File fit rings
12-01-2015 | 11:05 AM
#11
Registered
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 14,097
Likes: 3,687
From: On A Dirt Floor
My question is if I were to use the same rings, what happens if the ring gap stagger got moved from its original spot, I assume the rings break in in their original spot and if moved will not seal as good, which was my main reason for a re-ring. Or am I just over thinking it?
My opinion.
12-01-2015 | 11:08 AM
#12
Banned
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 277
Likes: 1
Couple things here...
Ring gaps don't stay oriented in any way shape or form. The cross hatch angle in the cylinder will promote ring rotation...if done properly.
Opening up the second ring; this has been done for decades, now, and it helps prevent pressure form building between the first and second ring. Every cylinder has blow by and if enough pressure is allowed to build between the top two rings, the top ring will lift off the land in the piston and lose it's seal. Compression rings have to seal in two places...they have to seal against the cylinder wall, and they have to seal against the ring land in the piston or they won't hold compression (cylinder pressure).
Moly rings; it's my understanding, through talk in the industry, that no one is manufacturing moly rings any more. What's out there is all there is. With the advent of the OEM's going to narrower rings and going to steel, the after market just can't support the manufacturing cost of a Moly ring and it;s costing ring mfgrs more to make a Moly ring than they can sell it for. Steel rings are no harder on a cylinder than anything else. Look at the Cup teams that run a .9mm (.035") steel ring for 500 mi @ 9000 rpm (and honestly I believe they're closer to .7mm these days). These rings have coatings on them that are harder than diamonds and both the rings and cylinders, after inspection, show zero wear. The down side to this for the enthusiast is, while a Moly ring will seal on just about any cylinder finish, steel rings will require a lot more attention to detail for the machinist and he needs to have his game on when finishing for steel rings. ONe place where technology has improved is ring flatness, where a typical .043" MOly ring will have a flatness tolerance of +/- .0005, but if you look at that, it means there is a total flatness variation of .001" and when we're depending on that surface to seal against the land in the piston, that's not very flat. Newer ring technology is calling for flatness in the .00015" range and that provides a lot better sealing just from the ring standpoint alone. We can also look at reciprocating mass...on a 4.50 bore, the difference between a traditional 1/16" ring, and a .043" ring is 6 grams! Double that for both rings and you just reduced your recip. weight by 12g just by going to a slightly narrower ring. That may not seem like much, but try and take 12g off a piston or rod some time and see just how much material that is. It's a significant amount and will do nothing but contribute to longevity and reliability.
Ring gaps don't stay oriented in any way shape or form. The cross hatch angle in the cylinder will promote ring rotation...if done properly.
Opening up the second ring; this has been done for decades, now, and it helps prevent pressure form building between the first and second ring. Every cylinder has blow by and if enough pressure is allowed to build between the top two rings, the top ring will lift off the land in the piston and lose it's seal. Compression rings have to seal in two places...they have to seal against the cylinder wall, and they have to seal against the ring land in the piston or they won't hold compression (cylinder pressure).
Moly rings; it's my understanding, through talk in the industry, that no one is manufacturing moly rings any more. What's out there is all there is. With the advent of the OEM's going to narrower rings and going to steel, the after market just can't support the manufacturing cost of a Moly ring and it;s costing ring mfgrs more to make a Moly ring than they can sell it for. Steel rings are no harder on a cylinder than anything else. Look at the Cup teams that run a .9mm (.035") steel ring for 500 mi @ 9000 rpm (and honestly I believe they're closer to .7mm these days). These rings have coatings on them that are harder than diamonds and both the rings and cylinders, after inspection, show zero wear. The down side to this for the enthusiast is, while a Moly ring will seal on just about any cylinder finish, steel rings will require a lot more attention to detail for the machinist and he needs to have his game on when finishing for steel rings. ONe place where technology has improved is ring flatness, where a typical .043" MOly ring will have a flatness tolerance of +/- .0005, but if you look at that, it means there is a total flatness variation of .001" and when we're depending on that surface to seal against the land in the piston, that's not very flat. Newer ring technology is calling for flatness in the .00015" range and that provides a lot better sealing just from the ring standpoint alone. We can also look at reciprocating mass...on a 4.50 bore, the difference between a traditional 1/16" ring, and a .043" ring is 6 grams! Double that for both rings and you just reduced your recip. weight by 12g just by going to a slightly narrower ring. That may not seem like much, but try and take 12g off a piston or rod some time and see just how much material that is. It's a significant amount and will do nothing but contribute to longevity and reliability.
12-01-2015 | 11:28 AM
#13
Thread Starter
Registered
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 1,465
Likes: 9
Couple things here...
Ring gaps don't stay oriented in any way shape or form. The cross hatch angle in the cylinder will promote ring rotation...if done properly.
Opening up the second ring; this has been done for decades, now, and it helps prevent pressure form building between the first and second ring. Every cylinder has blow by and if enough pressure is allowed to build between the top two rings, the top ring will lift off the land in the piston and lose it's seal. Compression rings have to seal in two places...they have to seal against the cylinder wall, and they have to seal against the ring land in the piston or they won't hold compression (cylinder pressure).
Moly rings; it's my understanding, through talk in the industry, that no one is manufacturing moly rings any more. What's out there is all there is. With the advent of the OEM's going to narrower rings and going to steel, the after market just can't support the manufacturing cost of a Moly ring and it;s costing ring mfgrs more to make a Moly ring than they can sell it for. Steel rings are no harder on a cylinder than anything else. Look at the Cup teams that run a .9mm (.035") steel ring for 500 mi @ 9000 rpm (and honestly I believe they're closer to .7mm these days). These rings have coatings on them that are harder than diamonds and both the rings and cylinders, after inspection, show zero wear. The down side to this for the enthusiast is, while a Moly ring will seal on just about any cylinder finish, steel rings will require a lot more attention to detail for the machinist and he needs to have his game on when finishing for steel rings. ONe place where technology has improved is ring flatness, where a typical .043" MOly ring will have a flatness tolerance of +/- .0005, but if you look at that, it means there is a total flatness variation of .001" and when we're depending on that surface to seal against the land in the piston, that's not very flat. Newer ring technology is calling for flatness in the .00015" range and that provides a lot better sealing just from the ring standpoint alone. We can also look at reciprocating mass...on a 4.50 bore, the difference between a traditional 1/16" ring, and a .043" ring is 6 grams! Double that for both rings and you just reduced your recip. weight by 12g just by going to a slightly narrower ring. That may not seem like much, but try and take 12g off a piston or rod some time and see just how much material that is. It's a significant amount and will do nothing but contribute to longevity and reliability.
Ring gaps don't stay oriented in any way shape or form. The cross hatch angle in the cylinder will promote ring rotation...if done properly.
Opening up the second ring; this has been done for decades, now, and it helps prevent pressure form building between the first and second ring. Every cylinder has blow by and if enough pressure is allowed to build between the top two rings, the top ring will lift off the land in the piston and lose it's seal. Compression rings have to seal in two places...they have to seal against the cylinder wall, and they have to seal against the ring land in the piston or they won't hold compression (cylinder pressure).
Moly rings; it's my understanding, through talk in the industry, that no one is manufacturing moly rings any more. What's out there is all there is. With the advent of the OEM's going to narrower rings and going to steel, the after market just can't support the manufacturing cost of a Moly ring and it;s costing ring mfgrs more to make a Moly ring than they can sell it for. Steel rings are no harder on a cylinder than anything else. Look at the Cup teams that run a .9mm (.035") steel ring for 500 mi @ 9000 rpm (and honestly I believe they're closer to .7mm these days). These rings have coatings on them that are harder than diamonds and both the rings and cylinders, after inspection, show zero wear. The down side to this for the enthusiast is, while a Moly ring will seal on just about any cylinder finish, steel rings will require a lot more attention to detail for the machinist and he needs to have his game on when finishing for steel rings. ONe place where technology has improved is ring flatness, where a typical .043" MOly ring will have a flatness tolerance of +/- .0005, but if you look at that, it means there is a total flatness variation of .001" and when we're depending on that surface to seal against the land in the piston, that's not very flat. Newer ring technology is calling for flatness in the .00015" range and that provides a lot better sealing just from the ring standpoint alone. We can also look at reciprocating mass...on a 4.50 bore, the difference between a traditional 1/16" ring, and a .043" ring is 6 grams! Double that for both rings and you just reduced your recip. weight by 12g just by going to a slightly narrower ring. That may not seem like much, but try and take 12g off a piston or rod some time and see just how much material that is. It's a significant amount and will do nothing but contribute to longevity and reliability.
12-01-2015 | 11:28 AM
#14
Registered
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,439
Likes: 93
From: yorkville,il
Couple things here...
Ring gaps don't stay oriented in any way shape or form. The cross hatch angle in the cylinder will promote ring rotation...if done properly.
Opening up the second ring; this has been done for decades, now, and it helps prevent pressure form building between the first and second ring. Every cylinder has blow by and if enough pressure is allowed to build between the top two rings, the top ring will lift off the land in the piston and lose it's seal. Compression rings have to seal in two places...they have to seal against the cylinder wall, and they have to seal against the ring land in the piston or they won't hold compression (cylinder pressure).
Moly rings; it's my understanding, through talk in the industry, that no one is manufacturing moly rings any more. What's out there is all there is. With the advent of the OEM's going to narrower rings and going to steel, the after market just can't support the manufacturing cost of a Moly ring and it;s costing ring mfgrs more to make a Moly ring than they can sell it for. Steel rings are no harder on a cylinder than anything else. Look at the Cup teams that run a .9mm (.035") steel ring for 500 mi @ 9000 rpm (and honestly I believe they're closer to .7mm these days). These rings have coatings on them that are harder than diamonds and both the rings and cylinders, after inspection, show zero wear. The down side to this for the enthusiast is, while a Moly ring will seal on just about any cylinder finish, steel rings will require a lot more attention to detail for the machinist and he needs to have his game on when finishing for steel rings. ONe place where technology has improved is ring flatness, where a typical .043" MOly ring will have a flatness tolerance of +/- .0005, but if you look at that, it means there is a total flatness variation of .001" and when we're depending on that surface to seal against the land in the piston, that's not very flat. Newer ring technology is calling for flatness in the .00015" range and that provides a lot better sealing just from the ring standpoint alone. We can also look at reciprocating mass...on a 4.50 bore, the difference between a traditional 1/16" ring, and a .043" ring is 6 grams! Double that for both rings and you just reduced your recip. weight by 12g just by going to a slightly narrower ring. That may not seem like much, but try and take 12g off a piston or rod some time and see just how much material that is. It's a significant amount and will do nothing but contribute to longevity and reliability.
Ring gaps don't stay oriented in any way shape or form. The cross hatch angle in the cylinder will promote ring rotation...if done properly.
Opening up the second ring; this has been done for decades, now, and it helps prevent pressure form building between the first and second ring. Every cylinder has blow by and if enough pressure is allowed to build between the top two rings, the top ring will lift off the land in the piston and lose it's seal. Compression rings have to seal in two places...they have to seal against the cylinder wall, and they have to seal against the ring land in the piston or they won't hold compression (cylinder pressure).
Moly rings; it's my understanding, through talk in the industry, that no one is manufacturing moly rings any more. What's out there is all there is. With the advent of the OEM's going to narrower rings and going to steel, the after market just can't support the manufacturing cost of a Moly ring and it;s costing ring mfgrs more to make a Moly ring than they can sell it for. Steel rings are no harder on a cylinder than anything else. Look at the Cup teams that run a .9mm (.035") steel ring for 500 mi @ 9000 rpm (and honestly I believe they're closer to .7mm these days). These rings have coatings on them that are harder than diamonds and both the rings and cylinders, after inspection, show zero wear. The down side to this for the enthusiast is, while a Moly ring will seal on just about any cylinder finish, steel rings will require a lot more attention to detail for the machinist and he needs to have his game on when finishing for steel rings. ONe place where technology has improved is ring flatness, where a typical .043" MOly ring will have a flatness tolerance of +/- .0005, but if you look at that, it means there is a total flatness variation of .001" and when we're depending on that surface to seal against the land in the piston, that's not very flat. Newer ring technology is calling for flatness in the .00015" range and that provides a lot better sealing just from the ring standpoint alone. We can also look at reciprocating mass...on a 4.50 bore, the difference between a traditional 1/16" ring, and a .043" ring is 6 grams! Double that for both rings and you just reduced your recip. weight by 12g just by going to a slightly narrower ring. That may not seem like much, but try and take 12g off a piston or rod some time and see just how much material that is. It's a significant amount and will do nothing but contribute to longevity and reliability.
Last edited by mike tkach; 12-01-2015 at 11:31 AM.
12-01-2015 | 12:16 PM
#16
Banned
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 277
Likes: 1
scott,i am not understanding your comment of + or -.0005 being .001.if i understand it correctly .0005 is the total amount of measured difference the ring can have,not from centerline of ring to face but i may be wrong.imo .001 is a lot.i totally agree that steel rings won,t hurt the bore with the coatings we have at our disposal today.
12-01-2015 | 04:31 PM
#18
Registered
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,439
Likes: 93
From: yorkville,il
i used them in my boat engines and several others,so far so good but they are pricey. total seal ap rings are great and i used them in a buddy,s builds that have a ton of hours and still have a great seal.
12-01-2015 | 05:25 PM
#19
Registered
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,598
Likes: 1,168
From: taxachusetts
I've used a few times and they had great leak down numbers years later.My ls motors are getting them.
12-01-2015 | 06:15 PM
#20
Registered
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,733
Likes: 8
From: bel air, md
The gapless rings are fairly inexpensive when you compare them to the other rings total seal offers.
