If you have a 5.0 HO ECM from a mustang it will work with whatever meter you use as long as its calibrated for the inj.
The bold/underline is used to emphasize the ASSUMPTIONS being made.
If you are comfortable with these assumptions and the associated risks... then you have everything you need to know.
If it were me?
I would confirm every detail of that meters calibration. Call the manufacturer, and if needed send it in for verification or re-calibration.
DO not use a cobra ECM they are not as aggressive as the a9l or a9p and whatever sister ECMs there are.
I have seen this over and over again on this site.
Can you elaborate on how the X3Z is "not as aggressive"?
spdjnky u answered what i needed to know.
thats all iwanted to know. what im basicaly asking is can i bolt on the Maf and injectors and be fine like without a tune. :?:
Ryan, nothing against spdjnky because he is trying to help based on the limited info you have provided, but you are still guessing at what you have.
Also, please post the catch code of the ecu, just to make sure we aren't dealing with some wierdo computer...
Yes you can put in a 24# inj set and calibrated MAF with an a9l or a9p (or sister) ecm.
I agree, ASSUMING he has an A9* or similar, and the MAF really is what he thinks it is...
The cobra ecm is already calibrated for 24# inj and has less timing when shifting.
Does it matter what the timing is between shifts?
Assuming there is less timing in the X3Z between shifts, I can't see how that would make a noticeable difference to how the car runs...
Are there other differences that would make a SIGNIFICANT performance difference?
That kinda looks like a ProM meter to me thats a good one and will be fine if its calibrated for the inj.
Yes, it does look like ProM...
Also being its a 75mm it will be calibrated for small inj like 19,24,30#. So you should be on the right track.
Again, using the bold underline to highlight the assumption of the previous vehicle/application being n/a.
I quoted you alot here, and that is usually mistaken as an attack. Don't take it that way... you would know if I wanted to attack...
I'm just trying to emphasize that there a ton of variables to verify... and that if ALL of them are not verified, then the OP is still guessing.