pertronix II and ballast resistor?

Engine, ignition, fuel, cooling, exhaust

Moderators: Ranchero50, DuckRyder

Post Reply
Carb
New Member
New Member
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2017 11:36 pm

pertronix II and ballast resistor?

Post by Carb »

I tried to search but keep getting conflicting answers, so here I am...

I have a '67 f100 with a 352. installed a new Napa coil and pertronix II.

As I understand it, the ballast resistor can be safely bypassed-removed.

Is this correct?

Thanks.

EDIT: Pertronix wrote back, and indeed you can remove/bypass the resistor. The weird thing is I think it may have already been removed? I measured -+12 volts to the coil at idle. DO I need to check anything else? BTW I have a new NAPA coil mounted sideways. I read below it may be an issue not being vertical but the horizontal mount is original...
Last edited by Carb on Thu Apr 13, 2017 10:34 am, edited 2 times in total.
markguiver
New Member
New Member
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2016 5:35 pm
Location: Maysville, Ky.

Re: pertronix II and ballast resistor?

Post by markguiver »

Not 100% sure about the Pertronix II but I'm pretty sure you still need the resistor with a regular (OE style) coil. The Flame-thrower coils are internally resisted so if you are using one of those you can do away with the ballast. If you delete the resistor with a stock replacement coil you might be replacing coils more often.
Mark.
1975 F-250 4X4 (The Beast)
1971 Bronco Sport
User avatar
colnago
100% FORDified!
100% FORDified!
Posts: 1882
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 8:48 pm
Location: Ridgecrest, CA

Re: pertronix II and ballast resistor?

Post by colnago »

Mark is correct. I have the Pertronix II in my 352, and the Flamethrower coil, so I was able to bypass the ballast resistor. If I reused my old coil, I would have had to keep the resistor in the loop. Also, the Pertronix I is not designed to run without the resistor, but the II is. I would suggest returning the coil, and getting the Flamethrower.

Joseph
"Sugar", my 1967 Ford F250 2WD Camper Special, 352FE, Ford iron "T" Intake with 1405 Edelbrock, Duraspark II Ignition, C6 transmission, front disc brake conversion.
User avatar
Jacksdad
Blue Oval Fan
Blue Oval Fan
Posts: 579
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:52 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: pertronix II and ballast resistor?

Post by Jacksdad »

The ballast resistor is meant to help the coil and points last a little longer by reducing voltage. One thing - even if you leave the resistor on, make sure your conventional oil cooled coil is mounted upright. Not going to happen every time, but any other way potentially leaves the windings exposed and prone to overheating. I've seen pictures of an Accel supercoil that was mounted sideways with the ignition left on, and the top blew off. E-core coils like the Flamethrower are not prone to it.
1971 DRW F350 cab and chassis with an Open Road motorhome conversion, Dana 70, 352 (originally 390)/C6, PS, power front discs, and 159" w/b.
User avatar
69Ford
Blue Oval Fanatic
Blue Oval Fanatic
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 9:59 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: pertronix II and ballast resistor?

Post by 69Ford »

I run the original pertronix I bypassed the resister wire and running straight 12 volt battery power to the coil everything is fine. Using an original non resisted yellow top coil. And as stated above do not leave the ignition on without the engine running I blew up a coil that way. If memory serves me right I believe the pertronix II has a safety feature built in that shuts it down if the key is left on to long without engine running. Our trucks do not have a ballast resister instead Ford opted to go with a resister wire which does the same thing just a lot harder to replace.
1969 Ford F100 Styleside standard cab 360 C6
Post Reply