What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Electronic ignition question.

Dmadd

Well Known Member
Researching electronic ignition... Wondering if I need it.
Reading e-mags site, it says the unit doesn't work (well) below 1000 rpm. Is this the way the other brands work as well? I didn't notice it on the lazar site. (though it could be hiding there somewhere) I'm under the impression EI will help my idle smoothness.... Old wives tale?
Also, one site indicated I need to use the "non impulse" mag. Is this because the gears are different? BOTH my mags are impulse coupled... (O-320 D2J) Is there a brand where this doesn't matter?
Crank sensor or hall effect?
Whats the easiest most reliable way for me to get this done?
I guess what I want to know is which one (brand) do you guys like? Opinions welcome. I realize this is probably covered somewhere on this site, and if thats the case, and the arguments are current, I'd appreciate a point out. ;-)

Thanks

Dennis
 
I have the lightspeed plasma III.
I like it, to each his own.
It is used in the right mag position. I start off of it. The left mag is impulsed coupled. I could start off of it if I had to.
I have the hal sensor. If my crankcase had already been drilled, I would have like the flywheel sensor (less moving parts). I couldn't bring myself to drill my brand new lycoming.
When I do a mag drop check, I get almost zero drop when I cutoff the mag. I get ~100 rpm drop when I cutoff the EI.

Oh, I think lightspeed is coming out with a new pickup.

I would buy this again.
 
Researching electronic ignition... Wondering if I need it.
Reading e-mags site, it says the unit doesn't work (well) below 1000 rpm.
??? They work great below 1000 RPM. I think what you misread was that the internal generator doesn't put out enough power below ~800 RPM to self-power the P-mags. They still work great and allow the engine to idle very slow below 800 RPM. The difference is they are being powered by the ship's electrical system at that point.
 
While I'm a little ways off needing to order the donk, I am still in two minds as to what kind of EI I'll install on it.

At this stage I'm torn between the E-Mag (self-powered, no possibility of phone calls to a cranky Klause) vs the LSE Plasma III that appears to be a better performer, but reportedly comes with some "not-quite-aviation-standard" wires and things.

For use in a -9A, with an IO-320 and a FP prop, what's everyone's recommendations?
 
... the LSE Plasma III that appears to be a better performer, but reportedly comes with some "not-quite-aviation-standard" wires and things.

For use in a -9A, with an IO-320 and a FP prop, what's everyone's recommendations?

News to me. They are about the same.

You roll the dice and take your chances with a mag, P-mag, LSE, G3i, or whatever.
 
Cheers, Bill.

I can only go by what others on the forums have said. I don't know anyone who's used either system personally. For reference, I based my performance and quality comments on statements already made here on VAF...
schmeddz said:
But,,, pull the connectors from the wiring when you get them and install better connectors. Get pins, connectors, and a crimper from Stien Air. LSE's come with cheap Radio shack connectors. (Save a few bucks on airplane connectors, is it worth the trouble?)
Link HERE[

Perhaps I'm being cynical or maybe just expecting too much, but if it's such a great system that the Reno guys use it, why are there suggestions to replace parts of it to reduce problems? The E-mag seems to be simple plug-and-play.

So the tradeoff comes down to ease of installation vs possibly better performance, and if the performance gains aren't that great that those outside of racing will notice them, it makes the choice even simpler.

Cheers,
 
I have read about that complaint before but in 260 hours with my P-mags I have not had an issue with the connectors. I think the trick is to properly support the wires.

The P-mags have an Adel clamp near the connector (and it can be moved as needed) so what I did was to put a double layer of shrink tubing over the wires where they pass through that clamp. This keeps the wires from moving. Thus, I have not had a problem.

By your comment on performance, I was thinking one produces more power than the other. I?m not sure this is the case. Besides, the P-mag can be tuned to your engine, thus it is more likely to give you better performance, when/if tuned properly.

The flip side of this one connector is that the LSE has many connectors and components that must be properly mounted and wired.

To me the bigger issue is a self-powering ignition vs. one that must rely on a battery that has to be replaced every few years. This adds weight and complexity.
 
Vote for LSE

Proper connections are important for all installations.
I can't tell if components are up to aviation standards on the LSE ignition.
What I do know is that it works extremely well under all conditions,
provided you install it as per Klaus's instructions.
Don't forget the fact that his ignition has been around for many years and
has a proven track record in hundreds if not thousands of airplanes.
The redundancy factor is becoming less of a concern with more and more airplanes using electric only systems and thus provide for ample redundancy
not only for ignition but also for other systems.
One mag and one LSE is hard to beat.
 
P-Mag works as advertised. Easy to install on your config

While I'm a little ways off needing to order the donk, I am still in two minds as to what kind of EI I'll install on it.

At this stage I'm torn between the E-Mag (self-powered, no possibility of phone calls to a cranky Klause) vs the LSE Plasma III that appears to be a better performer, but reportedly comes with some "not-quite-aviation-standard" wires and things.

For use in a -9A, with an IO-320 and a FP prop, what's everyone's recommendations?

Installed P-Mag on a friend's ..
RV-9A, IO-320, FP (Catto 3-blade).

1. Easily done. Just as directions indicate
2. Quickly done (right mag replaced. Kept the left (impulse) mag on)
3. Noticeable improvement (QUICKER!!! start, smoother running)

Cannot make any claims about fuel flow or performance simply because I did not do any specific tests for same.

FYI ...
I fly behind a Jeff Rose (Electro-Air), have a LSE in another project and am impressed with the P-Mag.
 
A few thoughts....

A few points.....I haven't heard any comments about Electroair http://www.electroair.net/ and how it compares with those discussed.

I like the size and compactness of the E-mags product (P-Mag now) and that it generates its own power beyond 800 rpm.

The E-Mag Company notes that they recommend going all electronic ignition. Using no mags but 2 of their P-mags instead. They suggest you get a little more performance using two P-mags vs one P mag and one magnito. Not sure this is hype/sales tactic or truth. Can you expect almost as good of boost using one P-mag and one magnito vs two P-mags?

Jim
 
The E-Mag Company notes that they recommend going all electronic ignition. Using no mags but 2 of their P-mags instead. They suggest you get a little more performance using two P-mags vs one P mag and one magnito. Not sure this is hype/sales tactic or truth. Can you expect almost as good of boost using one P-mag and one magnito vs two P-mags?

Jim

I view this similar to the shampoo tactic: "Wash, rinse, repeat". When do you stop repeating? Emag Air sells Pmags, not magnetos. Why leave half of the revenue on the table? There is significant anecdotal evidence that most of the benefit comes from the 1st EI.
 
A few points.....I haven't heard any comments about Electroair http://www.electroair.net/ and how it compares with those discussed.

I replaced an older LSE Plasma I (was on my airplane when I purchased it) with an Electroair. Really good folks to work with, and the system has been trouble-free for over 250 hours to date. I used the crank sensor and I run it with an impulse coupled mag, and start with both on. There is an option to install a guage to show timing advance, but I didn't use it. Install was straight forward (nice manual), and I've been really happy with the system. No experience with E/P mags, so can't compare there...but I'm a happy customer.

Cheers,
Bob
 
I view this similar to the shampoo tactic: "Wash, rinse, repeat". When do you stop repeating? Emag Air sells Pmags, not magnetos. Why leave half of the revenue on the table? There is significant anecdotal evidence that most of the benefit comes from the 1st EI.

From what I have learned, you get about 2/3rds the benefit (power, fuel burn, etc.) from installing one EI, anyone's EI. You are leaving the 1/3rd on the table by running a magneto. You have to ask yourself is the cost of the 2nd EI worth that 1/3rd.

The reason for most of the benefit results from one EI is they typically light the fuel/air charge before the fixed timing magneto. Most, if not all, EI's revert to around the same timing as the magneto down low and at high power settings. It is really up at cruise, where you spend most of your time, when you see most of the benefits of EI, other than the ease of starting.
 
fellas,
Would it be true to say there is a benefit to EI at lower power settings?
Do the carburetor equipped aircraft also gain smoothness at idle and lower cruise powers?
Any O-320 fuel flow numbers you want to share?
Just reading their web sites, allowing for terms I don't understand, it SEEMS like the Jeff Rose system might be the easiest to install.
I do very much appreciate all your responses... :)
Dennis
 
Last edited:
When I installed an E-mag 7 years ago my static rpm increased 50 rpm - O-320 and fixed pitch Sensenich. Climb is better, high altitude is better, leaning is better - more like fuel injection (no roughness as you lean, rpm just falls away). Can't provide any fuel flow numbers, but is certainly no worse. Plugs are much cheaper, starting is better, timing is easier.

Pete
 
fellas,
Would it be true to say there is a benefit to EI at lower power settings?
Do the carburetor equipped aircraft also gain smoothness at idle and lower cruise powers?
Any O-320 fuel flow numbers you want to share?
Just reading their web sites, allowing for terms I don't understand, it SEEMS like the Jeff Rose system might be the easiest to install.
I do very much appreciate all your responses... :)
Dennis

I started with a 135 hp O-290-D2 in my RV-9 fired by dual P-mags. The answer is yes, any engine will benefit from EI, regardless of size. The fuel burn is your choice. You can keep the same fuel burn and run at higher power settings or you can run the same power setting as before with lower fuel burn. This is true for any (?) EI installation.

As for ease of installation, take another look at the P-mags. There is only one item to install and that goes in the same location as the old mag. Remember, you have to find a location for all those parts and support the wires.
 
Electronic Ign and mag

I have a Plasma III and an impulse coupled mag, I start on both, 4 years 300 hrs no problems , Fuel injected hot starts are no problem. Lean of peak works well with the Plasma III. I have the crank trigger, its rock solid no moving parts.
Using DENSO Iridium Racing plugs with the Plasma III nice a smooth idle at 600 rpm

I am happy
Peter RV6
 
P-mag

I believe P-mags are the ignition of the future, and offer the best overall solution.

Lycoming engines were designed to have two flame fronts from opposite sides of the combustion chamber. That is why you get a mag drop when checking the mags. One EI and one mag only gives you redundancy as the mag will only fire in conjunction with the EI at a single operating condition.
The mag will fire too early at its the preset timing of 20 or 25 degrees before TDC after engine start while the EI is firing at TDC, or too late after the EI at cruise as the EI will fire well ahead of 20 or 25 degrees before TDC.

P-mags are independent of the aircraft's electrical system except for starting. After starting, they are much like mags and give redundancy, and fire together for best combustion. Like Mags, the P-mag will allow hand starting with a dead battery by simply connecting a 9 volt transistor battery to the power circuit.

The P-mag units are completely self contained with no other boxes or sensors, or coils to deal with. IMHO they are the way to go!
 
Last edited:
I used Plasma III on my BD-4. Junk - returned it twice, was blamed for breaking it and not installing it correctly - even though it worked for about 10 hours first...Hmmmm. I installed and wired the airplane with 2 radios, audio panel, VOR/LOC/ILS, engine monitor, EFIS, warning panel, CBs, alt, stand-by alt, two batteries, switches, after building the plane from plans only... but wasn't "competent enough" to install the Plasma III - Customer service worst ever.

P-mag/mag for me, working like a champ, super easy to install and set timing. great customer service. Maybe I'll go for two in the future.

FWIW...
 
Check out the EC3.

Tracy Crook from Real World Solutions sells a great system that includes EFI. Initially designed for mazda engined, he now has systems for Lycoming and Cont. You have to souce much of the extra parts (Coils, fuel pumps,injectors, bungs, plugs, wires, throttlebody - 240z works great, etc) yourself as he only sells the computer (total cost for instllation is around $2200), but once complete, works great. Completely redundant (even the fuel injection). I've had some climb issues (check past posts), but believe now that is more related to instrumentation. I know I picked up some power, as I can now overrev my engine quite easily at 8000 ft level. Still working out fuel burn numbers (again instrumentation).
 
LSE the better ignition

At this stage I'm torn between the E-Mag (self-powered, no possibility of phone calls to a cranky Klause) vs the LSE Plasma III that appears to be a better performer, but reportedly comes with some "not-quite-aviation-standard" wires and things..

I had to made the same decision. But finally I ended up with LSE Plasma III with crank sensors. The reasons for me were:

+++++ LSE with crank sensor, NO TURNING PARTS.
------ E-Mag or P-Mag replace the Magnetos. If the train gear fails, the ignition fails. Thats not uncommon.
+++++ LSE Ignition box is in the cold area, behind the firewall. Well protected.
------ E-Mag or P-Mag are in the hot area. This is OK for the Magnetos but not for electronic. Since everybody knows, that the worst enemy of electronic is heat.
+++++ LSE uses well shielded RG400 cables to the coils and the power cables are the same cables you find in every car with high voltage ignition. No reason to chance them. I myself sold them thousand times with no problems as I was an auto part dealer .
+++++ Klaus offers a supreme support if you really need help.. after you read the book.(Then he is not cranky..)
+++++ We run on 91 Oct.car gas with no problems. Burn 6.5 gal/h and cruise with 150 knots in 6000ft
+++++ LSE is for us the most reliable and powerful ignition. Thats, why they call it the "winners ignition system"

These are the reasons we thrust in LSE ignition and if you fly thousand miles over water we don?t need any surprises. We need only the best...
 
I have run both Lasar and PMags

When I built my -4, I bought a factory new engine from Van's with a Lasar system. I ran it for 7 years and it always worked but started hard and idled rough. Early on, factory support was great and I lived with it. When the product line was sold, service dropped to near zero. I never found an FBO familiar with Lasar systems.

When some maintenance became necessary, the cost of the service was well in excess of the value of a pair of new P-Mags. I have been running the P-Mags for almost 3 years and they have been flawless. Much easier starting, negligible mag drop at run-up, and "disposable" auto plugs (my choice - PMags work with either).

Good luck,

Dean
 
------ E-Mag or P-Mag are in the hot area. This is OK for the Magnetos but not for electronic. Since everybody knows, that the worst enemy of electronic is heat.

Detlef, I totally agree with you and I'll add something to your comment. It is not only heat that integrated circuits hate....they also find moisture and dust disagreeable...and there's plenty of all of these firewall forward in an aircraft.

I like the idea of the ICs being behind the firewall and that's why I went with one Lightspeed Plasma 11 (with crank sensor) and one magneto. I'm not even game to use a Plasma 111 until it has a more proven track record. My personal experience in the design and development of manufactured componentry is that very small changes to an established product can have unforseen and profound consequences. Successful time in service is the only safeguard.

I'm a great believer in componentry crucial to keeping the engine running having a BIG track record. Suddenly losing thrust can have very dramatic consequences for your health. It's the Experimental category but when it comes to the engine it's probably not wise to be TOO experimental. ;)
 
Last edited:
It is not only heat that integrated circuits hate....they also find moisture and dust disagreeable...

Add vibration and that's how a circuit board can be made to fail. Many years ago my job was to make integrated circuits fail and that's how I did it exactly ...exposed them to heat, vibration, and humidity for many hours.
 
... E-Mag or P-Mag replace the Magnetos. If the train gear fails, the ignition fails. Thats not uncommon...

...do you mean "geartrain"?

...If the gear train fails, the camshaft stops. Ignition function is the least of your problems at that point. Besides, the most vulnerable part of the geartrain is the impulse coupler, which is not used for the P-mags. I will agree that crank trigers are the most "accurate" means of reading crankshaft angle, but to say that the LSE claptrap hanging off the front of the case is more "reliable" than the Lycoming accessory geartrain is a bit of a stretch. It may very well be, but the LSE has several million hours of flying time to go before it can make that claim.
 
Add vibration and that's how a circuit board can be made to fail. Many years ago my job was to make integrated circuits fail and that's how I did it exactly ...exposed them to heat, vibration, and humidity for many hours.

Bob, a really astute comment. Plenty of vibration on a Lyc.

Personally I'd really love the P Mag system to be a rip-roaring success, and who knows, it may turn out to be exactly that.....eventually.

But as we've discussed, attaching an Integrated Circuit onto an aircraft engine places it in a VERY hostile environment and must bring into question the anticipated life span of the device.

In the end only time in service will tell.
 
I guess it is a good thing that the electronics are sealed and potted hu?


Bob, a really astute comment. Plenty of vibration on a Lyc.

Personally I'd really love the P Mag system to be a rip-roaring success, and who knows, it may turn out to be exactly that.....eventually.

But as we've discussed, attaching an Integrated Circuit onto an aircraft engine places it in a VERY hostile environment and must bring into question the anticipated life span of the device.

In the end only time in service will tell.
 
In their ad they say:
Well, the EFII system uses a very high energy inductive coil pack to deliver several times the spark energy of the most popular competitor system for more complete combustion.
Consider that the inductive sytems on a GM car had about 800uH inductance and 4A, giving them about 6.5 mJ. You remember what those round, black, oil-filled coils looked like. They had a coil core consisting of many laminations of flat iron strips to give them the inductance.

The LSE has about 140 milliJoules of spark energy, computed from E^2 C /2where E is 300V and C is 3.1 uF. The formula for an inductive system is I^2 L/2, where I is the final coil current and L is the inductance of the coil. For it to have, say, twice the energy of the LSE, with a final coil current of 10A, it would require a coil of 5.5mH; that's a lot of current to be switched! With a more reasonable 4A, it would need a 34.3mH coil, which would be quite a bit bigger than what is shown in the pictures. Compare that in your mind to the round GM coil.

It would be much more informative if they actually said exactly what their spark energy is and then in that way a more valid comparison could be made against other systems than their blanket statement! Truth in advertising!
 
Last edited:
That sounds pretty close :)

Yes, modern high energy inductive coils have less than one ohm resistance and pass the current levels you mention, though only for a very short dwell (charging) period. The average current is quite low. Capacitive discharge ignitions are typically used on small vehicles like small motorcycles which have a very limited charging system.

Almost all cars and other vehicles with a capable charging system use inductive ignitions for the high energy and long spark duration they provide.

Robert Paisley
EFII
 
Yes, modern high energy inductive coils have less than one ohm resistance and pass the current levels you mention, though only for a very short dwell (charging) period. The average current is quite low. Capacitive discharge ignitions are typically used on small vehicles like small motorcycles which have a very limited charging system.

Almost all cars and other vehicles with a capable charging system use inductive ignitions for the high energy and long spark duration they provide.

Robert Paisley
EFII

The GM coil only had 2 ohms resistance. During normal operation a 1 ohm resistor was in series with the coil to limit current. But during starting the resistor was shorted to increase coil current when the battery voltage was low during cranking.

As far as dwell is concerned, that is basically duty cycle. If you remember, the dwell on an 8 cylinder usually ran about 30?, which was about 2/3 DU At 45? between sparks. At 4A final current, the average current at high rpm was 2A X 2/3 = 1 1/3A. At low rpm where the coil time constant, L/R, allowed it to charge quickly, it was closer to 4 X 2/3=2 2/3A. The reason CD systems are used on high rpm vehicles has nothing to do with limited charging systems. Its because the time constant of an inductive system is so long relative to the short time available between sparks that only a CD can give the required spark energy.

That aside, you don't give the actual energy which is the only basis for comparison, sorta like HP. Inductive systems have some drawbacks, in that their rise-time is much less than a CD system. Because of this, a plug which is lead, oil, or carbon fouled can drain off the voltage before it reaches peak. As far as long spark duration is concerned, the LSE PIII puts out about 6-8 opposite polarity sparks at about an 80 usec spacing, which is a spacing of about 1.3? at 2700 rpm. If the inductive system's charge gets drained by a fouled plug, it makes no difference how long it lasts. If it doesn't fire, it doesn't fire.

Look, I'm not trying to start an inductive vs CD discussion. The whole point is that in order to compare systems on an energy basis, the actual value of energy must be stated. Anything else is just subjective.
 
thisngs have changed

You are talking about old points coils. This stuff has been gone from vechicle design for many years.

I'll get the data you mention when we have a chance.

I have tested countless ignition systems over the past 20 years. We have a very good feel for the comparisons of different systems and what works best from actual vehicle testing on many types of engines.

I think when you have a chance to see our parts in action, our experience in ignition design will be quite evident.

Robert
 
You are talking about old points coils. This stuff has been gone from vechicle design for many years.

I'll get the data you mention when we have a chance.

Robert

Robert, if you don't have the data at hand, how were you able to make the statement that your system had "...several times the spark energy of the most popular competitor systems..." I would think that in order for you to do that, you would have had not only your spark energy numbers, but also those for all of your competitors.
 
good point

My appologies,
We have tested so many systems in the past, we have a very good idea of what to expect from the results. If you will excuse the generalization, we'll get you some more specific data when available.
Robert
 
I'd just say that the spark energy requirements of a 6L, 4 cylinder Lycoming producing 180 hp are pretty low compared to what typical inductive discharge automotive based systems are capable of running on, say a 750 hp Conti 550 at Reno in the Super Sport Class, 250 hp turbo Subarus or 600 hp 2liter engines running 90 inches of MAP and 9000 rpm.

We are talking about replacing mags here which even do the job ok.:) CDI may produce higher voltage but genreally have less spark duration. Both systems are quite superior to magnetos. The F1 planes are finally allowed EI for 2011 and I think you'll see some switch. The big mags suck a lot of hp to turn at 4000+ engine rpm.
 
I'd just say that the spark energy requirements of a 6L, 4 cylinder Lycoming producing 180 hp are pretty low compared to what typical inductive discharge automotive based systems are capable of running on, say a 750 hp Conti 550 at Reno in the Super Sport Class, 250 hp turbo Subarus or 600 hp 2liter engines running 90 inches of MAP and 9000 rpm.

We are talking about replacing mags here which even do the job ok.:) CDI may produce higher voltage but genreally have less spark duration. Both systems are quite superior to magnetos. The F1 planes are finally allowed EI for 2011 and I think you'll see some switch. The big mags suck a lot of hp to turn at 4000+ engine rpm.

Definitely that puny little 7mJ got the job done in my Cadillac. I've read that a stoichiometric mixture will ignite with as little as 0.6mJ! I think this is going to be a big season for the IF1's that change from their mags, not that the mags weren't doing the job, but those things really don't like being spun at even the 1:2 ratio at over 4000 rpm. I've only heard peripherally about IF1 mag failures. Most of the guys advanced the timing on their mags to make up for the 7000' dalt so that the auto advance of the EIs shouldn't really make a difference. Since the PIII puts out 6-8 sparks 1.3? apart at 2700 rpm, that makes for 8-10 crank-angle degrees endurance. If you haven't ignited the charge by then, you're not going to. Agree?
 
Yep, agree. Inductive discharge systems with nothing special light off engines running 4 times the BMEP of your average Lycoming so I don't see the spark energy as much to be concerned about in this application. On a 1400 hp 2.2L drag engine at 10,000 rpm+, yes, we worry about such things.

I think you'll see our ignition system on at least one F1 racer this year along with two or three other Sport Class entries including Mike Dacey's Questair Venture which won Super Sport last year running SDS.

The F1 guys will be running on the dyno before and after and expect some fair gains. We shall see.
 
There actually are some distinct advantages to a high energy spark on an aircraft engine. These have to do with firing imperfect mixtures and dirty plugs. A high energy ignition will create more complete combustion when combustion conditions are less than optimal. It will also help keep spark plugs from fouling as easily as well as aid in starting.

Robert
 
Use P Mags

I have an E Mag/P Mag combo. So far I love them, with absolutely no problems. Engine starts very easily and with an O-360 I burn about a gallon an hour less than my buddy's RV-4 with an O-320 at cruise. Very easy installation as previously mentioned.

Rick
 
How much more efficient really?

The CAFE foundation performed actual tests EI vs mags. Pretty interesting, especially the cruise numbers....

cafefoundation.org/v2/pdf_cafe_reports/ignition2.pdf

You have to copy and paste the link above in a new browser to open. It can't be directly linked to from another site or it causes a forbidden error.
 
Last edited:
On the other hand

My 540 was built with a Slick on the LH side feeding the top plugs and an Electroair feeding the bottom plugs. All was well for about 240 hours. One fine morning at 12000 ft over the Sierra Rockies close to Banff, the EI decided it really wanted to be assigned to earth based duties. The Slick brought me home safe. Back on the ground the EI was not an easy thing to trouble shoot. It could not be made to fail on the ground. A few more flights over flat open terrain after replacing a few EI components eventually resulted in a second Slick mag like the Lycosaurus left the factory with. Nothing but joy and perhaps a few extra gallons burned since. The culprit in my case was a less than ideal trigger sensor mount bracket. Two trips off and on with a CS prop to access and replace the sensor are not a fun use of flying time. I did like the EI when it worked but it was beyond misery to trouble shoot when problems arrived. The simple solution would have been to replace everything with new components. But the new coil plates and controller were a different arrangement than the original. The builder elected to use aircraft plugs with silicon auto wires. The voltage was high enough with the Electroair that it burned up the fine coil springs and arced through the liner inside of the outer end of the spark plugs. I still believe the Electroair EI to be a good choice but I would only use automotive plugs and wires with the advice previously given in this thread about bleeding the air pressure when seating the ends. I would also consider mounting the coil plate on the cold side of the firewall by your feet. As good as all the EI systems are when they work, there are a lot of external wires and connections to trouble shoot if and when when required. A good installation with any of the EI systems will enhance the reliability and lifespan of the components.

As crude and simple as they may be, I still like my magnetos.
 
Back
Top