Whilst my comments above may just be 'wishful thinking' Richard I have long thought it would be better to 'just' remove the P38 security altogether and install my own immobilisation systems; Just a few concealed switches would do that too, plus maybe a flashing LED/steering wheel boot ! That has to be better than the woes of random lockouts and the receiver nonsense etc many of us have endured over the years.... and as a result we have had to rely on Colin/Blackbox, Storey/EAS, Marty/Rcvr etc and your own expertise (and that of others) of course on here..... not to mention RAVE !

In the meantime....

My own Rcvr. 'workaround' years ago was to use a second fob with an 'RF Relay' to turn the Rcvr. power on/off to the R ! Lost count of the number of batteries that cost me.. Truly appalling design as we all know

• Similarly the stupidity in that design was of course a wholly ineffective (first) 'upgrade' that did not work, plus the fact that the 'product' was unsuitable for purpose and yet we -the consumers- have to pay for this.

The other weakness - EKA entry via the (maybe iffy) door lock microswitches - might be mitigated against by fitting some push buttons in parallel to those micros (but easily accessible inside the car), but I did not get around to that (even though I have a pre-V36 BeCM...). Not happy having to re-design the electronics because LR lacked 'vision' !

FWIW Immobilisers have been mandatory since Oct. 98, but really something of a joke now since Keyless Ignition as you say is so easy to defeat/bypass with a relatively-cheap box of tricks ? More 'stupidity' is involved if folks have their RR stolen and then they buy an equally insecure RR with the insurance pay-off... and use a steering lock..... a common issue round here !

Also FWIW I have been asked multiple times now 'what it is like to have a classic (!) RR' .... and my reply is "you need a bucket of suoer-glue, a degree in electronics and the patience of a saint" aka 'stupidity of design' I repeat !

Anything that can be installed can be uninstalled, hence the requirement for embedded security..
Lockouts usually caused by the owner doing something wrong, wear in a part designed to be used occasionally rather than all the time or not being aware of how the EKA system works.
The receiver problems aren't unique to the P38, identical problems occurred with many other cars of similar vintage from multiple manufacturers, about the only ones that didn't suffer were Peugeot who used an Infra Red remote rather than RF. They aren't as well known though as most of those cars have been scrapped years ago unlike the P38 which has continued up way beyond its original design life. Problems weren't that common back then either. Having worked in RF for over 40 years, back then the usable spectrum stopped at 1GHz and not up to 60GHz as it is these days and there was considerably less of it about too.
You shouldn't need to install switches in parallel as the original switches, or more correctly the keyswitch (the one that wears), should only ever have been used a few tens of times. Rather than lacking vision, they had the vision to provide an emergency alternative for the time when the primary method of locking and unlocking the car, the remote, wouldn't work for whatever reason. Using the key all the time is abusing something that was put there as an occasional use, emergency feature.

As for what is it like to own, etc, all I would say is you need to set aside a couple of days every few months for routine servicing and a bit of preventative maintenance and if anything doesn't feel, sound or operate as it should, deal with it immediately.

My remote has not worked for ages. Initially it worked, but had the drain issues so i eventually unplugged the receiver, then some time later i bought one of the filter kits and reconnected the receiver and when trying to get it all working the remote is simply not detected by the car. Its not the filter, as the same thing happens without it. Seems to be a weird BECM issue of some sort.

Thus I only use the door lock, which i had rebuilt a couple of years ago. The car doesnt have passive immobilisation enabled and from what i can see it basically Just Works.

If you never lock it with the fob, it seems that it never actually wants the EKA, nor does it get itself in a tiz. The only time i've ever needed to use the EKA was after locking it with the fob, and the battery door on the fob came loose in my pocket requiring it all to be resynced. Since then i simply never lock it with the fob any more... Even when the fob was working, i only ever used it to unlock the car after that situation...

I've contemplated getting a cheap remote fob kit for it and tapping it in across the wires for the drivers door lock. That way the latch microswitch isnt getting hammered, and i can unlock from the other side etc.

As you know Richard the Receiver issue relates to it not (or no longer..) meeting the requisite EMC susceptibility requirements; ( Years ago I asked some folks - in Ireland, as Huf directed ! - for a copy of their Certification on this but they just gave me the 'JLR runaround' - as I was seriously hoping they could be 'persuaded' to fix the problem, via a kind of 'Class Action' process, not just charge US £300 for THEIR bad design/s) Again they had 'redesigned' it but made a hash of that.. as/and (also seriously) I expect manufacturers to fix it not via aftermarket additions (as per the inspired Marty & Co unit).

I still don't know exactly why this Rcvr. foul-up was not such a problem in NA markets either....
and it's not just ta 315Mhz issue

LR's vison is definitely limited, aka 'planned obsolescence' of course' but then again I also believe that car manufacturers should be required to manufacture (and support) cars for 20 years (and I am still serious about that too). As you may know there are some (EU !) Plans afoot for that........ albeit a little late: I wonder how many P38s have been (prematurely) trashed for such 'electrical gremlins' as LR are no longer interested in supporting - just replacing ??

Back more on the main topic/s I searched in the archives and found:
https://www.rangerovers.net/threads/my-theory-on-the-p38-remote-key-fob.61546/
Back then - 10 years ago - I was 'RRfanman' then but banned; We all know the rest...

Aragorn; Early cars (eg. '94s) don't have the passive immobilisation coils on the ign. switch so yes just using the metal key (that happens to be sticking out of a dumb/dead fob) will work like that.. !

Not sure what you meant by 'tapping a remote fob onto the drivers door'; Please elaborate; Again my plan is to add switches to the lock (inside the car) to emulate the usual (rotating-key-in-lock-left-and-right) EKA procedure in case it is needed... but again if you don't use a (working !) Fob it (EKA) does not seem to be (ever) needed...
.
.
.PS: Answering your question below, yes !

I imagine if you turn off passive immo, then in effect you end up with the same setup that i have?

Back in the mid 1990's, following a request from a BMW main agent to investigate problems with the remote locking on a brand new 7 series, I was tasked with carrying out the tests to ascertain the cause of the problem. Having done the tests, I sent a report condemning the appalling performance of the receiver, to the main agent, who passed it to BMW UK, who passed it to BMW in Germany who then passed it to the manufacturers of the receiver. The response basically said when you pay 0.09 Euros each for the receivers, you can't expect quality. It wouldn't surprise me if the same, or at least a very similar, receiver was the one used in the P38.

Problem with using the key regularly is wear on the cam and plunger that operates the switch and the pip on the microswitch itself. When the key is turned one way or the other, the plunger pushes on the pip to operate the microswitch. So when you turn the key, the CDL switch is operated mechanically by the same mechanism that moves the sill locking button and the keyswitch is operated by the action of turning the key. However, over time the cam that operates the plunger, the plunger and the microswitch wear so it will operate when turning the key to lock but not when turning to unlock. It can also be temperature related as the latch on my spare car works perfectly in warm weather but not when it gets cold. I suspect a tiny amount of thermal expansion in the components is enough to press the pip in the microswitch far enough for it to operate the switch when warm, but not when cold.

Consequently you lock the car with the key and both the CDL and keyswitch operate so the car is locked and the alarm and immobiliser are set. When you unlock the car the CDL switch operates but the keyswitch doesn't so the system thinks someone has smashed the window and unlocked the car by pulling up the sill locking button. That opens the car but leaves the alarm and immobiliser set. With the keyswitch not operating reliably, you can't enter the EKA either as it uses a combination of the signals from the CDL and keyswitch to detect the number of key turns and which direction it is being turned in. Note that the mechanism that operates the keyswitch does just that and only that, so if it is used as intended with the key only used very infrequently, no wear occurs so it will work (although, as I found yesterday when checking mine to confirm, the lock barrel itself can get a bit 'gritty' from lack of use)..

I suppose you could snip the Blue/Red wire to the latch. That way the keyswitch would never operate so when you lock it will only be the CDL switch that operates so the car will think you are sitting in the car and have locked it by pushing the sill locking button down. It won't set the alarm or immobiliser so the car will be physically locked but unprotected.

As I said earlier, once the EKA has been entered once, you can lock and unlock with the key without needing it again as long as both switches are operating. A problem only occurs when one or other switch becomes intermittent.

Early cars have passive immobilisation (unless turned off) but don't have the coil, hence the "Engine Immobilised, Press Remote or Enter Code" if you have passive turned on and don't start within the pre-determined time limit. As the message says, it is immobilised but pressing Unlock on the fob turns it off and, if that doesn't work, it needs the EKA.

Not surprised BMW said that Richard, JLR told me (2013) there was "no proof that the rcvr. was faulty" !!
See: https://www.rangerovers.net/threads/the-updated-rf-receiver-ywy500170-to-solve-battery-drain.31919/page-3#nested_reply_top_post .
Note #59 in particular...

My 'extra/contingency/parallel' switches idea (- as a 'failsafe' for 'iffy' micros in the lock mech. - but to be used to enter EKA codes if needed) is just to bridge across the appropriate connectors from the 'common' Pin 2/763 over to Pin 2 and also Pin 3 /762 (ie. an extra switch for both Key and C.D.L respectively) and to use those to simulate the 'usual' key turns in the lock ....
See: https://www.rangerovers.net/attachments/actuator-circuit-jpg.12945/

On the earlier cars the messages that actually come up are ENGINE DISABLED and KEY CODE LOCKOUT but those are however (for whatever reason) highly unlikely if you just use the metal key and avoid the fob...

Because the receiver isn't faulty as such, it just has very poor performance. The car manufacturers order something to do a particular job but they aren't RF engineers so they go to a company that produce receivers and tell them what job they want it to do and want it as cheap as possible. So that is what they get, a cheap, poor quality unit that will do the job asked of it. Just not in an increasingly hostile RF environment.

Key Code Lockout is something totally different. That comes up when you reconnect, or charge, the battery after something has caused the immobiliser to be on. So if the battery goes flat after the car has been locked with the fob, it will come up as soon as you reconnect or connect a charger to the battery. That will stay on the dash for 10 minutes on an early car or 30 minutes on a late one, during which time you cannot do anything. You can't enter the EKA, you can't connect diagnostics to the BeCM and you can't sync the fob. All you have to do is wait until it goes out and after it goes out, then you can enter the EKA. The battery on my spare car (a 96 so early in this context) used to go flat after 4-5 weeks of not using it (doesn't now as I put a solar charger on it to keep it topped up) so if the fob wouldn't unlock it, I would have to unlock with the key, open the bonnet, connect the charger and Keycode Lockout would come up immediately.(as it had been locked with the fob and unlocked with the key). Leave it until it went out and I can enter the EKA and sync the fobs. Prior to entering the EKA, it displays, Engine Immobilised, Press Remote or Enter Code. Admittedly it does it in 3 hits as the display isn't wide enough to show it all, but you do get the information and both options.

The simple fact that the Rcvr. needed to be updated -twice- is evidence enough that it was not (EMC-wise) 'fit for purpose', LR used the word faulty, not me.

Frankly P38 owners had a strong case for punitive damages considering all the losses (replacement batteries for instance) but JLR simply blocked any attempts to resolve the problem until it was too late for us to pursue claims (due to Product Liability issues 'timing out'): Maybe if _this_site had existed earlier we could all have organised that 'Class Action' too ?! Ideally this would/could well have been replacement third-gen Rcvrs. based on our VINs ?

As stated earlier if you do NOT use the fob on earlier cars but only use the metal key then no messages come up, at least on my '95 only the two messages I provided above are displayed (- and then only if the fob is used..) Different/earlier BeCM than your '96 no doubt ?

Dave, I know you have been banging on ad nauseam for years on this subject but as someone that was employed to investigate breaches of the EMC regulations, I have delved into the filing cabinet that contains the relevant documents and think a bit of background might help explain why you are flogging a dead horse.

The original EMC Directives (73/23/EEC and 89/336/EEC) along with the 1999 update (1999/5/EC), only related to the potential for an item of Radio and Telecommunications Terminal Equipment (R&TTE) to CAUSE interference to other R&TTE apparatus. Hence the only requirement for a receiver was that any part (such as the local oscillator) must not CAUSE interference. Compliance with the relevant directives then allows a manufacturer to affix the CE mark and place the item on the market in the EU. So had you ever managed to get sight of the certification it would have simply told you that the emissions from it complied, there would be no mention of immunity as it wasn't a requirement to be tested.

It wasn't until the 2004 update (2004/108/EC) of the EMC Directive that a receiver had to be checked in order that: the apparatus has an adequate level of intrinsic immunity to electromagnetic disturbance to enable it to operate as intended. Prior to that, this wasn't a requirement and the argument would be that it will operate as intended, just not, as owners of numerous different makes of car have discovered, when in close proximity to another radio transmitter. The fact that a spurious signal on the correct frequency causes the BeCM to wake and drain the battery is not the fault of the receiver but how its use has been implemented.

The fact that there were no immunity requirements for a receiver until 2004, may be why the 3rd generation receiver was introduced as without compliance with this Directive, it could not be CE marked and therefore could not placed on the market in the EU., That is probably also the reason why even if you wanted to buy one, LR will not sell you a Gen 1 or Gen 2 receiver as they are no longer compliant.

Richard: Well of course all my 'banging on' was simply because of LR's incredibly bad Rcvr. design that put folks' security and safety at risk, so 'excuse me' for that !

As you know there were certainly EMC (Directive) requirements beyond (just) Emissions prior to 2004, ie. Immunity/Susceptibility, and, as I have also already mentioned, Product Liability Directive/s too.... and again, if there was no actual 'fault' on their part then why exactly was LR's second-generation (and almost equally-dire) Rcvr. 'introduced' ? Importantly that was a clear admission of fault and had a Class Action been instigated back then on that basis then the result could have been quite different.

[As I am sure you also know you can not simply say/imply within said Directives that individual modules are not to 'blame' (eg. the Rcvr) as Liabilities are actually based on the system as a whole.. and that is how 'un/fit for purpose' is established]

When I was pursuing all this (10 years ago) I can assure you (again) that LR did all that they could to obfuscate the situation and try to avoid addressing their liabilities. At no point did they for instance just quote EMC regulations as being 'met' nor provide any EMC Certification to prove it either...but again that was primarily because they knew the (P38) Product Liability requirements would just time out... and it still remains outrageous that LR could do this - and charge us £300 for their design mistakes too !

-At one point back then however LR did request 'a list of affected VINs' and I added that request to the rrs.net but with minor response; My guess is LR wanted to know if there were enough disgruntled P38 owners to actually mount a Class Action...? In the event I was banned from rrs.net and rrs.pub did not exist back then either....

Again See: https://www.rangerovers.net/threads/the-updated-rf-receiver-ywy500170-to-solve-battery-drain.31919/page-3#nested_reply_top_post .
Note #59 and #60 in particular...

PS: Sorry but I really don't subscribe to your earlier BMW deliberations that they simply 'design things to a low price'. Where Public security and/or safety are concerned it is simply not acceptable to quote cost/price as the 'reason' for bad design/s.

I'm not really sure theres any point at this stage rehashing the legal implications of a RF receiver on a 30 year old car. Its crap, we know its crap and workarounds exist. Its extremely unlikely that anyone, as a customer/end user, is ever going to be able to talk to anyone far enough up the chain in engineering to know or find out any actual real details about the EMI certification or any other technical detail on the receiver. Thats why you were fobbed off, and would be the same with any auto-maker.

I've had engine disabled once, in the car park of the harry potter tour in watford.

I unlocked with the key and the central locking didnt fire. I for some daft reason thought the battery was flat rather than trying the door lock again, i turned the ignition on. Set the alarm off and got engine disabled.
Thankfully, i disconnected the battery, reconnected with all the doors shut and tried the key again, and the car unlocked and the message went away. Which is good, because i didnt have the EKA on me 400miles from home!

To make the journey even more fun, the fuel hose out of the filter split on the way to the hotel, which i only discovered after parking up in a multi-story car park and realising there was a river of fuel running down the concrete.... Quite topical with the recent events at Luton (caused by a landrover) and also the Echo Arena fire a few years ago, also caused by a landrover... Thankfully my P38 didnt set the entire car park alight, and i had a long walk to eurocarparts the next day to buy a piece of fuel hose.

Thereafter i realised that some small portion of the time, the car wouldnt unlock when the door lock was turned. If you simply locked and unlocked again it would almost always work. Thats what prompted me to get the latch rebuilt.

Aragorn: 'Fobbed' off ? Yes, in fact my fob is off - as I just use a metal key now !
(Plus some of my own additional aftermarket security additions, obviously....)

It is only (more) relevant now as when folks ask me about LR I simply tell them about my own security woes from years ago... as clearly the more recent (Keyless) Land/Range Rovers are incredibly likely to be stolen, and they have consistently (again) done so very little to resolve that problem ... so I advise folks to buy another marque instead.... and that's how customer dis/service really works of course... !

PS: Thanks for reminding me a Landrover caused the Luton fire, another (safety) reason not to buy one !?

PPS: https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/news/owning/2023-10/vehicle-theft-on-the-rise-in-2023/

If you look at the video of the car that started the Luton airport fire, initially it could be a Discovery Sport, an L494 Range Rover Sport or an L551 Evoque but looking at the rear lights (before they went out) it is the latter, an L551 Evoque. As a regular user of Luton airport, ANPR records your registration number as you drive in to work out how long you stay in there and how many arms and legs they wish to remove from you for the privilege of parking, so they will know the precise car. Within a couple of hours they had said that it was a diesel car that started it but on a diesel (or petrol) car, with an electrical or fuel fire, flames would be from under the bonnet or from the interior (like the pictures of the one that started the Echo Arena fire)? The videos shot by eye witnesses clearly show flames shooting out the side, much the same as similar pictures of an EV on fire. The L551 is available as a diesel hybrid so has a Li Ion battery mounted underneath, So my theory is that it was a diesel hybrid but so as to not allow yet another EV bashing to start, they simply omitted the hybrid part.

Interesting detective work there Richard....!

Yes, EVs are not so popular .... once a large Li Ion battery goes into 'meltdown' there is not much that can stop it: Thus:
https://www.autoevolution.com/news/norwegian-ferry-company-bans-electrified-vehicles-from-transport-on-its-ships-208942.html
Not helpful either if there happens to be a tank of petrol/diesel nearby either.

As the Channel Tunnel won't allow LPG powered cars due to the perceived fire risk, I wonder how long it will be before they ban EV's too?.......

Luton fire was started by an early diesel L494 RR Sport, wasn’t a hybrid.

In my case I simply bought new microswitches & refurbished the latches !! Marty's Fob filter on both P38's sorted the BECM wake-up issue.

Only ever had to enter EKA once on each car. I now keep a note of it someplace on my phone.

For a key fob repair I found John Dean very good. I sent him two knackered fobs belonging to my vehicle and he repaired them properly, so now I actually have three working key fobs, because, a couple of years ago I bought a new replacement fob from LR.

In regards to Richards evaluation of using the key rather than the fob I have, for the last two years, only used the key because I am tired of getting locked out of my car due to external interference on the fob. It has happened at least 4 times when I have been to large shopping centres, and only once was it the vehicles fault because the door latch had "gone west". I now leave it unlocked outside my house, and quite often when I go to the supermarket. I reckon that the average knobhead who steals cars isn't really interested in a 25 year old RR.

Pierre3.