logo elektroda
logo elektroda
X
logo elektroda

[Solved] WOW Wurth vs AUTOCOM: Comparing Diagnostic Features & Connector Handling Efficiency

autoas 35445 14
ADVERTISEMENT
Treść została przetłumaczona polish » english Zobacz oryginalną wersję tematu
  • #1 16795745
    autoas
    Level 42  
    Hello!
    Do you have any opinion which better WOW Wurth or AUTOCOM ..... diagnostically, in the sense of handling through the connector .....
  • ADVERTISEMENT
  • Helpful post
    #2 16795776
    mario 77
    Level 23  
    I would rather think AUTOCOM or even better DELPHI but it's a matter of taste. WOW WURTH has a database, something like AD with schemas.
  • #3 16795787
    autoas
    Level 42  
    I am not talking about the base only for communication with cars ....
  • Helpful post
    #4 16796071
    robokop
    VIP Meritorious for electroda.pl
    Communication is probably the same in everyone - it depends on the "can" itself, in different scenes, about which a lot has already been written here.
  • Helpful post
    #5 16796135
    ALIBABA I
    Level 33  
    Hello col. And how would you get bargained on DS 150 I checked it perfectly

    And system 32.
  • ADVERTISEMENT
  • #6 16796181
    autoas
    Level 42  
    I have a gold "can" (CDP) and Autocom .... it's good, Wurth can walk on it and I wonder
    Autocom seems to have stopped in development ...
  • ADVERTISEMENT
  • Helpful post
    #7 16796242
    mario 77
    Level 23  
    As for me, you will not feel the difference in communication. I have a CDP interface from Delphi and from a friend once I got a WOW, I used several times but somehow I prefer DELPHI. And if you have a "raisin" and would like to know what you can do in it, or if there is such a model available then I can check you. Generally, it's best if you load it to the test and convince yourself. The interface you have.
  • ADVERTISEMENT
  • Helpful post
    #8 16796588
    szymitsu21
    VIP Meritorious for electroda.pl
    I have one second and third ... how they differ in their external appearance ...
    And at the moment I use CDIFA the earliest and how much more is it known.
  • #9 16796933
    autoas
    Level 42  
    szymitsu21 wrote:
    I have one second and third.

    Yes, I wanted so much that if I want to WOW, I have to wait for the "can" to be updated and if I want to go back to Autocom, I have to wait for it to reprogram again ...
  • Helpful post
    #10 16796960
    szymitsu21
    VIP Meritorious for electroda.pl
    autoas wrote:
    szymitsu21 wrote:
    I have one second and third.

    Yes, I wanted so much that if I want to WOW, I have to wait for the "can" to be updated and if I want to go back to Autocom, I have to wait for it to reprogram again ...


    Multidiag is overwhelmed with no programming ... I have it.
  • #11 16797124
    autoas
    Level 42  
    What does "multidiag"
  • Helpful post
    #12 16797157
    szymitsu21
    VIP Meritorious for electroda.pl
    autoas wrote:
    What is a "multidiag"


    The head that wow2o delphi without any programming and so on
  • Helpful post
    #14 17024106
    leonov
    Level 43  
    autoas wrote:
    Yes, I wanted so much that if I want to WOW, I have to wait for the "can" to be updated and if I want to go back to Autocom, I have to wait for it to reprogram again ...
    This can be avoided, the WOW firmware files are copied to the autocom firmware directory and after the case ;-)
  • #15 17048972
    autoas
    Level 42  
    It works, thanks ..... !!!!!

Topic summary

The discussion compares the diagnostic capabilities and connector handling efficiency of WOW Wurth and AUTOCOM. Users express varying preferences, with some favoring AUTOCOM for its performance, while others highlight WOW Wurth's extensive database. Communication efficiency is noted to be similar across platforms, with emphasis on the "can" interface. Users mention the need for updates and reprogramming when switching between systems. The conversation also touches on the Delphi interface, with some users preferring it over WOW Wurth and AUTOCOM. Overall, the choice between these tools appears to be subjective, depending on user experience and specific needs.
Summary generated by the language model.
ADVERTISEMENT