Lets talk rings - Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars
Ford Forum Ford Forum

» Auto Insurance
» Featured Product
ยป Wheel & Tire Center

Go Back   Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars > The Garage - Tech Forums > Engine Specific Tech > Cleveland Tech
Register Home Forum Active Topics Photo Gallery Auto Loans Garage Mark Forums Read Auto EscrowInsurance

FordForums.com is the premier Ford Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-26-2005, 18:00   #1 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: perth
Posts: 661
Lets talk rings

I,d like to pick the brains of fellow forum members on their thoughts on rings. What is the preffered type of rings that you use? Has anyone had success running zero gap rings or are they a load of hype?. Does anyone have a preffered minimum setback for the first ring placement down the bore.eg .2 from deck surface. And finally who uses conventional ring gaps . It used to be that .004 per 1 inch of bore was commonplace for the top ring and usually a tad tighter on the second. I am aware that some engine builders have moved away from the "'norm'" in this regard. any thoughts?
russxr67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 11-26-2005, 19:18   #2 (permalink)
Registered User
 
xdclevo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Cairns
Posts: 1,946
Re: Lets talk rings

Good questions. I only have experiance with Sealed Power moly rings. The first build i did i used 22 thou top and bottom and it worked good. No blowby or oilburning at all. This 2nd build i used the same rings, but left the gaps as per box(16 thou) and have raced it hard, even in real hot conditions. Next time i will be going 20tho for a bit of safety just in case.
I would also think it better if you could leave the torqueplate on when checking ring gap. I dont know how much it would differ, but i would like to hear thoughts on that too.
xdclevo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2005, 20:31   #3 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: perth
Posts: 661
Re: Lets talk rings

Quote:
Originally Posted by xdclevo
Good questions. I only have experiance with Sealed Power moly rings. The first build i did i used 22 thou top and bottom and it worked good. No blowby or oilburning at all. This 2nd build i used the same rings, but left the gaps as per box(16 thou) and have raced it hard, even in real hot conditions. Next time i will be going 20tho for a bit of safety just in case.
I would also think it better if you could leave the torqueplate on when checking ring gap. I dont know how much it would differ, but i would like to hear thoughts on that too.
If you could get your hands on a torque plate then i would suspect it would be well worth the effort. Having thin bores with relatively high torque specs would probably distort the bore somewhat once the heads are bolted on and alter the end gaps.If one where to go to the trouble of torque plate boring and honing then blueprinting without the torque plates almost seems pointless.You make a good point there xdclevo.As far as rings go ,i too have only used Sealed power rings always with excellent results.
russxr67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2005, 21:17   #4 (permalink)
Registered User
 
crochunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 828
Re: Lets talk rings

Speed Pro Plasma
crochunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2005, 02:01   #5 (permalink)
'60 F100 Q-Code
 
davis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Washington, USA
Posts: 750
Re: Lets talk rings

Quote:
Originally Posted by xdclevo
Good questions. I only have experiance with Sealed Power moly rings. The first build i did i used 22 thou top and bottom and it worked good. No blowby or oilburning at all. This 2nd build i used the same rings, but left the gaps as per box(16 thou) and have raced it hard, even in real hot conditions. Next time i will be going 20tho for a bit of safety just in case.
I would also think it better if you could leave the torqueplate on when checking ring gap. I dont know how much it would differ, but i would like to hear thoughts on that too.
I know a lot of guys running zero-gap rings. Most of them are Mopar guys running hemis and stroker 440s and they swear by them. I don't waste my time with them. They're much more expensive. I'd probably use them if I was a serious racer. I think that there is probably a bit of performance to be had from them. My idea of building performance is based on simplicity.

I don't feel that using a torque plate when fitting rings would be beneficial in an amount that outweighs the hassle. A low-cost alternative to a "home rebuilder" would be to bolt the cylinder head and measure ring gap from the bottom end. Sounds like a lot of effort to me for very questionable return on investment. If you're willing to spend the time, maybe it is worth some peace of mind, but I'm more likely to stick with the basics and not look back.



:davis:
davis is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars > The Garage - Tech Forums > Engine Specific Tech > Cleveland Tech



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.2

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 00:44.



Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.