I can’t seem to find if Torque Pro currently supports this.

Is there a way to get (or how do I turn on) RTS switching so Torque can tell the Elm327 adapter to automatically switch and read MS-Can PIDs in Ford vehicles?

I’ve found instructions on how to modify the adapter, and confirmed it works in ForScan, I just don’t want to have to lug my tablet around everywhere for things that Torque can handle.

Thank you in advance.

If I have to. But I’ve already got one that I’m currently using. I’ve already modified it with an off switch so I can just leave it plugged in.

I share @ashamancurtis frustration. I purchased one of the new OBDLINK MX+ units (introduced in the Fall of 2019 advertising ‘software’ switching between HS and MS Can) allowing access to Ford and GM propriatry PIDs. Best I can gather, it may be based around a newly available chip set (STN2120 supporting SW-CAN, MS-CAN and HS-CAN)

But as is the case with so many vendors desiring to lock you down to their own Software – there is nothing in their documentation giving indication of what software command might effect switching to and from MS-CAN. While THEY advertise it to work with Torque Pro (And it DOES!) – but NO better than my 12.00 dollar Chinese dongle – which will NOT access other buses. It looks like OBDLink is shooting for cornering that market between Forscan and Torque Pro – and it appears they are doing a pretty good job of it.

I’ve tried several Torque Pro commands (in diagnostic Start / Stop command) without success. So far all I’ve gotten is CAN ERROR. ‘If’ this can be made to work, it would be _choice_ enabling one to have inter-mingled gauges from both busses.

—————————-

54371019

Yea, I had seen that thread also. I have tried the “STP 53” and “STP 33” (diagnostic start / stop respectively), and get “CAN ERROR”.

I don’t have TPMS on my 2004 F150, so obviously I was not trying the same PIDs – but one would think (or at least “I” do) that the error would not have anything to do with the PID.

The ‘start’ ‘stop’ command may need other ‘AT’ commands associated with it preceding the STP 53. If so, how would the multiple commands be strung together? with comma, semi-colon – or such?

———————

54371019