CRG Discussion Forum

Camaro Research Group Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: WaltZ on July 29, 2021, 02:00:06 PM

Title: Points vs. Electronic Ignition
Post by: WaltZ on July 29, 2021, 02:00:06 PM
Just curious to see what is preferred for all around cruisin in your classic muscle, Points vs. EI.
Title: Re: Points vs. Electronic Ignition
Post by: x66 714 on July 29, 2021, 02:29:29 PM
I've always run quality points in my cars....Joe
Title: Re: Points vs. Electronic Ignition
Post by: PHAT69AMX on July 29, 2021, 04:33:18 PM
UniLite conversion Kit in stock Delco Points Type Distributor.
Only UniLite infrared is not "proximity sensitive" and unaffected by variations in point cam lobes or axial distributor shaft run-out, however minute or otherwise, and tolerates any if present effortlessly.
One "caveat", every Rotor Button used when a UniLite Conversion is in place, must have the bottom square locating pin length / height more than likely slightly trimmed so as to be flush with the pole piece plate thickness to prevent it protruding through and possible distorting or damaging the 2-piece black plastic UniLite "Slot Ring".
On any Delco type distributor, always be sure to remove the drive gear, disassemble, then clean & re-pack the Upper Shaft Bushing Grease Well as the upper distributor shaft bushing is NOT motor oil lubricated.
Was unaware of the upper bushing grease well, and failed to do so on a 1969 bought in 1985.
UniLite conversion installed ~1987 & driven hard for 40+k miles until about 2006 maybe.
Car had been, and still was, running just fine.
Fiddling around one day, Distributor cap off, just happened to notice "clunk clunk"! rotor button sideplay!
That's when the Grease well existed was learned, shaft was ok, swapped housings.
The UniLite using infrared light & not being proximity sensitive never missed a lick...
Nowadays, almost sadly in some ways, "no-name" UniLite Kits are on eBay for $25 total shipped to your door.
Your results may vary, there are many choices & options... and that's a good thing.
The idea of flying magnets going flying always worried me LOL
Peace
Title: Re: Points vs. Electronic Ignition
Post by: crossboss on July 29, 2021, 04:43:00 PM
For Chevy applications, use the Accel electronic conversion. For the Fords, use the OEM Dura-Spark II. For Mopar use the good 'ol OEM gold box.
Title: Re: Points vs. Electronic Ignition
Post by: jwbavalon on July 29, 2021, 07:43:17 PM
There have been several threads on electronic ignitions this being the latest  "Distributor conversion to electronic ignition"   http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=19130.0
Title: Re: Points vs. Electronic Ignition
Post by: 69Z28-RS on July 29, 2021, 08:04:48 PM
I've had Pertronix conversions in my distributors of a couple of my old 50's and 60's cars for more than 20 yrs without issue...  and I would NOT think of buying anything from Accel...
Title: Re: Points vs. Electronic Ignition
Post by: usa1ti on July 29, 2021, 08:28:19 PM
An odd mix of success and failures here. I have ran Mallory Unilites in all of my cars form the late 80s on and have never had 1 fail.
Title: Re: Points vs. Electronic Ignition
Post by: crossboss on July 29, 2021, 08:43:39 PM
I've had Pertronix conversions in my distributors of a couple of my old 50's and 60's cars for more than 20 yrs without issue...  and I would NOT think of buying anything from Accel...



Im just the opposite of you. I would never use any Pertronix product. What worked you, did not work for me.
Title: Re: Points vs. Electronic Ignition
Post by: MO on July 29, 2021, 09:52:31 PM
EI is lower maintenance and more reliable at high performance. There are a lot of preferences on EI brands. I've tried others, but Pertronix has always performed the best for me. Really nothing wrong with running points though, especially if you want to keep it stock.
Title: Re: Points vs. Electronic Ignition
Post by: BillG on July 30, 2021, 01:01:35 AM
I haven't installed one yet but, I like the on Ed Bertrand recommended in the above mentioned thread.  One wire, easy install and you use your original distributor cap keeping an original appearance.  No bad reviews that I'm aware of.
Title: Re: Points vs. Electronic Ignition
Post by: CantRepeat on July 30, 2021, 07:50:30 AM
Upon the recommendation from a user here, I installed this conversion. So far, it's been doing just fine.

https://www.lectriclimited.com/breakerless-se-electronic-ignition-conversion
Title: Re: Points vs. Electronic Ignition
Post by: WaltZ on July 30, 2021, 12:38:06 PM
great replies with interesting takes

What about voting in the above poll.
Title: Re: Points vs. Electronic Ignition
Post by: Sauron327 on July 30, 2021, 01:25:41 PM
An odd mix of success and failures here. I have ran Mallory Unilites in all of my cars form the late 80s on and have never had 1 fail.
Last year a Unilite failed in my 67 Chevelle I purchased from a friend. It was installed in the 80's and the car was in storage since 1990. Ran fine for a year then it puked. Nothing is infallible. Same set of points in my 67 Camaro for 35K miles and it runs fine. Put Breakerless in a customer's car on a dyno'd motor. Engine builder liked them. Willing to bet most owners will not put 35K miles on their cars after a frame off resto. I drive my car in the rain. No reason to vote in a poll. Find me a product that will never fail. Not going to happen.
Title: Re: Points vs. Electronic Ignition
Post by: Stingr69 on July 30, 2021, 02:57:23 PM
I like the Lectric Limited Breakerless conversion.  Too many people using those on our classic Chevy's and I never hear anything bad about them. 

I run an old Hay's Stinger conversion that uses a Chrysler magnetic pickup with a custom pressed-on reluctor inside the GM distributor.  That magnetic trigger fires a Crane multispark CD box mounted inside the car up under the dash and the stock GM coil. Working great for almost 30 years.  Even though the Hays made more power than the MSD, the competition had much better marketing.  Pretty hard to find one now but they do pop up from time to time.  I would not care if the Stinger box was bad.  It was never the best anyway.  The Crane box was better to use with the conversion. If you see one, buy it.
Title: Re: Points vs. Electronic Ignition
Post by: crossboss on July 30, 2021, 05:03:59 PM
Its all a matter of personal preference. For myself, 'I' would use an OEM electronic set up when all possible. Chevy didn't really have one until the HEI arrived. Yes, its ugly and large cap made some conversions difficult. Won't work on a correct vintage set up on the looks alone. Mopar and Ford had the luxury of some really good OEM set ups....and most of all fit under the older style distributor caps. Speaking of the Hays Stinger, that was the go to deal in the 1970s. Stinger was almost a direct copy of Chrysler's. The current MSD distributors are a direct copy of the Ford Dura-Spark.
Title: Re: Points vs. Electronic Ignition
Post by: GMAD_Van Nuys on July 30, 2021, 06:08:45 PM
When I bought my 1970 BOSS 302, the previous owner had installed a Stinger ignition system.  I have the specifications when the distributor was calibrated at Stinger in Midway City, CA back in the 1970s.  As I've searched for parts for the Stinger and haven't found anything to date, I bought a 289 HiPo distributor as a back-up.
Title: Re: Points vs. Electronic Ignition
Post by: crossboss on July 30, 2021, 09:27:47 PM
When I bought my 1970 BOSS 302, the previous owner had installed a Stinger ignition system.  I have the specifications when the distributor was calibrated at Stinger in Midway City, CA back in the 1970s.  As I've searched for parts for the Stinger and haven't found anything to date, I bought a 289 HiPo distributor as a back-up.



Mark,
Why not switch to the Dura-Spark II? Its OEM reliable, and a breeze to install.
Title: Re: Points vs. Electronic Ignition
Post by: BH69Z/28 on July 31, 2021, 01:56:53 AM
I use the Pertronix 1181LS Ingnitor along with their flame thrower coil. It has has a Hall effect sensor that senses the lobes on the shaft rather than a plastic ring with magnets. My tach works fine. It works great for me.