healeys
[Top] [All Lists]

[Healeys] Smiths Tach Conversion

Subject: [Healeys] Smiths Tach Conversion
From: healeydoc at sbcglobal.net (David Nock)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 11:23:46 -0700
References: <8CE1A8520F4F41D-2024-18538@webmail-d064.sysops.aol.com> <0D4A16B7-D88B-448C-89A9-4656964B0BEA@sbcglobal.net> <8CE1A95F41E51F0-E54-128CA@webmail-m103.sysops.aol.com> <8CE1A9F3001770B-187C-723@webmail-m010.sysops.aol.com>
New electronics and wired up differently. You eliminate the white  
loop wire and the tach pick up is on the neg side of the coil. Also  
the car must be converted to negative ground.




David Nock
British Car Specialists
Stockton Ca 95205
209-948-8767

www.britishcarspecialists.com
.
.

On Jul 27, 2011, at 11:07 AM, warthodson at aol.com wrote:

> By convert them, what exactly do you do? Do you modify the internal  
> electronics? Do you loop the white wire thru the plastic block ( as  
> original) or simply run it straight thru the block (no loop) as  
> Nisonger now recommends?
> Gary Hodson
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Nock <healeydoc at sbcglobal.net>
> To: warthodson at aol.com
> Cc: healeys at autox.team.net
> Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 11:06 am
> Subject: Re: [Healeys] Smiths Tach Conversion
>
> Yes this is very common. We have to convert them quite often after  
> someone has install an electronic ignition system.
>
> One more reason i recomend  to stay with a trusty set of points  
> ignition.
>
>
>
>
> David Nock
> British Car Specialists
> Stockton Ca 95205
> 209-948-8767
>
> www.britishcarspecialists.com
> .
> .
>
> On Jul 27, 2011, at 8:00 AM, warthodson at aol.com wrote:
>
>> Recently, we have been told by Nisonger that that Smiths  
>> electronic tachs may
>> malfunction when connected to a distributor using a Pertronix  
>> ignition. This
>> problem is separate from the problem associated with switching  
>> polarity. If
>> you have been expriencing problems, even though you had your tach  
>> rebuilt &/or
>> converted to neg. ground & you are using a Pertronix, this may be  
>> part of the
>> the issue. See correspondence below. Has anyone heard about this?
>> Gary Hodson
>>
>
> =

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>