Speedway’s Valve Train Components

[Tim Ayers]

Originally Posted by Ol' Ron

We still don't know what the application is. This migh be a dailey driver that doesn't see 3 k except when clinbing the interstate ramp. The cost of this stuff is getting out of hand, even for the bad stuff.

I guess that my point. Why settle for a piston that uses old technology when a little more money gets you a lighter, stronger, piston that uses modern technology?

It's only money. Can't take it with you. Haha!

[Bored&Stroked]

Originally Posted by Ol' Ron

We still don't know what the application is. This migh be a dailey driver that doesn't see 3 k except when clinbing the interstate ramp. The cost of this stuff is getting out of hand, even for the bad stuff.

Great point Ron! We're all pontificating about various piston/ring combinations and have on clue on the application, the budget, the goals, etc.. But Hey - during lockdown we ALL tend to babble too much.

[Tim Ayers]

I guess, knowing Tom, I assumed he'd want a snotty flathead. I could be wrong and just hoping he wants a snotty flathead. LOL!

[TomT/Williamsburg]

A more powerful flattie for my roadster (avatar) is my goal - you know, snotty! Lol! Ok

[flatheadmurre]

Just wanted to point out that you are not going to get a huge gain in HP from the ring pack not even 5% so if on a budget people should know what they get for their money.
And i actually prefer cast pistons if forged is not needed.
Then it´s the top ring that needs to be steel and thin in a performance engine not the second that is shaped for it´s job of controlling the oil and not in contact with the cylinderwall more then partial anyway.
Not here to argue just sharing what little knowledge i have...i like everybody to have facts not sales myths so they can descide for them self.
And now that we talk all in peformance how many is gapping your first and second ring different...and why should you do so ?

[JWL]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

The extra power myth of the thin ring pack has been dispelled during a number of tests. Perhaps one of the more recent was done by one of the performance TV shows who found little or no power difference on a Chevy V8.


Yes, I do gap first and second rings differently especially where performance is key. It is doubtful most people know why and which direction unless they read and have paid attention to the info in my book.

[Zeke3]

Originally Posted by JWL

Yes, I do gap first and second rings differently especially where performance is key. It is doubtful most people know why and which direction unless they read and have paid attention to the info in my book.

Dang, I missed that detail, or don't remember it, the first time I read through JWL's book. I guess I need to read it again. Is that going to be on the test?

[Ronnieroadster]

Originally Posted by Zeke3

Dang, I missed that detail, or don't remember it, the first time I read through JWL's book. I guess I need to read it again. Is that going to be on the test?

A test what test! You dont need no stinking book.

[Bored&Stroked]

Ring Gap: I tend to follow the piston/ring manufacturer's recommendations - based on the bore size, ring types and performance level of the engine - and whether or not it is naturally aspirated or under boost. From my perspective, the guys making the rings probably know what they should be gapped at.

[flatheadmurre]

Right stuff in the right place as usual...
I was more in general trying to sort out what the rings do...not sure all has a grip on it.
A lot of people that come into the shop atleast think the second ring has something to do with compression...
First ring is compression...second if you try and set it up to tight to act as compression ring the blowby from first not able to pass by second ends up pushing first ring up and that is not good for sealing...you get what is refered to as ringflutter.
So whatever first ring can´t handle we just have to let go down into crankcase...we want to improve it´s first ring and groove we should look at nothing else.
And sealing of the first ring is gases from compression passing by top of ring pushing it out against cylinderwall...not the tension in the ring...so the ring is basicly wobbling around in the groove and if not ridgid enough we get issues...top rings are the only rings you can put in any way for this reason they have a barrelshaped outside since they go from leaning against bottom to top of groove.
So why do we have 2-3 more rings...can´t just another one handle oil and we get less friction ?

[Ol' Ron]

Learn sumpin every day. Wedll said.

[Bored&Stroked]

Here is a pretty good article with a bunch of dyno tests on modern/thin ring packages. As JWL noted, there isn't a huge HP increase in switching over, so if cost is your big issue, then stick with the older ring packages. This is a good read . . .

https://www.dragzine.com/tech-storie...t-on-the-dyno/

[Tim Ayers]

Originally Posted by Bored&Stroked

Here is a pretty good article with a bunch of dyno tests on modern/thin ring packages. As JWL noted, there isn't a huge HP increase in switching over, so if cost is your big issue, then stick with the older ring packages. This is a good read . . .

https://www.dragzine.com/tech-storie...t-on-the-dyno/

I think the term “huge” is relative to the overall goal. Like I mentioned previously, little percentages add up to a big number eventually. I’d be hard pressed to believe if someone said you’d gain 20 hp by doing three things, many of us would not take advantage of it. 100+ 20 to 120 is a decent jump.

On my build, I wanted to achieve 175 hp or better. I will know shortly if we achieved that goal, but I’m fairly confident we did.

I guess it all boils down to are willing to put in the time, effort and money see smaller gains knowing you'll need to also do it elsewhere in order to get larger, overall net gains.

[GOSFAST]

Originally Posted by Bored&Stroked

Here is a pretty good article with a bunch of dyno tests on modern/thin ring packages. As JWL noted, there isn't a huge HP increase in switching over, so if cost is your big issue, then stick with the older ring packages. This is a good read . . .

https://www.dragzine.com/tech-storie...t-on-the-dyno/

Hi Dale, not really the best example, you would have to first test a stock "cast-iron" ring build, either a stock 5/64" or in the case of the OEM Flathead a 4-ring piston with a cast 3/32" and 3/16" ring pack, then swap ONLY the pistons/rings to the 1.5, 1.5, 3.0 ring pack.

We've been down this road on the dyno just a few years ago, I can all but guarantee you will see 20+ (nominal) HP with the metric ring setup, assuming the correct bore finish AND a block plate in the program!

Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

P.S. Here's the results from 2 tests, both are OEM Merc builds (4.000" stroke), same C.I., one had some Nylen pistons and (4) cast rings the other had the Ross metrics. The OEM, cast ring/cast piston build, made about 110 HP and the Ross build made very close to 130. The Ross build also had the 2.000" rod journals! We were NOT chasing HP on either build! On a side note, the dynoed build in the ride in my signature below here made 155+ HP with a single (small) Holley.

[flatheadmurre]

Same piston and rotating assembly weight there is no way you can gain 20+ hp in the rings on a 100-150hp engine...sorry just can´t.
So the extra power also came from a lower rotating assembly weight or other modifications.

And before i get chewed at for saying what is refered to as second compression ring isn´t it...sure gases pass by it and it slows down blowby...but it´s a scraper ring in my book.
So first compression...second scraper...third oil...
Then we usually forget that the rings has another job in transfering the heat out of the pistons.
I borrowed the nice pics from a major piston manufacturer.

[Ronnieroadster]

Originally Posted by Bored&Stroked

Here is a pretty good article with a bunch of dyno tests on modern/thin ring packages. As JWL noted, there isn't a huge HP increase in switching over, so if cost is your big issue, then stick with the older ring packages. This is a good read . . .

https://www.dragzine.com/tech-storie...t-on-the-dyno/

Dale very interesting test with very real results showing there is an advantage to the narrow is better idea. Of course some of us already know that. The way I see it any time an additional 5% of power can be gained from any valve in block configuration its worth the effort. When the peak HP is near 400 thats a huge addition in power.

[tubman]

How can comparing the performance of 4-ring pistons with 3-ring pistons be meaningful when comparing ring size?

Seems like apples and oranges to me.

[JSeery]

Originally Posted by tubman

How can comparing the performance of 4-ring pistons with 3-ring pistons be meaningful when comparing ring size?

Seems like apples and oranges to me.

I was wondering that as well, seems like you would need almost identical engines (or the same engine with a piston swap) and the same pistons (make and weight, etc) with the different rings (like Ross normal and then metric).

[flatheadmurre]

There´s been plenty of tests with identical custom order pistons...and they all end up gaining between 5-10hp on a 400+ hp engine.
No one has said thinner rings don´t work.
A real advantage with a nitrided tool steel ring is that it can flex an follow a distorted cylinderwall a lot better then a cast ring...when cylinderwalls get thin and you ad a lot of compression they move.
A moly ring on the other hand is real sensitive to detonation...it doesn´t take much running it badly tuned to damange the rings permanently.
It´s also interesting that first ring is still very low on the modern flathead pistons...the space between crown and first ring will contain fuel that won´t burn...so loss of the power in that amount of fuel.

[JSeery]

Assuming these number are correct and they scale, that would be somewhere in the 1.5 to 2.5 hp range on a 100 hp flathead. That would be worth something on an all out engine using 200 hp and 3 to 5 hp gain, every little bit helps. But unless the price is right something you might be able to live without on a street engine.