Opinions on engine monitors

[jazztheglass]

I am putting an engine monitor in my Cessna 340 this summer.  I recently put an EI CGR-P in my Mooney and am pleased with it.  Is the new EI MVP any better or just newer?  For those that have a CGR is the 3rd instrument, the "C" worth the extra money as part of the package?  I know of the Garmin txi series and it didn't seem any better to me.  Are there any new or upcoming engine monitors that might be better.  JPI always makes a nice one but for a twin they appear cost-prohibitive to me. 

Thanks

Jeff Allen

[Jeev]

Are you looking one to replace your instruments(primary) or just advisory?  Yes the primary JPI’s are spendy but if you are just looking for advisory the JPI 790 is nice and doesn’t break the bank (in twin AMU’s ),  my buddy has one in his 310R and it’s nice.  I’m running a special on them now feel free to PM me for pricing or let me know if you have any additional questions.  

Oh and post some pics of your 340!! I’ve been lusting over twin Cessnas for a few months now .

[carusoam]

Three manufacturers...

JPI

EI

Insight

 

Advisory is the lower cost way to go.  Have to keep the ship’s gauges... as primary.

JPI and EI are the most advanced way to get primary data.  JPI is the most common around here.

The EI CGR is the scaled down version but may require two to get all the data to display continuously

The Insight is similar in scale to the CGR.  Very modern design....

And for the BIG G TXi... We have one review on this site so far... stellar would be the word I would use to describe that experience. But... was acquisition cost one of the variables? Was saving money not an issue?

 

You have to do your own research to determine which model works best for a twin, and in your twin...

PP Mooney thoughts only... not a twin mechanic...

Best regards,

-a-

[Dream to fly]

+1 for JPI 900 but it is not plug and play.  You have to get your hands dirty to get it custom to your plane.   Just getting all my tanks finished and sending units wired.  I hope to have the unit up and running by next weekend.  The kit they send is jam packed with parts then its up to you or your mechanic to make it fit and work.   You could wire tire things off and loop wires but for the clean looking layout it takes hair pulling, and a choice selection of words and some elevator music to get it done. 

[HRM]

Ei is the best, hands down.

[gsxrpilot]

If you want advisory only, the GEM G4 from Insight Avionics will be better than either of the offerings from JPI or EI. It is Primary for EGT, CHT, and TIT. 

But if you're gonna spend the money for a Primary display, the EDM-960 would be my choice. The MVP-50P from EI is probably as good or better a monitor, but you'd have to install two of them for your twin. That's a deal breaker for me just based on panel real-estate alone, never mind the cost. 

In fact, while we're on the subject, what is it with EI needing to sell two instruments to get full primary coverage. Their CGR-30 line is the same way. It's supposed to compete with the EDM-900 except that you have to buy two of them. It doesn't make sense to me. As I see it they really only compete effectively against the EDM-930 in a single.

I'll get off the soapbox now...

[Igor_U]

No doubt MVP50 is better unit, with more features but price is higher then CGR30 and would require custom panel to fit it.

I love my CGR30P  but you'd need two for twin while I'm not sure about MVP as I looked only for my Mooney install. Keep in mind installing CGR30 would open many holes in your panel as it replaces primary instruments, so think about what to do with those.

 

[M016576]

4 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

If you want advisory only, the GEM G4 from Insight Avionics will be better than either of the offerings from JPI or EI. It is Primary for EGT, CHT, and TIT. 

But if you're gonna spend the money for a Primary display, the EDM-960 would be my choice. The MVP-50P from EI is probably as good or better a monitor, but you'd have to install two of them for your twin. That's a deal breaker for me just based on panel real-estate alone, never mind the cost. 

In fact, while we're on the subject, what is it with EI needing to sell two instruments to get full primary coverage. Their CGR-30 line is the same way. It's supposed to compete with the EDM-900 except that you have to buy two of them. It doesn't make sense to me. As I see it they really only compete effectively against the EDM-930 in a single.

I'll get off the soapbox now...

That’s kind of true, but kind of not true.

If you buy a single CGR-30P, you can replace every option you *select* as a primary.  The issue is that you can’t select enough options to replace *all* the gauges in a Mooney panel.

I installed a CGR-30P (just the single gauge) in my Missile a few years back.  I replaced all the “old” gauges with it, except the fuel indicators.  If I wanted to replace the fuel quantity indicators, I’d need the CGR-30C... or I’d need to swap out that selection for two other options (ie, leave the old oil P and oil T, and add fuel indicators for left and right to the cgr-30P).  

The cgr-30P does have fuel flow and a totalizer- so it does a great job of backing up the old school fuel Q gauges.... although the JPI models do the same.

So yes... and no. 

For $3500 less than a comp. JPI- I’m willing to live with the mechanical fuel indicators buy buying the CGR-30P.

 

[jazztheglass]

I am going to install this as replacement for mp, tach, oil pressure, oil temp, CHT, EGT, OAT, timer

I am going to keep the analog fuel gauges and use the fuel flow feature

My 340 was definitely a project.  Here are some pics.  My mechanic thankfully only lets me do cosmetic repairs so these are kind of before/after

 

Thanks in advance for your input

 

[johncuyle]

I went with a pair of CGR-30 (C&P) for my Mooney.  That was primarily a panel layout consideration.  I have a pair of 3" slots on the left side of the panel that I can put them in and have them right in front of me for my panel scan.  Either the 930 or the MVP would have had to go over on the right, farther out of my sight line.  I kind of wish I had room for the 50 over on the left side, but the 30's give me all the information I need and the displays are very nice.  Now that I've written the check odds are very good Dynon will announce certification for the SykView for M20's or Garmin will announce G3X plus GFC-500 STC for M20 at Oshkosh.

Edit:  While panel space may not be an issue on the Cessna, there might be a panel situation in which a pair of the P and a single C make sense for panel space and layout reasons.

[gsxrpilot]

8 hours ago, M016576 said:

That’s kind of true, but kind of not true.

If you buy a single CGR-30P, you can replace every option you *select* as a primary.  The issue is that you can’t select enough options to replace *all* the gauges in a Mooney panel.

I installed a CGR-30P (just the single gauge) in my Missile a few years back.  I replaced all the “old” gauges with it, except the fuel indicators.  If I wanted to replace the fuel quantity indicators, I’d need the CGR-30C... or I’d need to swap out that selection for two other options (ie, leave the old oil P and oil T, and add fuel indicators for left and right to the cgr-30P).  

The cgr-30P does have fuel flow and a totalizer- so it does a great job of backing up the old school fuel Q gauges.... although the JPI models do the same.

So yes... and no. 

For $3500 less than a comp. JPI- I’m willing to live with the mechanical fuel indicators buy buying the CGR-30P.

 

I thought about this when I was doing my engine monitor. But I couldn't figure out anyway to remove the old gauges and leave the fuel gauges. They're all part of the same cluster in a Mooney. So the only way to remove the cluster is to replace it with an instrument that covers all gauges in the cluster. I didn't want a bunch of old "inop" gauges in the panel. 

Since installing the EDM-900 which was the cheapest way to replace all the old gauges... I've found the fuel gauges to be the best part of the upgrade. I now can skip fuel stops I used to have to make, just because I know exactly how much fuel I have and where it is at all times.

[M016576]

3 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

I thought about this when I was doing my engine monitor. But I couldn't figure out anyway to remove the old gauges and leave the fuel gauges. They're all part of the same cluster in a Mooney. So the only way to remove the cluster is to replace it with an instrument that covers all gauges in the cluster. I didn't want a bunch of old "inop" gauges in the panel. 

Since installing the EDM-900 which was the cheapest way to replace all the old gauges... I've found the fuel gauges to be the best part of the upgrade. I now can skip fuel stops I used to have to make, just because I know exactly how much fuel I have and where it is at all times.

I just left the old gauges in the panel.  It wasn’t worth it to me to remove them for the cost, and I didn’t see the benefit of replacing the fuel gauges.  To each their own!

[kris_adams]

I have the P and C in my Mooney. Im pretty happy with the gauges but not so happy with the EI EGT probes and a few other things. We’ve probably put 7 or 8 replacements and I need one right now. I guess EI had a bad batch of probes about 14-16 months ago and I must have gotten them. I’ve also had to ship the gauges back to EI once and it seemed to take forever.  I’ve heard EI has great support but I don’t think I’d buy them again. 

[INA201]

I’m pleased with the JPI 900 with everything analog primary removed. I’ve only had it back a month however. If they aren’t in the plane they can’t break.  It really brings you closer to modern automotive standards. Also, a company that can’t invest in making a single twin engine display may be less financially sound and able to support what they already have. Aviation is a tight business to be in as it is.

[ArtVandelay]

I just left the old gauges in the panel.  It wasn’t worth it to me to remove them for the cost, and I didn’t see the benefit of replacing the fuel gauges.  To each their own!

The advantages is less maintenance, additional useful load, a less cluttered look, both from the front and behind the panel, including removing annunciator. If you are going to do major work, removing some of the old stuff is minimal additional work.

[Jeev]

On 5/18/2018 at 11:13 AM, jazztheglass said:

I am going to install this as replacement for mp, tach, oil pressure, oil temp, CHT, EGT, OAT, timer

I am going to keep the analog fuel gauges and use the fuel flow feature

My 340 was definitely a project.  Here are some pics.  My mechanic thankfully only lets me do cosmetic repairs so these are kind of before/after

 

Thanks in advance for your input

 

Wow indeed a big job but looks like it’s going to be a great bird when you are all done!  340’s are so awesome!  I will PM you this afternoon.  

[M016576]

56 minutes ago, teejayevans said:

The advantages is less maintenance, additional useful load, a less cluttered look, both from the front and behind the panel, including removing annunciator. If you are going to do major work, removing some of the old stuff is minimal additional work.

The strip of ships gauges weighs maybe .2 lbs, and absolutely nothing from a maintenance perspective by leaving them in and placarding INOP.  Do you have to install new fuel senders with the JPI? If so- that’s also extra time/money.

The “less cluttered look” is subjective, but with just a CGR-30P, you can remove all gauges except the fuel quantity indicators.  My pic isn’t the best below, but it’s what I’ve got on hand- Notice the cgr-30P location next to the aspen, below the ASI.  Not as “fancy”? Probably. More “cluttered”? Not to me.

but, like I said before, to each their own.

Edited May 20, 2018 by M016576

[ArtVandelay]

The strip of ships gauges weighs maybe .2 lbs, and absolutely nothing from a maintenance perspective by leaving them in and placarding INOP.  Do you have to install new fuel senders with the JPI? If so- that’s also extra time/money.
The “less cluttered look” is subjective, but with just a CGR-30P, you can remove all gauges except the fuel quantity indicators.
but, like I said before, to each their own.

It was 4.5lbs (including MP, tach, etc), I went with the factory sensors, and technically certain gauges can’t be INOPed and are required (tomato flames). But agreed, to each their own.

[INA201]

In my case I had a separate amp/volt meter(so two total), separately installed oil pressure gauge, crappy intercom, etc. Having all these extra instruments made my scan all crazy. It’s been really nice to be able to focus in one area. Probably the best thing to do is fly someone’s plane with a streamlined setup and one with all the extra redundant instrumentation and find out which one suits your personal flying style.

[M016576]

1 hour ago, teejayevans said:

It was 4.5lbs (including MP, tach, etc), I went with the factory sensors, and technically certain gauges can’t be INOPed and are required (tomato flames). But agreed, to each their own.

Yeah, the tach and MP are heavy.  I was referring to the strip of gauges at the top: the fuel Q, fuel P, oil T and oil P when I said .2lbs.  You can pull the tach and MP with a CGR-30P alone.

[M016576]

1 hour ago, INA201 said:

In my case I had a separate amp/volt meter(so two total), separately installed oil pressure gauge, crappy intercom, etc. Having all these extra instruments made my scan all crazy. It’s been really nice to be able to focus in one area. Probably the best thing to do is fly someone’s plane with a streamlined setup and one with all the extra redundant instrumentation and find out which one suits your personal flying style.

Totally agree- that’s a nice panel you’ve set up for yourself!

[Marauder]

Yeah, the tach and MP are heavy.  I was referring to the strip of gauges at the top: the fuel Q, fuel P, oil T and oil P when I said .2lbs.  You can pull the tach and MP with a CGR-30P alone.

I debated pretty heavily with myself whether to leave the factory gauge strip in place when I installed the JPI 900. The advantage is the redundancy. The disadvantage is the extra complexity of wiring it up and once I went with the CiES senders, it made no sense.

I made the trade off by adding back some redundancy with EI gauges. If the 900 loses Tach, MP and fuel pressure I still had legal primary instruments.

If the JPI did go down in flight, I still have those plus a fuel flow and totalizer. What I would lose is oil temp, oil pressure and fuel gauges. Certainly important but at least the redundant instruments got me power and fuel pressure/total fuel quantity.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[jazztheglass]

On 5/18/2018 at 4:23 PM, johncuyle said:

I went with a pair of CGR-30 (C&P) for my Mooney.  That was primarily a panel layout consideration.  I have a pair of 3" slots on the left side of the panel that I can put them in and have them right in front of me for my panel scan.  Either the 930 or the MVP would have had to go over on the right, farther out of my sight line.  I kind of wish I had room for the 50 over on the left side, but the 30's give me all the information I need and the displays are very nice.  Now that I've written the check odds are very good Dynon will announce certification for the SykView for M20's or Garmin will announce G3X plus GFC-500 STC for M20 at Oshkosh.

Edit:  While panel space may not be an issue on the Cessna, there might be a panel situation in which a pair of the P and a single C make sense for panel space and layout reasons.

John-  thanks for your reply.  One of the things I was wondering about is what do you gain by adding the cgr-30 c?  On the P I will display MP, tach, oil pressure, oil temp, egt, cht, fuel flow and oat and volts.  What else do you display on the C or do you split some of these functions onto two gauges?  Thanks for the valuable feedback

 

[jazztheglass]

On 5/18/2018 at 4:23 PM, johncuyle said:

I went with a pair of CGR-30 (C&P) for my Mooney.  That was primarily a panel layout consideration.  I have a pair of 3" slots on the left side of the panel that I can put them in and have them right in front of me for my panel scan.  Either the 930 or the MVP would have had to go over on the right, farther out of my sight line.  I kind of wish I had room for the 50 over on the left side, but the 30's give me all the information I need and the displays are very nice.  Now that I've written the check odds are very good Dynon will announce certification for the SykView for M20's or Garmin will announce G3X plus GFC-500 STC for M20 at Oshkosh.

Edit:  While panel space may not be an issue on the Cessna, there might be a panel situation in which a pair of the P and a single C make sense for panel space and layout reasons.

John-  thanks for your reply.  One of the things I was wondering about is what do you gain by adding the cgr-30 c?  On the P I will display MP, tach, oil pressure, oil temp, egt, cht, fuel flow and oat and volts.  What else do you display on the C or do you split some of these functions onto two gauges?  Thanks for the valuable feedback

 

[jazztheglass]

What about the GarminTxi?  Seems expensive to me.  How long until some of the experimental products will become certified aka Dynon Skyview, etc?