You get a "time out seed" message after 3 attempts. Haven't yet tried a code, if rejected using the known good code and it being accepted. Then trying the next code.
Not that I'm going to do this - it is almost pointless with 9000+ possibilities
Hopefully someone will be able to help in time
Xpower: Don't get me wrong, but your attempts to find the illusive security code appears to be ..well......... quite an obsession (no offense intended). You must really, really want to fix the "Ice warning" message on the instrument cluster!!
Given that the most important part of any problem solving conundrum is the outcome (not the process), may I invite you to don your (deBono) "white-hat" and explore another approach? On a forum such as this, it's probably verging on heresy, but have you considered implementing a physical fix, instead of a solution?
It really depends on how much of a hassle the ice warning message is (down here, our temperatures don't get that low for the warning to be a nuisance). But it is possible (at least in theory) to insert a variable resistor (with a switch -if you want) into the ambient temperature sensor circuit so as to "trick" the instrument panel into thinking that the temperature is higher. Of course doing this will also alter the temperature reading on the MDF, but if this isn't a problem for you, then it just might provide an alternative fix- I think
Here's what I had in mind
The picture shows the wiring arrangement for the ambient temperature sensor. I've included in the picture, the new variable resistor and (if you want) a switch that either engages, or by-passes the fix - for the summer period when the ice warning is not a problem.
So here's the theory - it's usual for VW's temperature sensors to have what's known as a "negative temperature coefficient", which means that as temperature drops, the resistance of the sender increases. For "ice warning" conditions, the resistance of the sensor will be higher than the resistance at summer time temperatures. So what you need to do is to lower this resistance. The way to do this is to add another resistor "in parallel" with the sender (as shown in the picture).
You may already know (my apology if you do) but if two resistors are connected in parallel (R1 and R2, say), the formula for the resulting resistance is Total Resistance = R1*R2/(R1 + R2) . For example if R1 and R2 have the same value, then the total resistance is half the value of R1 (or R2) - This is all the maths that I want to include in this reply, but hopefully this makes sense and hopefully, you can see how adding another resistor in parallel with G17 lowers the overall resistance of the sensor
Using the above as an introduction, here's a possible alternative way for solving the ice warning problem:
1.Locate G17 - I believe that the ambient temperature sensor is physically located behind the front bumper, just to the right of the licence plate
2.Disconnect G17 from the connector (T2ca in the ) and measure its resistance (using a multi-meter) when the temperature is cold
3.Confirm my negative temperature coefficient assumption by warming-up the sensor (with your hands) - the resistance should drop. (note: if the sensor has a positive temp coefficient, the variable resistor should be connected in series with the sensor)
4.Buy yourself a good quality variable resistor (preferably multi-turn) at about 4 to 10 times the measured resistance and wire it as shown in my circuit above (add the switch if you want - or wire the new resistor via a connector, so that it can be unplugged in summer). Only a low power variable resistor is needed (perhaps 1/2 to 1 Watt)
5.With the new resistor attached, vary the slider and have someone inside the car tell you when the ambient temperature reading on the MFA has risen sufficiently to avoid the ice warning.
6. Place a dob of glue on the slider mechanism, so that it won't move with the car's vibrations. Make sure all the new components are secured
7. Go inside and pour yourself a large glass of single malt scotch (with ice from outside your house) for a job well done!
Of course, if all this seems like more trouble than it's worth, then just ignore my suggestion!!
Don
PS: Question for RT (hopefully asked tactfully): The control module's proclivity to "spit-the-dummy" after the 3rd unsuccessful attempt, appears to have been resolved (in a fashion) in the "other cable" (won't name it, but it needs a correct security code to launch the "login finder" application). Given the importance of security codes to changing programmable parameters in the modules and the proliferation of codes as per Sebastian's reply above, does RT foresee a similar application (to login finder) in their cable in the fullness of time?