I received the second set of oil rings from Hastings and they fit just like the previous set. I was wondering if what I was seeing was a matter of piston taper with the ring area being narrower then the skirt, as expected. This would cause the oil rings to look as if the rings where sticking out beyond the ring groove. I looked at the original pistons which still have the rings installed and saw the oil rings sticking out in a similar fashion, even though the originals are a completely different design. I then took one set of oil rings and placed them on a piston and installed the piston in a cylinder with only oil rings. Well, it did go in and seemed to fit well. The piston moved up and down in the cylinder. I did not have anything to measure resistance, but it did not appear to be extreme. At this point I need to make a decision as to whether I am going to use these rings or not. I still can't get over the difference in gaps between the oil rail in the cylinder and on the piston. I may order another brand of ring and see if there is a difference. ---------- Post added at 08:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:53 PM ---------- Just doing a little research on other ring options. I see Total Seal has a set for a .020 over 401 with a gapless second ring (part #S7340). Anyone ever use these before? Any opinions? They also have a conventional ring set (#C7340). I don't see any description as to whether the top ring is moly ring, like the Hastings rings. Also, when the engine was balanced the machine shop took the rings into account. I assume there should not be a problem switching to a different set of rings - correct? Thanks again for all the advice
I would not go with a gapless ring. as far as balance that should not be a problem at all. why did you go with the 5/64 rings and not the 1/16 rings when pistons were made. I would really let a machine put together the short block and the cam, the cam bearings most of time have to have more clearance or the cam journals ground down. you can put the heads on and the rest of it together your self.
What's wrong with the gapless rings? When I was ordering parts for the build I ordered most parts from TA, so I went with the rings they had. I have already installed the cam bearings and reamed them with the old cam.
good job on the cam bearings :TU: are talking just the top ring gapless or second ring too. the pistons must have been made for the 5/64 rings right?
Total Seals website indicates second ring is gapless. They also have a conventional set. Just trying to gather opinions at this point. Obviously, Total Seals website talks up the gapless design so I am looking for some real world experiences. Yes, pistons were machined for 5/64 top and second rings
what I read is never on the second ring, more money and no gain in performance. big Joe Sherman says he would never use them and he is the engine builder king. 1/16 ring would have gave you the most bang for the buck. like you said like to hear more opinions too. you want the second ring to have more ring gap then the top ring.
I believe I have finally made a decision on what direction to go in on rings. After realizing that the Hastings oil rings assemblies would fit in the cylinder, I wanted to get a sense of the oil ring tension. I took the unscientific approach of inserting the piston, with oil ring, in the cylinder upside down and pulling it up the cylinder with a fish scale. I came out with about 27 lbs. This is close to the 20-24 lbs Hastings provided as a spec. Clearly, this is not an exact method, but gives me some indication of oil ring tension. Further, after speaking to a rep at Total Seal I had them send me one oil ring assembly. I squared the Total Seal rail in the cylinder and noticed it had a much larger end gap. Not too large, but larger than the Hastings rail. The end gap was about .020"; spec is a minimum .015". I then performed the same fish scale test and came out with 22-23 lbs, which is right in the correct range. After all this testing, I have decided to purchase a set of rings from Total Seal. Not the gapless rings, as everything I have read online stated they are not worth the extra cost. I have probably over-analyzed this and would have no problems with the Hastings rings, but switching to Total Seal will give me one less thing to worry about when I eventually fire up the engine for the first time. Doug
Actually,, I have used total seal rings and found them to be top notch,,,:laugh: get it ???:grin: I think that on a all out performance engine they are worth it.... but I also have to say this... on my Jeep engine , they kept the oil much cleaner for much longer.... in every day driving....also the engine had that ''fresh power'' much longer.... ''top notch'' get it ????:grin: and....Doug,,, imho you did everything just right, you kept digging untill you came up with a solution... keep on doing that.... that is how a man gets to be a ''top notch'':Brow: gear head.....
Thanks for the support doc. It's been almost 25 years since my last engine build and the first time I am not building to stock specs. I am just trying to be careful as there have already been a few bumps in the road for this build.
Doug,,, the way i build a nailhead is to build it to exact stock specs,,, no loose bearings, rings, pistons , ect.... and then break it in by driving for 500 miles, do a oil/filter change and then drive another 500 miles and do another oil/filter change before doing any rowdy driving with it.....never had one go bad ..... but before you even start it up,,, be double sure that you have zinc additive in the oil.... zddp.... and prime the system with a drill motor....:Brow:
Went to order the Total Seal rings today and was told that the part number has been discontinued. In fact they are no longer making anything in the correct size with a 5/64 top ring. Looked at Perfect Circle and Sealed Power and they do not make a .020" oversize ring. So it looks like Hastings is the only choice for a 5/64 ring in the correct size. I suppose another option would be to order the oil rings from Total Seal and mix them with the top and second rings I already have from Hastings, since the oil rings appeared to be what I was hung up on. Overall design of the oil rings is the same, but the total seal rings were just slightly smaller with less tension. Any other opinions or brands to research? Thanks
Well,,, given that case,,,, didja ever think about making the ring groove in the piston fit the rings that are available... I would bet that it could be done.... :Brow:
The pistons are from JE and were designed for the 5/64 top and second ring. Are you suggesting there is a way to run a 1/16 ring in a 5/64 groove?
No,,, I am asking if there is anybody that can come up with a ring if the groove is different....the groove is already cut... is there a ring that is bigger and the groove opened up to that spec....????
Did you try to find rings for the Buick 430? I checked a couple of sources and they both showed identical part numbers for the 401 and the 430 ring sets. Perhaps the rings are made and they're just not cataloged for the 401 because of it's age. ???? Here's TA performances' link for what they refer to as the 401/430 rings. These are Hastings rings and from what I see, they're available in oversize bores as well. I'd say that you send your pistons along with the correct rings back to JE and have them work over their pistons so the rings will fit. You're going to be changing too many variables if you try to find rings that fit. Then you'd have the wrong pistons along with the wrong rings. If there was ever a reason to have to re-ring it again, you'd have the same problem. Ed
Yes there is; This article claims, Weve seen gains in excess of 15 horsepower with the change from 5/64-inch to 1.2mm rings in the same piston, says Keith Jones of Total Seal. The gains achieved by going to .8mm rings are significantly greater. http://www.enginelabs.com/news/total-seals-spacers-bring-thin-ring-technology-to-wide-grooves/ Heres an old Hot Rod mag article about it; http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/e...h/viewall.html I couldn't find where to buy them,but the first link has a link down on the left hand side to Total seal's website,and their phone number below it.
I did look for 430 rings and they are the same part number as the 401 and unavailable in the size I need. At this point I would rather avoid any additional machine work on the pistons - they were expensive enough. The ring spacers are an interesting option, as they would allow me to run a thinner ring in my 5/64 ring groove. I wonder what the long term durability is with a spacer and what this would cost. I need to remember this will primarily be a street car. Maybe I will contact Total Seal to discuss as an option. I still think my best option would be to use the Hastings top and second rings, which fit fine, and switch the oil rings to the Total Seal oil rings. The oil rings were my issue and I know they are available, as Total Seal sent me one. This would probably be the most economical option and allow me to get moving on the engine assembly. Thanks
After closer examination of the pictures in the first post,it looks more like an issue with the ring groove not being wide enough(looks like the ring has room to compress towards the bottom of the ring groove,but may be to narrow),did you measure the size of the groove with shim gauges? If it measures right,then the oil expansion ring may be to thick,and you could try getting Chryler 413 oversize oil rings.(.0005 larger diameter,not enough to worry about) If the groove is to narrow,then send the pistons back where you got them to be corrected. And long term durability with the spacers and thinner rings would be fine,but I would say they are not economical,but they should unlock some power if thats worth the extra cost for you?(HP isn't free) How much is 15 or more HP(depending on how thin you want to go) worth $$ wise to you? Going from 5/64(5/64 = .0781") to 1.5mm(1.5 = .059"),.0781" - .059" = .0191", .0191 X 2(two rings per piston) = .0382"(per piston of more friction resistance) .0382" X 8(eight pistons) = .3056"(just under 5/16) of less friction resistance on the combined diameters of each piston for the whole engine. With 1.2mm rings(1.2mm = .0472") would be .4944" of less friction resistance,thats almost 1/2 inch less metal to metal of ring diameter going up and down the cylinders! Newer engines use thinner rings now,and have proved to last 100s of thousands of miles. This addition doesn't make more power,but it does unlock more power,by letting the pistons go up and down with less resistance and friction. It would take less fuel to make the same power with the thicker rings also,so essenailly the extra HP would be throughout the entire power band,and should be a mpg impovement with these as well in a street application(if your right foot isn't to heavy all the time,LOL).:TU: Derek
Guess i got lucky, my Hastings moly rings fit perfect, bore and hone job was so spot on we didnt even have to file the rings, all went on without a hitch.
