but when the battery was already connected) have often resulted in it not firing at all, and when it would randomly start, it was never for more than about three seconds. So, does this support the immobiliser theory? I can't think of any other reason why it would run for a little longer than normal if it's started the instant the battery is connected, unless there is some truth in my aforementioned theory.

Discuss...

Ta @BILT4ME

@Paul D63 PM sent.

regards

Dave

 

[Dave 2000]

Can you locate and remove the immobilizer, then try to start it?

As I understand from @Dave 2000 , there is no battery in the key, and it is required by law to have an immobilizer.

However, I'm sure you could unplug it and plug the factory harness back together to bypass it for "diagnostic purposes".....

No battery in the key fob on mine. When I got the car I had heard of plenty of issues and as I did alarm fitting for awhile I purchased one for myself and fitted it but, before I did I took all of the old unit out. Mine was the 5000something? Anyway, it is under the dash up behind the glove box, water drips on it from the leaking screen seal and the connections go green and can no longer carry current.

The ECU was a pretty basic thing, I cannot remember the colours codes but it reminded me of the Ford system, unplug the unit and from the harness we used to connect yellow with black trace to itself and blue with black trace which sorted the starter circuit. Jeez this was 25 years plus ago so I am a little rusty on this stuff.

regards

Dave

 

[Dave 2000]

And to clarify an earlier post - I tested my MAF as per the FSM, and all tested within spec. as far as I could establish. The FSM doesn't say what voltage should be produced by the MAF as air flows through it - it simply says the voltage should fluctuate, and mine did - from 0.6V static through 1.3V cranking and up to 2V at idle when it ran briefly. I did suspect the MAF from an early stage in this process, but ruled it out once it tested OK.

I am gathering Paul that your car does not start/run/cut and the start/run/cut consistently ? That is it might or might not but when it does it is for a short period of time?

I assume you have checked the fuel supply etc.

You could pull a plug lead and lay it NEAR an earthed area, and have someone crank the engine and watch for the spark, if the spark stops and the engine dies forget the fuel side of it. When the MAF is out, car would normally start/run/cut and repeat. ECU relearning is only after battery disconnect and not MAF disconnect.

regards

Dave

 

[sbman]

NEWS FLASH!

OK, the result of my latest test:

I just disconnected the 89780-60010 ECU in our Autana. The engine started and ran "normally" for about 5-6 seconds and then shut down like the key was turned off.

So, disconnecting the airflow meter = starts and runs for 1-2 seconds and disconnecting the immobilizer ECU = starts and runs for 5-6 seconds.

This comparison suggests the problem is in the immobilizer system.

It also confirms that an earlier immobilizer-equipped vehicle will actually start (at least the type that uses a free-standing ECU) where the later ones only crank.

@cruiserdan really awesome of you to do that testing. There's very little information available about this system anywhere. I wonder how complex the communications between the immobilizer and the EFI computer are. Would be interesting to put a sampling logic probe on it and see.

 

[sbman]

I am gathering Paul that your car does not start/run/cut and the start/run/cut consistently ? That is it might or might not but when it does it is for a short period of time?

I assume you have checked the fuel supply etc.

You could pull a plug lead and lay it NEAR an earthed area, and have someone crank the engine and watch for the spark, if the spark stops and the engine dies forget the fuel side of it. When the MAF is out, car would normally start/run/cut and repeat. ECU relearning is only after battery disconnect and not MAF disconnect.

regards

Dave

Dave, Paul has checked spark and fuel and a variety of other things. The computer is throwing an immobilizer code as well.