M4 CS EDC Coding?

[Mr. Hankey]

Originally Posted by cookiesowns

Oh. M4 GTS flash with Euro MDM will let me get completely sideways in my car in the right conditions.

I believe it. Have mine on US GTS for now for that reason. Will play with it, then try EURO MDM then CS US spec.

[Remonster]

Originally Posted by FSociety

I really think so whatever cookiesowns did on my car its infact way more comfty than what I had. I might just be on latest iStep EDC and not actual CS EDC yet have to confirm later.

Originally Posted by Racer20

The CS has higher quality damping. It may be a bit firmer, but there is less impact shock and noise and the body motion is reduced most of the time. There are some specific road surfaces where the body follows the road a bit more abruptly in comfort, but it's worth the trade off. It feels more like driving a real sports car.

Honestly, coding the EDC is easy enough that you could just put it back to ZCP settings if you don't like it or need a bit more relaxed ride for a long trip or something.

You guys were both right, thank you for convincing me to try the CS EDC! It is a huge upgrade over the ZCP programming, I honestly can't imagine who would prefer Sport or Sport+ ZCP over CS. Sport+ is now less bouncy than Sport used to be, there are extremely bumpy roads around my house that I would need to be careful on when using Sport suspension because the car would hop over some of the sharper bumps. Now, in Sport those bumps simply do not exist when driving quickly and Sport+ is completely usable. I had another F80 M3 owner (non-ZCP) try it and he's going to do the coding right away.

I wouldn't say Comfort is more comfortable than before overall but I see what you mean, you feel more of the smaller stuff in the road when driving slowly but larger bumps are dealt with much better and the car feels more composed. One area I felt the Alfa Giula Quadrifoglio had an advantage over my car is in its damping but I now think the CS EDC coding brings this car close to that one in Sport and Sport+. The Alfa is still much more smooth and comfortable in its most comfortable setting.

GTS steering is another winner, I like it better than the default 2018 M3 ZCP steering and the F80_rep coding that the dealer tried to fix the common "car pulling to the right" issue. I actually find that the car pulls less on the freeway with GTS steering than either of the other two that I've had.

Also thanks to Alex@Alpine for taking care of another one of my cars.

[MarkG_M5Comp]

This frustrates me to read since my CP car won't accept the CS coding

Apparently this happens sometime so I wonder if it's an istep version thing? I'm on the July '17 software.

[Bubu88]

Has anyone tried to find out the FDL values for CS EDC yet?

[Winks337]

Hi All,

I'm frustrated to learn that Carly has gone to a subscription based model which is simply too expensive for what they are offering. I bought my adapter in January and now without the subscription of $72.00 per year it's pretty much useless.

Does any one know of any other coding options which don't involve an annual subscription or Hipkin the car up to a laptop?

Carly has offered to buy back my adaptor rather than give me a years subscription. Very strange decision on their part.

[Racer20]

Originally Posted by Winks337

Hi All,

I'm frustrated to learn that Carly has gone to a subscription based model which is simply too expensive for what they are offering. I bought my adapter in January and now without the subscription of $72.00 per year it's pretty much useless.

Does any one know of any other coding options which don't involve an annual subscription or Hipkin the car up to a laptop?

Carly has offered to buy back my adaptor rather than give me a years subscription. Very strange decision on their part.

BimmerCode. I don't think you can do EDC in the apps though.

The laptop route seems intimidating, but the latest guides are easy to follow once you have the software in front of you. Then you aren't limited by what the apps decide to let you do.

[Liquid2.0T]

Originally Posted by rhk118

It Worked fine: Used the CAFD comparison tool and found that you can FDL code "Fahrzeugtyp" in the VDC1 module to a value of "F85_comp" - at least that's the equivalent setting in there that equals chassis F80 and Typeschlussel 3S73 (US spec M3 CS)

So is this all that needs to be done to configure F80 CS EDC settings? Can someone please clarify?

[Racer20]

Originally Posted by Liquid2.0T

So is this all that needs to be done to configure F80 CS EDC settings? Can someone please clarify?

Yes. To clarify, there are two ways to get this to work.

1. FDL coding: go into the VDC CAFD file and change the vehicle type to F85Comp, code that ECU

2. VO Coding: Load your vehicle's FA, change the typecode in the header to the CS code specified elsewhere in this thread, save it, then with that FA loaded in E-Asus, code the VDC ECU. This will change the same FDL parameter as #1 above.

The first time I tried it, I got a chassis error that wouldn't go away. I had to download ISTA-D to reset the accelerometers. Not sure why this happened, but after I did that once, I was able to switch between EDC codings without the error happening again.

[Liquid2.0T]

Thanks, I appreciate it a lot!

I'm a big noob to all of this, what would be the advantage to going with the 2nd option? It sounds like just FDL coding the VDC module would the most straightforward way to go. Is there anything I may not be taking into account?

[Bubu88]

Originally Posted by Racer20

Yes. To clarify, there are two ways to get this to work.

1. FDL coding: go into the VDC CAFD file and change the vehicle type to F85Comp, code that ECU

2. VO Coding: Load you vehicle's FA, change the typecode in the header to the CS code specified elsewhere in this thread, save it, then with that FA loaded in E-Asus, code the VDC ECU. This will change the same FDL parameter as #1 above.

The first time I tried it, I got a chassis error that wouldn't go away. I had to download ISTA-D to reset the accelerometers. Not sure why this happened, after I did that once, I was able to switch between EDC codings without the error coming happening again.

Do you also know which value would equal Euro CS Models? I guess the suspension in euro coding might behave a bit different especially at higher speeds?

[Racer20]

Originally Posted by Bubu88

Do you also know which value would equal Euro CS Models? I guess the suspension in euro coding might behave a bit different especially at higher speeds?

No, but if you go to the CS Suspension specifics thread in the suspension forum, you can get a login to BMW's etk parts catalog system. If you can get a VIN for a European car somehow (usually from car sales websites . . . EBay maybe?) you can plug it into the search and it will show the type code for the car you pull up.

[Bubu88]

OK I understand. But then I would need to find the CAFD for EU spec CS and compare to the standard CAFD used in my ZCP car. (so far I only did FDL and VO Codings and never play around with CAFDs).

Anyway I tried the F85 FDL Code option today which resulted in the error message to re-init ICM Modules - so far so good. But the message did not clear after 2 re-inits (both times waiting 30min to let car sleep because rheingold said the values will be written in ECU after going to sleep). In the end I recoded to F80comp and did the re-init with a different (older) rheingold version. This time the error message cleared instantly, the re-init procedure also showed me values for each strut. So maybe the newer rheingold version is just fuc*ed up. Had no time to give it another try because I was in a hurry - going on a 8 day business trip to asia tomorrow and lots of stuff to do.

I also thought about differences from US to EU spec CS Settings...since CS cars are also "track optimized" they might not be that big because those cars will also be set up for higher speeds. But that´s just a consideration from my side. In the FDL parameter you also have F86 and much more options, maybe it`s worth trying some of them.

Sorry for bad english, I´m not a native speaker

[Almaretto]

Originally Posted by Racer20

No, but if you go to the CS Suspension specifics thread in the suspension forum, you can get a login to BMW's etk parts catalog system. If you can get a VIN for a European car somehow (usually from car sales websites . . . EBay maybe?) you can plug it into the search and it will show the type code for the car you pull up.

You do not need VIN. You just switch Typecode.

[Racer20]

Originally Posted by Almaretto

You do not need VIN. You just switch Typecode.

Yeah, but he doesn't know what the type code is for the EU CS version. You can find the type code in the online BMW parts database. I'm saying you need a VIN for that, not for for the actual coding.

[Almaretto]

Originally Posted by Racer20

Yeah, but he doesn't know what the type code is for the EU CS version. You can find the type code in the online BMW parts database. I'm saying you need a VIN for that, not for for the actual coding.

HINT: Compare US GTS to EU GTS Typschlüssel.

[mechanic75]

Looking at mine... EU type code for M3CS is 8M92. EDC is set to F86_Comp..

Hope that helps.

[FSociety]

Originally Posted by mechanic75

Looking at mine... EU type code for M3CS is 8M92. EDC is set to F86_Comp..

Hope that helps.

hmmm

[Almaretto]

Originally Posted by mechanic75

Looking at mine... EU type code for M3CS is 8M92. EDC is set to F86_Comp..

Hope that helps.

LHD vs USA RHD.

[tke743]

Originally Posted by Racer20

CS EDC is very good.

I have to disagree (and I hate to do that, as I truly respect what you put out there on this board and have learned a lot from you). The adaptive is so bad (CP, CS variants included) with sharp bumps under transition that it gets confused/unsettled. This is repeatable. My quote from the track section.

“Note on the adaptive suspension. It works great on smooth tracks, but on bumpy ones it's a mess. I gave up over a second braking early into Thompson turn 1. There are bumps between the 4 and 2 boards in the braking zone and if I was deep into the brakes durring those bumps the car was unsettled and wouldn't re-settle before the turn in. This was a consistent issue and caused me to brake early (6 board), let off a bit for the bumps, and then complete the braking. The high speed rebound and compression on this thing is a mess.“

This became such an issue that I yanked the adaptive and went with Ohlins R&T.

[mechanic75]

Originally Posted by Almaretto

LHD vs USA RHD.

My car is RHD..

[Racer20]

Originally Posted by tke743

I have to disagree (and I hate to do that, as I truly respect what you put out there on this board and have learned a lot from you). The adaptive is so bad (CP, CS variants included) with sharp bumps under transition that it gets confused/unsettled. This is repeatable. My quote from the track section.

"Note on the adaptive suspension. It works great on smooth tracks, but on bumpy ones it's a mess. I gave up over a second braking early into Thompson turn 1. There are bumps between the 4 and 2 boards in the braking zone and if I was deep into the brakes durring those bumps the car was unsettled and wouldn't re-settle before the turn in. This was a consistent issue and caused me to brake early (6 board), let off a bit for the bumps, and then complete the braking. The high speed rebound and compression on this thing is a mess."

This became such an issue that I yanked the adaptive and went with Ohlins R&T.

I should note that for the first two days that I had the CS EDC coded after my shocks/spring install, there was something "wrong" with the car and it drive exactly how you say. I spent hours resetting things, recoding things in Esys, double checking my installation, re-zeroing sensors in ISTA+. There were two apparent issues:

1. Torquing the rear lower shock bolts with the tires fully on the ground is critical. When I originally installed the shocks, I just put a jack under the control arm and jacked it up to "almost" curb position. Later, I built platforms so I could get under the car with the tires fully loaded, and when Untorqued the shock bolts, they "popped" and rotated into place, indicating that they were preloaded from my initial install. This made the rear of the car feel match the front, but the overall car still wasn't right.

2. After #1, I reset the ICM, building a level pad in my shop, and re-zero'd the height sensors and accelerometers one more time. The car STILL didn't feel right. I got irritated, gave up, and started shopping for a Cayman GTS. The next morning, I took the car out again, and all of a sudden, all was right with the world. Apparently something needed the car to go into a deeper sleep than I was letting it in order to "take."

At the end of the day, with my car as it's set up, it would be almost impossible to argue that the damping isn't *very* good by any measure. It doesn't get upset by anything, is driveable in any mode over nearly any surface, has less body float and jerk, better wheel end control, and better roll damping and balance than stock, and all of those things are at least as good as a base 991 with PASM, with the car being quieter and more comfortable to boot.

But it took a lot of screwing around to get it there, and if I hadn't have taken the time to build the leveling pad and lift platforms to neutralize the bushings, I would have never fixed it.

Edit: Keep in mind I'm on ZCP dampers, which have significantly better valving than the. Saw dampers. The base dampers definitely lack high speed damping, which makes them crash over large/sharp bumps. Even before coding the CS EDC, it was clear when driving around on the ZCP dampers that they provided higher quality damping. I could imagine that the base dampers might not make the most of the CS coding.

[tke743]

Originally Posted by Racer20

I should note that for the first two days that I had the CS EDC coded after my shocks/spring install, there was something "wrong" with the car and it drive exactly how you say. I spent hours resetting things, recoding things in Esys, double checking my installation, re-zeroing sensors in ISTA+. There were two apparent issues:

1. Torquing the rear lower shock bolts with the tires fully on the ground is critical. When I originally installed the shocks, I just put a jack under the control arm and jacked it up to "almost" curb position. Later, I built platforms so I could get under the car with the tires fully loaded, and when Untorqued the shock bolts, they "popped" and rotated into place, indicating that they were preloaded from my initial install. This made the rear of the car feel match the front, but the overall car still wasn't right.

2. After #1, I reset the ICM, building a level pad in my shop, and re-zero'd the height sensors and accelerometers one more time. The car STILL didn't feel right. I got irritated, gave up, and started shopping for a Cayman GTS. The next morning, I took the car out again, and all of a sudden, all was right with the world. Apparently something needed the car to go into a deeper sleep than I was letting it in order to "take."

At the end of the day, with my car as it's set up, it would be almost impossible to argue that the damping isn't *very* good by any measure. It doesn't get upset by anything, is driveable in any mode over nearly any surface, has less body float and jerk, better wheel end control, and better roll damping and balance than stock, and all of those things are at least as good as a base 991 with PASM, with the car being quieter and more comfortable to boot.

But it took a lot of screwing around to get it there, and if I hadn't have taken the time to build the leveling pad and lift platforms to neutralize the bushings, I would have never fixed it.

Edit: Keep in mind I'm on ZCP dampers, which have significantly better valving than the. Saw dampers. The base dampers definitely lack high speed damping, which makes them crash over large/sharp bumps. Even before coding the CS EDC, it was clear when driving around on the ZCP dampers that they provided higher quality damping. I could imagine that the base dampers might not make the most of the CS coding.

The car I was referring to was a stock ZCP with CS coding. So we are discussing the same setup. I finally gave up as it was a mess. I owned a pre ZCP too and I agree that it had some serious issues with the adaptive. The ZCP is better, but I got tired of it becoming unsettled. It was specifically an issue with bumps under braking. Once the nose was under load and compressed from the weight transfer, any sharp bump completely upset the car and it wouldn’t recover untill I lessened the compression. Not an issue now.

I’ve driven a new RS3 on the same track and the magnetic suspension took the bumps in stride.

I know it is a specific case (heavy braking and sharp bumps) but it is a common occurrence on the tracks in the NorthEast. The above referenced issue was Thompson, but it had the same issue on Watkins going into the inner loop under braking. The ZCP suspension with CS coding was amazing on smooth tracks.