It's worth it to me to prevent someone from going down a path they regret later on.
I've been working on these communication systems most of my career, and I can agree that
CAN integration is just simply not understood by the majority of people that work on them, even so-called 'Technicians'. But imagine a system where each module attached to the bus has an equal capability of bringing it crashing down. Further imagine a system where most of the switches to control such things like windows, door locks and even engine starter and ignition, are not longer directly controlling the end device but are now inputs to a 'Smart fusebox' that polls those inputs and controls the end device. Think about that. Your ignition switch is now a digital input to a fusebox with a brain.
Ford: Smart Junction Box Chrysler: Totally Integrated Power Module Nissan: Electronic Power Distribution Module GM: Body Control Module
Most of those serve a dual role as a 'Communication Bus Master' taking one communication protocol and changing it for another. For instance, in many Fords, the SJB plays that role changing high speed CAN to medium speed CAN to allow communication between two incompatible protocols.
I have to hand it to Ford for resisting integration for a long time. Standard Corporate Protocol (SCP) equipped vehicles were made until the early 2000's and in those vehicles, the PCM SCP connection is limited to at most, the cluster, PATS, ABS and EATC (climate control). The rest of the vehicle was standalone, meaning each modules' inputs and outputs were discrete circuits that didn't rely on a bussed connection to another module. If you look at a schematic you'll see them connected to an ISO 9141 bus that runs to pin 7 of the dlc, but that's a unidirectional bus, module to scan tool.
Old Fords make great swap vehicles, newer ones, not so much. The cutoff is about 2003. I'm not saying it's impossible, just not desirable, which was the original question of the thread.
Have a great day, I've got a RCDLR to install and program in a Caddy.
the car systems i have tried to stay out of besides some can sniffing for personal use, mostly forscan items....but looking like it is getting unavoidable now...
i have been dealing with early versions in commercial applications for semi truck style powertrains of it not realizing what it was since the early 90,s starting with e shift mud pumps....then the j1939 stuff for controlling gauge sets and switching starting in the late 90s to mid 2ks...extensively with the gen 4 and gen 5 Allisson, and the murphy gauge stuff. and early style pdm's.
when i started working on jacks and listers and power units in 89 i had no way to know how complicated the oilfield could become today.
even the 2004-11 rangers will tolerate a swap...you can put a briggs and stratton in it and still have the hvac and windows and speedo ect work. cruise control may require some creativity but there are ways to gateway /convert signals to keep abs ect working.
newer rangers and trucks otoh.... no thanks.
as a fan of haltech, fass, hp tuners and holley terminator systems....many of which i own, i am beginning to prefer the syvecs because it specifically has abilities to deal with many types of bus protocals.
it would really make dealing with the can bus nissan stuff in the 350Z alot easier...that unified module in regards to the headlights is a shithead.
i was introduced to the syvecs by my son in laws gt3rs and GTR nissans. he previously had a hurrican....
i certainly have appreciation for the bus systems... but for what i do and the level of abuse i leverage against my junk.... the dumber the better.
that syvecs though has me really wanting to dive in after seeing how bad ass they are working with these modern vehicles...
their 4wd/awd controllers, power distribution units and i/o expanders make hooking a tr6060 trans up to a challenger/300/charger transfer case and running it behind a ls to make a nissan 350Z awd the easy part of the swap.
i just fear i am too old to learn and retain it.