Ballast resistor or none?

[trim88]

Waking at 3AM questioning my "brilliance" of yesterdays removal of the ballast resistor and replacing with a coil with the same resistance built in... is looking like "dumbass" instead!
69 RR 383 4spd. Upgraded to electronic ignition and trying to hide the orange box and new ballast resistor (not original looking) under the radiator overflow bottle. Have a new harness and I'm trying to make reworking it as easy as possible to accomplish this..... so, comes the "brilliance" move.......(less work on the harness), until 3AM that is.
This will eliminate the extra voltage to the coil during the "start" position of the ignition switch which bypasses the ballast resistor and be the same as in the "run" position of the ignition switch. Now we have the big question..... will it work? Even with the electronic ignition will the lack of the extra voltage to the coil during the "start" position of the ignition switch cause the engine NOT to start, hard start ?? Is this just a totally bad idea? Anybody venture an opinion? :huh:

 

[A31PKG]

In stock form, the ballast primarily prevents the points from arcing and pitting. When upgrading to electronic ignition, it also keeps circuit board temps down. Basically, lowering the secondary voltage (which is what the ballast actually does) has no ill-effects on circuitry or performance. It actually helps stuff last longer. Unless the maker of any given aftermarket ignition system states otherwise, I say keep the ballast.