# Points or convert?



## MickeyKelley (Oct 28, 2011)

Do most of you stay with the factory points distributor or switch to a HEI system? Why?


----------



## pontiac (Mar 6, 2011)

points, can always fix it anywhere, while if the HEI goes down, usually no quick fix for an on the road repair.


----------



## Matthew (Feb 11, 2011)

I have standard ignition in my 68. That said, you will not find a good reason in terms of performance not to switch IMO. Matt


----------



## Koppster (Jul 27, 2008)

HEI for performance and reliability (might be why no one produces cars with points anymore). Additionally, consider a small body HEI system or convert your stock distributor, I'm pretty sure large body HEIs won't fit with tri-power intakes and may be an issue for some 4-barrel intakes as well. Defer to others for confirmation.


----------



## GTO JUDGE (May 14, 2005)

I eliminated points and went with a Mallory HEI. Easy install looks factory and works great.


----------



## allpawl66 (May 9, 2008)

M&H makes a 1 wire kit for stock appearing in your orig. dist.


----------



## geeteeohguy (Feb 2, 2008)

Personally, points. What pontiac said. Been running stock points distributors in all my GTO's for over 30 years and was never left stranded. HEI is technically "better", with no moving parts, requiring no upkeep. Me, I don't mind doing a basic tuneup every 12k miles or so....I actually find it relaxing. HEI will not make your Pontiac any faster, IMO.


----------



## SIXT5GTO (Mar 9, 2010)

I installed a stock distributor and then added a igniter 2 ignition, It has worked great for years.
I keep a stock set of points and condenser in the glove box just in case of failure.
If you like the stock look and room with the ease of electronic ignition this is a great way to go.


----------



## MickeyKelley (Oct 28, 2011)

Are these HEI failure prone? I would have assumed by now the technology would be stable since all new cars use them. Maybe not....


----------



## billcocarb (Aug 12, 2011)

I like using stock distributor with either crane or pertronix electronics added. Have done this to many GM distributors and have never had a problem. You get better spark and timing never changes as it does with points as they wear.
Still looks stock. As said before, do carry points and condenser with just in case


----------



## ALKYGTO (Mar 29, 2010)

Ignition Products

Check these guys out. You can get a new electronic dist from them or do the internal conversion and your car will still appear "correct" if it's a resto.

I also agree with Geeteeohguy that the stock points do work good if everything is in good shape internally (no wear on the guts) + that's part of the fun of old cars, working on them.

Whatever you do, don't put in a dual point dist, they are a total PITA.


----------



## JAYARTER (Feb 3, 2010)

Greetings from Arizona
I usually convert mine to OEM MSD Dist as soon as I get car running properly. With Electronic dist you can gap your plugs further because of hotter voltage and in turn should get better miliage. When I did my 71 Bronco I went from 7 MPG to 11 MPG. and no adjustments required like point setup. J


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

"It depends".... Racing and/or regularly asking your engine to rev past 5500 rpm? Unless in tip top shape a points-type distributor and even an HEI might have trouble keeping the fire lit up there. For street use and crusing, either one if kept in good working order ought to be fine. 'Snake Oil' pitches aside, an ignition system is either capable of lighting the fire or it's not --- generally speaking, there's no such thing as lighting it "better" or "faster" so that your engine will make more power, get better mileage, cure cancer, etc. A points-type system requires more maintenance, but as others have said it also is easier to fix on the side of the road and is less likely to suddenly and completely fail you 'without warning'.

Ignition systems are like lots of topics... you'll find people who rabidly take one position or another who may not necessarily be in complete possession of the facts 

Bear


----------



## geeteeohguy (Feb 2, 2008)

Well said, as usual, and I couldn't agree more. Ignition system choices are like clothing styles....do what suits your fancy. What feels right for one person may be "all wrong" for another. They all do what's intended if maintained. I'm old, my cars are old, and points are old. 'Nuff said.....


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

... and the real reason that eletronics have supplanted points is that systems based on electronic triggering are easily varied and controlled via the software that's running inside vehicle 'computers'. Points type ignitions, being 100% "hardware based"... not so much. It's not because electronics "work better", it's that they're easier to adapt to software control.

Bear


----------



## Rukee (Feb 8, 2007)

I run the factory points into an MSD unit. Uses resistance instead of voltage through the points so they never wear, plus you get all the advantages of the MSD. I hid the MSD between the fender and inner fender well so it all still looks correct.


----------



## ALKYGTO (Mar 29, 2010)

The factory stopped using point type ignition systems across the board around 1973...... Technology marches on, welcome to the 21st century.

I myself use a Magneto in my car. It's actually it's own generator and ignition voltage increases with RPM to light the fire in my blown motor because of the increased cylinder pressures. It's really "old school" as Magnetos were some of the first ignition systems, that's what WWII airplanes had, and early motorcycles too. Of course Top Fuel cars use them but they are way more advanced than the early systems. Still, with very little maintenance they are very reliable.

Electronic ignition systems are also more consistant and have fewer moving parts.

Are you "old guys" still listening to your AM radios too?


----------



## geeteeohguy (Feb 2, 2008)

Alky, I'm running the original, 96 year old magneto in my 1915 Ford Model T. It doesn't HAVE a radio!!!! (or a starter, either!!) BTW, it's as reliable as a rock.


----------



## 646904GTO (Feb 10, 2008)

SIXT5GTO said:


> I installed a stock distributor and then added a igniter 2 ignition, It has worked great for years.
> I keep a stock set of points and condenser in the glove box just in case of failure.
> If you like the stock look and room with the ease of electronic ignition this is a great way to go.


Electronic trigger accomplishes two things that points cannot do. One is the electronic trigger shuts the coil off between firings instead of grounding out the coil like points do. Second the electronic trigger is exactly the same dwell(saturation time) at every interval. Those two things equate to a more uniform flame front and a more efficient burn pattern across the piston which in turn lessons detonation. Electronics are very reliable, and of course anything can fail at any given moment. All my Classic cars(5) are converted to electronic triggers, one has a mallory, one has a GM HEI, one is Crane cams, one has a Unilite and one has a Pertronix, lol. Thats just the way it worked out.


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

646904GTO said:


> ...Second the electronic trigger is exactly the same dwell(saturation time) at every interval...


You sure about that? Think about it. At 6000 RPM, the available time between cylinder firing (0.0025 seconds) is exactly half the time available at 3000 RPM (0.005 seconds). In order for your statement to be true, the system would have to be "charging" the coil exactly the same amount of time at 6000 (or 7000 or 8000) RPM that it does at 3000 RPM (or below) --- the only way that's physically possible is for the "saturation/charging" circuit to always be using the SHORTEST time, not the longest.

Putting it another way, being able to "saturate" the coil for longer than 0.0025 seconds (at 6000 rpm) when you're discharging it every 0.0025 seconds in order to fire a plug would be a pretty good trick  

The only way to mitigate the situation in an ignition system that uses induction (coils) to generate plug firing voltage is to use multiple coils. If they don't have to fire "as often", they can "saturate" longer. Still though, that time will continue to decrease as RPM increases.

Even with all that, what generates the spark is the action of the electromagnetic field surrounding the primary windings "collapsing" at the moment the current to the primary circuit is turned off. It's this field collapse being "cut through" by the secondary windings that produces the spark in the secondary circuit. So it doesn't matter not one bit whether the field is being "collapsed" to generate the spark or if it is being "established" to generate the spark - it's the change in magnetic field that does the work - it matters not if the primary circuit is being grounded or opened to make it happen. If current flow through the primary side had been previously "fully established", then the resulting magnetic field would have been at its maximum strength. Allowing the current on the primary side to flow longer than that is not going to make the magnetic field any stronger, so you're not going to get "more" spark as a result. What happens as RPM increases is that there is less and less time available to establish the field and also less and less time available for it to collapse fully. That's the reason spark intensity drops off with RPM.

Ohhhtay... back to points vs. all electronic. Mechanical points are at a disadvantage for high rpm use because they have the same problems a cam-shaft in an engine has. It's not possible to "instantaneously" open or close the points at the last possible moment when it's time to fire the plug or begin 'saturating' the coil. The spring has to be able to keep the rubbing block on the distributor cam, and as rpm goes up that becomes harder to do. Heavier springs and more "rapid" cam lobes just wear out the rubbing block faster. An all electronic system can "use" more of the time available between cylinder firings because it doesn't have to deal with the same physical movements and inertias that points do. Trying to overcome that is why there used to be dual-point distributors on performance engines. They were 'wired' so that the coil was 'saturating' whenever either set of points were closed, but would discharge (spark) only when BOTH sets of points were open. The points were arranged on the cam so that they didn't open/close at the same time - the length of time when at least one set was closed was therefore "longer". In this way they were able to effectively "use" more of the time available between firing pulses.

Also what they don't tell you about "multiple spark discharge" systems is that the "multiple spark" part only happens at relatively "low" rpm. At some point as rpm increases, they spark once just like all the rest - there's isn't time for more. All that is why I said before, just because someone claims something doesn't make it the truth. Think about what's actually happening inside an engine as rpm changes and the consequences thereof and always evaluate claims in light of what makes sense --- 

Bear


----------



## Rukee (Feb 8, 2007)

Very informative Bear, always love reading your posts.
I never rev past 5k myself and have the rev limiter chip for 6k installed.
Also, every person I've installed an MSD unit for has been happier with the faster starts, better gas mileage and more seeming power at low end. But I can see at anything higher RPM's I would be better off with something other then the points firing the MSD. :cheers


----------

