Computer and Distributor better off a pre 93 mustang?

I was told by a local shop that our computers suck and whenever we do any type of upgrading, it would be best to get a pre 93 computer. How true is this? I've seen guys on here with SC, Turbos, and strokers and have not mentioned anything about switching out their computer. I have read about tuning and crap but not switching. Another thing I was recommended was to change out my distributor for a pre 93, something about better timing or something like that. Ever heard of it?
 
  • Sponsors (?)


Yeah, this is one of those beat to death questions.

Our computers don't suck, they're just different. Alot of guys with SC/TC/strokers are running either a custom chip tune, or a TwEECer/PMS setup.

The '94-'95 GT computer is faster than the A9L (89-93 GT 5-speed computer), but it has some "features" that aren't so desireable. The first of which is that it is pulls timing during shifts (which is only a big deal because it doesn't immediately return the timing when you release the clutch). Reading your sig, I see that you have an auotmatic which I have heard is worse at returning the timing to the motor. You can take maters into your own hands with a chip tune or self tuner, and if you really want all the control of your computer you can get a stand-alone (aftermarket PCM).

As always, be cautious with "word of mouth" tech info.
 
wytstang said:
There is nothing wrong with our dizzys, they are powering plenting of spark to high hp/tq motors with no issues. I've read more issues with the MSD dizzy failing then ours.
I haven't heard anything bad about MSD distributers :shrug:

The only thing I've heard is that some people think that they should be getting more HP for some reason with and MSD distrubuter when they're not. I would have thought that to be common sense.
 
Again, the factory 'tune' of the puters suck, not the puters themselves.

A tune/tuner can circumvent these issues and can be cheaper than a conversion (which is a step backwards IMHO).

Good luck.
 
Could you use a Fox dizzy and not have TFI issues since we have different set-ups? I would think you'd have some wiring issue's and whether or not the EEC would respond could be a another trip to boot???

A fox dizzy has the TFI on the side...ours is on the passenger fender, separate...I know Ford had lotsa issues with TFI module's...whether the SN95 change to the fenderwall was a fix I have no idea??
 
If I remember right the reason the TFI is no longer on the Dist. is due to heat. When they were still mounted on the DIST. they had a very hight failure rate. Depending on the vehicle in around 92 Ford started relocating the TFI modules off of the Dis and mounting them to a heat sink to solve the problem. I think going to a fox style dist would only be asking for a problem :shrug:
 
AFAIK, all foxes have the TFI mounted on the dizzy. SN95's seem to perhaps get more PIP issues though (I chalk it up to less room under the hood); both foxes and SN's have PIP's in the dizzy, but foxes might not quite be as hot or confined.

As fodder, one can use a TFI from a van on a fox dizzy in order to give a fox a remote mounted TFI.

The TFI issue is not normally that huge on foxes, IMHO. Many many folks get 100-150K miles out of a TFI, which is great for any ignition module as far as I am concerned.

There are also two different styles of PIP for foxes - one like SN95's (reads the rising and falling edge) and the earlier version which only catches one edge.

Not that any of that info helps. :)
 
HISSIN50 said:
AFAIK, all foxes have the TFI mounted on the dizzy.

That is correct! I guess I should have clarified. In 92 Ford started Relocating the TFI modules on some of thier cars. They did not move on the mustangs till 94. I know for sure the full size trucks changed in 92 along with the taurus's.