A
Anonymous
Guest
Will the ignitor 1 module work with an msd ignition? If so how would I go about setting it up and which msd ignition would be best?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Hey dstud2000,
The PI2 can be used with a MSD box. I don't know about the PI1. However, as I understand it the purpose of the base MSD unit is to produce a long duration spark. The PI2 has this capability built into it. So, if you need a PI2 to run the MSD unit and your not planning to add timing control (retard capability) to the system (high CR or turbo) you will be spending $150 for very little return. However, if you go PI2, and FlameThrower2, you will be getting a good upgrade with the option to go MSD at a later date.
As a side bar, you don't say which distributor you are running. If you have an early car with the Load-O-Matic dizzy you should switch over to the 68-73 "dual advance", "single vac" dizzy when you go PI2, or switch to the DSII (dual advance single vac).
Enjoy the process - Steve
The PI2 can be used with a MSD box. I don't know about the PI1. However, as I understand it the purpose of the base MSD unit is to produce a long duration spark. The PI2 has this capability built into it. So, if you need a PI2 to run the MSD unit and your not planning to add timing control (retard capability) to the system (high CR or turbo) you will be spending $150 for very little return. However, if you go PI2, and FlameThrower2, you will be getting a good upgrade with the option to go MSD at a later date.
As a side bar, you don't say which distributor you are running. If you have an early car with the Load-O-Matic dizzy you should switch over to the 68-73 "dual advance", "single vac" dizzy when you go PI2, or switch to the DSII (dual advance single vac).
Enjoy the process - Steve
Steve,
I2 will not produce multiple sparks for sequence, it adjusts dwell based on RPM. Pertronix makes a CD box similiar to MSD that does multi sparks, but I2 by itself does not. It also adjusts spark for interference. HEre is a list of capabilities:
http://www.pertronix.com/ignition/ignitorII/index.htm
Both can be wired to MSD. That is what MSD does, multiple sparks for complete burn.
Slade
I2 will not produce multiple sparks for sequence, it adjusts dwell based on RPM. Pertronix makes a CD box similiar to MSD that does multi sparks, but I2 by itself does not. It also adjusts spark for interference. HEre is a list of capabilities:
http://www.pertronix.com/ignition/ignitorII/index.htm
Both can be wired to MSD. That is what MSD does, multiple sparks for complete burn.
Slade
A
Anonymous
Guest
Well thanks for all the info., I think I'll have to price out the MSD and Pertronix ignition systems and go from there. Also I have one more question. The ignitor says you don't have to make any timing adjustments, do you have to time it when you first install it though?
You still treat it like a regular dizzy and always set initial timing.
Are you refering to this quote:
"Adjusts spark timing over the entire RPM range to compensate for the inherent electronic delay resulting in more stable timing."
All that is saying is that it basically is that it offers a more stable signal. it doesn't adjust timing, that is still the dizzy's job.
Slade
Are you refering to this quote:
"Adjusts spark timing over the entire RPM range to compensate for the inherent electronic delay resulting in more stable timing."
All that is saying is that it basically is that it offers a more stable signal. it doesn't adjust timing, that is still the dizzy's job.
Slade
Steve. I think you know this, but others may not. The loadomatic dizzy works on a lower ammount of vacuum from the carb. Through some ports and spark advance valve, the carburator maintains better advance even in certain circumtances where the manifold vacuum may fall. For instance, with wide open throttle, the vacuum falls even at a relative high RPM. Loosing the vacuum advance at that point is not good.
Now, loadomatic carbs produce less vacuum to the dizzy, and the dizzy is calibrated to produce the correct advance with less vacuum. They function together. See where I am headed?
You cannot just swap in a later dizzy for a loadomatic dizzy. Your carb will no longer give adaqute vacuum. Now -- there are a lot of folks out there that have swapped the carbs through the years, and are still running the other half of a loadomatic system. If you have a later carb that uses throttle body vacuum (vacuum port to the dizzy comes off above the throttle butterfly) you will be giving too much vacuum to the old loadomatic dizzy. If you are one of these, by all means, swap out to a later dizzy.
You USED to be able to search the site for old posts and read all this. But since the crash a while back, the search only goes back to about 11/1/03.
You may wonder what a guy with a 240 and 65 pickup knows about this -- well the 240 had an Autolite 1101 carb with loadomatic setup in 1965 and 66 only. As the emmission controls emerged, the loadomatic setup was phased out. The carbs and dizzies were both changed (later autolite 1100 carbs have the place in the casting for the control valve, but the ports are no longer machined).
Later dizzies are often listed as "thermactor" dizzies. They have in fact NOTHING to do with the thermactor (air pump) for emmissions. But since they began use with the thermactor, that's how they are referred to. The later dizzies have a single vacuum hose attachement, AND internal weights and springs that mechanically advance the spark as the cetrifugal force of the RPM increases. Please do not confuse this type of dizzy with a "dual vacuum advance distributor". The dual vacuum reference is only to the existence of two vacuum attachments. One that advances (in the normal location in the middle) and another one that retards the spark. Another lovely emessions addition.
Well -- I think I have pretty much spewed out all I know. Hope it helps.
Now, loadomatic carbs produce less vacuum to the dizzy, and the dizzy is calibrated to produce the correct advance with less vacuum. They function together. See where I am headed?
You cannot just swap in a later dizzy for a loadomatic dizzy. Your carb will no longer give adaqute vacuum. Now -- there are a lot of folks out there that have swapped the carbs through the years, and are still running the other half of a loadomatic system. If you have a later carb that uses throttle body vacuum (vacuum port to the dizzy comes off above the throttle butterfly) you will be giving too much vacuum to the old loadomatic dizzy. If you are one of these, by all means, swap out to a later dizzy.
You USED to be able to search the site for old posts and read all this. But since the crash a while back, the search only goes back to about 11/1/03.
You may wonder what a guy with a 240 and 65 pickup knows about this -- well the 240 had an Autolite 1101 carb with loadomatic setup in 1965 and 66 only. As the emmission controls emerged, the loadomatic setup was phased out. The carbs and dizzies were both changed (later autolite 1100 carbs have the place in the casting for the control valve, but the ports are no longer machined).
Later dizzies are often listed as "thermactor" dizzies. They have in fact NOTHING to do with the thermactor (air pump) for emmissions. But since they began use with the thermactor, that's how they are referred to. The later dizzies have a single vacuum hose attachement, AND internal weights and springs that mechanically advance the spark as the cetrifugal force of the RPM increases. Please do not confuse this type of dizzy with a "dual vacuum advance distributor". The dual vacuum reference is only to the existence of two vacuum attachments. One that advances (in the normal location in the middle) and another one that retards the spark. Another lovely emessions addition.
Well -- I think I have pretty much spewed out all I know. Hope it helps.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Hi All,
One of these days we will have to take a shot at defining this ignition thing. There seems to be general agreement that an ignition upgrade is important, and should be done early. There seems to be agreement that there is no clear winner, performance wise, between the PI2 and the DSII. However, I don't think I have seen a base system recommendation a with logical sequence of upgrades. For example, is there anything on the market that would allow the driver to retard the timing a couple of points from the drivers seat (would be useful for turbo or NOX set-up)?
Back to the point, I think we could agree that the Load-O-Matic is not the best choice. I think the obvious first step in the upgrade process is the dual advance dizzy with PI2 and FT2, or the DSII. However, there is a issue vis-a-vis using either of these dual advance systems with the origional 1100, which issue relates only to the 65 - 67 cars. I personally delt with this issue by setting my system up as a "mechanical only" advance. However, I can understand why this won't work for everyone (my car is not a daily driver and I am not concerned with mileage or smog cert). On the otherhand, I don't think using manifold vac is the solution, i.e., to strong a signal at idle. Can the spark control valve be removed so that the dizzy can be plumbed to a true port vac?
As for adding MSD, this is a $150 minimum deal and I am not clear on what you get for the money. Is multi-spark really a benefit over maximizing dwell control and spark duration? I don't know. Anyway, while there will always be room for opinion, this question comes up so often it seems there should be a clear "first step" recommendation for the 65 - 67 cars.
For starters, I'll throw my system into the pool. 1968 "dual advance", "single vac", dizzy with 10* weight stop. Add PI2 and FT2, eliminate ballast and cap (plug) vac ports in the dizzy and the carb. Advantage, absolute knowledge of initial, all-in and rate of advance and a system that will run with any carb combo I have seen (including multi carb systems).
This could be very useful exercise - Steve
One of these days we will have to take a shot at defining this ignition thing. There seems to be general agreement that an ignition upgrade is important, and should be done early. There seems to be agreement that there is no clear winner, performance wise, between the PI2 and the DSII. However, I don't think I have seen a base system recommendation a with logical sequence of upgrades. For example, is there anything on the market that would allow the driver to retard the timing a couple of points from the drivers seat (would be useful for turbo or NOX set-up)?
Back to the point, I think we could agree that the Load-O-Matic is not the best choice. I think the obvious first step in the upgrade process is the dual advance dizzy with PI2 and FT2, or the DSII. However, there is a issue vis-a-vis using either of these dual advance systems with the origional 1100, which issue relates only to the 65 - 67 cars. I personally delt with this issue by setting my system up as a "mechanical only" advance. However, I can understand why this won't work for everyone (my car is not a daily driver and I am not concerned with mileage or smog cert). On the otherhand, I don't think using manifold vac is the solution, i.e., to strong a signal at idle. Can the spark control valve be removed so that the dizzy can be plumbed to a true port vac?
As for adding MSD, this is a $150 minimum deal and I am not clear on what you get for the money. Is multi-spark really a benefit over maximizing dwell control and spark duration? I don't know. Anyway, while there will always be room for opinion, this question comes up so often it seems there should be a clear "first step" recommendation for the 65 - 67 cars.
For starters, I'll throw my system into the pool. 1968 "dual advance", "single vac", dizzy with 10* weight stop. Add PI2 and FT2, eliminate ballast and cap (plug) vac ports in the dizzy and the carb. Advantage, absolute knowledge of initial, all-in and rate of advance and a system that will run with any carb combo I have seen (including multi carb systems).
This could be very useful exercise - Steve
steve,
I'll try to avoid the last time we went around on this issue.
You're right, there is no clear winner in this debate. I've tried the following combinations:
1) Pertronix I1 with stock coil
2) Pertronix I1 with Flame thrower Coil
3) P I1 with flame thrower coil and MSD Digital 6+
4) Duraspark 2 with flamethrower coil and MSD Digital 6+ with 8mm wires
What do I recommend?
what ever fits your budget. I found no real difference in performance between #3 and #4.
Why did I end up with #4? I wanted to be able to us stock over the counter available parts if I ever get stuck somewheres. I was tired of carrying point around in my trunk just in case (never needed them though). Also, someone gave me a DS2 dizzy for free. ALso, since I intend to go EFI eventually with the Holley system, a larger cap and rotor will allow me to make use of timing controls the ECU has without worrying about rotor phasing.
Dwell control? Don't need it for DS2. Already compensated for. You don't have to worry about the gap on points or the gap between the pertronix and sensor under the cap. It is solid state on the DS2.
control spark duration? does I2 do that? I'm not sure, it didn't seem to though.
Dial in retard from the cockpit? MSD makes that system.
What is the advantage of the MSD? Multiple sparks, more energy per spark. I get about 2MPG more on the highway (yes, I tracked my mileage before and after, I write my mileage down every time I fill up on gas). Is that a big deal? Up do you. it's about a 10% improvement for me, so that's about $3 a week it saves me, so it saves me about $100 a year (I don't drive the mustang december to march). I drive about 10k miles a year on my 65. I also have a much smooth idle. On the model I got (a little more expensive) I got dial in rev limiters (2) and 2 voltage activated timing retards (for like NOS or whatever). With the MSD (on both DS2 and Pertronix) I was able to open the plug gap for more power and mileage. with pertronix and flamethrower, I opened the gap to .042. Now I'm running .055 gap with no problems.
The real point here is this. upgrading to electronic ignition is a good idea. The systems are comparable. If you want a cheaper system, then go Pertronix witha flame thrower coil. You'll notice an immediate difference.
If you are just looking for a good, cheap upgrade, go with #2. You'll be very happy with it. If you decide you want MSD at a later date, you can add it on. It isn't necessary to run the pertronix unit. It's also not needed for the DS2 set up actually.
Slade
I'll try to avoid the last time we went around on this issue.
You're right, there is no clear winner in this debate. I've tried the following combinations:
1) Pertronix I1 with stock coil
2) Pertronix I1 with Flame thrower Coil
3) P I1 with flame thrower coil and MSD Digital 6+
4) Duraspark 2 with flamethrower coil and MSD Digital 6+ with 8mm wires
What do I recommend?
what ever fits your budget. I found no real difference in performance between #3 and #4.
Why did I end up with #4? I wanted to be able to us stock over the counter available parts if I ever get stuck somewheres. I was tired of carrying point around in my trunk just in case (never needed them though). Also, someone gave me a DS2 dizzy for free. ALso, since I intend to go EFI eventually with the Holley system, a larger cap and rotor will allow me to make use of timing controls the ECU has without worrying about rotor phasing.
Dwell control? Don't need it for DS2. Already compensated for. You don't have to worry about the gap on points or the gap between the pertronix and sensor under the cap. It is solid state on the DS2.
control spark duration? does I2 do that? I'm not sure, it didn't seem to though.
Dial in retard from the cockpit? MSD makes that system.
What is the advantage of the MSD? Multiple sparks, more energy per spark. I get about 2MPG more on the highway (yes, I tracked my mileage before and after, I write my mileage down every time I fill up on gas). Is that a big deal? Up do you. it's about a 10% improvement for me, so that's about $3 a week it saves me, so it saves me about $100 a year (I don't drive the mustang december to march). I drive about 10k miles a year on my 65. I also have a much smooth idle. On the model I got (a little more expensive) I got dial in rev limiters (2) and 2 voltage activated timing retards (for like NOS or whatever). With the MSD (on both DS2 and Pertronix) I was able to open the plug gap for more power and mileage. with pertronix and flamethrower, I opened the gap to .042. Now I'm running .055 gap with no problems.
The real point here is this. upgrading to electronic ignition is a good idea. The systems are comparable. If you want a cheaper system, then go Pertronix witha flame thrower coil. You'll notice an immediate difference.
If you are just looking for a good, cheap upgrade, go with #2. You'll be very happy with it. If you decide you want MSD at a later date, you can add it on. It isn't necessary to run the pertronix unit. It's also not needed for the DS2 set up actually.
Slade
A
Anonymous
Guest
Well, I think you guys answered all my questions about that, thanks a million.
A
Anonymous
Guest
xt falcon - As Slade says, he uses 55 with good results. I use 44 with good results. When you get to far you will get a "miss". You will be able to tell when you get there. I cannot go beyond 44 without slight miss.
Slade - the 55 is the first actual proof I've seen to support the value of the MSD. The retard control would be another reason to spend the $$. Buy the way, I assume you are using the vac advance system?. Do you use port or manifold vac? Do you know what weight stop is in your DSII? I'm running 35* all-in with occcational lite ping at high rpm WOT. I'm thinking I might be slightly lean at the top end. Would be helpful to know where you are as a comparo.
Steve
Slade - the 55 is the first actual proof I've seen to support the value of the MSD. The retard control would be another reason to spend the $$. Buy the way, I assume you are using the vac advance system?. Do you use port or manifold vac? Do you know what weight stop is in your DSII? I'm running 35* all-in with occcational lite ping at high rpm WOT. I'm thinking I might be slightly lean at the top end. Would be helpful to know where you are as a comparo.
Steve
steve,
I'm not sure of the weight stop because I've never dug into the DS2 yet. I am still using the vacuum advance running it from the ported vacuum on my carb.
My initial advance is set at 10*BTDC and total advance at 36* BTDC. I have no pinging at that final advance.
Have to remember, my MSD is a slightly higher end MSD (the digital 6+). The normal MSD 6A does not have retard controls IIRC. That is an additional unit that you add it. I went with teh digital 6+ because it was cheaper then buying the MSD 6AL and a retard control combined. Plust the Digital 6+ has a dial in Rev limiter, where the 6AL has plug in rev limiters.
I'm tempted to open up the gap again, but I'm waiting to see what the Aussie head/intake does for me.
Slade
I'm not sure of the weight stop because I've never dug into the DS2 yet. I am still using the vacuum advance running it from the ported vacuum on my carb.
My initial advance is set at 10*BTDC and total advance at 36* BTDC. I have no pinging at that final advance.
Have to remember, my MSD is a slightly higher end MSD (the digital 6+). The normal MSD 6A does not have retard controls IIRC. That is an additional unit that you add it. I went with teh digital 6+ because it was cheaper then buying the MSD 6AL and a retard control combined. Plust the Digital 6+ has a dial in Rev limiter, where the 6AL has plug in rev limiters.
I'm tempted to open up the gap again, but I'm waiting to see what the Aussie head/intake does for me.
Slade
FrankBoss
Well-known member
I'm glad you guys started this thread..i was just logging on to ask.
Cold starts with a petronix is not as bad as the points correct?
Isnt there a catch for people running very early 144-170's??
My engine is stock with no mods..I like to keep it as close as possible but improve the Ignition thats in it.. other wise i will stick with the points..they do work after all.
Frank Canon
Cold starts with a petronix is not as bad as the points correct?
Isnt there a catch for people running very early 144-170's??
My engine is stock with no mods..I like to keep it as close as possible but improve the Ignition thats in it.. other wise i will stick with the points..they do work after all.
Frank Canon
A
Anonymous
Guest
Hi Frank,
When you say early 144 / 170 I assume you mean thru 1963. In 1964 the distrbutor drive bore was changed. All dizzys, Load-O-Matic thru DSII, from 1964 on can be interchanged. If you have a pre-1964 car the catch you are referring to is that you are going to have to stay with the Load-O-Matic. Which, given that you are wanting stay stock, is not a bad thing. Pertronix makes a Ignitor and an Ignitor II for your dizzy. Either will drop into your stock dizzy and work well for you. The most important thing about the install is to be sure the Ignitor gets 12 volt. To do this without having to run a new wire to the dizzy (would blow your desire to retain stock look) is to remove the ballast resistor in the wire from the ignition switch to the coil. Specifically, Ford used a 6 volt coil in these cars. In order to prevent early failure of a six volt coil in a 12 volt car they installed a resistor in the ignition line. If you simply remove it you can hook the Ignitor to the coil exactly as the points are now wired. You can even continue to use your stock coil, but you will reduce its life. For this reason, I would go with the Pertronix Flamethrower 2 coil. It 's 12 volt and made to go with the Ignitor (recommend the Ignitor II). One last point, many of these cars have had the ballast resistors removed over the years. So, you may not have one. If you do it will be in the red line between the ignition switch and the firewall under the dash. It will take the form of a small flat retangular box (usually white) or a resistor wire that is clearly maked as a resistor wire. If you don't want to spend a day looking for something that might not be there you can check, or have your local mechanic check, the voltage at the coil. If you have 12 volts your resistor is already gone.
Steve
When you say early 144 / 170 I assume you mean thru 1963. In 1964 the distrbutor drive bore was changed. All dizzys, Load-O-Matic thru DSII, from 1964 on can be interchanged. If you have a pre-1964 car the catch you are referring to is that you are going to have to stay with the Load-O-Matic. Which, given that you are wanting stay stock, is not a bad thing. Pertronix makes a Ignitor and an Ignitor II for your dizzy. Either will drop into your stock dizzy and work well for you. The most important thing about the install is to be sure the Ignitor gets 12 volt. To do this without having to run a new wire to the dizzy (would blow your desire to retain stock look) is to remove the ballast resistor in the wire from the ignition switch to the coil. Specifically, Ford used a 6 volt coil in these cars. In order to prevent early failure of a six volt coil in a 12 volt car they installed a resistor in the ignition line. If you simply remove it you can hook the Ignitor to the coil exactly as the points are now wired. You can even continue to use your stock coil, but you will reduce its life. For this reason, I would go with the Pertronix Flamethrower 2 coil. It 's 12 volt and made to go with the Ignitor (recommend the Ignitor II). One last point, many of these cars have had the ballast resistors removed over the years. So, you may not have one. If you do it will be in the red line between the ignition switch and the firewall under the dash. It will take the form of a small flat retangular box (usually white) or a resistor wire that is clearly maked as a resistor wire. If you don't want to spend a day looking for something that might not be there you can check, or have your local mechanic check, the voltage at the coil. If you have 12 volts your resistor is already gone.
Steve
Similar threads
