Hi every one,Im new to this sight and wondering if you could help me?
what is the differance in the HO/nonHO,is it cam-heads-computer or all the above?
I have a 90 full size bronco Im restoring with a lot of modifications,1 is along time ago I bought a mass air conv kit from summitt racing because I in stalled a 92 roller cam mustang motor and a 5spd from a 90 f150,I started to have problems so I bought the mass air kit, it come with an air meter , injector and wiring loom & the computer,the loom plugs in between the stock loom and the computer,on the new computer it said non HO, the kit solved my problems and the differance it made was great.(the gread in me wants more)
It now runs the 351 firing order and sequential injection instead of bank,I read and reserched some of the mass air conversions others have done and Im wanting know what the differance is in the HO non HO computers, I changing to a 264- 270 comp cam and would like to know if I should be runing an HO computer or to cip the computer I have or both.an HO and chip it.
I've rebuilt the motor last month and trying to get a little more out of it.Im changing cams cuz the mustang cam is for a 3,400 lb car ,I wheigh around 4,600.
this is what I have now
1990 full sixe bronco
92 full roller cam motor .030 over
9.1 piston,270 comp cam,heads shaved .010,3 angle valve grind, 3/8 studs with guide plates 1.6 crane full roller rockers,truck manifold & intake, headman headers msd ignition & coil, k&n, mass air converted .
5 spd from a 90 f150
6" lift,6skyjacker shocks,exstended superlift radius arms.
409 gears in front 410 rear with aussi lockers in both,35/12.50 mud kings.
4 wheel disc brakes
truck soon to be painted & pictures soon to be posted.
Im more curious about the computers/distributar modual/oxegen sen,are they different from HO/nonHO?
please tell me what you think.

 

I have the same kit. The only difference between the HO and non-HO kit is the injector firing order, and that's accomplished with different pinouts in the add-on wiring harness. The computers in the kits are all the same and they are all HO computers.

So you want more power? More low rpm power or high rpm power? What cam did you just put in? Did the motor make more or less power with the cam change?

 

let me tell u what I did, it may be wrong, and i'm still relunctant to change back, but here it goes...I have the same mass air conversion kit, I have a 5.8 .stroked to a 409 ci, in a 94 F250 4x4, and my thinkin was the computer is a "mustang" firing order, the same as a 5.8, but w/ the harness labeled "non HO', I changed the firing order by swaping four injector wires, to match the HO order, which is the same as a 5.8, I think it helped some but i'm still fighting some other drivibility probs. now, and may put back to the original order.........maby some post on here will help us, oh yea, I had MOTORVATION burn me a chip for a "HO" mustang computer, and got that in there too, still i'm undecided........

 

Yes. changing the firing order is a must if you start out with a non-HO kit... I did the same thing. But your drivability problems are not due a possible mismatch here.. it's because the computer was designed to run a 5.0 and you have it on a 6.7 liter motor!! This isn't a trivial difference.. none of the stock parameters are correct, you need a tuner period.

 

I understand that, and I thouht the chip would help, and it is a custom chip, just for this engine, but I hate the idea of not being able to "tune" it myself, and relying on a "TUNER" so what about a Air Adjuster Addon or a "Tweeker", that way I can do the tuning??? what do u think Paul

 

The problem with a chip is that the only way to get one that is accurate for your motor is to have it calibrated on a dyno.. and that isn't gonna be cheap. All the other tricks like calibrated MAF meters and the air adjuster are just bandaids, they really don't fix the big problem in this type application. Here's the thing, there's a lot more to getting the most out of a motor than adjusting the timing and scaling up to bigger injectors. A bigger motor will not only need more fuel, but a steeper fuel curve. A stroker may only need 2% more fuel at idle, but for every 1000rpm it will need pregressively more fuel than the 5.0, 10% more at 1500rpm, maybe 25% more at 3500rpm, 50% more at WOT. It depends upon the combination of parts on the bigger motor of course, but you can see that simply scaling the 5.0 fuel curve 25% higher for example creates as many problems as it fixes. It may be good at mid rpms, but still lean at WOT and pig rich at idle. And that's just the fuel curve, what about the ignition curve, and engine load calculations? I'm about to purchase a tuner for my motor, I have a new intake and I'm gonna have heads soon and that will require bigger injectors, so I'll be well past what the stock computer can accurately handle. Right now the Tweecer is high on my list, I like what it offers and being a tech guy I haven't seen anything about this yet that looks beyond my scope. I also plan to get a wideband O2 sensor and plug it into the Tweecer software so I can datalog the motor and tune from there.. it'll be the same as running the truck on a dyno just by driving it around and recording what the computer is doing. A tuner is easily the most cost effective way to go. It may take dozens or hundreds of "tunes" before you finally get the motor dialed in where you want it, and with the tuner there's no extra cost for that. If you have to get a new chip burned or go back to the dyno every time you want something changed it's gonna cost you mega $$.

 

I had found a sight that was called fordmuscle.com ,go to the tech dept,scroll down to mass air conversion , progect big ugly truck this was very helpfull with a step by step procedure and a whole lot of other tips from strokers to engine build up tech info,thanks for,your in put made me go back to this sight and re read some things that I forgot.
I havent bought my cam yet my machinest recomended it I have read that other have ran the e303 with out probs.

 

where do you get the tweecer at and how much are they?