https://forums.spaycetech.com/ Tue, 15 Sep 2026 08:23:11 +0000 MyBB https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1442 Sun, 13 Sep 2026 17:43:00 +0000 zakkkbolbo]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1442
Turned on the Polestar Optimization on my 2019 V60 T5 Momentum, however unable to locate the Polestar Optimization button on the centre screen.

The car originally does not have the following:
1. Physical "Drive Mode" scrolling switch
2. "Drive Modes" screen on the centre screen to select Eco, Comfort & etc.
3. "Individual Drive Mode" in "My Car" under Settings

Only has the "ESC Sport Mode" and "ECO" buttons in the Vehicle Functions screen below, e.g.:


Do I need to change something below, in Orbit?

Currently, 
057 - Drive Mode = 01 Without drive mode switch
337 - Centre Console Switch Module = 02 With Dummy button
452 - Drive Mode Switch = 00 Undefined

Thanks!]]>
Turned on the Polestar Optimization on my 2019 V60 T5 Momentum, however unable to locate the Polestar Optimization button on the centre screen.

The car originally does not have the following:
1. Physical "Drive Mode" scrolling switch
2. "Drive Modes" screen on the centre screen to select Eco, Comfort & etc.
3. "Individual Drive Mode" in "My Car" under Settings

Only has the "ESC Sport Mode" and "ECO" buttons in the Vehicle Functions screen below, e.g.:


Do I need to change something below, in Orbit?

Currently, 
057 - Drive Mode = 01 Without drive mode switch
337 - Centre Console Switch Module = 02 With Dummy button
452 - Drive Mode Switch = 00 Undefined

Thanks!]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1440 Fri, 11 Sep 2026 06:30:36 +0000 matuso]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1440 RICA offer this service, but they only sell it as a package with an ECU remap. Honestly, €1,249.93 for an extra 30 hp is a ridiculous price in my opinion, and they won’t sell the transmission remap separately.
Does anyone here know someone who can do a standalone TCM remap?]]> RICA offer this service, but they only sell it as a package with an ECU remap. Honestly, €1,249.93 for an extra 30 hp is a ridiculous price in my opinion, and they won’t sell the transmission remap separately.
Does anyone here know someone who can do a standalone TCM remap?]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1432 Wed, 02 Sep 2026 07:16:32 +0000 eoviedo]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1432  
I have been discussing with ChatGPT an idea that started with a fairly simple question but has gradually turned into what I think could be an interesting SPA/OrBit reverse-engineering project:
 
Could a MY2024 T6 Recharge B4204T52 be given a genuine “Polestar-like” optimisation — not simply more power, but the complete powertrain behaviour that Polestar normally changes — even though Volvo/Polestar does not offer the optimisation for this engine?
 
My car is a MY2024 XC60 T6 Recharge (B4204T52, 350 hp system output).
 
I should give ChatGPT credit for most of the research below. I initially asked whether AI could theoretically create a Polestar-type optimisation for a Volvo for which Polestar does not offer one. ChatGPT then researched T6/T8 hardware, Volvo part numbers, ECM references, OrBit parameters and previous discussions on this forum. We have subsequently also gone through technical information and owner discussions concerning the MY22.5+ Extended Range powertrain.
 
What follows is our current working hypothesis. Some part-number matches come from Volvo documentation, parts catalogues and donor vehicles rather than engineering documentation, so I am deliberately treating them as evidence rather than proof.
 
1. The interesting comparison is specifically the MY22.5+ Extended Range architecture
 
The first important conclusion was that comparing “T6 vs T8” generically is misleading.
 
The relevant family is the newer Extended Range / VEA2 architecture.
 
For MY2024 we have:
 
B4204T52 — T6 Recharge
 

• ICE: 253 hp / 350 Nm
  
•  ERAD: 107 kW (145 PS) / 309 Nm
  
•  system output: 350 hp
  

B4204T56 — T8 Recharge
 

• ICE: 310 hp / 400 Nm
  
•  ERAD: same 107 kW / 309 Nm
  
•  system output: 455 hp
  

Both use the newer architecture without the old mechanically driven supercharger.
 
The MY22.5 B4204T57 is also an interesting reference. It appears to have been an early Extended Range implementation, with essentially T8-level output, ERAD 7 and the C-ISG, before the later B4204T56 became the relevant engine code in many markets.
 
This gives us another useful reference point rather than treating T52/T56 as an isolated pair.
 
2. B4204T52 vs B4204T56 hardware
 
ChatGPT cross-checked the available documentation and part numbers and found a surprisingly large amount of apparent common hardware.
 
Among the matches/equivalences found so far:
 

• 1,969 cc
  
•  82 × 93.2 mm bore/stroke
  
•  10.3:1 compression ratio
  
•  same 107 kW / 309 Nm ERAD
  
•  same 18.8 kWh battery architecture
  
•  same TG-81SD transmission family
  
•  evidence of the same BorgWarner turbo
  
•  evidence of the same cylinder-head reference
  
•  evidence of common direct-injection components/injectors
  
•  evidence of the same high-pressure fuel pump
  

The complete/long-engine part numbers are different, so I am not claiming T52 and T56 are mechanically identical.
 
There could still be differences in pistons, rods, internal cooling, valvetrain or other components.
 
However, there seems to be enough common hardware to make the 253/350 → 310/400 difference very interesting from a calibration perspective.
 
3. Same ECM hardware
 
Another potentially important finding was examples of MY2024 B4204T52 and B4204T56 cars apparently using the same Volvo/Denso ECM hardware:
 
32383818 / Volvo 36010797
 
If that is correct, we potentially have:
 
very similar engine architecture + same ECM hardware + different rated engine output.
 
What we do not yet know is whether the software is:
 
A) identical, with the engine/power variant selected through configuration;
 
B) the same executable with different calibration blocks; or
 
C) genuinely different ECM software builds.
 
That distinction seems fundamental.
 
4. OrBit makes the question particularly interesting
 
OrBit exposes 005 ENGINE with specific engine power/torque variants, including values corresponding to MP and HP versions, and also exposes 368 ENGINE FAMILY TYPE.
 
I also found the previous discussion here concerning a T6 Recharge B4204T52 → T8 B4204T56 conversion.
 
x119's response — that comparing the actual ECM software would be interesting and that, if the software were identical, configuration might potentially select another mapping — is very close to the conclusion ChatGPT and I independently reached.
 
But I want to stress that simply changing 005 ENGINE is not what I am proposing.
 
If the ECM does not contain the corresponding calibration, changing a configuration descriptor obviously cannot magically create it.
 
The interesting question is what the relationship actually is between configuration and calibration on these cars.
 
5. There may be another important difference: hybrid torque/power blending
 
This is the part of the project that now interests me even more than the ICE power difference.
 
Volvo rates the MY24 T6 as:
 
253 hp ICE + 145 hp ERAD → 350 hp system
 
while the T8 is:
 
310 hp ICE + 145 hp ERAD → 455 hp system
 
I realise that individual motor peak outputs cannot automatically be added. They may occur at different rotational speeds/vehicle speeds and there may be battery, inverter and drivetrain constraints.
 
So I am not assuming that the T6 has a simple electronic “350 hp limiter”.
 
However, the difference raises an interesting question:
 
Is the T6/T8 distinction partly a difference in hybrid torque blending and allowed simultaneous ICE/ERAD contribution, rather than only a 253 → 310 hp ECM calibration difference?
 
If so, converting or optimising the ICE alone would tell only part of the story.
 
6. And there is also the C-ISG
 
The Extended Range technical information adds another component that I initially underestimated.
 
The crankshaft-integrated starter/generator (C-ISG) is substantial and Volvo documentation describes it as working together with the turbo in low-speed operation.
 
This means that actual wheel-torque delivery is potentially a coordinated result of:
 
ICE + C-ISG + ERAD + battery/inverter limits + transmission + hybrid torque management.
 
There are also owner reports suggesting that C-ISG assistance may be particularly noticeable transiently at low speeds / during launch.
 
I therefore wonder whether a proper comparison of T52/T56 should include not only ECM and TCM but also whatever module/configuration determines C-ISG and ERAD torque requests.
 
7. Why simply enabling “Polestar” is not the objective
 
A genuine Polestar Engineered Optimisation is more than increased engine output.
 
Depending on application, Polestar changes things such as:
 

• throttle response
  
•  engine torque delivery
  
•  shift speed
  
•  shift points
  
•  gear-hold behaviour after throttle lift
  
•  drivetrain torque management
  
•  AWD behaviour / torque distribution
  

This is particularly relevant because on some Extended Range T8 applications Polestar appears not to advertise any increase in peak system power at all.
 
In other words, Polestar itself demonstrates that an optimisation can materially improve the car without increasing the headline horsepower figure.
 
That is much closer to what I am interested in.
 
8. The experiment I would really like to see
 
Rather than inventing a tune, I think a more rigorous approach would be to obtain several OEM reference states:
 
A — B4204T52 T6 OEM
 
B — B4204T56 T8 OEM
 
C — B4204T57 Extended Range, where useful as an additional reference
 
D — B4204T56/T57 T8 with genuine Polestar optimisation
 
Then perform two principal comparisons:
 
Diff 1: T52 OEM → T56 OEM
 
This should tell us how Volvo differentiates the contemporary T6 and T8.
 
Not just in ECM power calibration, but potentially also in hybrid torque coordination.
 
Diff 2: T8 OEM → T8 Polestar
 
This should tell us how Volvo/Polestar optimises the behaviour of an otherwise identical powertrain.
 
The second comparison may actually be the more valuable one.
 
The question would then become:
 
Can the transformation identified in Diff 2 be transferred, where technically applicable, to the B4204T52 architecture?
 
In other words, not:
 
“Make a T6 into a T8.”
 
but:
 
“Apply the engineering philosophy used to transform a T8 into a T8 Polestar to the T6.”
 
9. Where AI could be useful
 
This is where my discussion with ChatGPT originally started.
 
If sufficiently complete T52/T56/Polestar software and configuration data could be obtained, AI-assisted analysis could potentially help identify:
 

• identical vs differing executable regions
  
•  calibration blocks
  
•  torque-model tables
  
•  requested/allowed ICE torque
  
•  load targets
  
•  boost targets
  
•  fuelling/lambda
  
•  ignition
  
•  thermal protection
  
•  gear-dependent torque limits
  
•  pedal → torque-request relationships
  
•  shift-related torque intervention
  
•  ICE/C-ISG/ERAD torque coordination
  
•  differences in hybrid torque blending
  

The intention would not be to let AI invent calibration values.
 
AI would instead be used as a reverse-engineering assistant to answer:
 
What did Volvo change between T52 and T56?
 
and:
 
What did Polestar change between OEM T8 and Polestar T8?
 
Those known OEM transformations would then define the boundaries of any hypothetical T6 implementation.
 
10. The target is behaviour, not a horsepower number
 
Earlier in this investigation we discussed possible ICE outputs around 290–300 hp / ~400 Nm.
 
I now think defining the project that way misses the point.
 
I would rather have a T6 with a modest increase in power that behaves exactly as a hypothetical factory Polestar T6 might have behaved than a 450–500 hp aftermarket Stage 1.
 
The desired result would be something like:
 

• sharper but OEM-like throttle response
  
•  stronger mid-range ICE delivery
  
•  appropriate C-ISG contribution
  
•  better ICE/ERAD coordination
  
•  faster and more appropriate downshifts
  
•  better gear holding
  
•  Polestar-like shift strategy
  
•  appropriate drivetrain/AWD behaviour
  
•  all OEM thermal/component protections retained
  

In short:
 
not a tuned T6, but an attempt to reconstruct the T6 Polestar that Volvo never made.
 
11. Questions for x119 / the OrBit community
 
I would therefore be very interested in your thoughts on the following:
 

1. Has anyone compared the actual ECM software/calibration IDs of late B4204T52 and B4204T56 cars?
   
2.  Does anyone know whether the 32383818 T52/T56 ECMs contain the same executable with different calibration blocks?
   
3.  Could 005 ENGINE / 368 ENGINE FAMILY TYPE select calibration behaviour already present in the ECM, or are these effectively configuration descriptors only on this generation?
   
4.  Has anyone captured a complete before/after software/configuration comparison from a genuine Extended Range T8 Polestar installation — particularly ECM, TCM and CEM configuration?
   
5.  On ERAD-based Recharge vehicles, which parts of Polestar behaviour appear to come from configuration and which definitely require flashed software?
   
6.  Has anyone compared the hybrid torque/power blending strategy between B4204T52 T6 and B4204T56 T8?
   
7.  Which module actually determines the maximum simultaneous ICE/C-ISG/ERAD torque request on these Extended Range cars?
   
8.  Is C-ISG contribution configurable/calibratable independently, and has anyone logged its requested/actual torque under full acceleration?
   
9.  Would the OrBit developers/community be interested in analysing a matched set of T52 OEM, T56 OEM and genuine T8 Polestar software/configuration data if it could be obtained?
   

I realise there may be security, signing and flashing obstacles even if the calibration differences can be understood.
 
At this stage I am much more interested in characterising how Volvo differentiates T6/T8 and how Polestar transforms the complete powertrain behaviour than in blindly flashing anything into the car.
 
The research so far suggests that this could be an interesting SPA/OrBit reverse-engineering exercise rather than simply another chiptuning project.
 
I would be very interested to hear whether anyone here has already investigated any of these layers further — particularly the relationship between 005 ENGINE, ECM calibration and hybrid torque management on the Extended Range cars.

P.S. I realise this is a very long post, but I wanted to provide enough context for anyone interested to be able to take the same information and start a conversation with whichever AI agent they use, and perhaps explore the problem independently.

I haven't seen much discussion here about using AI for this kind of reverse-engineering work — although I may simply have missed it. If it hasn't really been tried yet, I think it opens up some genuinely interesting possibilities, particularly when the task is not to invent a tune from scratch, but to compare known OEM implementations, identify what Volvo/Polestar actually changed, and reason from those differences.]]>  
I have been discussing with ChatGPT an idea that started with a fairly simple question but has gradually turned into what I think could be an interesting SPA/OrBit reverse-engineering project:
 
Could a MY2024 T6 Recharge B4204T52 be given a genuine “Polestar-like” optimisation — not simply more power, but the complete powertrain behaviour that Polestar normally changes — even though Volvo/Polestar does not offer the optimisation for this engine?
 
My car is a MY2024 XC60 T6 Recharge (B4204T52, 350 hp system output).
 
I should give ChatGPT credit for most of the research below. I initially asked whether AI could theoretically create a Polestar-type optimisation for a Volvo for which Polestar does not offer one. ChatGPT then researched T6/T8 hardware, Volvo part numbers, ECM references, OrBit parameters and previous discussions on this forum. We have subsequently also gone through technical information and owner discussions concerning the MY22.5+ Extended Range powertrain.
 
What follows is our current working hypothesis. Some part-number matches come from Volvo documentation, parts catalogues and donor vehicles rather than engineering documentation, so I am deliberately treating them as evidence rather than proof.
 
1. The interesting comparison is specifically the MY22.5+ Extended Range architecture
 
The first important conclusion was that comparing “T6 vs T8” generically is misleading.
 
The relevant family is the newer Extended Range / VEA2 architecture.
 
For MY2024 we have:
 
B4204T52 — T6 Recharge
 

• ICE: 253 hp / 350 Nm
  
•  ERAD: 107 kW (145 PS) / 309 Nm
  
•  system output: 350 hp
  

B4204T56 — T8 Recharge
 

• ICE: 310 hp / 400 Nm
  
•  ERAD: same 107 kW / 309 Nm
  
•  system output: 455 hp
  

Both use the newer architecture without the old mechanically driven supercharger.
 
The MY22.5 B4204T57 is also an interesting reference. It appears to have been an early Extended Range implementation, with essentially T8-level output, ERAD 7 and the C-ISG, before the later B4204T56 became the relevant engine code in many markets.
 
This gives us another useful reference point rather than treating T52/T56 as an isolated pair.
 
2. B4204T52 vs B4204T56 hardware
 
ChatGPT cross-checked the available documentation and part numbers and found a surprisingly large amount of apparent common hardware.
 
Among the matches/equivalences found so far:
 

• 1,969 cc
  
•  82 × 93.2 mm bore/stroke
  
•  10.3:1 compression ratio
  
•  same 107 kW / 309 Nm ERAD
  
•  same 18.8 kWh battery architecture
  
•  same TG-81SD transmission family
  
•  evidence of the same BorgWarner turbo
  
•  evidence of the same cylinder-head reference
  
•  evidence of common direct-injection components/injectors
  
•  evidence of the same high-pressure fuel pump
  

The complete/long-engine part numbers are different, so I am not claiming T52 and T56 are mechanically identical.
 
There could still be differences in pistons, rods, internal cooling, valvetrain or other components.
 
However, there seems to be enough common hardware to make the 253/350 → 310/400 difference very interesting from a calibration perspective.
 
3. Same ECM hardware
 
Another potentially important finding was examples of MY2024 B4204T52 and B4204T56 cars apparently using the same Volvo/Denso ECM hardware:
 
32383818 / Volvo 36010797
 
If that is correct, we potentially have:
 
very similar engine architecture + same ECM hardware + different rated engine output.
 
What we do not yet know is whether the software is:
 
A) identical, with the engine/power variant selected through configuration;
 
B) the same executable with different calibration blocks; or
 
C) genuinely different ECM software builds.
 
That distinction seems fundamental.
 
4. OrBit makes the question particularly interesting
 
OrBit exposes 005 ENGINE with specific engine power/torque variants, including values corresponding to MP and HP versions, and also exposes 368 ENGINE FAMILY TYPE.
 
I also found the previous discussion here concerning a T6 Recharge B4204T52 → T8 B4204T56 conversion.
 
x119's response — that comparing the actual ECM software would be interesting and that, if the software were identical, configuration might potentially select another mapping — is very close to the conclusion ChatGPT and I independently reached.
 
But I want to stress that simply changing 005 ENGINE is not what I am proposing.
 
If the ECM does not contain the corresponding calibration, changing a configuration descriptor obviously cannot magically create it.
 
The interesting question is what the relationship actually is between configuration and calibration on these cars.
 
5. There may be another important difference: hybrid torque/power blending
 
This is the part of the project that now interests me even more than the ICE power difference.
 
Volvo rates the MY24 T6 as:
 
253 hp ICE + 145 hp ERAD → 350 hp system
 
while the T8 is:
 
310 hp ICE + 145 hp ERAD → 455 hp system
 
I realise that individual motor peak outputs cannot automatically be added. They may occur at different rotational speeds/vehicle speeds and there may be battery, inverter and drivetrain constraints.
 
So I am not assuming that the T6 has a simple electronic “350 hp limiter”.
 
However, the difference raises an interesting question:
 
Is the T6/T8 distinction partly a difference in hybrid torque blending and allowed simultaneous ICE/ERAD contribution, rather than only a 253 → 310 hp ECM calibration difference?
 
If so, converting or optimising the ICE alone would tell only part of the story.
 
6. And there is also the C-ISG
 
The Extended Range technical information adds another component that I initially underestimated.
 
The crankshaft-integrated starter/generator (C-ISG) is substantial and Volvo documentation describes it as working together with the turbo in low-speed operation.
 
This means that actual wheel-torque delivery is potentially a coordinated result of:
 
ICE + C-ISG + ERAD + battery/inverter limits + transmission + hybrid torque management.
 
There are also owner reports suggesting that C-ISG assistance may be particularly noticeable transiently at low speeds / during launch.
 
I therefore wonder whether a proper comparison of T52/T56 should include not only ECM and TCM but also whatever module/configuration determines C-ISG and ERAD torque requests.
 
7. Why simply enabling “Polestar” is not the objective
 
A genuine Polestar Engineered Optimisation is more than increased engine output.
 
Depending on application, Polestar changes things such as:
 

• throttle response
  
•  engine torque delivery
  
•  shift speed
  
•  shift points
  
•  gear-hold behaviour after throttle lift
  
•  drivetrain torque management
  
•  AWD behaviour / torque distribution
  

This is particularly relevant because on some Extended Range T8 applications Polestar appears not to advertise any increase in peak system power at all.
 
In other words, Polestar itself demonstrates that an optimisation can materially improve the car without increasing the headline horsepower figure.
 
That is much closer to what I am interested in.
 
8. The experiment I would really like to see
 
Rather than inventing a tune, I think a more rigorous approach would be to obtain several OEM reference states:
 
A — B4204T52 T6 OEM
 
B — B4204T56 T8 OEM
 
C — B4204T57 Extended Range, where useful as an additional reference
 
D — B4204T56/T57 T8 with genuine Polestar optimisation
 
Then perform two principal comparisons:
 
Diff 1: T52 OEM → T56 OEM
 
This should tell us how Volvo differentiates the contemporary T6 and T8.
 
Not just in ECM power calibration, but potentially also in hybrid torque coordination.
 
Diff 2: T8 OEM → T8 Polestar
 
This should tell us how Volvo/Polestar optimises the behaviour of an otherwise identical powertrain.
 
The second comparison may actually be the more valuable one.
 
The question would then become:
 
Can the transformation identified in Diff 2 be transferred, where technically applicable, to the B4204T52 architecture?
 
In other words, not:
 
“Make a T6 into a T8.”
 
but:
 
“Apply the engineering philosophy used to transform a T8 into a T8 Polestar to the T6.”
 
9. Where AI could be useful
 
This is where my discussion with ChatGPT originally started.
 
If sufficiently complete T52/T56/Polestar software and configuration data could be obtained, AI-assisted analysis could potentially help identify:
 

• identical vs differing executable regions
  
•  calibration blocks
  
•  torque-model tables
  
•  requested/allowed ICE torque
  
•  load targets
  
•  boost targets
  
•  fuelling/lambda
  
•  ignition
  
•  thermal protection
  
•  gear-dependent torque limits
  
•  pedal → torque-request relationships
  
•  shift-related torque intervention
  
•  ICE/C-ISG/ERAD torque coordination
  
•  differences in hybrid torque blending
  

The intention would not be to let AI invent calibration values.
 
AI would instead be used as a reverse-engineering assistant to answer:
 
What did Volvo change between T52 and T56?
 
and:
 
What did Polestar change between OEM T8 and Polestar T8?
 
Those known OEM transformations would then define the boundaries of any hypothetical T6 implementation.
 
10. The target is behaviour, not a horsepower number
 
Earlier in this investigation we discussed possible ICE outputs around 290–300 hp / ~400 Nm.
 
I now think defining the project that way misses the point.
 
I would rather have a T6 with a modest increase in power that behaves exactly as a hypothetical factory Polestar T6 might have behaved than a 450–500 hp aftermarket Stage 1.
 
The desired result would be something like:
 

• sharper but OEM-like throttle response
  
•  stronger mid-range ICE delivery
  
•  appropriate C-ISG contribution
  
•  better ICE/ERAD coordination
  
•  faster and more appropriate downshifts
  
•  better gear holding
  
•  Polestar-like shift strategy
  
•  appropriate drivetrain/AWD behaviour
  
•  all OEM thermal/component protections retained
  

In short:
 
not a tuned T6, but an attempt to reconstruct the T6 Polestar that Volvo never made.
 
11. Questions for x119 / the OrBit community
 
I would therefore be very interested in your thoughts on the following:
 

1. Has anyone compared the actual ECM software/calibration IDs of late B4204T52 and B4204T56 cars?
   
2.  Does anyone know whether the 32383818 T52/T56 ECMs contain the same executable with different calibration blocks?
   
3.  Could 005 ENGINE / 368 ENGINE FAMILY TYPE select calibration behaviour already present in the ECM, or are these effectively configuration descriptors only on this generation?
   
4.  Has anyone captured a complete before/after software/configuration comparison from a genuine Extended Range T8 Polestar installation — particularly ECM, TCM and CEM configuration?
   
5.  On ERAD-based Recharge vehicles, which parts of Polestar behaviour appear to come from configuration and which definitely require flashed software?
   
6.  Has anyone compared the hybrid torque/power blending strategy between B4204T52 T6 and B4204T56 T8?
   
7.  Which module actually determines the maximum simultaneous ICE/C-ISG/ERAD torque request on these Extended Range cars?
   
8.  Is C-ISG contribution configurable/calibratable independently, and has anyone logged its requested/actual torque under full acceleration?
   
9.  Would the OrBit developers/community be interested in analysing a matched set of T52 OEM, T56 OEM and genuine T8 Polestar software/configuration data if it could be obtained?
   

I realise there may be security, signing and flashing obstacles even if the calibration differences can be understood.
 
At this stage I am much more interested in characterising how Volvo differentiates T6/T8 and how Polestar transforms the complete powertrain behaviour than in blindly flashing anything into the car.
 
The research so far suggests that this could be an interesting SPA/OrBit reverse-engineering exercise rather than simply another chiptuning project.
 
I would be very interested to hear whether anyone here has already investigated any of these layers further — particularly the relationship between 005 ENGINE, ECM calibration and hybrid torque management on the Extended Range cars.

P.S. I realise this is a very long post, but I wanted to provide enough context for anyone interested to be able to take the same information and start a conversation with whichever AI agent they use, and perhaps explore the problem independently.

I haven't seen much discussion here about using AI for this kind of reverse-engineering work — although I may simply have missed it. If it hasn't really been tried yet, I think it opens up some genuinely interesting possibilities, particularly when the task is not to invent a tune from scratch, but to compare known OEM implementations, identify what Volvo/Polestar actually changed, and reason from those differences.]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1428 Fri, 28 Aug 2026 21:01:16 +0000 Gile_1991]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1428 https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1400 Wed, 29 Jul 2026 10:59:28 +0000 CornishSwede]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1400
As I have Start Stop off in 'Individual' Saved Settings (A as well as Polestar on and firmer steering) this would be blummin useful to be able to set, I've not been able to identify the configuration code, anyone have any ideas?

MY17 V90 D5 Inscription PowerPulse AWD (Europe - UK)

https://youtu.be/icUWjfUDo_A?si=WjjJkOUBxL88dkT5


  Screenshot 2026-07-29 at 11.57.44.png (Size: 251.01 KB / Downloads: 57) ]]>
As I have Start Stop off in 'Individual' Saved Settings (A as well as Polestar on and firmer steering) this would be blummin useful to be able to set, I've not been able to identify the configuration code, anyone have any ideas?

MY17 V90 D5 Inscription PowerPulse AWD (Europe - UK)

https://youtu.be/icUWjfUDo_A?si=WjjJkOUBxL88dkT5


  Screenshot 2026-07-29 at 11.57.44.png (Size: 251.01 KB / Downloads: 57) ]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1380 Thu, 16 Jul 2026 20:38:59 +0000 roja]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1380 https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1372 Sun, 21 Jun 2026 21:41:42 +0000 davelillo]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1372 https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1357 Sat, 13 Jun 2026 09:50:25 +0000 Sirop]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1357 https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1349 Sun, 07 Jun 2026 22:43:28 +0000 StitchVR]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1349 I recently bought a 2019 Volvo V60 T8 Twin Engine (SPA platform) and have started exploring OrBit.
I noticed the following configuration items:

• ID 049 – Performance Mode
  
• ID 374 – Polestar Level
  
• ID 406 – Performance Software (NOT VOLVO)
  

Has anyone tested these on a V60 T8?
I'm mainly wondering:

• What does ID 406 actually do?
  
• What is it intended for if it says "NOT VOLVO"?
  
• Does it unlock any additional drive modes or performance-related features?
  
• Does it change throttle response, transmission behavior or vehicle identification?
  
• Does it require additional software to have any effect?
  
• Does ID 049 enable anything useful on a T8?
  

I'm not looking for guesses. Has anyone actually enabled ID 406 on a SPA V60, V90, S60, S90, XC60 or XC90 and observed what changed?
I'd appreciate hearing from anyone who has tested these settings and compared before/after behavior.]]> I recently bought a 2019 Volvo V60 T8 Twin Engine (SPA platform) and have started exploring OrBit.
I noticed the following configuration items:

• ID 049 – Performance Mode
  
• ID 374 – Polestar Level
  
• ID 406 – Performance Software (NOT VOLVO)
  

Has anyone tested these on a V60 T8?
I'm mainly wondering:

• What does ID 406 actually do?
  
• What is it intended for if it says "NOT VOLVO"?
  
• Does it unlock any additional drive modes or performance-related features?
  
• Does it change throttle response, transmission behavior or vehicle identification?
  
• Does it require additional software to have any effect?
  
• Does ID 049 enable anything useful on a T8?
  

I'm not looking for guesses. Has anyone actually enabled ID 406 on a SPA V60, V90, S60, S90, XC60 or XC90 and observed what changed?
I'd appreciate hearing from anyone who has tested these settings and compared before/after behavior.]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1277 Sun, 05 Apr 2026 19:07:47 +0000 Benny_Harvey_RIP]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1277
i just bought a 2023 V60 B4 Mild Hybrid and wanted to turn off start/stop.
It turning off at stop lights is okay for me, as it it relatively easy to "trick" by using the manual mode. The thing that irritates me to no end is it turing off while coasting.

At first i tried "03 No button, no symbol, always off" which didnt work, it just removed the symbol in the gauge cluster.

Then i looked in the config wizard, which only shows two available options. "04 No button, standard symbol, always on" and "01 Button without memory, standard symbol".
04 is the OEM setting and i tried 01, which added the Start/Stop button in the IHU, but pressing it just makes the symbol disappear/appear. 

I also set the Stop in speed velocity from 7 km/h to "without StopInSpeed" which actually worked.

Am i missing something? Any help is appreciated!]]>
i just bought a 2023 V60 B4 Mild Hybrid and wanted to turn off start/stop.
It turning off at stop lights is okay for me, as it it relatively easy to "trick" by using the manual mode. The thing that irritates me to no end is it turing off while coasting.

At first i tried "03 No button, no symbol, always off" which didnt work, it just removed the symbol in the gauge cluster.

Then i looked in the config wizard, which only shows two available options. "04 No button, standard symbol, always on" and "01 Button without memory, standard symbol".
04 is the OEM setting and i tried 01, which added the Start/Stop button in the IHU, but pressing it just makes the symbol disappear/appear. 

I also set the Stop in speed velocity from 7 km/h to "without StopInSpeed" which actually worked.

Am i missing something? Any help is appreciated!]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1270 Thu, 02 Apr 2026 16:33:02 +0000 FilipT8]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1270 https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1267 Sun, 29 Mar 2026 22:18:55 +0000 By5260]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1267
I've used the program for other changes and appreciate the efforts of all those involved. These changes have allowed me to create my favorite car.... Ever!  Thank you.]]>
I've used the program for other changes and appreciate the efforts of all those involved. These changes have allowed me to create my favorite car.... Ever!  Thank you.]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1257 Mon, 23 Mar 2026 00:35:28 +0000 Power6]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1257 Item 271 to "01 Button without memory, standard symbol" to add the control to the menus in the car. Only this setting "without memory" works, Volvo did not implement a version with memory.

I have tested on my 2025 XC40 B5 (US Market) and confirmed it works. For those that would like to have occasional control over the Start/Stop without disable completely, you can have it. Anyone that tries this on a DCT equipped car (B2/B3 etc) let us know if it works!


  505StartStop2.png (Size: 447.52 KB / Downloads: 229)

  505StartStop1.png (Size: 375.12 KB / Downloads: 227) ]]> Item 271 to "01 Button without memory, standard symbol" to add the control to the menus in the car. Only this setting "without memory" works, Volvo did not implement a version with memory.

I have tested on my 2025 XC40 B5 (US Market) and confirmed it works. For those that would like to have occasional control over the Start/Stop without disable completely, you can have it. Anyone that tries this on a DCT equipped car (B2/B3 etc) let us know if it works!


  505StartStop2.png (Size: 447.52 KB / Downloads: 229)

  505StartStop1.png (Size: 375.12 KB / Downloads: 227) ]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1244 Mon, 16 Mar 2026 16:31:42 +0000 Biaggio79]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1244  I would like to ask if disabling the start stop funcion disables also the electric motor and the 13hp or so of help in the 2024 xc90 b5 diesel mild hybrid?
I recently restored to oem after having it disabled ( waiting for the ota update..) and the car seems snappier and quicker to accelerate in various speeds…or it’s just my false feeling?]]>  I would like to ask if disabling the start stop funcion disables also the electric motor and the 13hp or so of help in the 2024 xc90 b5 diesel mild hybrid?
I recently restored to oem after having it disabled ( waiting for the ota update..) and the car seems snappier and quicker to accelerate in various speeds…or it’s just my false feeling?]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1240 Fri, 13 Mar 2026 06:22:52 +0000 juzzmee]]> https://forums.spaycetech.com/showthread.php?tid=1240
Wondering anyone here encountered a clunking sound when engaging reverse from drive?
When i engage reverse after car is in 'D', there's always a slight vibration followed by a rather loud 'Clunk', however, after 'R' is engage, vehicle will reverse normally/smoothly.
I also noticed that if i put to 'N' first from 'D', wait a sec or 2, then engage 'R', the clunking sound will be gone or less noticeable, altho' the slight vibration will still be apparent.
Seeking advise if anyone knows where should i start checking first? Read that it can be the transmission mount/drive shaft or the transmission itself.
TIA]]>
Wondering anyone here encountered a clunking sound when engaging reverse from drive?
When i engage reverse after car is in 'D', there's always a slight vibration followed by a rather loud 'Clunk', however, after 'R' is engage, vehicle will reverse normally/smoothly.
I also noticed that if i put to 'N' first from 'D', wait a sec or 2, then engage 'R', the clunking sound will be gone or less noticeable, altho' the slight vibration will still be apparent.
Seeking advise if anyone knows where should i start checking first? Read that it can be the transmission mount/drive shaft or the transmission itself.
TIA]]>