As far as my opinion goes, I did the comparison tests on the bench several years ago using a variable power supply, oscilloscope, and 3/8 in. spark gaps. This is what I found:
The Type II system shares a module feed internally with the coil feed, hence, the missing power feed pin in cavity P. By comparison, the 86-87 turbo setup has a separate feed for both the CCCI module and the CCCI coils. Sharing those feeds (in the Type II system) induces too much RFI noise into the module circuit which shows up on the scope and creates a "misfire" during high RPM testing on the bench. This condition gets considerably worse when the battery voltage drops below 11.5 volts. Why they shared the power feeds when the II module was designed, I'll never know, but IMO it's essential that you have separate feeds to the system as it keeps the RFI to a minimum. The Type II design is obviously improved, using three separate - and individually replaceable - coils, but that system was not designed for high HP performance, and it does not measure up to a Delco OEM turbo system. As for secondary voltage, the Type II put out 4% more than the OE Delco Type I coil - but its advantage was crippled by the electrical noise.
It's great for the NA 3.8 FWD that it was designed for. But it just falls short for our turbo engines.
