Mongoose M60 & M80 Series update.



Before the powers that be at Mongoose get their knickers in a twist again I would like to make it clear that I accept that the Mongoose M60 Series & M80 Series fully comply with NZSA standards. I accept this because the New Zealand Security Association and the Lawyers acting on behalf of Mongoose NZ have told me so…

Clarification of the Standards

Here are the requirements set out for vehicle Immobilisers on the NZSA website:

• Automatic dual engine immobilisation
• Immobilisation to be within 20~40 seconds after the ignition is turned off – regardless of door position

Mongoose M60 and M80 Immobiliser off option!

The post March 2009 M60 Series and M80 Series both have a programmable option in the User manual called “Engine  Immobiliser On/Off” which will stop the Immobilisers from passive arming (so much for 20-40 seconds hey!) this means that the Immobiliser will only be turned on when the alarm is armed via the Mongoose remote.

Immobiliser off – Option 9

My Lack of Understanding?

I find it interesting that Mongoose has now deleted program “option 9” from the “online user manual” and I have been informed that they will be making changes to the M60 and M80 which prevent the Auto engine Immobiliser feature from being turned off.

It seems strange that Mongoose is making these changes to the M60 and M80 Series if they already comply with the standards! However, I welcome the updates and the efforts that Mongoose are making to improve their products.

This entry was posted in Car Security News, Immobilisers, Mongoose, NZSA. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Mongoose M60 & M80 Series update.

  1. Pingback: NZSA 3 Star or Thatcham CAT 2 | Obsessive Vehicle Security Blog

  2. Grant Marsh says:

    I just read your views on immobilisers and your misunderstanding of how they work. When I worked in Perth, I sat in on some Standards meetings so I am very conversant with the entire Standard, not just the parts you choose to publish.
    You criticise the programme option of disabling the automatic arming of the immobilisers but you fail to comment that Dynamco (Dynatron), Rhino (AVS), Black Widow, Uniden, Cyclops and others also have the same feature and some of these are Thatcham Approved.

  3. Julian says:

    Hi Grant,

    If you are going to make a big statement such as “I just read your views on immobilisers and your misunderstanding of how they work” you really should back it up with a clear example of how I misunderstand. I don’t think there is any misunderstanding on my behalf at all, but I do accept that I make some statements on this blog that industry insiders are uncomfortable about!

    To quote you;

    “You criticise the programme option of disabling the automatic arming of the immobilisers but you fail to comment that Dynamco (Dynatron), Rhino (AVS), Black Widow, Uniden, Cyclops and others also have the same feature and some of these are Thatcham Approved.”

    First off none of the brands that you list here are Thatcham approved, please feel welcome to check this on the Thatcham website and correct me if I am wrong! Here are the links:

    Thatcham CAT 2 immobilisers
    Thatcham CAT 1 alarms systems

    The reason that I have not mentioned other immobilisers having this feature is because I am not actually aware of it. Having said that I am learning new stuff everyday so feel welcome to educate me. I welcome comments on the blog to keep it open and accurate.

    What sets Mongoose apart from all the others is the fact that they were daft enough to put the information on how to disable the Auto-arming of the immobiliser in the user manual!

    If you are indeed correct about the other brands having this “feature” then there would be a good case to question if they too meet with the standards or not.

    Having said that, when you have directors of alarm suppliers sitting on “The Board” who control the Standards meetings is it any wonder what the outcome of these meeting will be?

    Mongoose clearly proved this point here in NZ earlier this year. I have sent two emails to the NZSA questioning how the M60 and M80 can still comply, yet to date have had no response.

  4. Grant Marsh says:

    Thatcham is a UK Standard and I agree with you that the Australian standards can be improved so why don’t you make a submission to the correct authorities for improvements (not them at the NZSA as they are just an association of manufacturers and retailers) ?
    Those brands that also have a programme to defeat the automatic setting of the immobilisers say so in their owners or installation manuals that are freely available on the internet – if you care to research more indepth. Most of us who install alarms know that the immobiliers for most brands are programmable and it is welcomed as many people dont like the feature, is not an insurance issue or it conflicts with their factory immobiliser. This is quite permissable in both Thatcham and NZ standards providing immobilisation is carried out by the factory system. Some Thatcham products, like Autowatch, are available without any immobilisers in them providing the total function meets the Standards.

  5. Julian says:

    Hi Grant,

    Once again you imply that the other brands you mention can be programmed to disable the immobiliser from auto arming, but you fail to produce any proof to back up your claims. I am quite familiar with Dynatron, Uniden and AVS and don’t recall seeing the “feature” in any of their manuals.

    If you are going to stick your neck out and make such a claim surely you should provide the evidence? Why are you trying to suggest that I should do my research when you are the one making claims that you have not backed up? Please could you back these claims up and send me the links!

    You go on to say that programming the immobiliser to prevent auto arming is welcomed by many people. But if the car already has an approved immobiliser then why the hell would you sell them a product with another immobiliser???

    I find this quite absurd as either you are willingly breaching the standards (assuming that the vehicle has no immobiliser) or you are installing a system which is not designed for the particular vehicle!

    The Thatcham Criteria is simple.
    CAT 1 is a full alarm/Immobilsier which can not be programed to be disabled.
    CAT 2-1 which is designed for vehicles with an existing Immobiliser.

    Moving on to the NZSA…

    I feel that the NZSA should represent the likes of us humble installers, so my view is that they should be the ones to make a submission over the standards. Sadly it seems that it is not in their interest to do this. Why? Well it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that most of the decision makers are importers who would not benefit from change!

    Once again I ask you to back up your claims from the previous two posts….

  6. Pingback: Is the NZSA Website to cryptic? | Obsessive Vehicle Security Blog

  7. Pingback: Obsessive Blog 2010 Highlights | Obsessive Vehicle Security Blog

  8. Pingback: NZSA Star Rating System? | Obsessive Vehicle Security Blog

  9. Pingback: How much control do Mongoose have over the NZSA? | Obsessive Vehicle Security Blog

  10. Pingback: Mongoose Immobiliser | Obsessive Vehicle Security Blog

  11. Pingback: Test Certificates | Obsessive Vehicle Security Blog

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.