[rjahl]

Attached are three versions of the N52 MSV80 Parameter files

328I
Z4 3.0i ( E89 Platform) @258HP
X5 3.0SI ( E70) @270HP

all are USA versions.

I am just getting my maps good enough to start comparing these versions.

[hassmaschine]

Thanks! Do you know of those are all the latest software version?

One thing that will really help this effort is having people always use the newest software revision. There aren't *that* many for MSV70/80 (not like MSS54 for example, that has like 40 versions or something). But having to make XDFs for older versions of the factory software would take a lot more time.

[hassmaschine]

oh yeah, what are you using to convert these into a straight binary? the 0da's are in intel hex format and I know it can be extracted I just haven't done it in a long time..

[rjahl]

Originally Posted by hassmaschine

Thanks! Do you know of those are all the latest software version?

One thing that will really help this effort is having people always use the newest software revision. There aren't *that* many for MSV70/80 (not like MSS54 for example, that has like 40 versions or something). But having to make XDFs for older versions of the factory software would take a lot more time.

These should be the latest versions.

I'm sorry about the Intel Hex / ODA version of the files, I'll send them in BIN format later in the day.

[Taskmaster]

If I'm looking at this correctly, the X3 MSV80 file looks like it's carrying less lift across the board. BUT - I don't think the X3 is the 270hp version, correct?

[hassmaschine]

the part throttle map is less lift, yes, but that doesn't really affect the HP output you'd see on the dyno. only the 1500rpm and below side of the full load map has lower lift than the 330i.

[rjahl]

Attached are the same file's but converted to BIN.

[e90ftw]

Originally Posted by hassmaschine

Thanks! Do you know of those are all the latest software version?

One thing that will really help this effort is having people always use the newest software revision. There aren't *that* many for MSV70/80 (not like MSS54 for example, that has like 40 versions or something). But having to make XDFs for older versions of the factory software would take a lot more time.

The 328i file is MI20S, I think my MK80S file is a bit newer.

[rjahl]

Originally Posted by TheAxiom

If I'm looking at this correctly, the X3 MSV80 file looks like it's carrying less lift across the board. BUT - I don't think the X3 is the 270hp version, correct?

Those maps confused me as well. For the record, the map posted is for a 258HP Z4 3.0I (E89). There are differences between the Z4 and X5 maps.

I showed the Z4 version as it had the biggest differences between the full throttle and throttled valve lift maps. It's labeled, but I could have made the label a little bigger. The X5 maps look more like a 330I.

This originally had me thinking that the N52N motor had some additional power built in somewhere. It's essentially the same motor, cylinder head assembly, cams, intake manifold but the valve body, block and crankshaft is different. I don't think the Valve body had any real effect on these motors.

I'll keep digging.....

[rjahl]

Originally Posted by e90ftw

The 328i file is MI20S, I think my MK80S file is a bit newer.

Damm, Now I need to check my files and go though the process of finding the latest.

[Taskmaster]

Originally Posted by rjahl

Those maps confused me as well. For the record, the map posted is for a 258HP Z4 3.0I (E89). There are differences between the Z4 and X5 maps.

I showed the Z4 version as it had the biggest differences between the full throttle and throttled valve lift maps. It's labeled, but I could have made the label a little bigger. The X5 maps look more like a 330I.

This originally had me thinking that the N52N motor had some additional power built in somewhere. It's essentially the same motor, cylinder head assembly, cams, intake manifold but the valve body, block and crankshaft is different. I don't think the Valve body had any real effect on these motors.

I'll keep digging.....

Are you serious? What about the exhaust manifolds?

[tinkerputzer]

Been lurking here for a bit to follow this thread. Great stuff guys

@Hass: When you say the latest software version are you referring to what we use winKFP to update? What version should we be looking for?

[hassmaschine]

yes. The newest MSV70 for example is 9PPL921S. The data spaces vary depending on what motor you have, but the program versions are generally the same between models.

This way if you have a 325i or a 330i, it doesn't matter - the program version is the same, so all the offsets are the same and we only need 1 XDF for both cars.

there may be more than 1 current version for MSV80 since the 328i is more different from the E70 X5 3.0si than the 325i/330i are, but it would still eliminate a lot of extra work.

[rjahl]

Originally Posted by hassmaschine

yes. The newest MSV70 for example is 9PPL921S. The data spaces vary depending on what motor you have, but the program versions are generally the same between models.

This way if you have a 325i or a 330i, it doesn't matter - the program version is the same, so all the offsets are the same and we only need 1 XDF for both cars.

there may be more than 1 current version for MSV80 since the 328i is more different from the E70 X5 3.0si than the 325i/330i are, but it would still eliminate a lot of extra work.

Just let me know what versions you want to work with and I'll adjust to them.

[tinkerputzer]

Originally Posted by hassmaschine

yes. The newest MSV70 for example is 9PPL921S. The data spaces vary depending on what motor you have, but the program versions are generally the same between models.

OK, i found 0049PP0L921S in the program reference field under MSV70 user info page of inpa. I assume that's the one you're referring to?

So from what i gather these are the following ways we can flash our dme's.

-BDM
-OFT
-BB app and BT cable

If i understand correctly rjahl is working on a method to use a DCAN cable and winkfp. If that is correct it seems like that would be the most cost effective but not necessarily the easiest route.

I'm trying to get up to speed on this topic so please correct me if any of these are wrong conclusions.

[hassmaschine]

yeah WinKFP would be cheap but you'll have to build up the file yourself and also know how to correct the checksum. BDM, OFT & the BB app all correct the checksum automatically, all you have to do is modify the binary to your liking.

also, out of the options BDM is by far the fastest, it takes about 1 minute for a full write vs 20-40 minutes via the OBD port. So for dyno tuning BDM wins unless your dyno time is free..

[tinkerputzer]

Originally Posted by hassmaschine

yeah WinKFP would be cheap but you'll have to build up the file yourself and also know how to correct the checksum. BDM, OFT & the BB app all correct the checksum automatically, all you have to do is modify the binary to your liking.

also, out of the options BDM is by far the fastest, it takes about 1 minute for a full write vs 20-40 minutes via the OBD port. So for dyno tuning BDM wins unless your dyno time is free..

Ok, that makes sense. Thanks for explaining it. A lot of this stuff is way over my head but i want learn it.

[hassmaschine]

I got through all the 1d parameters i wanted to look at. There are way less 2d and 3d to look at, so I'm pretty close to having a finished xdf (at least for msv70).

[rjahl]

Originally Posted by hassmaschine

I got through all the 1d parameters i wanted to look at. There are way less 2d and 3d to look at, so I'm pretty close to having a finished xdf (at least for msv70).

I've been looking at a few differed flash reads and I can't understand what is happening at 0 x 80000. It seems that a Bdm will read a 4 byte value at this location but all the odb reads show FF FF FF FF. this seems consistent across a few dme s and at least two different odb readers.

Its almost like this address is inaccessible through odb.

Do you have any idea?

[rich123321]

Lots of progress has been made from what i can tell. Hass, what is your ultimate goal with this project of yours? I have a 325i with the MSV70 for example, so would there be a file that i can flash myself that acts as a tune to increase horsepower? Or is this just purely translating the ecu files. I am running the open flash tablet with my 330i manifold swap but I am hungry for a little more power!

[hassmaschine]

Originally Posted by rjahl

I've been looking at a few differed flash reads and I can't understand what is happening at 0 x 80000. It seems that a Bdm will read a 4 byte value at this location but all the odb reads show FF FF FF FF. this seems consistent across a few dme s and at least two different odb readers.

Its almost like this address is inaccessible through odb.

Do you have any idea?

I think that's a PPC instruction (fixed length, 4 bytes). no idea why you wouldn't be able to read that over OBD. 80000 should be the start of the program space.

what about 80040? there's another 4 byte value there.

the meat of the code doesn't really start until ~81180. I stopped working on the disassembly (for now) because I don't yet know exactly how the memory is arranged, so what ends up happening is the data references within the program & boot modes don't work properly.

[rjahl]

Originally Posted by hassmaschine

I think that's a PPC instruction (fixed length, 4 bytes). no idea why you wouldn't be able to read that over OBD. 80000 should be the start of the program space.

what about 80040? there's another 4 byte value there.

the meat of the code doesn't really start until ~81180. I stopped working on the disassembly (for now) because I don't yet know exactly how the memory is arranged, so what ends up happening is the data references within the program & boot modes don't work properly.

Thanks, The data at 80040 shows up in both BDM and ODB reads. Just funny how the 80000 data comes up on an ODB read.