Waremark is correct, it was a 26E for my first 17 years of ownership, I swapped in the Mi motor. The injected motor starts quicker, runs a little smoother, has a little more power, and of course is altitude corrected. Climb rate is improved by about 25%. Other than the injection, the propulsion system is the same. It is a bit more work than might be apparent due to the changes in the wiring harness necessary to support the injection control, and the two high pressure fuel pumps replacing the low pressure ones. The 31 and 26 fuselage are otherwise identical, so everything fits and works properly. To the extent that there are mechanical problems with the engine, they will be the same between E and Mi. I've just not had that many, with either engine.

On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 12:35:36 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Thanks! I am familiar with the ASH-26E, but I haven't seen much online about the -Mi. Are these quite different?

Matt
On Tuesday, September 29, 2020 at 7:54:06 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
ASH26Mi. Eric's story reminds me that I have had to replace the oil sender as well (though that was done at the scheduled annual, no down time). I have lost only one day of soaring, the failure to start after winter layup.. I have flown it twice without the engine installed, once when the water pump was being replaced just to see how it would fly, and once in the midst of my engine conversion when the soaring looked too good to pass up and the new engine wasn't ready. When the coil became intermittent the engine ran fine on the other coil, but I chose to take a tow that day out of an abundance of caution. Those occasions are the only instances of it being towed. Like Eric, I have flown numerous days when either there was no tow plane, or the wait was so long several pilots gave up and drank beer. So I think I can truthfully say it has gotten me launched more reliably than an engineless glider. Picking my own launch time has been the best benefit though.