Evo 9 GSR and GT differences [Archive] - Mitsubishi Lancer Register Forum

Evo 9 GSR and GT differences

johnbanks
29-04-2009, 17:15
I am working on the conversion of my ECU mods from GSR to GT for a project - especially live mapping and speed density. I have not yet investigated the incompatibilities between these two ECUs (you cannot flash GSR code and have it start a GT). Below is a byte comparison.


No. Address Original Version Change
1 F44 88 89 1 (0.70%)
2 F45 57 28 -2F (-54.00%)
3 F46 88 89 1 (0.70%)
4 F47 57 28 -2F (-54.00%)
5 F48 88 89 1 (0.70%)
6 F49 57 28 -2F (-54.00%)
7 F4A 88 89 1 (0.70%)
8 F4B 57 28 -2F (-54.00%)
9 F4C 88 89 1 (0.70%)
10 F4D 57 28 -2F (-54.00%)
11 F4E 88 89 1 (0.70%)
12 F4F 57 28 -2F (-54.00%)
13 F50 88 89 1 (0.70%)
14 F51 57 28 -2F (-54.00%)
15 F52 88 89 1 (0.70%)
16 F53 57 28 -2F (-54.00%)
17 F55 8 2 -6 (-75.00%)
18 F6D 1 76 75 (999.00%)
19 F71 1 76 75 (999.00%)
20 F75 1 76 75 (999.00%)
21 F79 1 76 75 (999.00%)
22 F7D 1 76 75 (999.00%)
23 F81 1 76 75 (999.00%)
24 F85 1 76 75 (999.00%)
25 F89 1 76 75 (999.00%)
26 FFB 66 73 D (12.70%)
27 FFD 66 73 D (12.70%)
28 FFF 66 73 D (12.70%)
29 1001 66 73 D (12.70%)
30 1003 66 73 D (12.70%)
31 1005 66 73 D (12.70%)
32 1007 66 73 D (12.70%)
33 1009 66 73 D (12.70%)
34 38C9 64 76 12 (18.00%)
35 38CA 40 46 6 (9.30%)
36 38CB 30 3C C (25.00%)
37 38CC 44 54 10 (23.50%)
38 390B 64 76 12 (18.00%)
39 390C 40 46 6 (9.30%)
40 390D 30 3C C (25.00%)
41 390E 44 54 10 (23.50%)
42 3937 64 76 12 (18.00%)
43 3938 40 46 6 (9.30%)
44 3939 30 3C C (25.00%)
45 393A 44 54 10 (23.50%)
46 394D D8 E0 8 (3.70%)
47 394E D8 E0 8 (3.70%)
48 394F DB E3 8 (3.60%)
49 3950 DA E2 8 (3.60%)
50 3979 D8 E0 8 (3.70%)
51 397A D8 E0 8 (3.70%)
52 397B DB E3 8 (3.60%)
53 397C DA E2 8 (3.60%)
54 398F D8 E0 8 (3.70%)
55 3990 D8 E0 8 (3.70%)
56 3991 DB E3 8 (3.60%)
57 3992 DA E2 8 (3.60%)
58 3FFCE 3E 15 -29 (-66.10%)
59 3FFFD 38 39 1 (1.70%)
60 3FFFE 35 32 -3 (-5.60%)
61 3FFFF 37 38 1 (1.80%)


Changes 1-17 are the ECU ID (88570008 to 89280002).
Changes 18-25 makes MUT EC report 0x76 instead of 1. No other implication is evident.
Changes 26-33 are a logic mask related to the immobiliser and I think the difference could well be the reason the ECU images don't seem to be compatible.
Changes 34-57 are wastegate and boost differences.
Change 58 is the immobiliser code.
Changes 59-61 are changes in ASCII text related to the ECU ID ("JM8857" to "JM8928").

I suspect if changes 26-33 (probably just 26 since the first of the 8 item blocks is the one that is used) and the immobiliser code are switched then a GSR ROM would run in a GT ECU. Saves me transferring a load of code across.

If anyone has chance to try it and has success please post here.

Oracle
29-04-2009, 18:24
can try to source you a GT ecu for testing if needed??

johnbanks
29-04-2009, 18:40
Not to worry, we'll find out when the need arises :)

nitz
11-07-2009, 14:32
hey john, i'm helping a friend out with his GT and he's on the not so supported 89280002. have you had any success using a 88570008 rom on a GT so far? currently he is just using the 002 inheriting from the 008 as you had suggested to him in the past. you actually sent him your 008 xml file, but we're now using just a standard 008 xml since there were all the tephra etc defined on your 008 that didn't apply to 002. would the 002 rom work with the 008 2 byte MUT addresses as well? i'd like to at least have 2byte load working.
thanks

johnbanks
11-07-2009, 14:37
Everything of importance between the two ECUs is the same except address FFA/B (actually only FFB, but it is an ECU periphery value that is normally 2 byte).

So yes the 002 ROM should work with the 008 2 byte addresses.

Oracle
13-07-2009, 10:18
FFA or FFB????

Hmmm

johnbanks
13-07-2009, 16:54
FFA if you are defining it as hex16, FFB if you are defining it as hex8.

I would use FFA, or better still use an up to date Ecuflash version that has the ECU periphery setting in it that corresponds to FFA.

Oracle
13-07-2009, 17:53
FFS or FFA. lol

All good and working great.

nitz
13-07-2009, 19:49
All good and working great.

so you've got a GT fired up on a 008 rom then, and all you did was copy over the immobilizer at FFA which can be exposed in both roms by the xml below? i must be missing something, that would be too easy.

<table name="Immobilizer Hex" category="Misc" address="ffa" type="1D" level="2"
scaling="Hex16"/>


better still use an up to date Ecuflash version that has the ECU periphery setting in it that corresponds to FFA.

i haven't come across an ECU periphery with FFA defined, just FAA, which had the immobilizer disable as one of the bit toggle settings. as you can see i'm properly confused :confused:

johnbanks
14-07-2009, 16:10
Usually my tabby, who claims to be a script kiddy, just opens my hex editor by walking across the keyboard, and I do the hax0r bit based on the address. However, your method is neater, less chaotic and more convenient. There are a whole collection of "ECU periphery" bits, FFA is just another in the series.