Re[4]: Electronic Ignition???

[Toby Erkson <Toby_Erkson@ccm2.hf.intel.com>]

Wow, my bust!  A clerk in a auto parts store told me that Compu-Fire had an 
electronic eye -- guess he was way off base!  My apologies to everyone and 
Compu-Fire for the mistake and thanks for the double-check, Curt.

The electronic eye stuff is still true for those units that have 'em.  
Compu-Fire units, of course, will not have these problems.
     Toby Erkson
     air_cooled_nut@pobox.com
     '72 VW Squareback 1.6L bored and stroked to 2.0L
     '75 Porsche 914 1.8L for sale
     Portland, Oregon, USA

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: RE: Re[2]: Electronic Ignition???
Author:  type-3-errors@umich.edu at SMTPGATE
Date:    5/20/97 4:48 PM


----------
From:      Toby Erkson[SMTP:Toby_Erkson@ccm2.hf.intel.com]
Sent:      Tuesday, May 20, 1997 9:25 AM
To:      type-3@umich.edu
Subject:      Re[2]: Electronic Ignition???

If you want to split a thick hair I feel the Pertronix is better because it
uses a series of magnets to trigger the electronic unit while the Compufire
uses an electronic eye.  The magnets won't be affected by dust, ice or
water inside the dizzy; the electronic eye can (since this stuff shouldn't
be in there this probably only concerns off-roaders).

I'm not sure which C-Fire system is being referred to here, but the
Compu-Fire basic points replacement setup and the Pertronix both use the
same Hall cell trigger, i.e. magnets.  I even did a reality check on mine,
nope no electronic eye!

Curt
70 sb auto