Well, that is an interesting point, although a bit wise guy at the end. However, point taken, here is the point that I am trying to answer before I potentially have someone unhappy with the build. (Which isn't answered by your comment)rickseeman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 11:02 am If you watch the youtube videos of engine assembly at Ferrari, Porsche, Mercedes, Bugatti and BMW the little girl pushes the pistons in with her thumbs. Is that telling you anything? I don't know if there is a single OEM that uses the giant rings of the past. The only people that use them that I know of are American rebuilders that wonder if 1.0/1.0/2.0 will work.
If everyone says the oil ring is the majority of drag, AND, the oil rails are the same thickness, then how does the 2.0 oil ring wipe as well as a 3.0 package?
I am not trying to compare original rings to modern, I am trying to verify that I get the right ring package for the use
My hunch is, when using an expander tension that provides the same oil control, the 2.0 package only has a real estate benefit. There could be some small gains from the compression rings, but I am clearly finding that there is little discussion on the net about the differences in expander tension that I think is likely critical for oil control.
Additionally, there is a TON of people that say "don't go with a 2.0 with a big bore engine" The issue is, it's unqualified and should reference the ring tension I think anyway
Also, remember that the windage, clearances, and overall oil control for a 1968 stroker CobraJet are likely different than a Bugatti or Ferrari.
I have a detailed email out to Keith Jones at Total Seal, I'll post what he says. After that, I'll make the decision of the 1.0/2.0 package with the correct expander, or go with the 1.5/3.0 combo. Either case, it'll be less drag
No doubt, I will also add that the majority of American aftermarket pistons have not seemed to adopt the thin ring yet, although likely based on demand, even though they have gone thinner than factory rings. Mahle and Racetec are pretty happy with the metric stuff, but Diamond and other companies still drive with 1/16, 1/16, 3/16 for the heavy lifting of their aftermarket stuff. (Which is what I have usually used in the past) So, lots of non-metric stuff even in the performance worldengineguyBill wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 10:38 pm Major engine rebuilders/remanufacturers in the USA, replace the rings with the same configuration of rings that were used in the engine when manufactured by the OEM's. in other words 5/32", 5/32", 3/16" ring package is built with that same ring width.