yanga001
Newbie
Karma: +0/-0
 Offline
Posts: 4
|
 |
« Reply #1350 on: January 19, 2021, 05:26:52 PM »
|
|
|
Hi everyone,
this might be a really stupid question but how effective would it be to find two identical ECU's for the 99 series and then use some scripting to attempt to identify matches between the two bin files.
My thinking in this is to attempt to find the changes between a 2.3T 99 automatic and 2.3T manual in an attempt to find a very cheap and free way to try and do a conversion. I understand the tuning community is a very hard working bunch and i have played around with disassembler for a few 99 auto bins, and am in the process of trying to locate the 99 manual bin. Ill post results if and when this idea comes to fruition, however i would find any input useful.
So far im working on building a log reader from a scrap ecu header from a 99 so the bin should show up here in the next few months.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
1999 ME7 Volvo S70 2.3 T Auto
|
|
|
daniel2345
Full Member
Karma: +11/-8
Offline
Posts: 200
|
|
« Reply #1351 on: January 20, 2021, 08:34:48 AM »
|
|
|
Everyone calm down.
There are two reasons why you would want to limit torque in the 1st and 2nd gear. Wear/chance of breakage and the fact that you will only get wheel spin if you apply more torque than the tires will be able to transfer to the road.
The second one is easy to quantify for an end user. Most road tires don't allow for more than about 1G in acceleration/deceleration on the vehicle they are made for and manufacturers tend to choose tires in this range as first fitment. Getting more grip usually means that tires wear crazy fast and the regular customer is not going to be pleased with that. If you happen to have access to, or are a person writing these ECU calibrations, you would know that the purpose for these limiters by the OEMs is said to be to eliminate wheel spin primarily.
The first one is extremely hard to quantify, as Daniel no doubt tries to illustrate. How can you be sure that gear boxes don't shatter up inside? You do a bunch of math based on material science of the materials used in the design of the gear box. You choose the materials that are cheapest to use, but still are "good enough" for normal road use of the gear box. After that, you do a lot of testing, find out when the gears actually break under certain circumstances to make sure your theoretical calculations and design fit the application of the gear box.
There is a safety margin, it is both calculated and proven with testing in how strong these gears are by the time they are bolted to a mass production vehicle.
The fact that your gear box hasn't blown up yet is statistically irrelevant. Manufacturers would like the number of gear boxes that blow up to be 0, but 1 in 100.000 is totally acceptable. 1 in 10 obviously is not.
Until you test over 1000 gear boxes, or go through all the tests that Daniel describes with a dozen gear boxes or so, you should assume that these gears aren't designed to take much more load than the design of the road car calls for.
Volvo is known for putting in serious safety margins in their older designs. in the nineties they were forced to cut costs because of competition and once Ford took over, there was a lot more cost cutting to increase margins (make profit). These gear boxes are clearly commissioned in that era and we all know that there were many revisions to fix problems with reliability and durability.
TL;DR One or a few end users experiences mean nothing compared to the design and research data put in by Aisin and Volvo. Don't expect the box to be capable of handling more than 1G acceleration on stock tires because that would make it too expensive and outside of the scope the box is used for.
In practice, lifting the torque limit by a lot will only be beneficial for acceleration if you use extra sticky tires. Otherwise you will only generate tire smoke and possibly little bits of gear shattered inside your box.
Im relaxed  Thanks for making things clearer. It also shows how wide the complexity is in reality. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
daniel2345
Full Member
Karma: +11/-8
Offline
Posts: 200
|
|
« Reply #1352 on: January 20, 2021, 08:41:32 AM »
|
|
|
Hi everyone,
this might be a really stupid question but how effective would it be to find two identical ECU's for the 99 series and then use some scripting to attempt to identify matches between the two bin files.
My thinking in this is to attempt to find the changes between a 2.3T 99 automatic and 2.3T manual in an attempt to find a very cheap and free way to try and do a conversion. I understand the tuning community is a very hard working bunch and i have played around with disassembler for a few 99 auto bins, and am in the process of trying to locate the 99 manual bin. Ill post results if and when this idea comes to fruition, however i would find any input useful.
So far im working on building a log reader from a scrap ecu header from a 99 so the bin should show up here in the next few months.
The bins are generated as / from a specific software project. Volvo ME7 uses same project for manual and automatic transmission in almost all projects. After software is created, calibration is done. So, the same software with same locations is populated with values for manual transmission on the one side, and with values for automatic transmission on the other side. You only have to find bins with same software project base, then you can compare them directly. Each difference is a different calibration for automatic / manual. Same is done for different engine displacement also. That shows, that a conversion tool is not needed. You just need to find the correct automatic bin since they exist in 95% of the software projects. Hint: there are at least 6 software projects which where used in 99/2000, so the search might take a while. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
yanga001
Newbie
Karma: +0/-0
Offline
Posts: 4
|
|
« Reply #1353 on: January 20, 2021, 10:32:18 AM »
|
|
|
The bins are generated as / from a specific software project.
Volvo ME7 uses same project for manual and automatic transmission in almost all projects.
After software is created, calibration is done.
So, the same software with same locations is populated with values for manual transmission on the one side, and with values for automatic transmission on the other side.
You only have to find bins with same software project base, then you can compare them directly.
Each difference is a different calibration for automatic / manual.
Same is done for different engine displacement also.
That shows, that a conversion tool is not needed. You just need to find the correct automatic bin since they exist in 95% of the software projects.
Hint: there are at least 6 software projects which where used in 99/2000, so the search might take a while.
Awesome thanks for the info. I was unsure how they did it, and where the compiler made the differences based on optimizations and what not. I have a few contacts in the volvo community so i might see if they would be willing to capture their bins or if i can find some local ones who would be willing to share. As it stands right now, i have a 99 T5 i am slowly restoring, and i have a 2000 M56 waiting for a swap. the 99's use a different bin size i believe, but i have not actually disassembled a 2000 bin yet. Ill see if i can convince a few contacts to copy and share their bins for some 99 2.3T's. I assume even if the auto and manual bins do not match my software project, i can still co-locate the changes via finding the auto's matches to my bin and then swapping the corresponding manual calibrations. I am new to the tuning scene and appreciate the patience you guys have. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
1999 ME7 Volvo S70 2.3 T Auto
|
|
|
|
prometey1982
|
|
« Reply #1354 on: January 20, 2021, 11:13:39 AM »
|
|
|
Auto and manual BINs different by only one bit B_autget. For manual this bit set to 0 and for auto to 1. Also there can be some small calibration changes but it does't matter at the most.
But to find this bit you need to disassemble your BIN or compare your BIN with manual one in which software version is the same. Also this thread contains OLS file for old P80 platform. If you'll read this thread then you easily found it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jahko
Jr. Member
Karma: +2/-0
Offline
Posts: 47
|
|
« Reply #1355 on: January 22, 2021, 05:31:41 AM »
|
|
|
The manual files do have kickdown etc values. Post your file
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prometey1982
|
|
« Reply #1356 on: January 22, 2021, 09:07:57 AM »
|
|
|
The manual files do have kickdown etc values. Post your file
I can send you 50WRHJ software for manual and auto transmissions. And you can try to find a difference in kickdown etc values. Or 50GPHJ software for auto and manual. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
daniel2345
Full Member
Karma: +11/-8
Offline
Posts: 200
|
|
« Reply #1357 on: January 22, 2021, 11:05:55 AM »
|
|
|
Again.
Just because you think you observed a thing doesn't make it valid for everyone.
10ERHJ (late 06 quality update) for instance or any other P80 project has around 4000..5000 Bytes difference between same engine and same emission standard but different transmission.
50WRHJ Tag has been used for all software projects from some MY05 and all MY06 on, four different layouts exist.
Differences are torque converter stall speed maps, reverse engine / transmission speed plausibility maps, Pedal maps, torque monitoring maps, idle torque reserve maps, fault paths along with replacement values, ...
50GPHJ has less differences, but around 1000 Bytes also.
I wouldn't say those are non existing or not important.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 22, 2021, 11:08:36 AM by daniel2345 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prometey1982
|
|
« Reply #1358 on: January 23, 2021, 04:51:55 AM »
|
|
|
I flashed XC70 B5254T2 AW55 with S60R TF80SC software. Injectors and turbo were swapped to 440 and K24. Car runs fine and makes 0-100 in 6.5 secs. Please expain your arguments. All these words about kilobytes of differences just words. But I want to thank you for your criticism. It helps to continue investigations and dig deeper and deeper.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
daniel2345
Full Member
Karma: +11/-8
Offline
Posts: 200
|
|
« Reply #1359 on: January 23, 2021, 05:23:10 AM »
|
|
|
What does this statement have to do with different calibration of manuel and automatic transmission ecu files?
I think you might don't want or can not understand what the point was: because it works for you in a small window of the possible operating range an conditions, it must not do under other circumstances.
See, the B5254T2 has "high" compression, B5254T4 has "low" compression.
What will affect this the most beneath filling calculations?
I will tell you: knock control.
But, if no knock occurs, maybe because you drive 100 octane and in cold conditions, you will not notice any problems.
Now the other guy in Denver in the summer, facing 40 degrees Celsius and above 1000m altitude running 90 octane will blow his engine.
Different example: maybe your approach for whatever will produce problems when kickdown is engaged.
But your customer didn't use kickdown while testing your software?
You will come here, tell everything works. Next day customer uses kickdown because he needed to and gearbox beaks. Will you come here and tell? I guess not.
The reason im arguing with you: I don't want to explain all this every day four or five times in each message i receive. So come here, tell things you observe as this.
Not as fact you have clarified the last twenty years you worked with those Volvos as others here did (including me).
Good luck with all this
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prometey1982
|
|
« Reply #1360 on: January 23, 2021, 12:06:57 PM »
|
|
|
I'm running my B5254T2 engine with 1.4 bar of boost on 98 RON every day. Even on 30 deg celsium. And had no problem with detonation. About kickdown. I flashed s60 t5 with B5244T5 engine and AW55 gearbox. It was my tuned flash based on S60R TF80 software. And again car runs fine. It made 6 secs 0-100 on FWD. No kickdown or all these horrible problems. Also I switched S80 2.9T bin from AT to MT. Because where was no s80 with 2.9T engine with mechanical transmission. And again it works. Even cruise control. And I'll switch one XC90 with 2.9T engine to MT after I'll finish my GUI software for flash. Now owner has a problem with engine limiter on 4000 revs. All these practice. But I understood you and will dig deeper into difference between AT and MT calibrations.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
yanga001
Newbie
Karma: +0/-0
Offline
Posts: 4
|
|
« Reply #1361 on: January 24, 2021, 11:21:05 AM »
|
|
|
Also this thread contains OLS file for old P80 platform. If you'll read this thread then you easily found it.
I had downloaded them all and never saw a manual identifier in the file names back in August. When i went through it all again I realized one of them was a manual for 99, but it was not labeled in the file name  . Ill go back and compare this to mine. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
1999 ME7 Volvo S70 2.3 T Auto
|
|
|
|
prometey1982
|
|
« Reply #1362 on: January 24, 2021, 12:18:59 PM »
|
|
|
I had downloaded them all and never saw a manual identifier in the file names back in August. When i went through it all again I realized one of them was a manual for 99, but it was not labeled in the file name . Ill go back and compare this to mine. It's a manual file cause it constains this string: P80 TO B5254LT MAN 2WD EU |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
yanga001
Newbie
Karma: +0/-0
Offline
Posts: 4
|
|
« Reply #1363 on: January 24, 2021, 12:29:06 PM »
|
|
|
Thanks for the help!
I am working out a deal for a 1999 C70 2.3T ECU. Will use it as the primary one. Im curious though, people have been able to swap the immo chips and even flash them on this forum. If the ETM, ABS, and other modules are non coded (verified through a volvospeed post where someone swapped the DIM, VGLA, Locks, key ring, keys, and ECU), and i am able to reflash the eeprom. Then would the manual ECU itself simply plug into my new system. All the boot loading, program control, etc would be isolated to the ECU itself, and if the immo is reflashed to my setup then would it not act as if it is in its original car?
I would need to verify the ETM and ABS work, but i am unsure if my above understanding is incorrect. Ill probably just test this out in the summer or when it warms up outside.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
1999 ME7 Volvo S70 2.3 T Auto
|
|
|
|
prometey1982
|
|
« Reply #1364 on: January 24, 2021, 11:31:09 PM »
|
|
|
I'm not fully understand you. But if you reflash EEPROM in your new ECM module to car's ECM module then immo will be OK. It works for 1mb software. And as far as I know it works for all ME7. You have to read this and other topics again and again.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
