BimmerFest BMW Forum banner

1 - 2 of 2 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
168 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
First of all it seems I have a (2010 or 2011) ZGW which doesn't like being flashed with ENET on a GW connection ***8211; Error [C207] and car goes into transport mode. I guess it would also fail on a VIN connection (likely, still to try). Read plenty of old threads on this. Apart from using an ICOM for the ZGW, I understand that I can also try using a DHCP server or try deselecting 'Activating programming mode for switchable ECUs' which worked for somebody (side note: that's a bit confusing - how would it program without the ECU being in a programming mode?). Any recent experiences here?

Now some questions on the update plan:

1. Looking at the generated TAL I see PIA_MASTER_63 which according to the TAL would execute an idRestore and idBackup. Now, if one follows the instructions of only selecting blFlash, swDeploy,cdDeploy and ibadeploy this won't be run, correct? Any ideas on what this does/is it needed?

2. As a related question, since the TAL already has flagged the executable operations can't one flash with 'All'? Wouldn't it only do what's flagged as 'Executable' in the TAL?

3. Some ECUs ***8211; e.g. CMB_MEDIA have an Actual State SWUP lines in blue, but no target. I understand that SWFL refers to flash replacements, but what about SWUPs ***8211; is this some sort of an inplace update? [Edit: Self-solved this essentially refers to the update.bin software which is not factory default - same for HU_CIC and the updated Gracenote and maps I have].

4. From the 19/39 ECUs subject to an update in my case none requires a bootloader update (identical). That makes me feel safer, but on the other hand is it to be expected (I realise this depends on the i-step one comes from ;-)?

5. The HU_CIC target introduces a new entry (16) under EcuBusConnectionInfo ***8211; does it mean it would communicate with another bus/ECU after the update?

6. I have 5 times RK [a5], RK [a6]***8230;.. what're these about?

7. For TRSVC it looks like it'd actually do a downgrade for the SWFL and CAFD, at least looking at the versions:

Actual CAFD_00000223_013_008_005 -> Target CAFD_00000223_013_002_002
Actual SWFL_00000468_013_008_001 -> SWFL_00000468_013_002_001

So this one I cannot really sort out. It does look like a rollback which is very strange. When my car was last flashed by the dealer in 2014 the SWFL/CAFD were updated to to *013_008* and in 2016 the latest data wants to downgrade me. I'm thinking either it's an intentional downgrade for my revision or BMW messed up with the KIS (?) mappings.

That's all ;-) Thanks for any feedback.
 
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
Top