(100%) E9X M3 241E DME Flash (DIY)

[jp1984]

Before everyone jumps to 241E, know that 240E is the preferable tune file.

I believe I read somewhere that 241E was worse due to some emissions changes. I am not sure exactly, however 240E with the MSS60 adaptations the car does with mods will bring you close to some tuners and it is from BMW.

[Z K]

Originally Posted by jp1984

Before everyone jumps to 241E, know that 240E is the preferable tune file.

I believe I read somewhere that 241E was worse due to some emissions changes. I am not sure exactly, however 240E with the MSS60 adaptations the car does with mods will bring you close to some tuners and it is from BMW.

Do you know what is changed?

How bad is 241E? Maybe it doesn't make max power, but it's not detrimental to the car right?

[SaNGRia]

Originally Posted by jp1984

Before everyone jumps to 241E, know that 240E is the preferable tune file.

I believe I read somewhere that 241E was worse due to some emissions changes. I am not sure exactly, however 240E with the MSS60 adaptations the car does with mods will bring you close to some tuners and it is from BMW.

Where you are getting this info from? As far as i know its just operating system changes no ignition or fuel adjustment. 240E and 241E is identical in performance unless you have a valid info. You can also ask this to tuners like alex@alpine .

[jp1984]

Originally Posted by SaNGRia

Where you are getting this info from? As far as i know its just operating system changes no ignition or fuel adjustment. 240E and 241E is identical in performance unless you have a valid info. You can also ask this to tuners like alex@alpine .

I have tried to contact Alex before, my impression was that he didnt have time to talk unless you were a customer.

I was curious why some tunes on his website mention safety settings in the disclaimer and the E92 M3 one lacks that information. Check it out.

Other tunes mention :

"Factory safety parameters and diagnostics systems all intact with fuel sensing adaptions."

https://alpinemss.com/products/e9x-m...tune-2007-2013

https://alpinemss.com/collections/bm...3-m4-2014-2020

The E92 disclaimer lacks that. I wanted to be sure I knew what I was buying but couldn't get an answer. I would love to buy the tune, but I have yet to get a clear answer on that.

[SaNGRia]

Originally Posted by jp1984

I have tried to contact Alex before, my impression was that he didnt have time to talk unless you were a customer.

I was curious why some tunes on his website mention safety settings in the disclaimer and the E92 M3 one lacks that information. Check it out.

Other tunes mention :

"Factory safety parameters and diagnostics systems all intact with fuel sensing adaptions."

https://alpinemss.com/products/e9x-m...tune-2007-2013

https://alpinemss.com/collections/bm...3-m4-2014-2020

The E92 disclaimer lacks that. I wanted to be sure I knew what I was buying but couldn't get an answer. I would love to buy the tune, but I have yet to get a clear answer on that.

Well i dont tune my dmes. I am a satisfied client of bmw original updates. And i can tell you that i am on 241E for more than 2 years and car is running great. I am catless with 300 Gesi HFC and i dont believe 240E better than 241E in performance!

[Tut4u2]

Originally Posted by jp1984

I have tried to contact Alex before, my impression was that he didnt have time to talk unless you were a customer.

I was curious why some tunes on his website mention safety settings in the disclaimer and the E92 M3 one lacks that information. Check it out.

Other tunes mention :

"Factory safety parameters and diagnostics systems all intact with fuel sensing adaptions."

https://alpinemss.com/products/e9x-m...tune-2007-2013

https://alpinemss.com/collections/bm...3-m4-2014-2020

The E92 disclaimer lacks that. I wanted to be sure I knew what I was buying but couldn't get an answer. I would love to buy the tune, but I have yet to get a clear answer on that.

You're looking too much into it. Each tuner has their own opinion, approach, and base software version they start from. Pick a tuner you're comfortable with and go to town. Or better yet, save your money since the 15hp isn't worth it. FWIW, I ran a tune for a couple of years prior to adding a blower to my car. Couldn't say I felt a difference with it, but I bought one because the price was right. in hindsight, I would have saved the $500 or whatever it was I paid.

If you're catless and looking to kill the CEL, there are other options out there that are more economical.

[dpaul]

Originally Posted by SaNGRia

Where you are getting this info from? As far as i know its just operating system changes no ignition or fuel adjustment. .

SaNGRia is absolutely correct.

The change from 240E to 241E reflects only a change in the program file (from 7848125.0pa to 7854317.0pa). All of the parameter files (*.0da), the ones specifying values for ignition, injection, VANOS etc, are the same.

Probably TLDR but this is easy to verify by inspecting the datens - the parameter file names are the same in "240" datens like v53.3 and "241E" datens like v60.1. Furthermore, all of BMW program and parameter files are in BINHEX format, meaning you can read them with a text editor like Notepad and they include text notes in addition to code. In fact, the $REFERENZ numbers written in those parameter files include "240E" - there was no updating of the parameter files beyond 240E.

[BPMSport]

Originally Posted by dpaul

SaNGRia is absolutely correct.

The change from 240E to 241E reflects only a change in the program file (from 7848125.0pa to 7854317.0pa). All of the parameter files (*.0da), the ones specifying values for ignition, injection, VANOS etc, are the same.

Probably TLDR but this is easy to verify by inspecting the datens - the parameter file names are the same in "240" datens like v53.3 and "241E" datens like v60.1. Furthermore, all of BMW program and parameter files are in BINHEX format, meaning you can read them with a text editor like Notepad and they include text notes in addition to code. In fact, the $REFERENZ numbers written in those parameter files include "240E" - there was no updating of the parameter files beyond 240E.

As I specified earlier in this thread, the calibration/data area is nearly identical going back a decade. The changes are almost always to the program area only. The only reason why this uses the same 0da is because the version string itself did not change, so the checksum/signature blocks for the data area are identical. Many previous data areas are also 100%, other than the reference number, which would call for a different data area ZB, although the mapping is the same.

[jp1984]

Originally Posted by BPMSport

As I specified earlier in this thread, the calibration/data area is nearly identical going back a decade. The changes are almost always to the program area only. The only reason why this uses the same 0da is because the version string itself did not change, so the checksum/signature blocks for the data area are identical. Many previous data areas are also 100%, other than the reference number, which would call for a different data area ZB, although the mapping is the same.

Hi mike,

just for the benefit of the audience, would you mind sharing why you think 240E is preferable? I saw you mention it to deansbimmer in another thread.

[chicagob5]

Doing the 241E & GTS DCT flash today. First time attempting to do something like this on E9x platform - wish me luck!

[SaNGRia]

Originally Posted by chicagob5

Doing the 241E & GTS DCT flash today. First time attempting to do something like this on E9x platform - wish me luck!

Good luck

[chicagob5]

Circling back on this - finally got the bimmergeeks pro cable. Before flashing I wanted to test the connection was solid using INPA. Initially had issues getting INPA to detect the cable despite the usual issues being correct - COMM1, Latency = 1 etc.

Turns out the default windows drivers for the cable where the problem. Using drivers from https://ftdichip.com/drivers/ fixed my problems.

Turns out the car is running 241E so thats cool. I did flash the transmission module with the 7848442 file for the GTS DCT tune. Worked great. Highly recommend!

Thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread to make this possible for folks like me. Obviously big shout out to SaNGRia for the initial writeup - you a real one :fistbump:

[Binary420]

so i used mss6x flasher to take a full backup , flash the rsa bypass, and then remove the 1 byte to disable immo.

I then flashed this modified full backup back to the dme

all went well, but sadly, it didnt fix my start issue. engine still just cranked but wouldnt start.

So after exhausting my other options, i attempted a update with winkfp to wipe the mss6x flash, thinking maybe that was now an additional issue causeing car not to start.
update got to 100% and then stopped with an error

now my MSS60 ECU is not responsive.
i tried with ident with tool32, tried inpa, winkfp,

is there a certain specific command im suppose to be giving in tool32, or is there any other option to re-flash the dme? or im fked?

[NiBe]

Originally Posted by Binary420

so i used mss6x flasher to take a full backup , flash the rsa bypass, and then remove the 1 byte to disable immo.

I then flashed this modified full backup back to the dme

all went well, but sadly, it didnt fix my start issue. engine still just cranked but wouldnt start.

So after exhausting my other options, i attempted a update with winkfp to wipe the mss6x flash, thinking maybe that was now an additional issue causeing car not to start.
update got to 100% and then stopped with an error

now my MSS60 ECU is not responsive.
i tried with ident with tool32, tried inpa, winkfp,

is there a certain specific command im suppose to be giving in tool32, or is there any other option to re-flash the dme? or im fked?

What cable do you have?

[HoldingOn]

Originally Posted by SaNGRia

PMed

Sorry to bump an old thread but I'm having an issue as well.

I've used the wrong cable and therefore the update failed. DME shows red/unresponsive in ISTA. Car cranks but no start. If I get the correct cable, will I be able to rectify if myself/remotely or must the ECU be sent to somebody. I'm in Australia so that's why sending it will be a problem.

Thanks in advance.

[SaNGRia]

Originally Posted by HoldingOn

Sorry to bump an old thread but I'm having an issue as well.

I've used the wrong cable and therefore the update failed. DME shows red/unresponsive in ISTA. Car cranks but no start. If I get the correct cable, will I be able to rectify if myself/remotely or must the ECU be sent to somebody. I'm in Australia so that's why sending it will be a problem.

Thanks in advance.

Get the correct cable and pm me. Can be taken care of!

[HoldingOn]

Originally Posted by SaNGRia

Get the correct cable and pm me. Can be taken care of!

Thank you.

I've ordered the cable from Bimmergeeks about two weeks ago, should hopefully get it in the next few weeks.

I'm trying to get my post count up so I can pm when I get it but are you able to pm me a way to contact you if possible? Appreciate the help you're providing.

[andrew85]

Originally Posted by SaNGRia

Get the correct cable and pm me. Can be taken care of!

I will send PM too if that is ok. Trying to help a friend do an update, i have now bricked his DME by using the cheap cable. I do have bimmergeeks and icom, but i generally use the cheap one with no issues. Any help would be appreciated. Will send PM