Sign in

View The Full Version : problem checksum correction for marelli opel



giuseppe89

ugoboss
hello, I checked the modified file and the cks me in place.

giuseppe89
Ugo, I have tried to correct it with winols and I did save maybe I have corrected it and I didn't realized? Now I try to write it

cawadany
No, that is not correct the cks.... but why do you say that the cock did you not correct him? It is not me.....

Errecinque
I confirm that I on the opel Meriva, the cock shall not corrects (bdm) and the ecm even. But winols is to me correct, written and everything is ok

Errecinque
hello, I checked the modified file and the cks me in place.

You have the patience to explain to me how do you check if the cks is in place. I have understood, that should be the compensation of the increase and decrease in the map, testing on a file moddare only a few bits have arrived at this conclusion, but with a complete map like you do? what is the trick ?

Andrea1
Good evening, check out the file but winols me the fixes as well.
It would be interesting to understand how to recognize a check the correct from the wrong as he asks errecinque.

giuseppe89
Boys, however, after the message Ugoboss I tried to write the file, and everything went well,I will explain my doubt where he was born :
When I went to write the file to the cock alerted me that he could not correct the checksum and so I tried with the ecm and winols....the last quest gave me 2 checksum,from here I make the correction, or at least I think(I don't know the best use of winols) and I press the save button. When I go to search for the filebcon check changed I do not find it, and I can only find a file, and sincerely believe they have not made changes to the check. Probably overwritten the old, and I didn't realize it...confirmed? When saved with the ta I'm in the top left of winols does not produce a new mod file, but applies to files that are in use?

Andrea1
Even I am an expert in the use of winols and I also seemed to not correct anything when caricavo your files, however, initially told me 2 checksum to correct... Then I took one of the bits that you brought it to 0, I put 1 and winols to ask to correct the checksum (confermavo) then again I brought the bit to 0 and exported the file. As a result, the file that I posted.
To your question I could not answer with absolute certainty, we should try.

ugoboss

cawadany



Andrea1


same thing

ugoboss
however, the file is written and the cks was ok, that was the important thing, therefore, very likely that there are more streets to reach his goal, as soon as I have a minito control.

ugoboss
it is very likely that these files have different cks valid, which taken individually are recognized as good, but if they are compared with what we charge as the original do not match and are correct, I think, is the explanation more logical.

cawadany
it is very likely that these files have different cks valid, which taken individually are recognized as good, but if they are compared with what we charge as the original do not match and are correct, I think, is the explanation more logical.

Surely it will be so.... I tried to correct the cks (starting from the ori and mod compared) and export the file. This file is with cks corrected in any case, whether imported alone, or in comparison with the ori.

giuseppe89
Guys this thing is not I happen.As soon as I have time, I take the file ori, redo the same changes and without passing it to winols I try to compare it to...at least understand if I correct it with winols or something...to me, it gave an error message regarding the 2 checksum winols

Errecinque


Ahh ok I thought I saw him through some numbers. For example, on the ecm there is the calculator cks, I thought I had used that. slowly I get to understand how to use

Errecinque
But because you are worried about the chk on those ecu's?
The control on the chk is not active on those ecu's, as also on the 6jf and 6f3, on 8f instead is active and the second time you start the car is not starting.

I have made dozens of 6O2, and 6O3, the ecm does not correct the chk on these ecu, and the tool that I use to write them down even, but I never had no problem.

Well thanks for the info.....you never stop learning

Andrea1
But because you are worried about the chk on those ecu's?
The control on the chk is not active on those ecu's, as also on the 6jf and 6f3, on 8f instead is active and the second time you start the car is not starting.

I have made dozens of 6O2, and 6O3, the ecm does not correct the chk on these ecu, and the tool that I use to write them down even, but I never had no problem.

I did not know it! Thanks for the information!

dragusdrake
it seems strange to me what you say, it is usually the programmer that corrects the checksum, how can you say that the programmer is not you correct him? that programmer uses

giuseppe89
Use the galletto v54, and I've only seen it on this car until now. With all of the other has always correct in writing

Errecinque
With all of the other has always correct in writing
but they were not OPEL right ?

giuseppe89
It is the exact...this was the first opel that I wrote...with the multijet group' fiat no problem

Errecinque
It is the exact...this was the first opel that I wrote...with the multijet group' fiat no problem

Precisely....they look the same but are not....

giuseppe89
Then I have this problem with all of these ecu opel multijet? Or are only the families that are missing in the database of the rooster? There are tools the most complete?

cawadany
But it also speaks write by obd or bdm?

giuseppe89
Write bdm

Ciuffodicuoio
The checksum of these units is algorithmic, then it is never the same, is computed and rewritten by the tool in the process of writing. Evidently, your this Eprom is not made in the correct manner. It can happen and has happened with the tool drivers.