Totalseal rings

[Dave Koehler]

The gapless 2nd rings can be really deceiving as to engine condition also.
While the rings will give the impression of a good leak down test of @-3% at most when you blow the top ring land off
it don't make the engine condition great but the leak test says its mint.

Just took a late model hemi apart yesterday with 5 pistons damaged and burnt the top ring lands out but the 2nd ring said
it was fine..............till the plug check revealed melted aluminum all over the plugs on 5 holes.

So much for the great leak test

Agreed, Have seen the same thing.
It first came to light in the 70s. When TS came out I stocked their stuff. Seemed like a good idea. They came in molded Styrofoam boxes at the time.
I had a regular injected alky Altered driver/owner that surmised that every winter his stuff always looked and measured well so he was going to skip a freshen as long as he could.
He had good maintenance habits so I said go for it.
3 seasons later he finds he was slowing a tenth per year but leak was still righteous. Tore it down and found the cylinders well worn and barrel shaped.

A few years and more experience later a minion insisted I should use the gapless rings in my blown alky engine because they might save a lap.
I said that IF something is going south in the cylinder I would rather know it right away that risk an windowed engine or torched head the next lap.

I still don't know if they are worth it.
The trend toward thinner and thinner rings seem to indicate that gapless is not necessary.
Carry on

[Kevin Johnson]

I am curious if SwRI did testing with gapless rings to combat LSPI. I do not know if that is proprietary information.

[MadBill]

I thought oil was considered the chief culprit? Would gapless technology affect that?

[BradH]

Tried the TS gapless top ring in my friends Stocker. They are a two piece ring.

Zero extra power....... but no less either.

After one season of use........ pulled the pistons out....... the gaps for the two pieces had moved until the gaps were lined up(all 8 pistons)....... not gapless anymore.

Went back to the normal rings.

Earlier builds with my BBM street/strip engine:
- First builder used C&A ZGS 2nd rings; bores didn't look great after about 5K miles, but can't say that it was the rings specifically; made about 540 HP
- Took it out from 4.375 to 4.380 and switched to the TS gapless top rings; engine pushed a LOT of pressure out of the breathers between about 5000 to 7000 when dynoed initially; pulled engine down for unrelated reason after about 5K miles and found 3 or 4 cylinders where the top rings "ungapped" themselves; 610+ HP
- Latest build is a re-hone on the 4.380 bore and switched to conventional top rings with Napier 2nds; didn't observe any of the excessive breather pressure during dyno pulls up to 7200; 680 HP

I've collected most of the parts for a new build and have already purchased another conventional top & Napier 2nd set. I can't say the gapless top is "bad", but my LIMITED experience hasn't shown any obvious benefits that justify the additional expense.

[Kevin Johnson]

I am curious if SwRI did testing with gapless rings to combat LSPI. I do not know if that is proprietary information.

I thought oil was considered the chief culprit? Would gapless technology affect that?

I was thinking of the space between the first and second rings acting as a chamber where small bubbles could migrate and habitate between cycles and then migrate back out prior to the next combustion cycle.

Superpositioned compression waves or even IR could then cause auto-ignition in the mixture within the bubbles virtually coincident with the physically separated intended chamber ignition source.

Lubricant composition and ring rotation rates would affect this hence the curiosity about the latter with respect to gapless top rings. I brought this up a few years back when an employee there was active on the board. Maybe now it is old hat and the principals would be more open regarding their research and obviate NDAs.

[CGT]

Tried the TS gapless top ring in my friends Stocker. They are a two piece ring.

Zero extra power....... but no less either.

After one season of use........ pulled the pistons out....... the gaps for the two pieces had moved until the gaps were lined up(all 8 pistons)....... not gapless anymore.

Went back to the normal rings.

Earlier builds with my BBM street/strip engine:
- First builder used C&A ZGS 2nd rings; bores didn't look great after about 5K miles, but can't say that it was the rings specifically; made about 540 HP
- Took it out from 4.375 to 4.380 and switched to the TS gapless top rings; engine pushed a LOT of pressure out of the breathers between about 5000 to 7000 when dynoed initially; pulled engine down for unrelated reason after about 5K miles and found 3 or 4 cylinders where the top rings "ungapped" themselves; 610+ HP
- Latest build is a re-hone on the 4.380 bore and switched to conventional top rings with Napier 2nds; didn't observe any of the excessive breather pressure during dyno pulls up to 7200; 680 HP

I've collected most of the parts for a new build and have already purchased another conventional top & Napier 2nd set. I can't say the gapless top is "bad", but my LIMITED experience hasn't shown any obvious benefits that justify the additional expense.

So youve picked up 140hp from ring types?

[BradH]

Never said the builds were identical except for rings. Same basic short block with different cam and top-end combinations.

I picked up 60+ HP going from 270 CFM iron open-chamber heads & 254 at .050" x .555" SFT cam to 305 CFM aluminum closed-chamber heads, + 1 point compression & 266 at .050" x .600" SFT cam.

3700+ car & driver: before 11.0s at 121+; after 10.5s at 126+

Picked up about 70 HP using 350 CFM heads, + .7 point compression & 266 x .050" x .650 solid roller.

Haven't gotten car back together and on the track with latest incarnation. Expecting "low" 10s at about 130, since the car's gained weight with some chassis upgrades.

"We now return to our regularly scheduled program."

[PRH]

after about 5K miles and found 3 or 4 cylinders where the top rings "ungapped" themselves

I think you mean “un-zero gapped” themselves

[BradH]

after about 5K miles and found 3 or 4 cylinders where the top rings "ungapped" themselves

I think you mean “un-zero gapped” themselves

Ummmm... yeah.

[Mark O'Neal]

In 40 years of farting with pistons for a living, I have come with exactly one reason to not avoid selling a set of Gapless, or Zero-Gap rings. That is I make more money on them than I do most conventional ring sets. So I stopped arguing about it decades ago.

I will say that we once had a motor that leaked 7% at the beginning of the season and it ran 8.50s. At the end of the season one cylinder leaked 70%....and it ran 8.50s.

I was also told (Zero-Gap) that, if you left the boot out from behind the ring, that "statically, it would leak the same as a Speed-Pro. Dynamically, it would make no difference at all" That told me that the ring didn't do what people supposed it did, and they were well aware of it.

That was my employer at C&A, assuming you care.

Leak down readings seldom tell you what you need to know. Blow by numbers are a much better indicator of the health of an engine.

Yeah...but that was the 80s

Leak down testing is great for checking the barrel valve on a Top Fuel car and for buying Motor Homes for owners of ring companies.

[Mark O'Neal]

I've always found it a little amusing that the advent of the Zero-Gap ring was for use in air compressors...because they didn't have a one-way check valve yet. The compressor companies tossed then as soon as someone invented that little jewel.

I also find it odd that one can attempt to make a comparison between a static engine and one with a crankshaft that waves it's way through the main journals, with a piston that is shaped like an egg in a cylinder that isn't round anymore, moving at Mach 6, and a rod that looks like a piece of wet spaghetti all attached to rings that haven't touched the wall in the last 4,000 rpm.

[Arthur]

I've always found it a little amusing that the advent of the Zero-Gap ring was for use in air compressors...because they didn't have a one-way check valve yet. The compressor companies tossed then as soon as someone invented that little jewel.

I also find it odd that one can attempt to make a comparison between a static engine and one with a crankshaft that waves it's way through the main journals, with a piston that is shaped like an egg in a cylinder that isn't round anymore, moving at Mach 6, and a rod that looks like a piece of wet spaghetti all attached to rings that haven't touched the wall in the last 4,000 rpm.

Brilliant prose!
Should awaken some.

[GM-DR]

see post below

[GM-DR]

Have run Gapless-ZGS-Conventional-Dykes and narrow Gas Ported rings----the last two choices were the fastest for me oh btw the leakage rates of my best two are nothing to brag about at least when tested, just guessing that the lower rotating torque is where the power is ?

[Tuner]

I've always found it a little amusing that the advent of the Zero-Gap ring was for use in air compressors...because they didn't have a one-way check valve yet. The compressor companies tossed then as soon as someone invented that little jewel.

I also find it odd that one can attempt to make a comparison between a static engine and one with a crankshaft that waves it's way through the main journals, with a piston that is shaped like an egg in a cylinder that isn't round anymore, moving at Mach 6, and a rod that looks like a piece of wet spaghetti all attached to rings that haven't touched the wall in the last 4,000 rpm.

Brilliant prose!
Should awaken some.

Steam engine technology applied to air compressors in the 19th Century. Every kind of zero gap, multi-layer, interlocking and overlapping end gap scheme you can imagine, along with anti-wear and enhanced sealing face coatings and inlays, was designed, patented and implemented in the age of steam engines, long before the first internal combustion engine.