Request clarification cloning SW unit

I would need some clarification from anyone who has more? experience me...I present the topic:

Until a month ago, I drove a A3 8P 1.9 TDI PD 105HP on which I had remapped the ECU Performance improved a lot (acceleration, recovery, and speed? maximum), progression, excellent fuel consumption similar to the original version, it is clearly not exaggerating, and great comfort? in order to return to the original mapping through the OBD in a few minutes...and in a transparent way...aside from the counter of the scriptures in the ECU, which inevitably stored each new writing...
Now I drive a A3 8P 1.6 TDI CR 90HP that mounts the "famous" ECU Continental SIPMOS 2.1 only recently, it seems to me, written and read, and only some of the tools in the trade.
I will not dwell now on the impressions related to the new engine, definitely the most? quiet, non cos? less powerful as the previous 1.9 (obviously the configuration std), despite the gap in displacement and power declared, a little "killed" by the ratios of the transmission much more? long (5a 180 km/h at about 3500 RpM, the first at about 3900 RpM);

But here it is: wanting to do some "experiment" edit maps, I ask you, to start:

1) is it possible, buying an ECU used of the same type as the original (type 03G 906 021 XX, which I think is installed on all of the latest 1.6 TDI CR group VW/Audi/Seat/Skoda 70-90-105 CV) "clone" my original ECU on this that acquister?, cos? leave the original with no changes? Of course cloning should be of concern to the SW complete including the part relating to the immobiliser etc; in summary, in order to have the unit purchased, which can be exchanged without other changes to the original (plug and play...)

2) There are several codes in the ECU Continental for the 1.6 TDI CR how to last letters XX of the ECU 03G 906 021 XX; does anyone know if you necessarily have to find the same (for example, AB final), or if the two last letters indicate "only" SW different? (I think I s? but I'm not sure)

3) admitted that as to point (1) is feasible...what would happen every time you "exchange" the units seen in the memory of the control unit as soon as installed, there will be? a mileage different from the one stored in the dashboard? The Cio? ? the framework of the edge which has the priority?, and then the ecu adapts, or the opposite? (in which case it would be a problem...). Or in the case of non-matching of the two mileages, comes up some error code?

Sorry for the long message...but I hope it is clear, at least!


Thanks in advance for your answers!

Good morning, (and if you think we can maybe give you)
It is the sense ? this, have two controllers:
The original (which is read only at the beginning and not ir? touched)
And another unit that is written to make it identical to the original...then click this to make changes to the map.
...and when you want, can you? the exchange of the original unit, with that, let's call it development, without any problem, except of course the performance will be different.
And thanks for the request for clarification

let's say that still it is a little early to make this work on a new management vcome your.

Thanks for the reply,
I understand that it's feasible, and only a matter of waiting for when the specifications of the ECU Sipmos 2.1 will be a little bit more? notes...
Maybe I porter? next, with the "work" while trying to retrieve the ecu is correct, sooner or later, do the experiment...
Perhaps reading (what now seems feasible with some tool) my ECU (for the A3 1.6 tdi cr 90hp) and comparing the file with the one read by another ECU always to A3 1.6 tdi cr but 105hp version....you could start to do interesting thoughts!
Mechanically ****llo of the engine (heat), I find there are diffenze between the two models...so I guess the only thing that should change as the file that is read, should be the maps and the various encodings that are related to the equipment (cruise control on or off, engine immobiliser, etc)

Why? complicate life?
With adequate processing, the results are considerable.
As a tool the council caldissimamente the X17 of the Magicmotorsport. Below are a couple of screenshot during the processing of the ecu in the object:

I have no doubt that the results can be considerable (but what kind of results are we talking about? Values of power, torque, thermal loads, mechanical loads, fuel consumption, emissions...maybe it should be specified, when we talk about results...)
However, I understand your consideration. And thanks for the advice on the tool X17, the terr? this.

Forgive my frankness, but some of your statements have the taste of "superiority? title" and I refer to the question written between brackets in the post on this earlier. Anyway, will try? to answer your question in a less articulate way possible to make understandable to all, even those like me who has not continued their studies beyond the diploma di maturit?: the power values recorded at the tour amounted on average 135cv, the couple goes from 235 to about 295 Nm for the thermal and mechanical loads (on what, for example, pistons, coat the cylinders, crankshaft, gearbox, etc you haven't specified), I don't think you even know the data regarding the configuration of stock, which are the reference limit for the individual parts for that ? needless to ask questions to get a tone. For consumption, always taking a census of the medium, ranging from 10-15% less in terms of speed? constant, as having reference to the same elements in the original configuration. The emissions, they also decrease to some point. Of course, everything happens to you when you work ? well done.

Quote:

---

Originally Written by munro

thanks for the request informal... Robys,even if on the forums ? a common practice to be of you since the beginning...or preferred to help in your comparisons initially in a formal way as a matter of "reverence" to the title and the role they play...why? I would have liked to do your job.....and a sort of moth-mental that a p? I assila...
speaking of sipmos...assuming for a moment that you can do this "change ladies" ecu modified would moddarla while keeping the dpf and the egr?if s?... I would not say heresies, but the regenerations of the particle filter are also recorded in the ecu with the date and mileage, and if that does not delete dpf and egr that we do not believe that it is very feasible thing for the type of management sw....this of the l? the problems relating to the various on-board instruments such as cruise control,instrument panel,autoadattamenti based on the mileage, etc...

---

...if I can give you a "tip" ...don't get harass by this worm! :) joke of course...
That I have studied, I ? served, of course, but so many other things I have learned on the field, regardless of the many tests made in 5 years of engineering...maybe me ? served pi? as an approach to the technical problems that as what you have learned.
Anyway: yes, what you say (about memories about the regenerations, and more), it seems to me correct and very logical...
What I wanted was, above all, the address associated with the memory km routes to avoid that the exchange between the two ECU's, the picture of the edge changes the indication of the distance covered, or even to be reported in an error (but perhaps there is a strategy for which the priority? on this data, ? of those between the ECU and the picture, it has stored the number of miles more, to avoid that it is enough to install a framework pi? "young" (or pi? rare, an ecu pi? "young") to get an indication of km lower than in the dashboard.
In all cases, as you say, there may be other "misunderstandings" between the various on-board systems and the exchange of the two control units...we reflect? ...and maybe if you decide? to do the experiment when the management of the Sipmos sar? pi? mature...we'll see a bit...
Thanks!

...thanks for your explanation and also for the tip!

I figured anything