Ring Package

[Walter R. Malik]

Cylinder bore preparation has a lot to do with how the thinner rings will work.
Older tech "fat" rings were not so fussy; they had enough tension to seal anyway. That is about their ONLY favorable point.

[PackardV8]

Cylinder bore preparation has a lot to do with how the thinner rings will work.

Walter, thus far, we've had no thin ring sealing problems, but just to make sure we're not overlooking a better way, what is your thin ring bore prep?

[frnkeore]

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

That would be fine and not hard to do for ring width but, do they also do something for ring tension?

[Walter R. Malik]

Walter, thus far, we've had no thin ring sealing problems, but just to make sure we're not overlooking a better way, what is your thin ring bore prep?

Foremost ... "straight & round".

I am sure you have heard or even seen "picnic table" forged piston, (replacing cast), and bearing jobs that are simply "ridge reamed" and "ball honed".
Thin rings with little tension work terrible is any situations similar to that.

[GM-DR]

There is a You Tube Video where they do just that and I think they picked up 6-8HP

[frnkeore]

Do they cut the top or bottom of the ring?

[jed]

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

Thank you for the very insightful information. I am sure it didn't come easy or cheep.

[frnkeore]

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

That would be fine and not hard to do for ring width but, do they also do something for ring tension?

I'd like to ask this question again , about what side of the ring to cut as, I'm thinking of doing this for a 5/64 x 3/32 x 3/16, FE package that I'm building right now.

[My427stang]

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

That would be fine and not hard to do for ring width but, do they also do something for ring tension?

I'd like to ask this question again , about what side of the ring to cut as, I'm thinking of doing this for a 5/64 x 3/32 x 3/16, FE package that I'm building right now.

Frank, although I cannot answer the question you asked because I have never used the spacers. I would recommend buying a custom Racetech (Autotec 4032 forged to be exact) at the exact pin height, size, compression and a 1.5/3.0 or 1.0/2.0 pack. The difference in price would not be a lot, and you'd likely be able to get more benefit in every area than running a spacer set

[frnkeore]

Ross, I'm afraid that would be a non starter. I already have the complete rotating assy. Not only that but, this would be a interesting thing to do.

I should have less than $2500 in this 419 engine, depending on what I do with the heads.

[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

That would be fine and not hard to do for ring width but, do they also do something for ring tension?

I'd like to ask this question again , about what side of the ring to cut as, I'm thinking of doing this for a 5/64 x 3/32 x 3/16, FE package that I'm building right now.

The back of the ring is cut, but seeing that you already have pistons, the excess back clearance would need to be filled with shim stock in the top ring groove only.

Also, any chamfers at the back of the rings need to be recut too for your application.

[Camaromeo]

https://www.hotrod.com/articles/dyno-te ... orsepower/

Test Results

1.2-, 1.2-, 3.0mm Rings

Peak Power: 458.8

Peak Torque : 443.1

Rotating Torque: 14 ft-lb

Leakdown: 4 percent

5/64-, 5/64-, 3/16-inch Rings

Peak Power: 452.0

Peak Torque: 439. 3

Rotating Torque: 37 ft-lb

Leakdown: 4 percent

"The resulting 6.8 hp and 3.8 lb-ft of torque gain was less than expected—but a gain nonetheless. The thinner piston rings have an advantage everywhere in the powerband, and in a race engine that winds higher revs, would likely shown and even bigger advantage."

--> So 1.5% hp, 1% torque increase on a SBC

[frnkeore]

My concept for this, is to just cut in ~.025 from the outer edge, leaving the ring groove to ring contact area, unchanged, only narrowing the contact area, to the cylinder wall. All else normal. Probably making it ~.050 on both rings. Stock rings .078 & .094 wide.

[My427stang]

Ross, I'm afraid that would be a non starter. I already have the complete rotating assy. Not only that but, this would be a interesting thing to do.

I should have less than $2500 in this 419 engine, depending on what I do with the heads.

Fair enough, be prepared for an expletive or two when you price the Total Seal spacer setup. I was surprised when I priced them last, pretty spendy, but explainable, small class racer market

[frnkeore]

Ross, are you kidding, there is no way that I'd even buy a $300 set of rings for this engine.

I like my idea of machining the stock rings to .050 each. It won't do much for tension but, should be better than a set of 1/16 x 1/16 rings, for friction.

I also thought about using 1/16 x 5/64 and using .022 oil ring rails, for spacers. You just need to open the grooves .006 for that.