[RBT-Tuning]

Originally Posted by JMM

Thx for your suggestion, RBT-Tuning but before i get excited and PM you y need to know if it's realy possible to only change the TCU without changing the megatronics cos what i understand from info on internet, only changing the TCU on itself is not possible, it has to be together with the megatronics.

Can you acknowledge that the TCU can be changed without changing the megatronics?

If that could be i likely will be a happy man cos that would reduce the already expensive cost for such a torough modification.

Normally you change both, because the TCU is calibrated to this very valve body. You don't want to install a new TCU, whithout calibrating it to the body. At the end of the day you have your old mechatronic (Mechatronic = TCU + valvebody) to trade in.

[SilverStreak18]

Originally Posted by RBT-Tuning

Yes, that's easy to change!

That's great news. Well you have a customer ready to purchase here. Doing a transmission service today in preparation for this flash!

[dmanb2b]

Originally Posted by Jason

Sorry all, but commercial use of the site without being a sponsor is a violation of the posted site rules and is unfair to the site's sponsors.

Any chance we can get some sticky posts in the Diesel sub-forum? Let us know the process...this is the first time I have seen an admin post since I joined.

New members just keep getting told to "search"

[Jason]

Of course. Reply with some suggested threads to sticky or you can PM me. Thanks.

[dmanb2b]

Originally Posted by Jason

Of course. Reply with some suggested threads to sticky or you can PM me. Thanks.

Thank you...will do! I may start a quick thread and will get back to you with suggested threads to sticky.

[mob17]

Originally Posted by RBT-Tuning

Could you elaborate?

So you would have 2 maps, one for comfort that is activated in D mode and one for sport, activated in DS mode?

[RBT-Tuning]

Originally Posted by mob17

So you would have 2 maps, one for comfort that is activated in D mode and one for sport, activated in DS mode?

That's not so special, as the TCU works exactly that way. D and S/M utilize totally different maps. The spread between the modes will be bigger starting from Comfort -> Sport -> Race OTS maps.

[robnitro]

I was wondering what is better for wear and economy:
Using 1st gear as D does
Or
Starting in 2nd gear due to our low end torque on 3 and 35d engines

If2nd is better, would we be able to edit comfort to do this?

[DWR]

Originally Posted by robnitro

I was wondering what is better for wear and economy:
Using 1st gear as D does
Or
Starting in 2nd gear due to our low end torque on 3 and 35d engines

If2nd is better, would we be able to edit comfort to do this?

The title of the thread is "Transmission Remap - Let's do it ourselves"
So, the ability to make your own changes will be available.
Once the release is official, you will no doubt see some tutorials. The changes you are interested in will actually be quite easy.

[RBT-Tuning]

Originally Posted by robnitro

I was wondering what is better for wear and economy:
Using 1st gear as D does
Or
Starting in 2nd gear due to our low end torque on 3 and 35d engines

If2nd is better, would we be able to edit comfort to do this?

Because of the nature of the torque converter it shouldn't matter. Of course you will induce more heat into the system with more slip in the converter, but that's not the big deal. It get's interesting when the lock-up clutch comes into play, which starts to act as soon as a certain rpm-diff threshold is reached. The longer the transition phase from open to closed takes, the more it wears. Naturally, this phase lengthens the higher the gearing is. So from plain theory it's better to start in 1st gear. But with xHP you could leave the TCC open in 2nd gear and won't have that effect. Personally, i hate slip and think it ruins driving experience, so I wouldnt recommend that.

[robnitro]

So the switching of 1 to 2 and back in city driving with a lot of stop signs and red lights is better than an unlocked tc in 2nd?
That's what I wonder since most auto companies focus on suburban driving as "city" which is much less stop and go.

[DWR]

Originally Posted by robnitro

I was wondering what is better for wear and economy:

You may not have realized that you posted a question with an underlying assumption that may be false. In other words, does wear and economy go together? From a wear perspective, more shifting means more wear. Hard to understand why anyone would post an answer that says otherwise. From an economy viewpoint, more gears is better. In addition, our transmission was not designed to run for extended periods of time with an unlocked converter. The pump does not have sufficient capacity to run the required cooling flow. Heat buildup shortens fluid life. There is no free lunch.

[robnitro]

1st with lockup may be shorter than optimal compared to starting off with 2nd unlocked. In 2nd you can use the tc torque multiplication as a pseudo 1st gear finishing with tc lockup, for that short time and still keep the rpm lower than if you went 1- 2

Yes wear doesn't always go hand in hand with economy but that 1st gear seems superfluous(especially in the e90), if only it were easy to change to a taller final drive...

The heat buildup of a short unlock tc (which can lock once we hit 10mph?) vs 2 operations of the clutches/tc lockup.... Plus for that short heat duration, we have a decent trans cooler, with the radiator cooling system as a heat sink. I think that makes the heat aspect break even?

[DWR]

Originally Posted by RBT-Tuning

It get's interesting when the lock-up clutch comes into play, which starts to act as soon as a certain rpm-diff threshold is reached. The longer the transition phase from open to closed takes, the more it wears. Naturally, this phase lengthens the higher the gearing is.

Just wanted to add some clarity, the rpm differential that RBT is referring to is within the converter. That differential is a result of input torque from the engine and resisting force of the gearbox (which comes from the weight of the vehicle, gearing, etc.). The resistance is lowest in first gear.

Interestingly, the torque converter in our transmissions spends a significant amount of time in PWM regulation, that is neither open or closed, by design.

[Hoooper]

Originally Posted by robnitro

1st with lockup may be shorter than optimal compared to starting off with 2nd unlocked. In 2nd you can use the tc torque multiplication as a pseudo 1st gear finishing with tc lockup, for that short time and still keep the rpm lower than if you went 1- 2

Yes wear doesn't always go hand in hand with economy but that 1st gear seems superfluous(especially in the e90), if only it were easy to change to a taller final drive...

The heat buildup of a short unlock tc (which can lock once we hit 10mph?) vs 2 operations of the clutches/tc lockup.... Plus for that short heat duration, we have a decent trans cooler, with the radiator cooling system as a heat sink. I think that makes the heat aspect break even?

You can command 2nd from a stop using the shifter, I would suggest playing around with that a bit and see if you like it or not. Personally, in my e90, the torque converter is way too loose to make driving enjoyable with starts from 2nd if youre also aiming for economy. I imagine in the heavier e70 it would be an awful driving experience.

[robnitro]

Yeah, I don't understand why zf choose such a high stall!

Pwm on the tc clutch? Wow, why would you want to slip that?

Now I see the need for thinner, more shear stable fluids like redline d6. There's also mercon sp, but that is only a group 3 'fake' synthetic. I bet the zf fluid is identical to zf lg6, just Ford likes their own spec unlike European companies.

[Hoooper]

Originally Posted by robnitro

Pwm on the tc clutch? Wow, why would you want to slip that?

All modern transmissions are controlled this way. Its been commonplace since the mid 90s. I believe the end result is that is is effectively locked all the time it is commanded but it allows a bit of slip on bigger changes of torque output to "smooth" the driving experience. The apply is PWM starting at a lower % and increased to high % to make the TCC locking experience less noticeable. In our car's program I imagine the low % is a lot higher than some others, or the clutch is more grabby, as there are many out there where clutch engagement is basically invisible from the driver's seat.

[Terraphantm]

Since there's a DMCA exemption for this in the context of automobile related stuff, I'm hoping I don't get in trouble for this:

GKE211/213 Signing Key (512-bit)
n = 0x9BD74576AD5DDF39EF83851660D0F7A63C6250551F4850A3AA847B00BEF630F65BA0ADA248B21C2D876760AB23D26E0B4476FC6078DA3E0B3F39C2DB94626FB3
p = 0xa44ac7b5afe4b58ab635f36f851e1b34761fb6bb3780967fcf118549fbc95525
q = 0xf2d4d1f6f5c63510fd41740bca4ae669061c145889bdb6647b84608a0bac55f7
e = 7
d = 0x2c86a621e863f6a2d6b7dce1d284d90aecae60185214a953554a6c495b21c4d83824e1219c4b32bbf369229ff38bd5d639357bccc6bed72fb39c884b4cd5ef07


GKE211/213 Level 3 Security Access:
n = 0xa2e246e7e06ec2367fad72e88b27cc1ba86b5f1e75883ccdcf057f678d59908eed179c7ad8a8bce091517bec031cae8cae7e57078474881c8e90a71a7471d001
p = 0xa7290ae765925e072ecaa0c7abb702ca1fd2e9d3c2eb214a341dac01d815d3a3
q = 0xf97367edfba14ebc89dee36257a4804059323bd39bdbe529efcd0bf698d2e80b
e = 7
d = 0x45ceb0ac84c1c0f2c901313f17110e54ff0971e87b8387c5eb025b2c61266285b310366b7c56bdc33847fc77b6c0805c600f5e4dc701379152471d57b85f51db


n = p*q
phi = (p-1)(q-1)
d = inverseModulus(e, phi)


RSA verify = (signature ^ e) mod n -- result = byte swapped and reversed md5
RSA sign = (hash ^ d) mod n

Originally Posted by dave205t

I'm not sure what kind of system you are using and the amount of time you had it running, but any 'ordinary strong PC' will need around 70-80days for RSA-512. I can have it done in around 8 hours, but it takes an insane amount of processing power.

For the record, the key took 160 hours on 7 year old consumer-ish hardware (6 core Xeon W3680). A modern high-end system should be even faster.

[DWR]

Originally Posted by Terraphantm

Since there's a DMCA exemption for this in the context of automobile related stuff, I'm hoping I don't get in trouble for this:

GKE211/213 Signing Key (512-bit)
n = 0x9BD74576AD5DDF39EF83851660D0F7A63C6250551F4850A3AA847B00BEF630F65BA0ADA248B21C2D876760AB23D26E0B4476FC6078DA3E0B3F39C2DB94626FB3
p = 0xa44ac7b5afe4b58ab635f36f851e1b34761fb6bb3780967fcf118549fbc95525
q = 0xf2d4d1f6f5c63510fd41740bca4ae669061c145889bdb6647b84608a0bac55f7
e = 7
d = 0x2c86a621e863f6a2d6b7dce1d284d90aecae60185214a953554a6c495b21c4d83824e1219c4b32bbf369229ff38bd5d639357bccc6bed72fb39c884b4cd5ef07


GKE211/213 Level 3 Security Access:
n = 0xa2e246e7e06ec2367fad72e88b27cc1ba86b5f1e75883ccdcf057f678d59908eed179c7ad8a8bce091517bec031cae8cae7e57078474881c8e90a71a7471d001
p = 0xa7290ae765925e072ecaa0c7abb702ca1fd2e9d3c2eb214a341dac01d815d3a3
q = 0xf97367edfba14ebc89dee36257a4804059323bd39bdbe529efcd0bf698d2e80b
e = 7
d = 0x45ceb0ac84c1c0f2c901313f17110e54ff0971e87b8387c5eb025b2c61266285b310366b7c56bdc33847fc77b6c0805c600f5e4dc701379152471d57b85f51db


n = p*q
phi = (p-1)(q-1)
d = inverseModulus(e, phi)


RSA verify = (signature ^ e) mod n -- result = byte swapped and reversed md5
RSA sign = (hash ^ d) mod n

For the record, the key took 160 hours on 7 year old consumer-ish hardware (6 core Xeon W3680). A modern high-end system should be even faster.

Bravo.

Would you like to take a crack at the DDE7.3 ECU? I have a spare I would gladly volunteer.

[Terraphantm]

Unfortunately factoring the key for the DDE7.3 isn't feasible since it's a 1024-bit key. That would take more computing power than is on the planet today (excluding some super secret NSA stuff or whatever).

It may be possible to flash software that bypasses the signature check - I have done so for the MSV70 DME for example. But I don't have much experience with Bosch ECUs

[rjahl]

Originally Posted by Terraphantm

Since there's a DMCA exemption for this in the context of automobile related stuff, I'm hoping I don't get in trouble for this:

GKE211/213 Signing Key (512-bit)
n = 0x9BD74576AD5DDF39EF83851660D0F7A63C6250551F4850A3AA847B00BEF630F65BA0ADA248B21C2D876760AB23D26E0B4476FC6078DA3E0B3F39C2DB94626FB3
p = 0xa44ac7b5afe4b58ab635f36f851e1b34761fb6bb3780967fcf118549fbc95525
q = 0xf2d4d1f6f5c63510fd41740bca4ae669061c145889bdb6647b84608a0bac55f7
e = 7
d = 0x2c86a621e863f6a2d6b7dce1d284d90aecae60185214a953554a6c495b21c4d83824e1219c4b32bbf369229ff38bd5d639357bccc6bed72fb39c884b4cd5ef07


GKE211/213 Level 3 Security Access:
n = 0xa2e246e7e06ec2367fad72e88b27cc1ba86b5f1e75883ccdcf057f678d59908eed179c7ad8a8bce091517bec031cae8cae7e57078474881c8e90a71a7471d001
p = 0xa7290ae765925e072ecaa0c7abb702ca1fd2e9d3c2eb214a341dac01d815d3a3
q = 0xf97367edfba14ebc89dee36257a4804059323bd39bdbe529efcd0bf698d2e80b
e = 7
d = 0x45ceb0ac84c1c0f2c901313f17110e54ff0971e87b8387c5eb025b2c61266285b310366b7c56bdc33847fc77b6c0805c600f5e4dc701379152471d57b85f51db


n = p*q
phi = (p-1)(q-1)
d = inverseModulus(e, phi)


RSA verify = (signature ^ e) mod n -- result = byte swapped and reversed md5
RSA sign = (hash ^ d) mod n

For the record, the key took 160 hours on 7 year old consumer-ish hardware (6 core Xeon W3680). A modern high-end system should be even faster.

This makes me feel really small. I still can't get Winfkp to flash my GKE211. Something in the data, just can't nail it down. I can flash the MSV70 all day long and INPA communicates with the TCU , just can't flash it.

Communication error , before it starts. Going to look at the signature files or maybe load another Daten.

[Terraphantm]

If fast baudrate is on, try turning that off. Or vice versa.