Ring Package
Moderator: Team
-
- Guru
- Posts: 6378
- Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:15 am
- Location: Roseville, Michigan (just north of Detroit)
- Contact:
Re: Ring Package
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.
Older tech "fat" rings were not so fussy; they had enough tension to seal anyway. That is about their ONLY favorable point.
http://www.rmcompetition.com
Specialty engine building at its finest.
Specialty engine building at its finest.
Re: Ring Package
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?Walter R. Malik wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 9:52 am Cylinder bore preparation has a lot to do with how the thinner rings will work.
Jack Vines
Studebaker-Packard V8 Limited
Obsolete Engineering
Studebaker-Packard V8 Limited
Obsolete Engineering
Re: Ring Package
That would be fine and not hard to do for ring width but, do they also do something for ring tension?LSP wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 8:40 am 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
-
- Guru
- Posts: 6378
- Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:15 am
- Location: Roseville, Michigan (just north of Detroit)
- Contact:
Re: Ring Package
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.
http://www.rmcompetition.com
Specialty engine building at its finest.
Specialty engine building at its finest.
Re: Ring Package
Thank you for the very insightful information. I am sure it didn't come easy or cheep.LSP wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 8:40 am 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
Re: Ring Package
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.frnkeore wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 2:50 pmThat would be fine and not hard to do for ring width but, do they also do something for ring tension?LSP wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 8:40 am 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
-
- Expert
- Posts: 908
- Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 11:04 pm
- Location: Omaha, NE
- Contact:
Re: Ring Package
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 setfrnkeore wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 12:49 pmI'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.frnkeore wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 2:50 pmThat would be fine and not hard to do for ring width but, do they also do something for ring tension?LSP wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 8:40 am 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
Bullock's Power Service, LLC
Plattsmouth, NE
70 Mustang, 489 FE, TKO-600, Massflo SEFI, 4.11s
71 F100 SB 4x4, 461 FE, 4 speed, port injected EFI, 3.50s
Plattsmouth, NE
70 Mustang, 489 FE, TKO-600, Massflo SEFI, 4.11s
71 F100 SB 4x4, 461 FE, 4 speed, port injected EFI, 3.50s
Re: Ring Package
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.
I should have less than $2500 in this 419 engine, depending on what I do with the heads.
Re: Ring Package
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.frnkeore wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 12:49 pmI'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.frnkeore wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 2:50 pmThat would be fine and not hard to do for ring width but, do they also do something for ring tension?LSP wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 8:40 am 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
Also, any chamfers at the back of the rings need to be recut too for your application.
Re: Ring Package
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
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
Re: Ring Package
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.
-
- Expert
- Posts: 908
- Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 11:04 pm
- Location: Omaha, NE
- Contact:
Re: Ring Package
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
Bullock's Power Service, LLC
Plattsmouth, NE
70 Mustang, 489 FE, TKO-600, Massflo SEFI, 4.11s
71 F100 SB 4x4, 461 FE, 4 speed, port injected EFI, 3.50s
Plattsmouth, NE
70 Mustang, 489 FE, TKO-600, Massflo SEFI, 4.11s
71 F100 SB 4x4, 461 FE, 4 speed, port injected EFI, 3.50s
Re: Ring Package
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.
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.