>>>I've found that the Strikefinder, while extremely valuable in determinining the direction of
storms, does not do as good a job at distance as radar...At least in my installation, I am unable to identify individual cells. Were you able to do that in the Cardinal?>>>

My club's Cardinal has a BFG WX-900, and I don't feel I can identify distance to the storm very well either.  One problem is that the thing is overly sensitive.  It also seems to show storms as closer than they are.  However, when I combine the stormscope with Flight Watch and whatever help ATC offers, I feel like I get a reasonably accurate picture.  On Monday there were late morning thunderstorms around  Baltimore and Lancaster, PA on a flight from Teterboro, NY to Gaithersburg, MD (near DC).  The controller in Allentown was helping me west of the storms.  At one point he cleared me to a fix north of GAI thinking I had plenty of clearance around the storms.  The WX-900 suggested I would only have about 10 miles or less.  I told him I wanted to clear the storm by 20 miles and he said "well then continue another 10 before  turning."  So my interpretation of the stormscope wasn't too far off what his radar was showing.  No lightning.  No bumps :)

I've heard that stormscope installations in glass can be difficult because electrical noise  penetrates the skin and is picked up by the stormscope antenna.  I've heard that skin mapping---looking for "quiet" spots on the skin---is real important.  I'm hoping I can have a system that works as well as the system in the Cardinal I'm flying now.  I want to be able to circumnavigate storms at 190 KTS instead of 135 KTS!  Remains to be seen I guess.