The petronics will help on a worn dist. as the switching devise is not
machanical.
on a good distributer it makes no differance in performance as long as you
run in street range RPMs and you have a good set of pionts installed not
some cheapo off brand...and have a good condenser...
Mike Kerr
Restoration Products
3730 todrob Ln.
Placerville, CA 95667
Ph# 530-644-6777
Fax# 530-644-6777
E-mail mikekerr@innercite.com
Web; innercite.com/~wolfgang
-----Original Message-----
From: David R. Conrad <conrad1@gte.net>
To: Fred_Katz@ci.sf.ca.us <Fred_Katz@ci.sf.ca.us>
Cc: Daniel Neuman <dneuman@stars.sfsu.edu>; Tomet9@aol.com <Tomet9@aol.com>;
Datsun List <datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net>
Date: Saturday, May 13, 2000 9:44 AM
Subject: Performance with Pertronics (was re: dwell adjustment)
>Fred:
>
>I make no claim as to improved performance with the Pertronics, as I
>said in my
>post on dwell adjustment--I simply don't know if my recently improved
>performance can be attributed, even in part, to it.
>
>I can however, participate in a pseudo-scientific test in an attempt to
quantify
>any difference.
>
>The reader must (rather carefully) follow the rather complex situation
>I'm about
>to explain in order to avoid confusion ;-).
>
>I have two distributors, essentially identical as to advance curve,
>etc., and I
>will refer to them as "A" and "B". "B" for "bad", maybe ;-).
>
>"B" was my installed dist. for many years until I started to notice that
>if I
>set the point gap on one lobe of the cam, it would vary by a thousandth
>or so
>from the gap set on another lobe of the cam. The dwell meter would also
>"oscillate" slightly about a mean value.
>
>I decided to substitute dist. "A" which did not exhibit these
characteristics;
>in fact, with dist. "A" the dwell meter gave a "rock solid" reading.
>
>I had been running with dist. "A" for quite a while (at least several
years)
>when I decided to install a Pertronics unit with the hope of improving
>performance. I installed the Pertronics in dist. "A". Turns out, I
installed
>it incorrectly (I plead inadequate installation instructions) and I
experienced
>several occasions of the car starting to miss, backfire and quit in some
bad
>situations. Through consultation with "the list" (Jim Tyler, Dan
>Neuman) I
>identified the problem as being the fact that I hadn't secured the
>ground wire
>to the advance plate, as it should have been.
>
>So, having had my confidence in the Pertronics unit somewhat shaken by my
>experiences while it was incorrectly installed, I decided to install it
>in dist.
>"B", and completely refurbish dist. "A" with all new components (points,
rotor,
>condenser. and cap), properly gapped, so that I could just "slap it in"
>in the
>event of a Pertronics problem (if I was disabled on the "no shoulder,
>two lane
>road" on which I've had my most distressing problems).
>
>Now Jim Tyler did not like the fact that I had installed the Pertronics
>in "B",
>the "lesser" of my two distributors, contending that "shaft slop" would
degrade
>the Pertronics performance. No such "slop" was apparent to
>me--absolutely no
>discernible movement laterally. I attributed the slight gap variation
>to cam
>wear. (I agree it is difficult to rationalize how a rotating cam would
>experience differing amounts of wear of the lobes).
>
>Anyhow, the dwell meter shows a "rock solid" indication, whatever that
implies
>with a Pertronics, and it runs (subjectively) "great". Dist. "A" with
>the all
>new points components did not work when I replaced "B" with it.
>
>With "B" working well, I've developed enough confidence that, back up "A"
>remains in my workbench cabinet, awaiting the time that the Datsun
>allows me the
>time to investigate the "why" of it not working.
>
>Sorry this has gone on so long, much more so than intended. Anyhow, the
>pseudo-scientific comparison motivates me to "slap in" "A" and get it
working
>:-).
>
>I welcome any thoughts regarding the conduct of my comparison tests.
>What kinds
>of things would best be compared? Hopefully, there can be a measurable
>difference in performance and/or fuel consumption, but it would be just as
>meaningful to find out there is no statistically significant difference.
> Maybe
>it will be possible to arrive at something better than the subjective
>terms/opinions we use (nothing wrong with "sluggish", Fred ;-) )
>
>--but I doubt it...
>
>Dave
>
>'"cool" '68 1600
>Kailua-Kona
>
>Daniel Neuman wrote:
>
>> Hi Fred,
>> Maybe you coudl explain to us (me mostly) how changing the
>> dwell will make the car more or less sluggish??
>> I did not notice any change (I think) When you say sluggish what
>> do you mean exactly??
>> Daniel
>>
>> > Dave,
>> >
>> > Maybe I'm alone in going with points over Pertronics. Perhaps if I used
a
>> > hotter coil and knew how to tweak a Pertronics, the performance might
come
>> > close to what I get with points.
>> >
>> > After rebuilding my U20, the engine was running great. Smooth idle,
quick
>> > acceleration, due to most things on the engine being fresh. With about
100
>> > miles on it, I put in a Pertronics and the engine response was sluggish
>> > compared to before. I tried changing the timing, regapping the plugs,
and
>> > tweaking the carbs but it didn't help. I happily re-installed the
points.
>> > Thousands of miles later they are still fine.
>> >
>> > This wasn't my first exposure to Pertronics. My '66 1600 had one and
it's
>> > performance was sluggish also, compared to my '70 1600 with points. And
the
>> > '66 1600 had been recently rebuilt.
>> >
>> > I like the points as it gives me more control over tuning. Does anyone
>> > know of a how-to site for using the Pertronics, with performance
>> > comparisons to points?
>> >
>> > Fred
>> >
>> > ______________________ Reply Separator ____________________
>> > > Subject: Re: dwell adjustment
>> > > Author: "David R. Conrad" <conrad1@gte.net>
>> > > Date: 5/12/2000 9:42 AM
>> > >
>> > > Tom:
>> > >
>> > > There has been a lot of recent discussion on the list after I simply
>> > > mentioned that I had Pertronics in the question of dwell adjustment.
>> > >
>> > > I think that the "list" discussion speaks for itself; that is, think
>> > > most users are pretty favorable towards it. Just getting rid of the
>> > > points and the need for replacement/adjustment alone, in my
>> > > estimation is reason for going for it (Pertronics).
>> > >
>> > > Hard for me to say, from a performance aspect, that it's made a big
>> > > difference, because I was doing a lot of things about the same time
>> > > (carb & valve adj., new plugs, etc.) resulted overall in the car,
>> > > "running a LOT BETTER than it had in a long time", and still does.
>> > >
>> > > Hope this helps.
>> > >
>> > > Dave
>> > >
>> > > '68 1600
>> > > Kailua-Kona
>> > >
>> > > Tomet9@aol.com wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Conrad,
>> > >>
>> > >> Am a new member of the list and just wanted to know if
>> > > installing a > petronics over stock points is that much more
>> > > noticable when driving. I used > to have a allison pointless on my Z
>> > > years ago, how different is this one?
>> > >> Would appreciate a response if you have time.
>> > >> Thanks,
>> > >> Tom, 69/2.0
>> > >>
>> >
>> >
|