Ring Package

[frnkeore]

Are there any documented dyno tests of how much HP gain can be had with, say a low tension, 1mm x 1mm x 2mm ring pack over a standard tension, 5/64 x 5/64 x 3/16 or any other low tension vs std dyno tests?

[My427stang]

Frank, I haven't seen a comparison from a 5/64 3/32 Ford combo, or even 5/64 Chevies, but I can tell you that I shove a set if 1.5/3.0 or 1/0/2.0 into the hole with a tapered compressor with my thumbs, its soooooo nice. The think the Fords feel like they are stuck now that I am used to the nice metric rings. No more hammer handle or nylon drivers, has to add up

Here is one of a few comparing 1/16 and thinner rings. I'd probably double gains for the Ford stockers

https://www.enginelabs.com/engine-tech/ ... -the-dyno/

That being said, it often just isn't the ring, an old TRW slug versus a nice shaped dish that matches the chamber, tight quench, etc all add up, as does torque plate honing, square decking, you name it. I am doing a little rowdy 397 FE right now, Speedpro forged, functional, decent piston, but man, heavy and feels like I am pile driving the piston in compared to my normal 1.5s and 1.0 rings

[frnkeore]

Thanks, Ross.

[rustbucket79]

I can tell you on the dyno than an engine with 5/64 rings has much quicker oil heating than the modern metric rings. Heat is friction, friction is horsepower.

When Total Seal has a market for an ultra thin ring and spacer set that fits the 5/64 grooves, despite being as expensive as hell, that tells you something. NHRA Stock rules mandate factory ring groove sizes, as do some classes of oval track racing, which is presumably why these ring “sets” were designed.

[mt-engines]

in a stock eliminator engine i did a back to back.. it was 6hp.. im guessing it was only because of ring seal and not because of friction. you would need some high rpm to see a gain from friction IMHO.

[PackardV8]

When Total Seal has a market for an ultra thin ring and spacer set that fits the 5/64 grooves, despite being as expensive as hell, that tells you something. NHRA Stock rules mandate factory ring groove sizes, as do some classes of oval track racing, which is presumably why these ring “sets” were designed.

FWIW, I have some obsolete engines which would benefit from thin ring packages, but the Total Seal prices are not for me or my customers; they're beyond "expensive-as-hell".

[rustbucket79]

IMHO Mahle is pioneering the way with thin ring integration in these older engines, in many ways leaving behind their competitors who are stuck with the accepted 1/16th ring packages.

My ex partner used to think anything thinner than a 5/64 ring had no place in a towing or high load application, never mind they are made with superior materials and technology, plus the added strength of thicker ring lands.

[My427stang]

When Total Seal has a market for an ultra thin ring and spacer set that fits the 5/64 grooves, despite being as expensive as hell, that tells you something. NHRA Stock rules mandate factory ring groove sizes, as do some classes of oval track racing, which is presumably why these ring “sets” were designed.

FWIW, I have some obsolete engines which would benefit from thin ring packages, but the Total Seal prices are not for me or my customers; they're beyond "expensive-as-hell".

Have you talked to Racetec for pistons rather than spacer? Most of their stuff is competitively priced and comes with 1.5/3.0 packages or can be had at 1.0/2.0mm. I almost exclusively use them now, price is great for the options you can get. I agree, the spacers are ridiculous and moreover, I don't want more moving parts in a ring land

[PackardV8]

My ex partner used to think anything thinner than a 5/64 ring had no place in a towing or high load application, never mind they are made with superior materials and technology, plus the added strength of thicker ring lands.

FWIW, we've modified tall-deck 427" BBC pistons for use in a couple of Packard V8s. They use four rings, three of them 5/64".

[bobmc]

what happens if you leave out one of the 3 compression rings on the 4 ring pistons?

[frnkeore]

in a stock eliminator engine i did a back to back.. it was 6hp.. im guessing it was only because of ring seal and not because of friction. you would need some high rpm to see a gain from friction IMHO.

EngineLabs is just one test but, it shows that the small rings don't seal as well. This is the blow by test of those packages:

Blow by:
1/16 x 3/16 = 3.25 cfm
1.5mm x 3mm = 3.6. 10.8% increase
.043 x 3mm = 3.9. 20%
1mm x 2mm = 4.3. 32%

By that, reduced fiction (or some other variable) is creating the extra HP.

[RDY4WAR]

in a stock eliminator engine i did a back to back.. it was 6hp.. im guessing it was only because of ring seal and not because of friction. you would need some high rpm to see a gain from friction IMHO.

EngineLabs is just one test but, it shows that the small rings don't seal as well. This is the blow by test of those packages:

Blow by:
1/16 x 3/16 = 3.25 cfm
1.5mm x 3mm = 3.6. 10.8% increase
.043 x 3mm = 3.9. 20%
1mm x 2mm = 4.3. 32%

By that, reduced fiction (or some other variable) is creating the extra HP.

I'm curious of the order and machining of the rings tested. Was a fresh hone done after each piston/ring change? What a different hone done to cater to the smaller rings? What about the oil choice? (Not asking you directly, just putting thoughts into words.)

My understanding has always been that thinner rings can conform easier to the cylinder walls which would (theoretically) promote better ring seal. The piston/ring package does account for the largest percentage of total engine friction though with the rings passing through all 3 lubrication regimes. They start in boundary lubrication at TDC and BDC up to about 20* before and after, then transition into mixed regime, and then into full fluid lubrication around peak piston speed. The higher the piston speed (rpm), the more percentage of the stroke is spent in full fluid lubrication.

[rebelyell]

Perhaps there are overwhelming reasons why all OE have long since embraced thin ringpaks.
Most credible references indicate thinner rings conform more readily and thereby seal better.

If blow-by were truly an issue, seems the OEs would've run away due to ever-tightening environmental constraints et al.

thin ringpaks are the order of the day; I'm firmly convinced.

[rustbucket79]

Perhaps there are overwhelming reasons why all OE have long since embraced thin ringpaks.
Most credible references indicate thinner rings conform more readily and thereby seal better.

If blow-by were truly an issue, seems the OEs would've run away due to ever-tightening environmental constraints et al.

thin ringpaks are the order of the day; I'm firmly convinced.

Presumably for fuel economy reasons, where total emissions reduction is a positive.

[LSP]

Where NHRA Stockers are concerned, more than one ring in a ring groove has never been the best path to performance -

1. The top ring is moved down by spacer thickness, not good for hp.

2. The spacers are not as flat as they should be, not good for hp.

Best results come from back cutting OE width rings as much as you dare, and add lateral gas ports (it's been done since the previous century and is nothing new).

If using a moly faced top ring, use a barrel faced ring and verify that it is......there are flat faced moly top rings being sold as barrel shaped.

Inspect what you expect