Ring Pack Thickness: Question

General engine tech -- Drag Racing to Circle Track

Moderator: Team

rebelyell
Expert
Expert
Posts: 752
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2018 8:46 am
Location: SOUTH CAROLINA

Re: Ring Pack Thickness: Question

Post by rebelyell »

Beginning about some 30 yrs ago, All auto/truck manufacturers have switched to thinner & then even thinner OE ringpacks. And they didn't do so to save a few grams of metal. AFAIK, there is NO benefit found in running stone-age thick ringpacks. Also, the thinner the ringpack, the lighter the piston can be and the higher the pin can be. It's true those old thick rings have gotten dirt cheap; but Not at all worth any potential savings.

No matter which ring is chosen; always have bores finished according that particular ring manufacturer's spec. It varies for a reason.

X2 on mahle and wiseco pistons. Also CP, Diamond, JE/SRP, Race Tec, Ross and others.

Vortec motors did not & do not come with thick rings; iron L31 continues to manufactured. Both then ('96) and now: OE 1.5mm 1.5mm 3 mm.
F-BIRD'88
Guru
Guru
Posts: 9802
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 6:56 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Ring Pack Thickness: Question

Post by F-BIRD'88 »

skinny z wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:02 pm It'll be roller again whether there's any savings or not.
Losing a link bar ( if that was the first step of destruction with the COMP roller and their short travel lifters) doesn't leave much to work with. I've got seven lifter sets remaining (as in seven cylinders worth) and they'll be going in the bin. Or if someone has more risk tolerance than I do, maybe there's a market for them.

If all goes according to plan, it'll be a Jones hydraulic roller and lifter setup along with the PAC springs Mike suggested.
That'll eat up a chunk of the budget but if you want to play you gotta pay.

The shortblock should come in under half of the forged 383 I'd planned with a board member here. Maybe I can translate that into the savings.
I was refering to a solid street roller.
skinny z
HotPass
HotPass
Posts: 2642
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 8:42 am
Location: AB. CA.

Re: Ring Pack Thickness: Question

Post by skinny z »

I should have guessed.
Not outside the realm of possibilities although I've gotten quite comfortable with the hydraulics I've been running.
Kevin
skinny z
HotPass
HotPass
Posts: 2642
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 8:42 am
Location: AB. CA.

Re: Ring Pack Thickness: Question

Post by skinny z »

RDY4WAR wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:25 pm a set of Mahle Powerpak pistons which come with a 1, 1, 2 mm ring pack, are 4032 forged, and a much, much lighter including a lighter pin.
There's that 1.550" compression height again. Mahle 930200040.
Changes the approach to the build and those changes I'm trying to avoid.
But those too look to be hard to find.
Ultimately, this whole deal may come down to what we can get.
Kevin
ClassAct
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2018 11:55 pm
Location:

Re: Ring Pack Thickness: Question

Post by ClassAct »

skinny z wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:15 pm
rfoll wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:29 pm "There is no reason to even use a 1/16 ring any more. It’s a waste of power." It has always been my understanding the thin rings don't last as long. The auto manufacturers started using them when the fuel injection allowed them to make the rings last longer. The ultra-thin rings and pistons cost more. What is that last few horsepower worth to you on a street driven car?
Understood. Still it seems to be the trend, street driven or otherwise.
But, what's it worth?

It wouldn't be the ring thickness that's a game changer for me. But the compression height of the piston my "engine guy" suggested (and only suggested as a starting point) wasn't what I was looking for. A substitute piston with the correct height comes with the thinner rings. (ICON 9929 vs Wiseco PTS503A4)
So, this thread exists because of that.
It all comes down to availability at this stage of the game. I'll take what I can get more or less, but if I can refine things somewhat, and the thin rings are part of the deal, then that's what it'll be.

Subject to change without notice...
Yes, it’s worth it. I’m not getting why this is hard to understand. Thick rings are bad. For everything. Seal. Friction. Heat. Weight. There is not one good thing about them. Ever. Period. I can’t believe this is still even a discussion.

If I had the choice of a 1/16 ring off the shelf or wait for an .043/1 mm ring my ass would wait. I won’t build anything with a thicker that 1/16 ring and I bitch about that.

If the CH is off .020-.030 mill the piston. That’s better than using stone aged rings.

You can go on the web and find HOURS of quality video educating about ring thickness, surface geometry and anything else about ring seal you could possibly want. Thick rings are dumb. They cost horsepower and generate friction, which is heat. There ain’t a damned thing good about any of that.
skinny z
HotPass
HotPass
Posts: 2642
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 8:42 am
Location: AB. CA.

Re: Ring Pack Thickness: Question

Post by skinny z »

ClassAct wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:44 pm

Yes, it’s worth it. I’m not getting why this is hard to understand. Thick rings are bad. For everything. Seal. Friction. Heat. Weight. There is not one good thing about them. Ever. Period. I can’t believe this is still even a discussion.

If I had the choice of a 1/16 ring off the shelf or wait for an .043/1 mm ring my ass would wait. I won’t build anything with a thicker that 1/16 ring and I bitch about that.

If the CH is off .020-.030 mill the piston. That’s better than using stone aged rings.

You can go on the web and find HOURS of quality video educating about ring thickness, surface geometry and anything else about ring seal you could possibly want. Thick rings are dumb. They cost horsepower and generate friction, which is heat. There ain’t a damned thing good about any of that.
That pretty much answers the question.
This is where I wanted to go when picking out the bits that'll go into the shortblock.
I'll admit I was a little disappointed with the first piston offering when it came up. But the main guy Brad, owner and operator of the shop, (who I've never met before but oddly enough we went to the same technical college at the same time a hundred years ago) seems easy enough to deal with.

Delivery delays notwithstanding, I like the look of the Wiseco with the correct compression height, thinner rings and all the rest. The Mahle looks to be a step beyond that too.

And FTR, the 1.550" compression drops the piston another .010" down. A lot of stuff gets skewed due to that. For a number of reasons, it's something I'd like to avoid. But that's a thread for another day. And at the end of the day, cutting another .010" off the block isn't a deal breaker either.
Last edited by skinny z on Tue Jan 18, 2022 9:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Kevin
dynoflo
Member
Member
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2020 12:17 pm
Location: pa

Re: Ring Pack Thickness: Question

Post by dynoflo »

The right cam will always overcome heavy rotator with thick rings.
skinny z
HotPass
HotPass
Posts: 2642
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 8:42 am
Location: AB. CA.

Re: Ring Pack Thickness: Question

Post by skinny z »

rebelyell wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:11 pm Vortec motors did not & do not come with thick rings; iron L31 continues to manufactured. Both then ('96) and now: OE 1.5mm 1.5mm 3 mm.
I wasn't really thinking about the L31 crate engines. More like the OEM production versions. And I didn't know the ring technology went back that far. More like a result of the LS explosion.
Thanks for the insight.
Seems also that the 1.5mm / 1/16th wide rings went a lot of miles.

It's crazy to think that a difference of 1/64th" made such an impact (5/64 vs 1/16).
Last edited by skinny z on Tue Jan 18, 2022 9:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Kevin
skinny z
HotPass
HotPass
Posts: 2642
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 8:42 am
Location: AB. CA.

Re: Ring Pack Thickness: Question

Post by skinny z »

dynoflo wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 9:05 pm The right cam will always overcome heavy rotator with thick rings.
That's a whole nother can of worms!

Please, no one say supercharger. Although...
Kevin
skinny z
HotPass
HotPass
Posts: 2642
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 8:42 am
Location: AB. CA.

Re: Ring Pack Thickness: Question

Post by skinny z »

ClassAct wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:44 pm I’m not getting why this is hard to understand.
By the way, it isn't hard to understand. At least not from my point of view.

I started this thread to extract that kind of information. It firms up what I already knew, or thought I knew, and all the info here, besides generating a lot of site traffic and obvious interest, I think will be very helpful for future reference.

That's a ton for your input too.
Kevin
rfoll
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3023
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: St. Helens, OR

Re: Ring Pack Thickness: Question

Post by rfoll »

skinny z wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:15 pm
rfoll wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:29 pm "There is no reason to even use a 1/16 ring any more. It’s a waste of power." It has always been my understanding the thin rings don't last as long. The auto manufacturers started using them when the fuel injection allowed them to make the rings last longer. The ultra-thin rings and pistons cost more. What is that last few horsepower worth to you on a street driven car?
Understood. Still it seems to be the trend, street driven or otherwise.
But, what's it worth?

It wouldn't be the ring thickness that's a game changer for me. But the compression height of the piston my "engine guy" suggested (and only suggested as a starting point) wasn't what I was looking for. A substitute piston with the correct height comes with the thinner rings. (ICON 9929 vs Wiseco PTS503A4)
So, this thread exists because of that.
It all comes down to availability at this stage of the game. I'll take what I can get more or less, but if I can refine things somewhat, and the thin rings are part of the deal, then that's what it'll be.

Subject to change without notice...
I guess I'm different, I don't pay much attention to trends, just what I want to achieve. These days everyone seems to think they need 1000 HP or whatever. For what it's worth, my race motors have the thin rings because the performance pistons come with them. The biggest friction loss is in the oil ring and that can be accomplished by a low drag ring pack. The GM started doing that in the late 70s. The rings for those pistons cost twice as much. I believe your quest for the appropriate quench distance is definitely a worthy effort.
So much to do, so little time...
skinny z
HotPass
HotPass
Posts: 2642
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 8:42 am
Location: AB. CA.

Re: Ring Pack Thickness: Question

Post by skinny z »

rfoll wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 9:40 pm
skinny z wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:15 pm
rfoll wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:29 pm "There is no reason to even use a 1/16 ring any more. It’s a waste of power." It has always been my understanding the thin rings don't last as long. The auto manufacturers started using them when the fuel injection allowed them to make the rings last longer. The ultra-thin rings and pistons cost more. What is that last few horsepower worth to you on a street driven car?
Understood. Still it seems to be the trend, street driven or otherwise.
But, what's it worth?

It wouldn't be the ring thickness that's a game changer for me. But the compression height of the piston my "engine guy" suggested (and only suggested as a starting point) wasn't what I was looking for. A substitute piston with the correct height comes with the thinner rings. (ICON 9929 vs Wiseco PTS503A4)
So, this thread exists because of that.
It all comes down to availability at this stage of the game. I'll take what I can get more or less, but if I can refine things somewhat, and the thin rings are part of the deal, then that's what it'll be.

Subject to change without notice...
I guess I'm different, I don't pay much attention to trends, just what I want to achieve. These days everyone seems to think they need 1000 HP or whatever. For what it's worth, my race motors have the thin rings because the performance pistons come with them. The biggest friction loss is in the oil ring and that can be accomplished by a low drag ring pack. The GM started doing that in the late 70s. The rings for those pistons cost twice as much. I believe your quest for the appropriate quench distance is definitely a worthy effort.
I can't necessarily say I'm trendy. If I were I'd have the LM7 out of the parts truck and sitting between the Camaro fenders.

Truth be told, the 383 project aside, what I really want to achieve is to finish what I started before the valvetrain went south.
I had fresh cylinder heads with decent numbers. I had a new spec cam and what I thought was a bullet proof valvetrain. Also a new spec converter and I was set to go for another personal best. Maybe even touch off 11's in something that isn't a drag car. A heavy too at nearly 3700 lbs.
But, shite happens and I find myself here.
The details have proven interesting. Ring packs. Pistons. Compression. Detailing the head chambers. I've had some good discussions here about cam specs.
And I appreciate the comment regarding the quench. It's difficult to quantify but the little engines I've put together have all responded to that detail. Overachieving I would say. MPG too. And immensely drivable.
Kevin
donclark
Member
Member
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:28 pm
Location:

Re: Ring Pack Thickness: Question

Post by donclark »

Several years ago I had a discussion with Alan Patterson about ring thickness. I mentioned that we had picked up ~35 hp by switching from 0.042 to a 0.036 ring and he shared that going thinner would yield even larger gains. I don't recall the exact thickness he mentioned, thinking it was somewhere around 0.026. As others have already pointed out, thinner is better regardless if it's OEM or racing application.
fabr
Expert
Expert
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2019 8:35 pm
Location:

Re: Ring Pack Thickness: Question

Post by fabr »

They use a lot of .9mm/.9mm/2mm
skinny z
HotPass
HotPass
Posts: 2642
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 8:42 am
Location: AB. CA.

Re: Ring Pack Thickness: Question

Post by skinny z »

I've gone through suitable options.
I'd prefer a thinner ring pack compared to the old school 5/64ths.
So far, every suggestion offered here at ST or what I investigated myself has no current availability. I knew this would be the case. Even what IS available on THIS side of the border has to be shipped here from across the country. More $$.
I can get an SRP 2618 alloy piston with thin rings but I can't say the 2618 is suitable either.
Sourcing, a I said, will be the lynch pin here.
At least I've got a decent conversation going with the shop.
More to follow.
Kevin
Post Reply