Flashing the MK60 with ZCP software

[thegenius46m]

Great info! Would be awesome if you can flash a race ABS onto the non-M MK60. I have an M3 MK60 booster and master I can loan out for testing if you need it.



Not sure the ABS unit can be changed or even flashed for SpecE46. No changes unless it is specifically allowed by the rules.

Yup then that even further reinforces my point haha. But they're actually running the less agressive bauart_mk60 abs parameter and appear to be fine.

[bigjae46]

Great info! Would be awesome if you can flash a race ABS onto the non-M MK60. I have an M3 MK60 booster and master I can loan out for testing if you need it.

Dudes running spec e46 are not all grabbing the M3 Mk60 units to my knowledge and are getting by just fine in w2w.

Not sure the ABS unit can be changed or even flashed for SpecE46. No changes unless it is specifically allowed by the rules.

[thegenius46m]

Btw I looked into BAUART_MK60 on both cars and the M3 with it set to CSL and the ZHP non-m unit set to " limousine_ms" are the same data value on both MK60 models. Bauart_MK60 does indeed affect the abs threshold from the research I've done this past week comparing the two cars further and second guessing some earlier claims. Now I don't have an aim system with datalogging to back these claims up 100% BUT I would be very interested to see if a non-m mk60 with csl parameters, Bauart_mk60 set to "limousine_ms" and m3 mk60 booster and abs master with the pressure scaling set to CSL values, it may actually be very close or even identical performance. Just need someone to decrypt the firmware here but for majority of people. I am convinced this "budgetish" option with the non-m abs pump and m3 hardware would still be far superior to a garbage mk20 setup. Worst case you swap the m3 mk60 in later if the setup is not enough, but I don't see if being a huge issue. Dudes running spec e46 are not all grabbing the M3 Mk60 units to my knowledge and are getting by just fine in w2w.

[liam821]

I picked up a non-m mk60 for my Honda Time Attack racecar for $45 on eBay. I'm planning to program it with all the CSL settings. I don't need traction control, but ABS is going to be a game-changer! I'm going to be swapping it this winter so I'll be sure to update this thread with the results.

I have a whole e70 x5 chassis harness in a box and it just happens that the e70x5 abs pump plug is the same as the e46 mk60. You can you any 40-50 tooth trigger wheels and most modern wheel speed sensors work with the mk60. The most annoying part of retrofitting it is you need line pressure sensor on each brake line.

[thegenius46m]

If this thread is to be believed then that makes an MK60 conversion way more affordable. Most of the MK60 parts could be had off a scrap car for relatively cheap. Sounds like the biggest hassle is physically running the wiring and brake lines. Hmm, might have to add this to my to do list now dammit.

thegenius46m are you suggesting if using a non-m MK60 unit you should also use the non-m brake booster and cylinder?

Yup that's what I'm saying! If the non-m mk60 is truly viable (I think it is) the swap is VERY affordable relative to M3 market. I talked to my shop tonight and he said the M3 master is definitely a little bigger but from what Bry5on reported and what I'm seeing in the software, I think there is a strong chance Non-m mk60 with m3 master and booster with the appropriate coding changes to all m3 settings is the play here.

E36 guys are using a Z3M s54 booster with e46 m3 master so the booster can be changed without ill effects.

[bigjae46]

I have run the non-m and M3 mk60s with a non-m booster/master and M3 brakes in my car for many miles. No odd behavior to note other than the 16% longer pedal travel. Last thing on my list to swap out is the M3 master/booster but only to fix the pedal travel really.

Adding just as a data point

I have a used MK60 booster/MC for sale. Message me if interested.

[Bry5on]

I have run the non-m and M3 mk60s with a non-m booster/master and M3 brakes in my car for many miles. No odd behavior to note other than the 16% longer pedal travel. Last thing on my list to swap out is the M3 master/booster but only to fix the pedal travel really.

Adding just as a data point

[Thoglan]

If this thread is to be believed then that makes an MK60 conversion way more affordable. Most of the MK60 parts could be had off a scrap car for relatively cheap. Sounds like the biggest hassle is physically running the wiring and brake lines. Hmm, might have to add this to my to do list now dammit.

thegenius46m are you suggesting if using a non-m MK60 unit you should also use the non-m brake booster and cylinder?

[thegenius46m]

Just FYI, you're probably still going to end up switching everything off on a race track. M track mode is nice, but still intervenes too much IMO



This thread seems to suggest that the answer is yes: http://www.zhpmafia.com/forums/showt...or-non-M-MK60s . Think any MK60 should work actually, not just the ZHP one, but not sure. Also not entirely sure that all the parameters match the M3 ones. MK60 software is still very much a black box, so there could be differences that are not being changed if you follow that guide, but I'm just throwing out a concern with no basis for its validity.

Yeah precisely. I added custom values to my ZHP MK60 to match all the M3 CSL settings and its night and day vs stock. With 235hp at the crank vs 333hp, the higher limits are awesome in mdm because the intervention is MUCH later than the M3 because it takes higher limits to match the level of slip that the unit needs to see to match the M3 values. So less power with higher limits equals considerably less intervention.

With that said though, I agree with Heinzboehmer that it is "possible" there are deeper differences in the firmware of the genuine M3 unit vs the non-m MK60 BUT both are FAR superior to an MK20 in pretty much every category. With MK60 units being in such high demand lately i'd venture to say the non-m unit is worth your time if you know how to do the coding because you'll get at least if not all the performance of the M3 branded unit for much less and they are considerably easier to source (any 9/02+ E46 non-m iirc not just zhp). The wiring and plumbing is identical, but the only differences I see on quick glance are the brake master cylinder and booster as well as the mk60 unit. Not sure how the car will react to a frankenstein setup with m3 hydraulics and a non-m module as you probably want to use the same components for the chosen model, as the firmware may dictate how the mk60 variant detects hydraulic pressure. That I can't confirm.

If you're not racing wheel to wheel and want a drastic improvement I feel the non-m unit could be a very viable option and worst case if it is not enough you could just swap the mk60 module, booster, and master later if needed but I don't think it will be that drastic. We don't have the definitive data to my knowledge.

It looks like you can adjust the pressure sensor and piston size in the coding to m3 settings so honestly the differences between the two units in real world testing may be negligible.

[heinzboehmer]

There has to be some nerd here that can figure all of this out!!! lol

This nerd unfortunately has a ton of other ongoing projects lol. Do want to mess around with this eventually though.

Almost every time when a student in an E46/E9X M3 turns off DSC, they literally turn in so sharply that they are pointed at the apex.

That was exactly my experience. Also got significantly faster as soon as I pressed the button to turn DSC off

[bigjae46]

This thread seems to suggest that the answer is yes: http://www.zhpmafia.com/forums/showt...or-non-M-MK60s . Think any MK60 should work actually, not just the ZHP one, but not sure. Also not entirely sure that all the parameters match the M3 ones. MK60 software is still very much a black box, so there could be differences that are not being changed if you follow that guide, but I'm just throwing out a concern with no basis for its validity.

There has to be some nerd here that can figure all of this out!!! lol

Just FYI, you're probably still going to end up switching everything off on a race track. M track mode is nice, but still intervenes too much IMO

Every OEM track mode (except for the newer GT3s) limits the amount of yaw in the car to the point where it is sub optimal. The E46 and E9X track modes don't even allow you to get close to optimal slip angles on stock Michelins. Almost every time when a student in an E46/E9X M3 turns off DSC, they literally turn in so sharply that they are pointed at the apex. Even if the light isn't coming in, DSC in all modes is keeping you straight.

In an E46 and E9X M3...you really need to put a lot of slip angle in the rear tires to keep the rear end rotation if you want to drive it fast. Oh yeah, its WAY more fun to drive too! If you enjoy understeer then by all means turn on M-track mode. The strength of the E46 is NOT its front end grip.

But I don't want to go off? Stop thinking that the throttle is something evil...it's your friend!

[heinzboehmer]

Your input in this thread has been so helpful for what I'm trying to accomplish - so thanks!

So if I read this thread correctly - I should be able to take my MK60 unit (non-M 811.3) and essentially recalibrate it to match the CSL MK60 parameters - using a combination of NCSExpert and NCSDummy (?) For context this is for a dedicated race car that currently we have to disable DSC each time we use it because it intervenes way too much. I'd love an option that allows the ability to use the full ABS/DSC features without as much of a leash..

Just FYI, you're probably still going to end up switching everything off on a race track. M track mode is nice, but still intervenes too much IMO

Wait...so I can swap in an MK60 from a ZHP and have it coded to the M3 settings?

This thread seems to suggest that the answer is yes: http://www.zhpmafia.com/forums/showt...or-non-M-MK60s . Think any MK60 should work actually, not just the ZHP one, but not sure. Also not entirely sure that all the parameters match the M3 ones. MK60 software is still very much a black box, so there could be differences that are not being changed if you follow that guide, but I'm just throwing out a concern with no basis for its validity.

[bigjae46]

Actually not true. It will work in his case and he just needs to program the m3 parameters manually on his sedan. I literally have had this on my 05 ZHP sedan MK60 with full CSL parameters for the past 2 years now and it is epic and does fully work. I think the only issue you may run into with the non-m module on a m3 is that the unit even with vin correction, it may not allow you to flash to default M3 settings from the VO without fully virginizing the unit, because NCS will recognize it as a non-m module. Even then, a non-m MK60 with manually programmed CSL parameters is FAR superior than an MK20 ever will be.

Plus there are a handful of S54 swapped sedans with the MK60 that came with the non-m shell that are working just fine so it can be done. It just wont be a walk in the park without a firmware flash I imagine, but still very doable.

Wait...so I can swap in an MK60 from a ZHP and have it coded to the M3 settings?

[MichaelBRR]

On my ZHP since it's a sedan I created the custom attributes in NCS dummy for the mk60 variant I have and just set them to CSL values. I believe I left BAUART_MK60 alone and it is still set to Limousine_ms. I think its just an identifier and not a true parameter that affects the intervention since you are basically setting the intervention parameters manually. Setting BAUART_MK60 to CSL I believe would set the parameters manually but NCS will probably complain about hardware differences since the coding index of the MK60 module is not the same variant. You're essentially cheating the software and setting the dsc settings manually to net the same outcome. I've been running it 1.5 yrs now and it is absolutely working.

Your input in this thread has been so helpful for what I'm trying to accomplish - so thanks!

So if I read this thread correctly - I should be able to take my MK60 unit (non-M 811.3) and essentially recalibrate it to match the CSL MK60 parameters - using a combination of NCSExpert and NCSDummy (?) For context this is for a dedicated race car that currently we have to disable DSC each time we use it because it intervenes way too much. I'd love an option that allows the ability to use the full ABS/DSC features without as much of a leash..

[thegenius46m]

Are you saying that you're able to set the BAUART_MK60 setting to CSL on non-M units?

On my ZHP since it's a sedan I created the custom attributes in NCS dummy for the mk60 variant I have and just set them to CSL values. I believe I left BAUART_MK60 alone and it is still set to Limousine_ms. I think its just an identifier and not a true parameter that affects the intervention since you are basically setting the intervention parameters manually. Setting BAUART_MK60 to CSL I believe would set the parameters manually but NCS will probably complain about hardware differences since the coding index of the MK60 module is not the same variant. You're essentially cheating the software and setting the dsc settings manually to net the same outcome. I've been running it 1.5 yrs now and it is absolutely working.