Flashing the MK60 with ZCP software

[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]

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

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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.

[karter16]

in the mean time, can anybody ID this Motorola IC?

Appreciate I’m some years late to this, came across this thread looking for something else and it intrigued me.

I’m pretty certain that the Motorola chip is actually the main controller/processor for the fact that it is the chip that has the crystal attached to it. Looking at 100 pin packages in common use at the time I’m thinking it could be a variant of the MC68HC16 (which would have been an appropriate choice when the MK60 was designed). For example the S2 variant is a possibility as the crystal pins XTAL and EXTAL are pins 36 and 38 which matches what we see the crystal connected to on the board. The bit I'm not sure about is where the ROM is located. Do you have any photos of the other side of the board? That would help with identifying it.

Edit: actually I think the ST 95042U3 chip might be the EEPROM. Would be useful to confirm what pins on the Motorola chip it's connected to.

Re the TI chip I think it’s maybe a custom ASIC for controlling the hardware, it sits on the headers side of the board and some very similar part numbers are labeled on some 3rd party sites as “Teves PCU60”. I’m guessing “PCU” stands for “Pump Control Unit” or something similar.

[terra]

Appreciate I’m some years late to this, came across this thread looking for something else and it intrigued me.

I’m pretty certain that the Motorola chip is actually the main controller/processor for the fact that it is the chip that has the crystal attached to it. Looking at 100 pin packages in common use at the time I’m thinking it could be a variant of the MC68HC16 (which would have been an appropriate choice when the MK60 was designed). For example the S2 variant is a possibility as the crystal pins XTAL and EXTAL are pins 36 and 38 which matches what we see the crystal connected to on the board. The bit I'm not sure about is where the ROM is located. Do you have any photos of the other side of the board? That would help with identifying it.

Edit: actually I think the ST 95042U3 chip might be the EEPROM. Would be useful to confirm what pins on the Motorola chip it's connected to.

Re the TI chip I think it’s maybe a custom ASIC for controlling the hardware, it sits on the headers side of the board and some very similar part numbers are labeled on some 3rd party sites as “Teves PCU60”. I’m guessing “PCU” stands for “Pump Control Unit” or something similar.

I believe it's like most contemporary MCUs in that the rom with the actual code is integral to the MCU. The ST chip just contains the little bit of data that's 'codable' (VIN, NCS config data, and so on)

There were E6x/E9x generation BMWs with WinKFP flashable MK60 variants which might be useful from a research standpoint. But I couldn't even get as far as figuring out what ISA the code corresponds to.

[karter16]

I believe it's like most contemporary MCUs in that the rom with the actual code is integral to the MCU. The ST chip just contains the little bit of data that's 'codable' (VIN, NCS config data, and so on)

There were E6x/E9x generation BMWs with WinKFP flashable MK60 variants which might be useful from a research standpoint. But I couldn't even get as far as figuring out what ISA the code corresponds to.

Yeah that would make sense for sure. There's a bunch of standard part Motorola MCUs of the time that have internal rom, but all in 112 or 144 pin packages. (Which may of course be where the custom part comes in). Would be interesting to trace the (presumed) BDM pins and see where they end up. That would be another potential way to help narrow down the chip.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bry5on]

Appreciate I’m some years late to this, came across this thread looking for something else and it intrigued me.

I’m pretty certain that the Motorola chip is actually the main controller/processor for the fact that it is the chip that has the crystal attached to it. Looking at 100 pin packages in common use at the time I’m thinking it could be a variant of the MC68HC16 (which would have been an appropriate choice when the MK60 was designed). For example the S2 variant is a possibility as the crystal pins XTAL and EXTAL are pins 36 and 38 which matches what we see the crystal connected to on the board. The bit I'm not sure about is where the ROM is located. Do you have any photos of the other side of the board? That would help with identifying it.

Edit: actually I think the ST 95042U3 chip might be the EEPROM. Would be useful to confirm what pins on the Motorola chip it's connected to.

Re the TI chip I think it’s maybe a custom ASIC for controlling the hardware, it sits on the headers side of the board and some very similar part numbers are labeled on some 3rd party sites as “Teves PCU60”. I’m guessing “PCU” stands for “Pump Control Unit” or something similar.

Good thoughts!! I tossed that MK60 years ago but I’m sure we can get our hands on another

Cracking this code would be absolutely epic. Can you imagine m-track mode being the default and never needing to switch modes? What a luxury! I’ll get my hands on another and chop it open, unless George Hill already has one handy… 👀