Title: replacement ECU for 8N0 906 018Q Post by: jochen_145 on April 02, 2018, 12:07:11 PM Hey,
I am looking for a replacement ECU for a 8N0 906 018Q APP 1.8T engine. Does a APU 4B0 906 018DX of a APU Passat will fit ? AFAIS the APU is simular to APP, but the secundary airpump is missing. Will a software chance to APP SW fix the problem ? Or is the 4B0 906 018F of ANB be a better exchance ? And what about 4B0 906 018 DC of ATW ? Thanks for help Jochen Title: Re: replacement ECU for 8N0 906 018Q Post by: prj on April 02, 2018, 02:19:01 PM Don't overthink it, any 29F400 based ECU will work.
Title: Re: replacement ECU for 8N0 906 018Q Post by: _nameless on April 02, 2018, 03:59:33 PM Don't overthink it, any 29F400 based ECU will work. Some 29f400 ecus have different internal circuitry. The 180 narrowband tt has power on the small ecu plug that the 225 does not. The beetle 150 narrowband is tje same circuitry amd is crossflashible with the narrowband 180 tt but not the 225. The 225 narrowband will crossflash with the golf 150 narrowband and the a4 atw narrowband passat /a4. Im in north America and this is off my first hand experience Title: Re: replacement ECU for 8N0 906 018Q Post by: vwmaniac on April 03, 2018, 03:31:52 PM I cross flashed a passat ATW ecu for an early narrowband audi TT and it worked fine, not sure what other options there are but that's what I used
Title: Re: replacement ECU for 8N0 906 018Q Post by: prj on April 03, 2018, 04:14:38 PM For those missing that extra power on the pin, can be just shorted with a wire in the ECU.
But regardless, most should work. Title: Re: replacement ECU for 8N0 906 018Q Post by: jochen_145 on April 04, 2018, 12:15:39 PM Thanks for your input, it helps a lot :)
There is a 4B0 906 018 F ATW, price seems to be good, at least better then simular Audi TT APP ECU. I tryed to crosscheck Martys infos via pin-description of Beetle and 225PS Audi TT ECU. My infos are only europaen based, but all three ECUs got simular pinning, witch fits to the Funktionsrahmen, you can find here in the form. So from this point of view prj seems to be right :) Thanks again for all of your input |