Pertronix Ignitor III, any experience P-related or not? Options

[solex]

Spoke with Carl from Pertronix.

(1) I'm on vacation and cannot confirm the stock distributor number but guessed at 0-231-174-005 (from ebay pictures) if any one can confirm that would be great, I'm not sure how many different stock distributors there are out there

When I get home:

(2) Verify that 12V is on the + of the coil

(3) There should be no other wires on the - side of the coil except the Pertronix

(4) 2.3 ohms is too high and they recommend no more that 1 ohm other wise the engine will run hot

(5) check the spark at the coil, should just at 3/8" to a ground which indicates 35k vols

(6) check the spare at the plug which should also jump 3/8" to a ground

Thought this was going to be easy and a nice upgrade...

[sportlicherFahrer]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/bye1.gif) OP here. I ended up canning the Ignitor III. Never ran it actually. I seem to remember that it wouldn't allow use of a tachometer without some extra work, or some other major drawback. Went to an Ignitor II and ran it that way for a while. Now still running the II, but switched to carbs and it is driving a 6AL Digital MSD box with appropriate additional bits(Blaster 2 coil, tach adapter, 8mm wires). I have no experience with MSD and D-jet, but I'd imagine it'd be okay. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

If you downgrade to a II it should run fine with D-jet.

[solex]

Got it running, after checking everything I had my son start the engine while I adjusted the distributor, turned out the distributor was not 100% seated before and I did not remember the correct location.

I'm going to order their "Flame-Thrower II Coil, Epoxy Filled (45, 000 Volts, 0.6 Ohm), Black" coil part number 45111, as the Pertronix tech recommended no more than 1 ohm resistance at the coil and supposedly will give cooler running temperatures.

I will check the engine temp before I replace the coil (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

[Rand]

Pertronix worked great for me for 20+ years. Then I got a 123 dizzy. Better yet. Points are nice to have in the glove box in case you need a backup, but surely no where near the performance of newer tech.

[Al Meredith]

I've had problems with two pertronix units . I noticed the advice from pertronix that they want ONLY their unit on the 12volt side of the coil. That may have been my problem because I have the electric fuel pump plugged into the coil along with the P unit.

[solex]

I've had problems with two pertronix units . I noticed the advice from pertronix that they want ONLY their unit on the 12volt side of the coil. That may have been my problem because I have the electric fuel pump plugged into the coil along with the P unit.

The tech said something similar and that they were not that keen on something else plugged into the negative side of the coil.

I just went out and checked it again an the engine started right up and the idle was very steady.

[solex]

I have given up.

I order there epoxy coil with 0.6 ohms resistance and found both a vacuum leak and a fuel leak, everything has been corrected including a new cap and rotor but still am experiencing a hunting idle, bucking & pinging under acceleration.

I installed new points and a condenser, set the dwell the timing. Idle and accelerates perfectly...

I'm going to see if I can return the parts.

[ndfrigi]

here is my experienced with pertronix, bought my 1st 914 75 1.8 FI last 2011. The car last registration was 2003 and been sitting for 8 years as non-op. So 2011 since I bought it, did nothing with the dizzy except just look at the inside and it is clean, so I didn’t bother changing anything except replace spark plugs and wire for the ignition system and fix all fuel lines and installed SS tunnel lines and other needs to be restored since it was a non-op for 8 years.
I was able to drive the car for more than 4 years until the pertronix failed. Installed old contacts points just to test and it did run again. And since I also have a used pertronix from my stash of dizzy, grab that pertronix and installed it and it run well again even not knowing the condition of that pertronix. Sold the car last 2017 with same pertronix. So meaning, as long you have the right or proper installation, pertronix should be better than contact point.

[solex]

I have no doubt that Pertronix I & II works based on everyone's experience.

I purchased version 3 to see if it will also work and have not heard from anyone else that has it running. I'm inclined to say that it does not work with a stock D-Jet setup, this of course is not a scientific conclusion based on a single data point

[Gatornapper]

My dizzy just went bad & I have MSD and see this as the perfect time to get rid of points.....just thinking of a new 009 from George with Pertronix 1875A OR Pertronix D186604 Flame Thrower dizzy for $140.....

1. Will either work with my MSD?

2. Which would be preferable - the 009 or Flame Thrower?

PS: Anyone ever heard of a mechanic removing one of the centrifugal advance springs to radically change the advance curve? I haven't - but one spring is gone and no where to be found - and there is no place for it to get out of the dizzy........

GN

I checked everything even called Pertronix prior to purchasing to make sure the plug wires I had were good. I will have to call them again.

I may need to downgrade to a II or I or back to good old points and condenser.

Thanks for the responses

[sportlicherFahrer]

The 009 and pertronix units will "work" but they have the wrong curve and will never run properly. I'd recommend a stock unit over those, and with vacuum hooked up in a T from each carb to the advance pot, or pony up for the 123 unit that seems to be working well on these engines.

[rbzymek]

I installed a Pertronix III ignitor, Flamethrower dizzy and their recommended coil on my 2056 L-Jet this past summer ($245). I have the recommended resistive plug wires. After a 10 mile warm up I would get ignition drop outs at idle which were severe enough to cause a stall. I then performed the voltage and resistance tests that they requested and it passed the tests. I initiated a warranty return and found that the replacement ignitor behaved the same way. I suspect that it could be corrected by reducing the ignitor gap but there is no adjustment. An internet search revealed that I was not the only one having drop outs when fully warmed up.

When I requested a refund from Pertronix they refused and referred me to the seller (CIP1). I am hopeful that CIP1 will provide a refund after which I will probably switch to 123Ignition.

[Gatornapper]

Jim -

PRICELESS information - thank you. You know I have Weber IDF-44's, right? Not D-jet.

Now - where to connect the vacuum line? On the IDF 44's there is a very small tube for a vacuum connection at the bottom of the carbs - is this point of sufficient size?

TIA,

GN

The 009 and pertronix units will "work" but they have the wrong curve and will never run properly. I'd recommend a stock unit over those, and with vacuum hooked up in a T from each carb to the advance pot, or pony up for the 123 unit that seems to be working well on these engines.

[Gatornapper]

Thanks for the info.........

I'd love the 123 someday, but just out of my budget now.

Not sure what to do now......hate to stick with points......I have EI in my old '70's Triumph motorcycles.....

GN

I installed a Pertronix III ignitor, Flamethrower dizzy and their recommended coil on my 2056 L-Jet this past summer ($245). I have the recommended resistive plug wires. After a 10 mile warm up I would get ignition drop outs at idle which were severe enough to cause a stall. I then performed the voltage and resistance tests that they requested and it passed the tests. I initiated a warranty return and found that the replacement ignitor behaved the same way. I suspect that it could be corrected by reducing the ignitor gap but there is no adjustment. An internet search revealed that I was not the only one having drop outs when fully warmed up.

When I requested a refund from Pertronix they refused and referred me to the seller (CIP1). I am hopeful that CIP1 will provide a refund after which I will probably switch to 123Ignition.

[sportlicherFahrer]

I'm running with 40's on mine. Stock cam with carbs should in theory be able to use stock ignition curve was my thinking, and it hasn't been a problem. Also running MSD being triggered by an ignitor II. From what I read on the III it is incompatible with tachometers and/or ignition boxes.

I am using the small vac port near the bottom of the carb on each side. It is actually above the throttle plate, so it is ported vacuum. The vac ports from each carb need to be T'd together to prevent a pulsing vacuum signal.

[Gatornapper]

Hmmm.....just thinking - my '76 2.0 was running perfectly - I cannot imagine better - with the 009 and its centrifugal advance.

How does the Pertronix change the advance curve?

What about a stock dizzy (vacuum advance) and the Pertronix?

Enquiring minds want to know.......

TIA,

GN

The 009 and pertronix units will "work" but they have the wrong curve and will never run properly. I'd recommend a stock unit over those, and with vacuum hooked up in a T from each carb to the advance pot, or pony up for the 123 unit that seems to be working well on these engines.

[Gatornapper]

Jim -

Totally got you on the vacuum lines being "T'd"....was thinking my ports were below the throttle plates tho.....same level as the air mixture screws.....

Is there a thread evaluating vacuum advance performance vs. centrifugal advance performance on Type 4's using carbs?

One top 914 shop in Colorado advised me to bend the tabs in the dizzy to keep the advance from going a full 27 deg, cutting the advance back about 10 - then advancing the idle timing to about 5 to 7 degrees......he said it would improve performance between idle and about 3,000 rpm a lot......

Hadn't done that yet....

GN

I'm running with 40's on mine. Stock cam with carbs should in theory be able to use stock ignition curve was my thinking, and it hasn't been a problem. Also running MSD being triggered by an ignitor II. From what I read on the III it is incompatible with tachometers and/or ignition boxes.

I am using the small vac port near the bottom of the carb on each side. It is actually above the throttle plate, so it is ported vacuum. The vac ports from each carb need to be T'd together to prevent a pulsing vacuum signal.

[sportlicherFahrer]

I honestly don't have any hard data on the differences between a Bosch 009 and the flamethrower. My flamethrower ran like crap, and my stock distributor with the pertronix ignitor II driving my 6AL runs strong as hell.

As far as your 009 running fine, it all comes down to how you have your particular engine dialed in I suppose. From what I've read and experienced over the years, I don't think they have the optimal advance curve for any road going application. Fine for idle to WOT on a track, which is where they gained popularity with the big crowd. Just my opinion though.

Haven't seen a true evaluation of vac vs. no vac. That'd be interesting to see.

[Gatornapper]

Seems this should be so simple - but it's not.

Seems like the least expensive path to great carb performance (Pelican: here -

https://www.pelicanparts.com/techarticles/9...iming_carbs.htm )

would be a 205AA dizzy with vacuum advance, Pertronix ignitor, and MDS with timing set at 34 deg. BTDC at 3200 rpm.

But it appears you cannot get a 205AA anywhere at a reasonable cost.

I'm reluctant to get another 009 - although at one time mine ran fine - because of comments here.....and a 123 is out of my budget and a goal someday.....

GN

I honestly don't have any hard data on the differences between a Bosch 009 and the flamethrower. My flamethrower ran like crap, and my stock distributor with the pertronix ignitor II driving my 6AL runs strong as hell.

As far as your 009 running fine, it all comes down to how you have your particular engine dialed in I suppose. From what I've read and experienced over the years, I don't think they have the optimal advance curve for any road going application. Fine for idle to WOT on a track, which is where they gained popularity with the big crowd. Just my opinion though.

Haven't seen a true evaluation of vac vs. no vac. That'd be interesting to see.

[sportlicherFahrer]

I've also heard of folks using the 205AB from a 1.8 with good results. Still vacuum advanced, but no bottom trigger points which is a mute point. May be able to find one of those more easily and for less.