Hi, everyone, I got a little time this afternoon, between work and attending a local fire board meeting, and I removed the ballast resistor and connected the factory power feed and the ignition amplifier lead directly tot he + post of the ignition coil. The car started first time and ran normally, and did not die. I drove it to the fire board meeting and it behaved very nicely.
Now I have to decide: leave the ballast resistor off, or buy the NAPA recommended one part number 903 for this new coil.
I did learn from studying the manuals on this site: some of the cars with the Lucas Constant Energy system (like mine) did not have a ballast resistor; in fact the literature touted this system as not needing one. So one wonders: why did they add one later?
Anyway, all I like now is new tires; paint; climate control compressor, and I'll be ready!

 

Somewhere I have the tech bulletin announcing the addition of the ballast resistor. As I recall it was rather vague; "......enhanced performance from the CEI igntion..." or some such.

If you really, really want a ballast go ahead a try the NAPA part. It couldn't cost too much. If you change your mind, or it doesn't work, just take it off.

As I've mentioned, if you leave it off, you won't be the first.

Cheers
DD

 

Doug's answer +100.

Leave if off. The car will NOT cane for that omission.

As I said, this S3 I have is the first I have ever seen with one, and it runs crap. I have removed it also, and even with the wrong coil still fitted it runs soooooo sweet.

 

that's great news! we are in very similar places with our vehicles (recently fixed major idling issues, extremely old tires, reviving old ac system) so any good news is worth celebrating.

I removed the ballast from mine when trying to resolve idling issues and though I noticed no positive difference, I have also not noticed any detriment. It really is unnecessary.

Be sure to be picky about tire speed and weight ratings - at my local store, they first suggested tire options which are simply not viable for a car of this weight and on TX highways in July. I'm sure it gets up there in LA too. The PO of my car had also installed the oversized tires so I was very glad to get them off of there and get the correct size of tire - massive handling improvement and slight MPG improvement.

 

What did they suggest, and what did you end up buying? Just curious.

The Ser III is hardly the heaviest car in the world at 4100 pounds....but it's no featherweight, either. A "97" or "98" load rating oughta do the trick

Agreed about needing a quality tire that'll hold up to the heat. The tire temperature ratings might be useful in that regard as well.

Cheer
DD

 

Yes: usually pay more=get more, within limits.
I am looking at the Michelin Defender and a couple of Goodyear products; also a Dunlop.
My car will not see many miles this summer until I get the AC working anyway, so I can wait on a sale.

 

I put a set of these on....

Tire Details - America's Tire

You will notice the vehicle selector actually says XJS. For some reason, in Americas Tire system, the XJ6 was coming up with 205 width tires. My car had 215, so I got there by selecting XJS

Very pleased with them. Very little tire noise. Haven't exactly tried the handling on the limit, but that's not what a stately Series III is for. The tires that came off my car had almost full tread depth and were dated 1997. My tire man was "impressed" :-)

 

205/70x15 was standard spec on th Ser III Xj6 for a few years. 215/70x15 was standard issue on later cars (1984-later?)


Cheers
DD

 

That makes sense. Judging by the obsessive way my XJ6 has been taken care of, I'm pretty sure the PO would have kept the correct tires on it

 

The car had oversized old tires from 1997, size 225/60-16.
They suggested replacing them with with P215 65R15s Arizonian Brand with a speed rating of Q; I opted instead for the Goodyear Assurance ComforTred Touring 215/70R15 speed rating of T, temp rating of B.

Happy so far, a little more road noise but compared to the probably rotten old tires that it drove home on, much smoother in both handling and ride.

 

Reading my Owner's Handbook last evening; my original size in 1986 was 215 70R15. There is a used Pirelli Centurato in the spare well, and that is the brand listed as original equipment.
The handbook also suggested an inflation pressure of 33 psi but it could be reduced up to 6 psi for a smoother ride, if speed was kept below 100 MPH.

 

My first car came with a set of those Pirelli Centuratos and I found them to be incredibly good and durable. They were perhaps a little slick on newly wet roads, especially the smoother, asphalt roads but I found the internet hype of their lack of traction in water to be over-stated quite a bit.

I have previously exclusively used Dunlop Tires (like the ones you mentioned considering) after 2 repeated failures selecting good tires from terrible brands (unfortunately, gave away those receipts when the old car sold and can't remember the brands to caution you against).
Dunlops were always great tires on my XJ6; I prefered them to the Pirellis definitely. And the Dunlops handled equally well in the hot summer, rain, sleet, snow, and ice.

We'll see how these Goodyear's I just bought hold up over time - I also bought a Kuhmo tire (cheaper) of the same size to fit on the spare in the trunk as when/if I need to use the spare, I generally repair/replace the original tire immediately and only use the spare as a very nice donut basically to get where I am going.

 

I am currently testing 215/60/15 up front and 215/70/15 at the rear. The car is now lower (1" ) up front. Top of tire to fender lip is 2 1/2 inches. The tire height of the 215/60 is 25.16 and the 215/70 is 26.85. The steering does feel a lot lighter. I have to take it up to highway speed to see how it responds. If it does not respond as it should, then it's back to the 215/70 up front. Like I said this is just a test