difference b/w BE and EA?

Discussion in 'Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech' started by Foxfan88, Sep 3, 2007.

  1. i downloaded EA and BE to look around in them. and i notied EA has the dashboard and drag strip stuff. not sure what the other stuff was but what does BE give you that EA doesnt??

    and the programs look real nice compared to caledit and calcon? how exaclty do you upload to a tweecer on them? cal edit has the write tweecer button, didnt see anything like that on EA or BE
  2. I haven't used BE yet, so I'll have to let someone else pick that up.

    BE = Binary Editor
    This is where you will make the changes to the tune file. Here you will change the CID Scalar, disable the EGR, load the correct MAF Transfer, etc.

    EA = Eec Analyzer
    This program takes a datalog (created by tweecer rt, or other dataloggers), and makes suggestions for various tune settings.
    EA will help you set the Injector Slopes, Injector vs Battery Offsets, dial in the MAF Transfer, etc.
    Once EA has proposed new settings, you will open BE and make the recommended changes to your .bin file.

    Hope that makes sense,
  3. i see, this stuff is starting to make more sense to me everyday. i am hoping to get a tweecer rt here soon and start tuning.

    can i really do anything w/o a wideband to get performance or is a wideband the only real way to get good performance increases?

    thanks for the help
  4. You will need a wb for WOT/OL tuning.
    All the CL stuff can be done fairly well with the stock O2 though.

    I tuned for several months without a wb, and made some pretty decent drivability improvements.

  5. So in order to use the suggestions that EEC analyzer come up with after the datalog do you NEED binary editor to put in the new numbers? or can you put them in manually in caledit and save 55 bucks? isn't caledit pretty much the same as binary editor?...modifying the stock program file to suit your needs?
  6. Yes, the primary function of BE and CalEdit are the same; To modify the .bin/.ccf files.

    The difference between BE and CalEdit is that changes can be made to BE formatting.
    CalEdit is locked down pretty tight, so if there is an error in how something is diplayed, or a value is calculated from the hex incorrectly YOU have no way of fixing it.
    Your only option is to contact Mike, and wait for him to incorporate the change. (this can take a while)

    BE was created due to the lack of support from CalEdit with regard to getting changes made to the formatting files.
    BE will allow the creation of .bin file formats. CalEdit only allows the proprietary/encrypted .ccf file format creation. This means that a tune created in CalEdit cannot be loaded to any common/cheap/standard J3 chip. So a tune created in CalEdit cannot be loaded to a Moates.net chip (which would free up the tweecer to be used on another vehicle)

    I'm sure there are other differences, but these seem to be the main advantages in my mind.
    Keep in mind that I have not used BE yet... I only tinkered with the 'draft' version a few months back.

    If you are looking for an alternative to CalEdit (and you probably should be), then in addition to BE also look at TunerPro.

    Let me know if any of this didn't make sense...
    I'm sure Clint Garrity could explain things better... :nice:

  7. So are you saying you can basically burn chips with the BE like a normal dyno tuner does?

    I don't mind Caledit, a few things are really confusing but the main things that I don't like so far are....
    1. you can't select more that 16 datalog functions
    2. whatever things I click on, for example load, tps,loop status, rpm, ect, act, some will be wack readings, like the ect will go up and down with the rpms, loop status will be blinking on and off constantly, just weird stuff, I found if I do or don't put RPM as a selection it makes the big difference in some of the things working properly or not....but I have no idea and it really sucks! What could I do to fix this?
    3.Before I was trying to change the adaptive control min/max and whatever I was trying to put into it it would either go to 0 or 1 after I clicked refresh or out of the box....Wtf is wrong here?
  8. With these kinds of issues the first question is...
    What .bin/.ccf file are you using? and does it match the strategy you have selected in the bottom of the CalEdit screen?

    1. As I understand it, this is a limitation of the USB cable. More functions could be added, but then couple of your data functions may not be 'in time' with the rest of that sample. Using a dataq can get you 4 more channels. (last I heard Mike was working to 8 out of the dataq, but the same data delay is a concern with this)

    2. This kind of issue would be best suited for a post in EECTuning.org or on the Yahoo board.
    Some of the ecu's don't display right, and it is a know problem. Does your datalog look right?

    3. When converting the text you enter in CalEdit to 'hex' (which is what the ecu uses), there is a rounding error.
    This doesn't really sound like a rounding error though.
    Again, this issue may be best suited for EECTuning.org or the Yahoo board.

    Sorry I can't be more help, but hopefully this will get you started...
  9. Thanks Jay,

    I am using the A9L strategy which is what I have.

    And all the messed up displays do show up in the datalogs just like how I see it when recording, I could even show someone some where the maf, tps, act are showing wack readings and such.....I'll check out the other boards for that though

    Something I'm sure you can answer me on is.....I just bought the EEC analyzer....I also have a wideband BUT the narrowband simulator isn't working SO the eec only sees one working 02 sensor, this would mean I can't effectively use the analyzer right? since it runs off the datalogs and they all look at the short and long term fuel trims for calculations, since I only have one would that mean I would get wrong results since it's really deciding the fuel trim off of one 02 sensor? or something like that....Thanks, Sean
  10. Sean,
    Something else you may want to try is sticking a voltmeter on one of the sensors as it enters the ecu, Maybe the ACT or ECT.
    This will help deterimine if you have a wiring issue or if there is just a communication issue between the tweecer and ecu.

    I'm a little fuzzy on what you are doing with the O2's.
    You replaced one of your factory O2's with a WB, but the NB simulator isn't functioning properly?
    I'm sure you went through the 'calibration' and setup of the NB?

  11. Hey there. Let me help where Jason left off. I use BE and EA. Best $55 spent and I actually bought 4 licenses, two of each! Plus I think I bought a third I havent even loaded yet. Why? Because Clint has helped me so much and he almost instantly gets you a fix and correction to what ever your problem is. He even gives you definition files to try out before he puts them in the next web update, which is free to everyone else after that. Why did I feel the need to pay for additional? Well honestly I hardly use the other laptop or pc but I know money motivates and nothing is free. I want precision advice and expert opinions. Oh, and well Clint is one of us right? He is just like us, has a car he tunes and he is just helping us out right? So I am tickled pink to pay the man his $55 because he lives in California and I'm near Memphis TN and it's almost like he is a neighbor coming over holding a wrench.

    Now.... to your questions. With the BE you can cheat and get more than 16 data log functions. For instance if you select the ECT, you also get the ACT as a bonus without having to check it. I think Load is that way too, you get LoadX with it. Clint is creative on that end. I don't think CBAZA does that yet but the A9x (GUFB) series does.

    You asked about burning chips. Yes with BE that is seemless with the Moates hardware. Just get a $60 chip, an $85 burner and you are in business. It takes your BE binary and writes it to the chip with no problems. I use the EA to dyno my friends cars. I burn them their chips for $250 including the chip. The EA is your best friend.

    If you go to eectuning.org you'll see where I've picked up substantial MPG by leaning my car further than 14.7. I'm actually running 17.5 to 18:1 AFR in cruise mode. Yes that is lean but all the newer cars run that and I have Ford documentation that pretty much confirmed I should be able to get 18:1. I run GT40P heads though and a wide band is a must if you want to go that lean otherwise you'll never know because the factory O2's just sign off and go to sleep after about 16:1.

    Remember, the BE and EA are in CONSTANT development. Almost weekly if not even daily. The updates he finds are FREE and updated via the web. You will not regret it because it is guys like us that Clint uses to supply us all the free updates with as new things are discovered. Oh, and the definitions are open source. So if you are a programmer you can do things too!

    I think I have this set up for email updates on the posts. If I don't respond quick remember I have 3 little boys and about 6 jobs, plus a wife of 14 years I spend more time with than I do my two Mustangs :nice: