Kirch56H Posted January 28 Report Posted January 28 This is probably a lot of personal opinion, but I am getting ready to do a full Garmin G3X panel upgrade in my J. I am torn between keeping my JPI EDM900 engine monitor (which works great and is only a few years old) versus going with the full Garmin EIS. It seems like having them separate would be a little more redundant in the case of a display failure. I also like how simple the JPI is to read and everything is on the screen without having to press any soft keys on the G3X to expand the monitor screen to see more info. I'm probably overthinking the heck out of this..... I belong to the overthinkers anonymous club! Anyone who has upgraded to the G3X with EIS, your opinions and input are greatly appreciated.
kris_adams Posted January 28 Report Posted January 28 Hey! When I did my panel upgrade a few years ago, I had EI CGR's that proved to be extremely unreliable even though they were pulled and shipped to EI to get them upgraded to the latest and greatest firmware (what a complete waste of time and money but that's a whole other story). Because of this I was on a mission to get rid of the CGRs and frankly anything in my plane that was EI including probes which were EI. I went with Garmin EIS and could not be happier. We did have to put a "snubber" on it for manifold pressure...that was it-perfect all the way around for almost 4 years. Now if I had a well-functioning JPI (or EI), I think I would have stayed with that if I could design it into the new panel. Having another screen with more real estate is always a good thing. -K
Rick Junkin Posted January 28 Report Posted January 28 There is a lot to be said about the integration across the Garmin ecosystem. I went all Garmin and had a 7” G3X Touch installed for redundancy as it was the most economical option for me. I didn’t have an existing certified engine monitor in my original panel. The EIS integrates with Garmin Pilot to provide yet another display option for real time engine data on your iPad. All of my flight and engine data are saved in the same file on the SD card in my G3X. I find that convenient. The one thing I miss from my JPI 830 is the Normalize display feature for CHTs and EGTs. The experimental G3X software has this feature but the certified software does not. However you can tailor the EIS to warn you with an annunciation on the PFD if any of the engine parameters go outside the limits you’ve set, so you really don’t need to have them all constantly in view. The system will tell you if something goes out of whack. On the other hand it is also good practice to not have all of your eggs in one basket. An independent non-Garmin piece of gear for engine parameters would be nice if your PFD failed. It comes down to assessing the projected mean time between failures (MTBF) for the equipment and bouncing that against your risk tolerance. For instance your JPI could fail leaving you with no options for engine data, but the likelihood of that is low. It took some getting used to but I really like the G3X EIS and the primary parameters stay in my crosscheck on the PFD strip. Having the Garmin Pilot EIS display option as a tertiary backup is reassuring, but that may be misplaced confidence depending on the display’s failure mode. You still need the G3X Bluetooth link to the iPad to be working to get the EIS data. 1
Max Clark Posted January 28 Report Posted January 28 I had a JPI EDM 830 and went with the integrated EIS on the G3x. It is nice having everything in one place, especially when you can just pop out the SD Card and upload all of your engine data to Savvy. Sometimes I miss the dedicated/larger display on the EDM - it was easy to glance at quickly and read. This is a good problem to have, either way you go you'll be happy.
kortopates Posted January 28 Report Posted January 28 When I went to G500txi it would have been easy to go with the more integrated Garmin EIS - a great many pluses with the data integrated. But I could not get past the shortcomings of the Garmin EIS as compared to JPI-900 so I stayed with it. Garmin continues to improve their EIS, and oddly there is a lot a variation with the difference EIS's. The G3x version of their EIS was the most capable last time I looked closely. But at the time I would have been giving up on Normalize mode which is non-negotiable for me as well as better Lean Find modes which was less critical to me but hate to do so. Its still improving and I have no doubt will eventually catch up. But I also like to have the dedicated screen that shows me everything within my scan between PFD/MFD and radio stack. I like the dedicated screen with everything there without having to go an engine screen. I would not do a Garmin EIS on a GI-275 unit for example - you have to scroll through many screens for a complete picture. Those less picky on needing JPI's features will love the Garmin EIS on the G3X and G500. If one is coming from a non-primary engine monitor such as EDM-830, small G2 etc then going Garmin EIS will be a big improvement to get an approved for primary monitor so you can ditch the factory instruments. 2
Schllc Posted January 28 Report Posted January 28 Without a preference for either brand, choosing one for the unlikely event your display goes out seems to be a bit of a stretch. I know my numbers by heart and while I do scan my monitor constantly, in the event of a full display failure, you are landing soon. What are the chances you damage your engine in that 15-20 min span of low power landing phase? I did the Garmin EIS in my Aerostar, and I have no complaints. However, I would seriously consider the JPI if I did it over again bc there is a unused piece of real estate right behind my engine controls. Lots of people put displays there but it is not easy to access and I elected to leave it open. It turns out that is a perfect spot for the engine monitor, and the Garmin displays do not fit. also, if I had a good functioning jpi 900, I doubt I would spend money to change it, unless I needed the space for an mfd. 1
LANCECASPER Posted January 29 Report Posted January 29 On 1/28/2026 at 11:57 AM, Kirch56H said: I am torn between keeping my JPI EDM900 engine monitor (which works great and is only a few years old) versus going with the full Garmin EIS. If it ain't broke . . . . You have a JPI EDM-900 "which works great and is only a few years old" . There will be something else to spend your money on later . . it's an airplane after all. 1 1
Ragsf15e Posted January 29 Report Posted January 29 I have a g3x eis now and I had an edm930 in my old airplane. I really liked the 930, but the integration of the garmin is great. The only thing I miss is normalize but that’s not a showstopper for me. Here’s what I would consider if I was you… are you only doing 1 x 10” screen or are you also doing a 7” mfd? I only have one screen and I would prefer to be able to have the eis on its own screen at times. So if you’re doing two screens anyway, Id go all garmin. If you’re only doing 1, keep the 900 as a poor mans two screen setup.
Fly Boomer Posted January 29 Report Posted January 29 1 hour ago, Schllc said: also, if I had a good functioning jpi 900, I doubt I would spend money to change it, unless I needed the space for an mfd. Exactly this. 3
Steve Dawson Posted January 29 Report Posted January 29 22 hours ago, kris_adams said: Hey! When I did my panel upgrade a few years ago, I had EI CGR's that proved to be extremely unreliable even though they were pulled and shipped to EI to get them upgraded to the latest and greatest firmware (what a complete waste of time and money but that's a whole other story). Because of this I was on a mission to get rid of the CGRs and frankly anything in my plane that was EI including probes which were EI. I went with Garmin EIS and could not be happier. We did have to put a "snubber" on it for manifold pressure...that was it-perfect all the way around for almost 4 years. Now if I had a well-functioning JPI (or EI), I think I would have stayed with that if I could design it into the new panel. Having another screen with more real estate is always a good thing. -K What was wrong with your EI CGR's
NickG Posted January 29 Report Posted January 29 I will mirror everyone elses comments. I have a complete Garmin panel with G3X and EIS. The EIS is fine, i think the 930 is terrific but the integration is what of Garmin is what I love
StevenL757 Posted January 31 Report Posted January 31 On 1/28/2026 at 12:57 PM, Kirch56H said: This is probably a lot of personal opinion, but I am getting ready to do a full Garmin G3X panel upgrade in my J. I am torn between keeping my JPI EDM900 engine monitor (which works great and is only a few years old) versus going with the full Garmin EIS. It seems like having them separate would be a little more redundant in the case of a display failure. I also like how simple the JPI is to read and everything is on the screen without having to press any soft keys on the G3X to expand the monitor screen to see more info. I'm probably overthinking the heck out of this..... I belong to the overthinkers anonymous club! Anyone who has upgraded to the G3X with EIS, your opinions and input are greatly appreciated. For ease-of-use, value, quality, company reputation for building a solid product, and overall quality, go with EDM900 any day of the week and twice on Sunday. If you have the panel space and a few extra bucks, the EDM930 is the cat’s meow…essentially the 900 on steroids, with significantly more display real estate. Not to impune the Garmin product in any way, the EDM hardware “does” engine management. 1
theplanesalon Posted February 2 Report Posted February 2 EDM900s are perfectly fine - we install them often. That said, last month JPI quoted 8-10 weeks to PROGRAM one which was simply too long - we program the EIS GI275 ourselves, no wait. integration with glass is fantastic for many. That said - when a 930 is around 7-8k, many feel that’s a substantial amount of the way towards a Dynon HDX where the engine monitoring is only a 2400 or so option. 2
kris_adams Posted March 11 Report Posted March 11 (edited) On 1/29/2026 at 12:10 PM, Steve Dawson said: What was wrong with your EI CGR's Main problem is they would randomly reboot during flights-remember these are primary not backup so it's a big deal. Units were sent in to EI (overnighted since I was AOG) per their request to ensure everything was updated "correctly". They had the units almost a month and shipped them back via the slowest shipping possible. Got them back in the plane and the issue still continued. Other less significant issues were the EI probes constantly failing-it was almost like an annuity for them-constant income stream. Thankfully nothing EI remains in my plane including all probes which were replaced at my expense when I went to Garmin EIS (EI probes would have worked with Garmin EIS by the way). Life has been good since removing all EI. Of course EI hates that I keep providing the facts, but this is exactly what happened. And if you are wondering, they have offered nothing to help offset the almost $10k I had in my dual CGR expense. It's a lesson for me and I try to get the word to anyone considering. I'd go with either JPI or Garmin EIS if I were doing it. I wouldn't take EI for free. No thanks. -K Edited March 11 by kris_adams
KSMooniac Posted March 11 Report Posted March 11 I'm a huge fan of the EDM-900 for any Mooney panel and plan to retain mine whenever I upgrade to a G3X big screen. Like Paul, I highly value the normalize mode and lean find functionality. Long ago normalize mode helped me identify a failing spark plug long before I could feel it or catch it in a mag check. It is great for real-time monitoring/observation. If I were to buy a plane with an integrated EIS on a big screen I doubt I would change it, but upgrading a panel and especially if I already had the -900 I would likely keep it on the left side next to a big PFD. 4
varlajo Posted March 11 Report Posted March 11 Garmin - mostly because of the ability to display real-time engine data on your iPad via Garmin Pilot.
MikeOH Posted March 11 Report Posted March 11 1 hour ago, varlajo said: Garmin - mostly because of the ability to display real-time engine data on your iPad via Garmin Pilot. Honest question, not trying to be critical, but why is that ability/feature so important to you?
varlajo Posted March 11 Report Posted March 11 1 hour ago, MikeOH said: Honest question, not trying to be critical, but why is that ability/feature so important to you? I like redundancies. My single G3x screen will go black one day, and while I do have backup instruments for pretty much everything else it displays (the attitude indicator, altimeter, ASI, VSI, GPS, CDI etc), there is no backup display for the engine instruments. Additionally, I like having the approach plate on my split screen G3x, which leaves only the side strip for key engine indicators, which is less than what I like to see, e.g. state of charge. 1
PT20J Posted March 12 Report Posted March 12 They are both good options. The advantage of the G3X is that the engine data integrates with all the flight data, and I find that useful when trying to remember what was going on when some anomaly occurred. Was I climbing, descending or level, what was the altitude, what was the airspeed? The value of the connection to Garmin Pilot seems to me to be redundancy, but I use ForeFlight. Frankly, in a NA airplane, losing engine data isn't an emergency. But it would render the airplane unairworthy per the regs. (Of course so would failure of many of the analog gauges it replaces which are probably more failure prone). Garmin added normalize to the experimental G3X over a year ago. It hasn't released an update to the certified G3X software for quite some time, but I know a lot of folks have asked Garmin for it, so I expect it will show up eventually. 2
zaitcev Posted April 18 Report Posted April 18 On 3/11/2026 at 1:19 PM, varlajo said: I like redundancies. My single G3x screen will go black one day, and ... What about the loss of power in flight? Garmin's website says that they offer no battery to power GEA 24. Not like JPI is any better, but still.
zaitcev Posted April 18 Report Posted April 18 The Garmin website has a note in red letters that GEA 24 and 110 are not compatible with resistive fuel level senders. Does this apply to vintage Mooneys? How can I tell what senders I have, and did they have any other type in the 1960s?
EricJ Posted April 18 Report Posted April 18 29 minutes ago, zaitcev said: The Garmin website has a note in red letters that GEA 24 and 110 are not compatible with resistive fuel level senders. Does this apply to vintage Mooneys? How can I tell what senders I have, and did they have any other type in the 1960s? If you have stock senders they are resistive. 2
varlajo Posted April 18 Report Posted April 18 2 hours ago, zaitcev said: What about the loss of power in flight? Garmin's website says that they offer no battery to power GEA 24. Not like JPI is any better, but still. There's that. However, my backup battery alone should give me at least 45 minutes to figure things out.
rklems Posted April 19 Report Posted April 19 17 hours ago, zaitcev said: The Garmin website has a note in red letters that GEA 24 and 110 are not compatible with resistive fuel level senders. Does this apply to vintage Mooneys? How can I tell what senders I have, and did they have any other type in the 1960s? Where do you see that? That would be a pretty big change from what’s in all the installations manuals. They are definitely compatible with most resistive senders. With the non-B version of the GEA24, you would need to connect them in a specific manner and use the 0-5V settings, due to an issue discovered (that resulted in an AD), the 24B has a design change that makes it not susceptible to that issue. However, they are definitely supported. 1
Aerodon Posted April 19 Report Posted April 19 I have several of the JPI 'black boxes' that convert the resistive sender output to a 0-5V signal for the Garmin GEA24. (non-B version). Aerodon
Recommended Posts