Confused by ROM ID
Confused by ROM ID
I am a complete novice with ECU flash tuning. So, I am working with a tuner to optimize my fuel and timing maps on 91 octane. When I try to open the .hex file from my 06 Evo9 (purchased in 8/06) I get the common unrecognized ROM error. When I inherit definitions from the Evo9 definitions 13, 14, or 15, I can see what looks like normal tables and data. When I look at the ROM ID find ROM ID 9694011. I believe this is an Evo8 ROM ID. I do see the VVT tables which I think are Evo9 specific. The car was previously flashed by the "Bro".
Does anyone have an explaination for this inappropriate ROM ID?
Is there a way to tell what the ROM ID should be for the car through VIN ID number?
Should I continue with this ROM ID or reload a known stock Evo9 ROM ID with my key code and start tuning over again?
Thanks for any helpful input.
Does anyone have an explaination for this inappropriate ROM ID?
Is there a way to tell what the ROM ID should be for the car through VIN ID number?
Should I continue with this ROM ID or reload a known stock Evo9 ROM ID with my key code and start tuning over again?
Thanks for any helpful input.
Last edited by silverghost; Aug 31, 2007 at 06:51 AM.
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...d.php?t=264461 look here for reference also
Confused by ROM ID
Okay, I found MJ's post which explains why the ROM ID was changed. However, I still don't know what the proper ROM ID for my Evo IX is supposed to be. This is important because it affects which .xml patches I should paste into ECUflash's rommetadata Evo subfolder. Does anyone have any help here? Is there some sort of file compare that might be revealing? Keep in mind that my .hex is no longer unmodified.
Hi,
So pardon me for asking this but as I understand what you are saying is you have a 2005 ROM (the 969xxxx) BUT it does have the MIVEC table added to it and it appears as normal?
Just flash it back to a normal IX specific ROM and call it a day. Its obvious at this point that your investment into the "bro" flash has already been written off so just nix it 100%. It would be interesting to see a copy of the ROM ID with the fuel tables collapsed and the timing table enhanced though.
So pardon me for asking this but as I understand what you are saying is you have a 2005 ROM (the 969xxxx) BUT it does have the MIVEC table added to it and it appears as normal?
Just flash it back to a normal IX specific ROM and call it a day. Its obvious at this point that your investment into the "bro" flash has already been written off so just nix it 100%. It would be interesting to see a copy of the ROM ID with the fuel tables collapsed and the timing table enhanced though.
Trending Topics
Confused
JB as I understand it, it would be inappropriate for me to post "Bro's" tune. I will tell you that it has been described as"very safe" by my current tuner.
Secondly, MJs thread that I referenced above did an excellent job of explaining the whats and whys for this type intentional ROM ID obfuscation. The ROM ID has been changed as stated in the previous post. I do have an Evo IX ROM that is working fine, it has an improper internal ID tag which confused me and the attendant software. Since I am a noobie I am still trying to figure out what my original ROM ID was.
I have an OEM ver. 15 Evo IX ROM file. Surveying the entries in most of the tables other than fuel and timing, & other tables that I know were chaged intentionally I have not seen any differences. However, I must "inherit" the ROM ID and that may obscure those differences I am looking for. This inherit process defines the vvt tables (and others) and tells the program where to find that data in my .hex file. I believe that I read something that stated that the ver. 13,14 &15 ROMs were very similar. I suspect that there are still some code "finger prints" that will ID what my original ROM ID was. The revelation will allow me to manually set the internal ID.
Secondly, MJs thread that I referenced above did an excellent job of explaining the whats and whys for this type intentional ROM ID obfuscation. The ROM ID has been changed as stated in the previous post. I do have an Evo IX ROM that is working fine, it has an improper internal ID tag which confused me and the attendant software. Since I am a noobie I am still trying to figure out what my original ROM ID was.
I have an OEM ver. 15 Evo IX ROM file. Surveying the entries in most of the tables other than fuel and timing, & other tables that I know were chaged intentionally I have not seen any differences. However, I must "inherit" the ROM ID and that may obscure those differences I am looking for. This inherit process defines the vvt tables (and others) and tells the program where to find that data in my .hex file. I believe that I read something that stated that the ver. 13,14 &15 ROMs were very similar. I suspect that there are still some code "finger prints" that will ID what my original ROM ID was. The revelation will allow me to manually set the internal ID.
Okay, I found MJ's post which explains why the ROM ID was changed. However, I still don't know what the proper ROM ID for my Evo IX is supposed to be. This is important because it affects which .xml patches I should paste into ECUflash's rommetadata Evo subfolder. Does anyone have any help here? Is there some sort of file compare that might be revealing? Keep in mind that my .hex is no longer unmodified.
You can probably ask people with 9's that were made in the same month/year as yours. You can also just try 2 or 3 different numbers that are from your year 9. Usually you would know that the id you're trying is wrong because some tables info would be messed up. When all is right and the way it's supposed to be, it's most likely your id.
And in case it wasn't referenced in that linked post, hex id address is f52.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
antics22
Evo X How Tos / Installations
267
Dec 6, 2016 08:40 AM
AWD Motorsports
EvoX 'For Sale' External Engine / Power
58
Aug 12, 2015 09:58 AM
vastevo
Evo X Dyno Results
46
Sep 26, 2012 07:12 AM
Girodisc Martin
The Loft / EvoM Car Talk Corner
109
May 1, 2011 02:09 PM








.

