RJT>Greg Mayman wrote in a message to Oscar Waghorn:

RJT> OW> To me pointless ignition is just that,  pointless!

RJT> GM> Another triumph of technology over common sense.

RJT>Hmmm....

RJT> GM> I've never had any problems with conventional points, that weren't
RJT> GM> fixed easily :-)

RJT>My biggest one?  They wear out.  They burn.  And,  in the case of the Mopar
RJT>stuff I tend to favor,  they're a bit of a hassle to get set right, 
unlike the
RJT>ease of the setup in the last GM car I owned.  You can't adjust it without
RJT>removing the cap,  so it's a real trial-and-error process...  That was oh, 
RJT>maybe four cars ago.  The next one had electronic ignition,  as did the two
RJT>after that.  Followed by the one I'm driving now,  which is furthermore
RJT>computer-controlled and fuel-injected.  And I like it a lot!

My first car with electronic ignition was a 65 Plymouth
Belvedere 318. I built a capacitive discharge unit back in
1966 and installed it. Worked perfectly - still had points
however. No problem is adjusting the dwell - just get a
scope and you can see the dwell time.
From then on, I did the same for every car I owned till the
newer electronic ignition systems became factory standard.


RJT>The first electronic-ignition vehicle I had was the same car that supplied the
RJT>motor that's now in my truck,  which I'm happy about,  as trying to adjust
RJT>points in that thing would be a real bear.  And if I could find a late-model
RJT>wreck and get a computer-controlled engine with wiring harness,  computer
RJT>modules,  etc. out of it I would.

RJT>This technology has had it's problems,  but I think it's currently pretty
RJT>reliable,  and like the advantages a lot.

Seems as if most every phase of technology has its problems,
but the current usage is far more problem free than anything
in the past!
Jay
---
 þ OLXWin 1.00b þ Nothing to do and no place to do it!