https://forums.spaycetech.com/ Wed, 02 Sep 2026 15:09:59 +0000 MyBB https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1432 Wed, 02 Sep 2026 07:16:32 +0000 eoviedo]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1432  
I have been discussing with ChatGPT an idea that started with a fairly simple question but has gradually turned into what I think could be an interesting SPA/OrBit reverse-engineering project:
 
Could a MY2024 T6 Recharge B4204T52 be given a genuine “Polestar-like” optimisation — not simply more power, but the complete powertrain behaviour that Polestar normally changes — even though Volvo/Polestar does not offer the optimisation for this engine?
 
My car is a MY2024 XC60 T6 Recharge (B4204T52, 350 hp system output).
 
I should give ChatGPT credit for most of the research below. I initially asked whether AI could theoretically create a Polestar-type optimisation for a Volvo for which Polestar does not offer one. ChatGPT then researched T6/T8 hardware, Volvo part numbers, ECM references, OrBit parameters and previous discussions on this forum. We have subsequently also gone through technical information and owner discussions concerning the MY22.5+ Extended Range powertrain.
 
What follows is our current working hypothesis. Some part-number matches come from Volvo documentation, parts catalogues and donor vehicles rather than engineering documentation, so I am deliberately treating them as evidence rather than proof.
 
1. The interesting comparison is specifically the MY22.5+ Extended Range architecture
 
The first important conclusion was that comparing “T6 vs T8” generically is misleading.
 
The relevant family is the newer Extended Range / VEA2 architecture.
 
For MY2024 we have:
 
B4204T52 — T6 Recharge
 

• ICE: 253 hp / 350 Nm
  
•  ERAD: 107 kW (145 PS) / 309 Nm
  
•  system output: 350 hp
  

B4204T56 — T8 Recharge
 

• ICE: 310 hp / 400 Nm
  
•  ERAD: same 107 kW / 309 Nm
  
•  system output: 455 hp
  

Both use the newer architecture without the old mechanically driven supercharger.
 
The MY22.5 B4204T57 is also an interesting reference. It appears to have been an early Extended Range implementation, with essentially T8-level output, ERAD 7 and the C-ISG, before the later B4204T56 became the relevant engine code in many markets.
 
This gives us another useful reference point rather than treating T52/T56 as an isolated pair.
 
2. B4204T52 vs B4204T56 hardware
 
ChatGPT cross-checked the available documentation and part numbers and found a surprisingly large amount of apparent common hardware.
 
Among the matches/equivalences found so far:
 

• 1,969 cc
  
•  82 × 93.2 mm bore/stroke
  
•  10.3:1 compression ratio
  
•  same 107 kW / 309 Nm ERAD
  
•  same 18.8 kWh battery architecture
  
•  same TG-81SD transmission family
  
•  evidence of the same BorgWarner turbo
  
•  evidence of the same cylinder-head reference
  
•  evidence of common direct-injection components/injectors
  
•  evidence of the same high-pressure fuel pump
  

The complete/long-engine part numbers are different, so I am not claiming T52 and T56 are mechanically identical.
 
There could still be differences in pistons, rods, internal cooling, valvetrain or other components.
 
However, there seems to be enough common hardware to make the 253/350 → 310/400 difference very interesting from a calibration perspective.
 
3. Same ECM hardware
 
Another potentially important finding was examples of MY2024 B4204T52 and B4204T56 cars apparently using the same Volvo/Denso ECM hardware:
 
32383818 / Volvo 36010797
 
If that is correct, we potentially have:
 
very similar engine architecture + same ECM hardware + different rated engine output.
 
What we do not yet know is whether the software is:
 
A) identical, with the engine/power variant selected through configuration;
 
B) the same executable with different calibration blocks; or
 
C) genuinely different ECM software builds.
 
That distinction seems fundamental.
 
4. OrBit makes the question particularly interesting
 
OrBit exposes 005 ENGINE with specific engine power/torque variants, including values corresponding to MP and HP versions, and also exposes 368 ENGINE FAMILY TYPE.
 
I also found the previous discussion here concerning a T6 Recharge B4204T52 → T8 B4204T56 conversion.
 
x119's response — that comparing the actual ECM software would be interesting and that, if the software were identical, configuration might potentially select another mapping — is very close to the conclusion ChatGPT and I independently reached.
 
But I want to stress that simply changing 005 ENGINE is not what I am proposing.
 
If the ECM does not contain the corresponding calibration, changing a configuration descriptor obviously cannot magically create it.
 
The interesting question is what the relationship actually is between configuration and calibration on these cars.
 
5. There may be another important difference: hybrid torque/power blending
 
This is the part of the project that now interests me even more than the ICE power difference.
 
Volvo rates the MY24 T6 as:
 
253 hp ICE + 145 hp ERAD → 350 hp system
 
while the T8 is:
 
310 hp ICE + 145 hp ERAD → 455 hp system
 
I realise that individual motor peak outputs cannot automatically be added. They may occur at different rotational speeds/vehicle speeds and there may be battery, inverter and drivetrain constraints.
 
So I am not assuming that the T6 has a simple electronic “350 hp limiter”.
 
However, the difference raises an interesting question:
 
Is the T6/T8 distinction partly a difference in hybrid torque blending and allowed simultaneous ICE/ERAD contribution, rather than only a 253 → 310 hp ECM calibration difference?
 
If so, converting or optimising the ICE alone would tell only part of the story.
 
6. And there is also the C-ISG
 
The Extended Range technical information adds another component that I initially underestimated.
 
The crankshaft-integrated starter/generator (C-ISG) is substantial and Volvo documentation describes it as working together with the turbo in low-speed operation.
 
This means that actual wheel-torque delivery is potentially a coordinated result of:
 
ICE + C-ISG + ERAD + battery/inverter limits + transmission + hybrid torque management.
 
There are also owner reports suggesting that C-ISG assistance may be particularly noticeable transiently at low speeds / during launch.
 
I therefore wonder whether a proper comparison of T52/T56 should include not only ECM and TCM but also whatever module/configuration determines C-ISG and ERAD torque requests.
 
7. Why simply enabling “Polestar” is not the objective
 
A genuine Polestar Engineered Optimisation is more than increased engine output.
 
Depending on application, Polestar changes things such as:
 

• throttle response
  
•  engine torque delivery
  
•  shift speed
  
•  shift points
  
•  gear-hold behaviour after throttle lift
  
•  drivetrain torque management
  
•  AWD behaviour / torque distribution
  

This is particularly relevant because on some Extended Range T8 applications Polestar appears not to advertise any increase in peak system power at all.
 
In other words, Polestar itself demonstrates that an optimisation can materially improve the car without increasing the headline horsepower figure.
 
That is much closer to what I am interested in.
 
8. The experiment I would really like to see
 
Rather than inventing a tune, I think a more rigorous approach would be to obtain several OEM reference states:
 
A — B4204T52 T6 OEM
 
B — B4204T56 T8 OEM
 
C — B4204T57 Extended Range, where useful as an additional reference
 
D — B4204T56/T57 T8 with genuine Polestar optimisation
 
Then perform two principal comparisons:
 
Diff 1: T52 OEM → T56 OEM
 
This should tell us how Volvo differentiates the contemporary T6 and T8.
 
Not just in ECM power calibration, but potentially also in hybrid torque coordination.
 
Diff 2: T8 OEM → T8 Polestar
 
This should tell us how Volvo/Polestar optimises the behaviour of an otherwise identical powertrain.
 
The second comparison may actually be the more valuable one.
 
The question would then become:
 
Can the transformation identified in Diff 2 be transferred, where technically applicable, to the B4204T52 architecture?
 
In other words, not:
 
“Make a T6 into a T8.”
 
but:
 
“Apply the engineering philosophy used to transform a T8 into a T8 Polestar to the T6.”
 
9. Where AI could be useful
 
This is where my discussion with ChatGPT originally started.
 
If sufficiently complete T52/T56/Polestar software and configuration data could be obtained, AI-assisted analysis could potentially help identify:
 

• identical vs differing executable regions
  
•  calibration blocks
  
•  torque-model tables
  
•  requested/allowed ICE torque
  
•  load targets
  
•  boost targets
  
•  fuelling/lambda
  
•  ignition
  
•  thermal protection
  
•  gear-dependent torque limits
  
•  pedal → torque-request relationships
  
•  shift-related torque intervention
  
•  ICE/C-ISG/ERAD torque coordination
  
•  differences in hybrid torque blending
  

The intention would not be to let AI invent calibration values.
 
AI would instead be used as a reverse-engineering assistant to answer:
 
What did Volvo change between T52 and T56?
 
and:
 
What did Polestar change between OEM T8 and Polestar T8?
 
Those known OEM transformations would then define the boundaries of any hypothetical T6 implementation.
 
10. The target is behaviour, not a horsepower number
 
Earlier in this investigation we discussed possible ICE outputs around 290–300 hp / ~400 Nm.
 
I now think defining the project that way misses the point.
 
I would rather have a T6 with a modest increase in power that behaves exactly as a hypothetical factory Polestar T6 might have behaved than a 450–500 hp aftermarket Stage 1.
 
The desired result would be something like:
 

• sharper but OEM-like throttle response
  
•  stronger mid-range ICE delivery
  
•  appropriate C-ISG contribution
  
•  better ICE/ERAD coordination
  
•  faster and more appropriate downshifts
  
•  better gear holding
  
•  Polestar-like shift strategy
  
•  appropriate drivetrain/AWD behaviour
  
•  all OEM thermal/component protections retained
  

In short:
 
not a tuned T6, but an attempt to reconstruct the T6 Polestar that Volvo never made.
 
11. Questions for x119 / the OrBit community
 
I would therefore be very interested in your thoughts on the following:
 

1. Has anyone compared the actual ECM software/calibration IDs of late B4204T52 and B4204T56 cars?
   
2.  Does anyone know whether the 32383818 T52/T56 ECMs contain the same executable with different calibration blocks?
   
3.  Could 005 ENGINE / 368 ENGINE FAMILY TYPE select calibration behaviour already present in the ECM, or are these effectively configuration descriptors only on this generation?
   
4.  Has anyone captured a complete before/after software/configuration comparison from a genuine Extended Range T8 Polestar installation — particularly ECM, TCM and CEM configuration?
   
5.  On ERAD-based Recharge vehicles, which parts of Polestar behaviour appear to come from configuration and which definitely require flashed software?
   
6.  Has anyone compared the hybrid torque/power blending strategy between B4204T52 T6 and B4204T56 T8?
   
7.  Which module actually determines the maximum simultaneous ICE/C-ISG/ERAD torque request on these Extended Range cars?
   
8.  Is C-ISG contribution configurable/calibratable independently, and has anyone logged its requested/actual torque under full acceleration?
   
9.  Would the OrBit developers/community be interested in analysing a matched set of T52 OEM, T56 OEM and genuine T8 Polestar software/configuration data if it could be obtained?
   

I realise there may be security, signing and flashing obstacles even if the calibration differences can be understood.
 
At this stage I am much more interested in characterising how Volvo differentiates T6/T8 and how Polestar transforms the complete powertrain behaviour than in blindly flashing anything into the car.
 
The research so far suggests that this could be an interesting SPA/OrBit reverse-engineering exercise rather than simply another chiptuning project.
 
I would be very interested to hear whether anyone here has already investigated any of these layers further — particularly the relationship between 005 ENGINE, ECM calibration and hybrid torque management on the Extended Range cars.

P.S. I realise this is a very long post, but I wanted to provide enough context for anyone interested to be able to take the same information and start a conversation with whichever AI agent they use, and perhaps explore the problem independently.

I haven't seen much discussion here about using AI for this kind of reverse-engineering work — although I may simply have missed it. If it hasn't really been tried yet, I think it opens up some genuinely interesting possibilities, particularly when the task is not to invent a tune from scratch, but to compare known OEM implementations, identify what Volvo/Polestar actually changed, and reason from those differences.]]>  
I have been discussing with ChatGPT an idea that started with a fairly simple question but has gradually turned into what I think could be an interesting SPA/OrBit reverse-engineering project:
 
Could a MY2024 T6 Recharge B4204T52 be given a genuine “Polestar-like” optimisation — not simply more power, but the complete powertrain behaviour that Polestar normally changes — even though Volvo/Polestar does not offer the optimisation for this engine?
 
My car is a MY2024 XC60 T6 Recharge (B4204T52, 350 hp system output).
 
I should give ChatGPT credit for most of the research below. I initially asked whether AI could theoretically create a Polestar-type optimisation for a Volvo for which Polestar does not offer one. ChatGPT then researched T6/T8 hardware, Volvo part numbers, ECM references, OrBit parameters and previous discussions on this forum. We have subsequently also gone through technical information and owner discussions concerning the MY22.5+ Extended Range powertrain.
 
What follows is our current working hypothesis. Some part-number matches come from Volvo documentation, parts catalogues and donor vehicles rather than engineering documentation, so I am deliberately treating them as evidence rather than proof.
 
1. The interesting comparison is specifically the MY22.5+ Extended Range architecture
 
The first important conclusion was that comparing “T6 vs T8” generically is misleading.
 
The relevant family is the newer Extended Range / VEA2 architecture.
 
For MY2024 we have:
 
B4204T52 — T6 Recharge
 

• ICE: 253 hp / 350 Nm
  
•  ERAD: 107 kW (145 PS) / 309 Nm
  
•  system output: 350 hp
  

B4204T56 — T8 Recharge
 

• ICE: 310 hp / 400 Nm
  
•  ERAD: same 107 kW / 309 Nm
  
•  system output: 455 hp
  

Both use the newer architecture without the old mechanically driven supercharger.
 
The MY22.5 B4204T57 is also an interesting reference. It appears to have been an early Extended Range implementation, with essentially T8-level output, ERAD 7 and the C-ISG, before the later B4204T56 became the relevant engine code in many markets.
 
This gives us another useful reference point rather than treating T52/T56 as an isolated pair.
 
2. B4204T52 vs B4204T56 hardware
 
ChatGPT cross-checked the available documentation and part numbers and found a surprisingly large amount of apparent common hardware.
 
Among the matches/equivalences found so far:
 

• 1,969 cc
  
•  82 × 93.2 mm bore/stroke
  
•  10.3:1 compression ratio
  
•  same 107 kW / 309 Nm ERAD
  
•  same 18.8 kWh battery architecture
  
•  same TG-81SD transmission family
  
•  evidence of the same BorgWarner turbo
  
•  evidence of the same cylinder-head reference
  
•  evidence of common direct-injection components/injectors
  
•  evidence of the same high-pressure fuel pump
  

The complete/long-engine part numbers are different, so I am not claiming T52 and T56 are mechanically identical.
 
There could still be differences in pistons, rods, internal cooling, valvetrain or other components.
 
However, there seems to be enough common hardware to make the 253/350 → 310/400 difference very interesting from a calibration perspective.
 
3. Same ECM hardware
 
Another potentially important finding was examples of MY2024 B4204T52 and B4204T56 cars apparently using the same Volvo/Denso ECM hardware:
 
32383818 / Volvo 36010797
 
If that is correct, we potentially have:
 
very similar engine architecture + same ECM hardware + different rated engine output.
 
What we do not yet know is whether the software is:
 
A) identical, with the engine/power variant selected through configuration;
 
B) the same executable with different calibration blocks; or
 
C) genuinely different ECM software builds.
 
That distinction seems fundamental.
 
4. OrBit makes the question particularly interesting
 
OrBit exposes 005 ENGINE with specific engine power/torque variants, including values corresponding to MP and HP versions, and also exposes 368 ENGINE FAMILY TYPE.
 
I also found the previous discussion here concerning a T6 Recharge B4204T52 → T8 B4204T56 conversion.
 
x119's response — that comparing the actual ECM software would be interesting and that, if the software were identical, configuration might potentially select another mapping — is very close to the conclusion ChatGPT and I independently reached.
 
But I want to stress that simply changing 005 ENGINE is not what I am proposing.
 
If the ECM does not contain the corresponding calibration, changing a configuration descriptor obviously cannot magically create it.
 
The interesting question is what the relationship actually is between configuration and calibration on these cars.
 
5. There may be another important difference: hybrid torque/power blending
 
This is the part of the project that now interests me even more than the ICE power difference.
 
Volvo rates the MY24 T6 as:
 
253 hp ICE + 145 hp ERAD → 350 hp system
 
while the T8 is:
 
310 hp ICE + 145 hp ERAD → 455 hp system
 
I realise that individual motor peak outputs cannot automatically be added. They may occur at different rotational speeds/vehicle speeds and there may be battery, inverter and drivetrain constraints.
 
So I am not assuming that the T6 has a simple electronic “350 hp limiter”.
 
However, the difference raises an interesting question:
 
Is the T6/T8 distinction partly a difference in hybrid torque blending and allowed simultaneous ICE/ERAD contribution, rather than only a 253 → 310 hp ECM calibration difference?
 
If so, converting or optimising the ICE alone would tell only part of the story.
 
6. And there is also the C-ISG
 
The Extended Range technical information adds another component that I initially underestimated.
 
The crankshaft-integrated starter/generator (C-ISG) is substantial and Volvo documentation describes it as working together with the turbo in low-speed operation.
 
This means that actual wheel-torque delivery is potentially a coordinated result of:
 
ICE + C-ISG + ERAD + battery/inverter limits + transmission + hybrid torque management.
 
There are also owner reports suggesting that C-ISG assistance may be particularly noticeable transiently at low speeds / during launch.
 
I therefore wonder whether a proper comparison of T52/T56 should include not only ECM and TCM but also whatever module/configuration determines C-ISG and ERAD torque requests.
 
7. Why simply enabling “Polestar” is not the objective
 
A genuine Polestar Engineered Optimisation is more than increased engine output.
 
Depending on application, Polestar changes things such as:
 

• throttle response
  
•  engine torque delivery
  
•  shift speed
  
•  shift points
  
•  gear-hold behaviour after throttle lift
  
•  drivetrain torque management
  
•  AWD behaviour / torque distribution
  

This is particularly relevant because on some Extended Range T8 applications Polestar appears not to advertise any increase in peak system power at all.
 
In other words, Polestar itself demonstrates that an optimisation can materially improve the car without increasing the headline horsepower figure.
 
That is much closer to what I am interested in.
 
8. The experiment I would really like to see
 
Rather than inventing a tune, I think a more rigorous approach would be to obtain several OEM reference states:
 
A — B4204T52 T6 OEM
 
B — B4204T56 T8 OEM
 
C — B4204T57 Extended Range, where useful as an additional reference
 
D — B4204T56/T57 T8 with genuine Polestar optimisation
 
Then perform two principal comparisons:
 
Diff 1: T52 OEM → T56 OEM
 
This should tell us how Volvo differentiates the contemporary T6 and T8.
 
Not just in ECM power calibration, but potentially also in hybrid torque coordination.
 
Diff 2: T8 OEM → T8 Polestar
 
This should tell us how Volvo/Polestar optimises the behaviour of an otherwise identical powertrain.
 
The second comparison may actually be the more valuable one.
 
The question would then become:
 
Can the transformation identified in Diff 2 be transferred, where technically applicable, to the B4204T52 architecture?
 
In other words, not:
 
“Make a T6 into a T8.”
 
but:
 
“Apply the engineering philosophy used to transform a T8 into a T8 Polestar to the T6.”
 
9. Where AI could be useful
 
This is where my discussion with ChatGPT originally started.
 
If sufficiently complete T52/T56/Polestar software and configuration data could be obtained, AI-assisted analysis could potentially help identify:
 

• identical vs differing executable regions
  
•  calibration blocks
  
•  torque-model tables
  
•  requested/allowed ICE torque
  
•  load targets
  
•  boost targets
  
•  fuelling/lambda
  
•  ignition
  
•  thermal protection
  
•  gear-dependent torque limits
  
•  pedal → torque-request relationships
  
•  shift-related torque intervention
  
•  ICE/C-ISG/ERAD torque coordination
  
•  differences in hybrid torque blending
  

The intention would not be to let AI invent calibration values.
 
AI would instead be used as a reverse-engineering assistant to answer:
 
What did Volvo change between T52 and T56?
 
and:
 
What did Polestar change between OEM T8 and Polestar T8?
 
Those known OEM transformations would then define the boundaries of any hypothetical T6 implementation.
 
10. The target is behaviour, not a horsepower number
 
Earlier in this investigation we discussed possible ICE outputs around 290–300 hp / ~400 Nm.
 
I now think defining the project that way misses the point.
 
I would rather have a T6 with a modest increase in power that behaves exactly as a hypothetical factory Polestar T6 might have behaved than a 450–500 hp aftermarket Stage 1.
 
The desired result would be something like:
 

• sharper but OEM-like throttle response
  
•  stronger mid-range ICE delivery
  
•  appropriate C-ISG contribution
  
•  better ICE/ERAD coordination
  
•  faster and more appropriate downshifts
  
•  better gear holding
  
•  Polestar-like shift strategy
  
•  appropriate drivetrain/AWD behaviour
  
•  all OEM thermal/component protections retained
  

In short:
 
not a tuned T6, but an attempt to reconstruct the T6 Polestar that Volvo never made.
 
11. Questions for x119 / the OrBit community
 
I would therefore be very interested in your thoughts on the following:
 

1. Has anyone compared the actual ECM software/calibration IDs of late B4204T52 and B4204T56 cars?
   
2.  Does anyone know whether the 32383818 T52/T56 ECMs contain the same executable with different calibration blocks?
   
3.  Could 005 ENGINE / 368 ENGINE FAMILY TYPE select calibration behaviour already present in the ECM, or are these effectively configuration descriptors only on this generation?
   
4.  Has anyone captured a complete before/after software/configuration comparison from a genuine Extended Range T8 Polestar installation — particularly ECM, TCM and CEM configuration?
   
5.  On ERAD-based Recharge vehicles, which parts of Polestar behaviour appear to come from configuration and which definitely require flashed software?
   
6.  Has anyone compared the hybrid torque/power blending strategy between B4204T52 T6 and B4204T56 T8?
   
7.  Which module actually determines the maximum simultaneous ICE/C-ISG/ERAD torque request on these Extended Range cars?
   
8.  Is C-ISG contribution configurable/calibratable independently, and has anyone logged its requested/actual torque under full acceleration?
   
9.  Would the OrBit developers/community be interested in analysing a matched set of T52 OEM, T56 OEM and genuine T8 Polestar software/configuration data if it could be obtained?
   

I realise there may be security, signing and flashing obstacles even if the calibration differences can be understood.
 
At this stage I am much more interested in characterising how Volvo differentiates T6/T8 and how Polestar transforms the complete powertrain behaviour than in blindly flashing anything into the car.
 
The research so far suggests that this could be an interesting SPA/OrBit reverse-engineering exercise rather than simply another chiptuning project.
 
I would be very interested to hear whether anyone here has already investigated any of these layers further — particularly the relationship between 005 ENGINE, ECM calibration and hybrid torque management on the Extended Range cars.

P.S. I realise this is a very long post, but I wanted to provide enough context for anyone interested to be able to take the same information and start a conversation with whichever AI agent they use, and perhaps explore the problem independently.

I haven't seen much discussion here about using AI for this kind of reverse-engineering work — although I may simply have missed it. If it hasn't really been tried yet, I think it opens up some genuinely interesting possibilities, particularly when the task is not to invent a tune from scratch, but to compare known OEM implementations, identify what Volvo/Polestar actually changed, and reason from those differences.]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1429 Sun, 30 Aug 2026 11:00:23 +0000 Apansson]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1429
My P2 have strange behavior with climate temperatures.
I want to read “set” and “is” temperatures as i suspect it might be a temperature sensor giving the wrong reading.

Haven’t got a orbit license at the moment, but might will buy one to check this if it’s possible.

Anyone want to check what’s possible to read from the climate control?]]>
My P2 have strange behavior with climate temperatures.
I want to read “set” and “is” temperatures as i suspect it might be a temperature sensor giving the wrong reading.

Haven’t got a orbit license at the moment, but might will buy one to check this if it’s possible.

Anyone want to check what’s possible to read from the climate control?]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1428 Fri, 28 Aug 2026 21:01:16 +0000 Gile_1991]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1428 https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1427 Fri, 28 Aug 2026 03:57:23 +0000 Power6]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1427 OrBit 1.3.4.5 is released! This update is a patch release with nothing exciting, just a security fix for login process pulled forward from the next update

(Latest version of OrBit can always be downloaded here:https://app.spaycetech.com/orbitupdate/download) The "update notification" in OrBit will be sent later, but you can download the updated install right away from the link.]]> OrBit 1.3.4.5 is released! This update is a patch release with nothing exciting, just a security fix for login process pulled forward from the next update

(Latest version of OrBit can always be downloaded here:https://app.spaycetech.com/orbitupdate/download) The "update notification" in OrBit will be sent later, but you can download the updated install right away from the link.]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1426 Sun, 23 Aug 2026 14:55:36 +0000 gwjo81]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1426
I would like to know how to find "variant code"
in order to check and purchase some correct parts

Does anyone know to check it in Orbit?

I appreciate it in advance.]]>
I would like to know how to find "variant code"
in order to check and purchase some correct parts

Does anyone know to check it in Orbit?

I appreciate it in advance.]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1425 Thu, 20 Aug 2026 08:59:50 +0000 mersadk]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1425 When I click to remote start a car, spinner will appear and run for a long time.
Eventually it will fail without any error.

I've scanned for error codes, but there are none.
I've restarted VCM module using OrBit, nothing changed.
I've even changed SIM card.

Around the time this stopped working I've retrofitted alarm siren and interior alarm sensor (but I'm not sure if it's the exact same time this stopped working).

One thing I've noticed is that when I get into a car and start it, car doesn't have cellular reception.
It takes a minute for it to acquire it, as if modem was turned off while car was parked.

What could be the issue? What to try next?]]> When I click to remote start a car, spinner will appear and run for a long time.
Eventually it will fail without any error.

I've scanned for error codes, but there are none.
I've restarted VCM module using OrBit, nothing changed.
I've even changed SIM card.

Around the time this stopped working I've retrofitted alarm siren and interior alarm sensor (but I'm not sure if it's the exact same time this stopped working).

One thing I've noticed is that when I get into a car and start it, car doesn't have cellular reception.
It takes a minute for it to acquire it, as if modem was turned off while car was parked.

What could be the issue? What to try next?]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1424 Wed, 19 Aug 2026 13:04:52 +0000 Kenn]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1424
Why is the dropdown list in 154 with black text? Normally all options are with white text? What does black text mean? Is it software or hardware related?

Also, what does it mean when a symbol i greyed out and without the grey bar on the left side in the sensus menu? What does the grey bar mean?

Please see my images.

  2.jpg (Size: 192.03 KB / Downloads: 39)

  1.jpg (Size: 174.14 KB / Downloads: 36) ]]>
Why is the dropdown list in 154 with black text? Normally all options are with white text? What does black text mean? Is it software or hardware related?

Also, what does it mean when a symbol i greyed out and without the grey bar on the left side in the sensus menu? What does the grey bar mean?

Please see my images.

  2.jpg (Size: 192.03 KB / Downloads: 39)

  1.jpg (Size: 174.14 KB / Downloads: 36) ]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1423 Tue, 18 Aug 2026 12:51:08 +0000 bartasp]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1423
I am having an issue with a catalyst error – ECM-P042000 – Catalyst System Efficiency Below Threshold (Bank 1).
Is it possible to diagnose or permanently disable this error using ORBit?
Volvo V60 – 2021 – B3]]>
I am having an issue with a catalyst error – ECM-P042000 – Catalyst System Efficiency Below Threshold (Bank 1).
Is it possible to diagnose or permanently disable this error using ORBit?
Volvo V60 – 2021 – B3]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1421 Mon, 17 Aug 2026 12:38:15 +0000 Mars]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1421 Is it possible to use 2 usb ports simultaneously in sensus?
I mean that while carplay connected, music was played from another usb from flashdisk]]> Is it possible to use 2 usb ports simultaneously in sensus?
I mean that while carplay connected, music was played from another usb from flashdisk]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1420 Sun, 16 Aug 2026 21:36:29 +0000 Hubble]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1420 Connecting…
Waiting for the gateway to respond…
Unable to connect. VOE connection is present but the car will not accept the connection

What haven’t I done right. 
Thanks 
Hubble]]> Connecting…
Waiting for the gateway to respond…
Unable to connect. VOE connection is present but the car will not accept the connection

What haven’t I done right. 
Thanks 
Hubble]]>