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.
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 ending 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.
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
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. 2
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
Recommended Posts