Thread: TD5 ECU (non-flashable)

Originally Posted by skuilnaam

Read my post again...

Loading a DEF map onto a xxxx30 just doesnt use the auto component of the ECU.

And yes, a disco map on a defender will "run" just not nicely!!!!!!

I was under the impression that you could only load maps onto the ECU they were designed for. There are no defender maps for the xxxx30 ecu's listed in nanocom map or the testbook database hence the question.

The nanocom database is quite small
And doesn't contain all permutations.

Yes I realised that, but there are no Defender variants listed for the NNNxxxx30 ecu's in the testbook database either, which suggests that it is necessary to load a NNNxxxx20 map onto the NNNxxxx30 ECU.

Due to dodgy remapping practices I have run NNN500120 Maps on a NNN500020 it works.
But you get many spurious ghosting errors so probably not ideal

I just purchased a NNN000130 ECU which I was hoping to install into a 99 Defender.

I'm hoping for some definitive advice about whether the ECU is suitable given it is an 'auto' ECU going into a manual.

Originally Posted by OffTrack

Yes I realised that, but there are no Defender variants listed for the NNNxxxx30 ecu's in the testbook database either, which suggests that it is necessary to load a NNNxxxx20 map onto the NNNxxxx30 ECU.

"Loading a DEF map onto a xxxx30 just doesnt use the auto component of the ECU."

"I was under the impression that you could only load maps onto the ECU they were designed for. There are no defender maps for the xxxx30 ecu's listed in nanocom map or the testbook database"

I've done a significant amount of work on the Td5 ECU's at a code level since this thread was active 18 months ago, so I'm a bit better informed than when I made the comments above.

Tombie (skuilnaam was Tombie's sock puppet for a while there) is correct in saying that the manual maps will run on the Auto ECU's. The only physical difference between the two that I can find is that the Auto versions have about a dozen additional components which support canbus communications with the Transmission ECU.

That said the ECU firmware contains sections that aren't touched by a map upload, and one portion of this memory contains information on the ECU type - NNN000120, NNN000130, NNN500020, NNN500030 etc. This is checked by the map when the ECU boots up and sets a flag if there is a mismatch between the map and the hardware. I can't say what implications this has to operation but potentially this causes some of the faults that people see. It's wrong to to call these ghost errors - if the ECU throws a code it does for a specific reason.

It's possible to rewrite the portion of firmware which contains the information about ECU type with the correct gear, so it may be that changing this from NNN000130 -> NNN000120 or NNN500030 -> NNN500020 would let the map run without errors.

I would recommend running a map from a matching "generation", so use a NNN000120 map. There were changes to the type of output transistors used in the NNN5000x0 ECU's and there will be small differences in map to account for this.

cheers
Paul

Thanks you so much for taking the time to reply Paul. Great advice.

Originally Posted by OffTrack

I would recommend running a map from a matching "generation", so use a NNN000120 map. There were changes to the type of output transistors used in the NNN5000x0 ECU's and there will be small differences in map to account for this.

So sthle022-sttlp009.map would be an appropriate file to use. Is that right?

Originally Posted by OffTrack

It's possible to rewrite the portion of firmware which contains the information about ECU type with the correct gear, so it may be that changing this from NNN000130 -> NNN000120 or NNN500030 -> NNN500020 would let the map run without errors.

Have you got the capability to do this? Are you interesting in experimenting on my ECU?

Originally Posted by OffTrack

I've done a significant amount of work on the Td5 ECU's at a code level since this thread was active 18 months ago, so I'm a bit better informed than when I made the comments above.

Tombie (skuilnaam was Tombie's sock puppet for a while there) is correct in saying that the manual maps will run on the Auto ECU's. The only physical difference between the two that I can find is that the Auto versions have about a dozen additional components which support canbus communications with the Transmission ECU.

That said the ECU firmware contains sections that aren't touched by a map upload, and one portion of this memory contains information on the ECU type - NNN000120, NNN000130, NNN500020, NNN500030 etc. This is checked by the map when the ECU boots up and sets a flag if there is a mismatch between the map and the hardware. I can't say what implications this has to operation but potentially this causes some of the faults that people see. It's wrong to to call these ghost errors - if the ECU throws a code it does for a specific reason.

It's possible to rewrite the portion of firmware which contains the information about ECU type with the correct gear, so it may be that changing this from NNN000130 -> NNN000120 or NNN500030 -> NNN500020 would let the map run without errors.

I would recommend running a map from a matching "generation", so use a NNN000120 map. There were changes to the type of output transistors used in the NNN5000x0 ECU's and there will be small differences in map to account for this.

cheers
Paul

Thanks again, Tim

Originally Posted by skuilnaam

Nope that wasn't it!

If manual into Auto correct. Auto ECU into manual is fine.

Yes variant file must be correct for vehicle type otherwise 'gauges work backwards'

The other benefit to the Defender owner fitting a NNN ecu is the ability to wire its cruise control up to work.

Skuilnaam

Hmm...interested in the wiring up of the cruise control...how is that done