Your information is in concert with mine. For some reason, some folk think LH3.1 must be the more advanced direction LH2.4 took and with all the 1993 year anomalies figure they must have LH3.1. Not so.

Just this month saw a myth concerning LH2.4's behavior at WOT cranking. Already people are quoting it as fact.

As for the pinging, depending on the history (like did I just buy this car from a short-trip owner) I'd take a look with the timing light to see if the ICU was advancing at all under load. Probably need some help there to get someone to stand on the brake while I moved the throttle spool and not trust the parking brake. I'd be sure the belt wasn't put on wrong if the car was new to me. And if it was clear the knock sensor was working at all, I'd look at compression and imagine the carbon built up inside and anticipate doing a little water torture and Italian tune-up (all while running 93 gas of course).

According to my understanding of EZ-116K, the knock sensor deals with each cylinder separately unlike the Chrysler system used with LH2.0 and LH2.2 where we were told to test it with a hammer tap and timing light. That test is not supposed to be effective with EZK.
--
Art Benstein near Baltimore

If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.