NefMoto > ECU Files > Original ECU Files > Audi RS6 RS7 Performance C7 605hp original file
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »
Author Topic: Audi RS6 RS7 Performance C7 605hp original file  (Read 2383 times)
Jannik07
Full Member
***

Karma: +5/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 82
« on: August 14, 2024, 01:26:22 PM »
Hello !

I am looking for original file from RS6 or RS7 C7 Performance 605hp version for comparising.

Thanks in advance.
Logged
jcsbanks
Full Member
***

Karma: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 146
« Reply #1 on: August 15, 2024, 01:29:35 AM »
They are the same as the regular ones but using non zero power class coding in ECU EEEPROM. 560G (US), 560F (ROW).
Logged
gremlin
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +194/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 649
« Reply #2 on: August 15, 2024, 02:40:09 AM »
The same ECU is used for both 560/605PS (CWUB/CWUC) engines.
Here is an original file extracted from FRF flash container.
Logged
cherry
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +26/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 259
« Reply #3 on: August 15, 2024, 04:11:47 AM »
There is also a 560C D1711A05C000_MY15 version, all other are MY16 versions. I think you want to compare to CRDB MY14 version?
Logged
jcsbanks
Full Member
***

Karma: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 146
« Reply #4 on: August 15, 2024, 05:09:37 AM »
560C officially upgrades to 560F.
Logged
cherry
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +26/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 259
« Reply #5 on: August 15, 2024, 01:46:06 PM »
I think 560F FRF is not an official update for 560C, since there is no 560C in the FRF expected idents. Also both versions are still available in Etka.

<EXPECTED-IDENTS>
                <EXPECTED-IDENT ID="EMEM_4G0906560F0005.SES_4G0906560F0005.EI_VWSparePartNumbe">
                  <SHORT-NAME>EI_VWSparePartNumbe</SHORT-NAME>
                  <LONG-NAME>VW Spare Part Number</LONG-NAME>
                  <IDENT-VALUES>
                    <IDENT-VALUE TYPE="A_ASCIISTRING">4G0906560F </IDENT-VALUE>
                  </IDENT-VALUES>
                </EXPECTED-IDENT>
              </EXPECTED-IDENTS>
Logged
jcsbanks
Full Member
***

Karma: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 146
« Reply #6 on: August 16, 2024, 11:24:28 AM »
This is where I look for upgrades, eg in the 560F odx:

        <LAYER-REFS>
          <LAYER-REF DOCREF="EV_ECM40TFS0114G0906560C_001" DOCTYPE="LAYER" ID-REF="EV_ECM40TFS0114G0906560C_001"/>
          <LAYER-REF DOCREF="EV_ECM40TFS0114G0906560F_001" DOCTYPE="LAYER" ID-REF="EV_ECM40TFS0114G0906560F_001"/>
          <LAYER-REF DOCREF="BV_EnginContrModul1UDS" DOCTYPE="LAYER" ID-REF="BV_EnginContrModul1UDS"/>
        </LAYER-REFS>

The reason I look there is not that I've found a document to say that is where they should be (which would have been nice), but that I saw dealer updates following these patterns, usually no suffix upgrades after ones of these prefix upgrades appeared and that I've had no flash failures or fault codes or problems having flashed about 4000 MED17.1.1 around the world using these as upgrade paths. They got quite busy doing the changed versions on R8/Huracan and then it calmed down somewhat on MGD1. I never prefix upgrade customer cars unless from this pattern, but do sometimes change them in my own testing and often you find incompatibilities such as the calibrations of sensors have changed - for example when I flashed my MG1CS008 with an unapproved version, the calibration of the OPF pressure sensors was wrong. I never saw anything go wrong with a prefix cross flash from the LAYER-REFS.

If you have stronger evidence to contradict the above, I'm interested.
Logged
gremlin
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +194/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 649
« Reply #7 on: August 16, 2024, 11:38:50 AM »
Quote from: jcsbanks on August 16, 2024, 11:24:28 AM
If you have stronger evidence to contradict the above, I'm interested.

You both are right.
Just see at idents and layref for two upgrade frf versions - 0002 and 0005
Logged
prj
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +1066/-476
Offline Offline

Posts: 6004
« Reply #8 on: August 16, 2024, 11:43:02 AM »
Quote from: jcsbanks on August 16, 2024, 11:24:28 AM
If you have stronger evidence to contradict the above, I'm interested.
LAYER-REFS is about ODX loading in MCD kernel, nothing more, nothing less. Certainly it does not mean anything about compatibility whatsoever!
BV_EnginContrModul1UDS is root ODX, then other stuff is loaded on top of it.

For compatibility you must go all the way back and look at EXPECTED-IDENTS of all previous updates.
That's the only thing that is there for compatibility.
Logged
PM's will not be answered, so don't even try.
Log your car properly - WinOLS database - Tools/patches
jcsbanks
Full Member
***

Karma: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 146
« Reply #9 on: August 16, 2024, 12:11:49 PM »
Thank you both. I will double check whether this has resulted in any incorrect upgrade paths and report back.
Logged
jcsbanks
Full Member
***

Karma: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 146
« Reply #10 on: August 16, 2024, 01:07:15 PM »
There were no discrepancies between LAYER-REFS and IDENT-VALUES in odx for MED17.1.x 2.5, 4.0 and 5.2 for the 17 upgrade paths I have in place. I had done those manually originally.

I'll report back again on the MGD1, after revising the automation to use IDENT-VALUES. I'm not arguing that LAYER-REFS is the correct place to look for compatibility even if it matches 100 times.
Logged
jcsbanks
Full Member
***

Karma: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 146
« Reply #11 on: August 16, 2024, 01:41:29 PM »
No discrepancies in 1172 MGD1 odx files between upgrade prefixes in LAYER_REFS and IDENT-VALUES. They are a 1:1 match in that no upgrade in LAYER-REFS was not found in IDENT-VALUES and vice versa.

Only 5 of these odx had "VW Application Software Version Number" (the suffix) in IDENT-VALUES.
Logged
cherry
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +26/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 259
« Reply #12 on: August 16, 2024, 09:47:43 PM »
I found TPI2046754/2 which mention 4G0906560F is an update for 4G0906560C. Normally i use the latest FRF as reference, good to know that sometimes the expected idents are not complete.
Logged
prj
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +1066/-476
Offline Offline

Posts: 6004
« Reply #13 on: August 16, 2024, 11:07:56 PM »
Quote from: cherry on August 16, 2024, 09:47:43 PM
I found TPI2046754/2 which mention 4G0906560F is an update for 4G0906560C. Normally i use the latest FRF as reference, good to know that sometimes the expected idents are not complete.
Expected idents are there, but not on the latest 560F version. You need to build the whole path (history).

Quote from: jcsbanks on August 16, 2024, 01:41:29 PM
No discrepancies in 1172 MGD1 odx files between upgrade prefixes in LAYER_REFS and IDENT-VALUES. They are a 1:1 match in that no upgrade in LAYER-REFS was not found in IDENT-VALUES and vice versa.

Only 5 of these odx had "VW Application Software Version Number" (the suffix) in IDENT-VALUES.
I am just stating what the LAYER-REFS is for.
It should not be used for compatibility, that's not the intention. It's there to build the final ODX only. Think of it as class inheritance in a programming language.

It can be that in a flash file it matches the expected idents path, but it's always better to build the expected idents tree.
In this case it should be 560C -> 560F 0002 -> 560F 0005...
Logged
PM's will not be answered, so don't even try.
Log your car properly - WinOLS database - Tools/patches
gremlin
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +194/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 649
« Reply #14 on: August 17, 2024, 05:01:00 AM »
Just read the original ODX ECU-MEM specification and it will become clear
what is the difference and what is main and what is secondary addition.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
« previous next »
 
Jump to:  

Navigation
Personal Tools
  • November 09, 2024, 04:34:28 PM
  • Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
    Did you miss your activation email?

    Login with username, password and session length
Search
 
Advanced Search
About Disclaimer
All Rights Reserved 2010 Nefarious Motosports
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.022 seconds with 17 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0s, 0q)