Thoughts on 1.0/1.0/2.0 mm ring package, pure street 60s engine

General engine tech -- Drag Racing to Circle Track

Moderator: Team

My427stang
Expert
Expert
Posts: 908
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 11:04 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Thoughts on 1.0/1.0/2.0 mm ring package, pure street 60s engine

Post by My427stang »

I haven't done much with the metric ring sets yet, and haven't heard much bad for a daily driver and a 1.5/1.5/3.0 mm ring package, but I am doing a couple of pure streeters and wondering about the 1.0/2.0 rings.

Has anyone used them? Considering them on a pair of stroker 428s, one carbed in a car with a 6000 rpm shift point, the other slightly more mellow, but EFI for a 4x4 truck. Both with PCV on one side, breather on the other.

Each will have fresh 4.155 bores finished with a torque plate, but other than that just a factory 428 block. Any downside, special prep, or percieved benefit of going with the 1.0/2.0 versus the 1.5/3.0 packages? Warnings, fears LOL

Thanks in advance
Bullock's Power Service, LLC
Plattsmouth, NE
70 Mustang, 489 FE, TKO-600, Massflo SEFI, 4.11s
71 F100 SB 4x4, 461 FE, 4 speed, port injected EFI, 3.50s
Newold1
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1963
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2016 9:50 am
Location:

Re: Thoughts on 1.0/1.0/2.0 mm ring package, pure street 60s engine

Post by Newold1 »

If you are talking about stock 428 deck heights, stroke, rod length and piston compression heights I don't see any real benefit to using a ring type of any less than 1.5, 1.5, 3.0 in these engines. Unless you are going to bigger strokes and piston changes that compress the ring spacing considerably and maintain a decent compression height then I see no reason to move to that narrow a ring pack. JMHO
The Older I Get, The Dumber I Get :wink:
Mark O'Neal
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1649
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 7:23 pm
Location: San Tan Valley, AZ
Contact:

Re: Thoughts on 1.0/1.0/2.0 mm ring package, pure street 60s engine

Post by Mark O'Neal »

If you do go with it, and I see no reason to not. Make sure the pistons have split radius oil returns.

You'll get a little back in frictional losses and the bores will last pretty much forever.

But Newold1 is right, there really isn't much there. The 1.5 already have the radials reduced to .155 (or so), compared to .195 (or so) and that is most of the gain. It's really pretty much the same a running a .043 setup.
My427stang
Expert
Expert
Posts: 908
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 11:04 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Re: Thoughts on 1.0/1.0/2.0 mm ring package, pure street 60s engine

Post by My427stang »

Thanks guys,

Newold - Both are 461 inch strokers, 4.155 bore x 4.25 stroke, CH will be 1.34 with a 6.70 rod so not an overly short piston, but it has a long ride up and down the bore so some reduction in friction could be helpful

Mark - Thanks for the input, needless to say, it's getting harder to find a decent 428 block, if it's happy, bore wear is a good reason to do it for the future, assuming it seals up

Appreciate the input
Bullock's Power Service, LLC
Plattsmouth, NE
70 Mustang, 489 FE, TKO-600, Massflo SEFI, 4.11s
71 F100 SB 4x4, 461 FE, 4 speed, port injected EFI, 3.50s
engineguyBill
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1264
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 11:15 am
Location: Gold Canyon, AZ

Re: Thoughts on 1.0/1.0/2.0 mm ring package, pure street 60s engine

Post by engineguyBill »

As has been mentioned in previous posts, the 1.0mm, 1.0mm, 2.0mm ring will have reduced radial thickness, but the 1.5mm, 1.5mm, 3.0mm ring package will also have the narrower radial thickness. There won't be much, if any, performance advantage to going with the narrower ring package but they will survive just fine in street applications as long as cylinders are prepared properly (dimensions, cross hatch pattern, torque plate, etc.
Bill

Perfect Circle Doctor of Motors certification
SAE Member (30 years)
ASE Master Certified Engine Machinist (+ two otherASE Master Certifications)
AERA Certified Professional Engine Machinist
DCal
Expert
Expert
Posts: 769
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 11:37 am
Location: mooresville nc

Re: Thoughts on 1.0/1.0/2.0 mm ring package, pure street 60s engine

Post by DCal »

I wouldn't even consider the 2.0mm ring without a very well prepped block with oil scrappers and vacuum system because I've seen two drag cars that I'm familiar with and they smoked terribly. I know there are some who know of someone that made them work but I'm just saying the chances of one not being an oil pump are pretty slim. I have 3mm motors out there that are doing very well.
My427stang
Expert
Expert
Posts: 908
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 11:04 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Re: Thoughts on 1.0/1.0/2.0 mm ring package, pure street 60s engine

Post by My427stang »

Thanks for the replies

I have another question. Is a single oil ring on a 2.0 mm oil ring pack significantly thinner than a single oil ring on a 3.0 mm pack, or for that matter are both significantly thinner than single oil ring on a 3/16 pack?

I have heard concerns about oil control with 2.0 mm, and have also heard that the spreaders have reduced tension as they go thinner, but I am having a hard time comprehending how thin the individual oil rings can get and still stay stable. Seems hard to believe that an individual oil ring in a 2.0 mm pack is that much thinner than a 3.0 mm ring pack. At some point you'd have something that would not be easily supported I would think.

Or is the reduced tension because the 2nd ring works better at 1.0mm so it allows less tension with a 2.0 pack versus a 3.0 mm pack?

I may be daring on one build and conservative on the other, still weighing alternatives

Thanks!
Bullock's Power Service, LLC
Plattsmouth, NE
70 Mustang, 489 FE, TKO-600, Massflo SEFI, 4.11s
71 F100 SB 4x4, 461 FE, 4 speed, port injected EFI, 3.50s
Rowdy Yates
Member
Member
Posts: 144
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 2:28 am
Location:

Re: Thoughts on 1.0/1.0/2.0 mm ring package, pure street 60s engine

Post by Rowdy Yates »

Wish I had went with that ring set. Comes standard in all Gen V Lt engines. I have standard Ls rings for. 030 over. Great Idea! Vacuum pump to help with ring seal. Now your.......funking
engineguyBill
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1264
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 11:15 am
Location: Gold Canyon, AZ

Re: Thoughts on 1.0/1.0/2.0 mm ring package, pure street 60s engine

Post by engineguyBill »

My427stang wrote: Thu Nov 01, 2018 5:04 am Thanks for the replies

I have another question. Is a single oil ring on a 2.0 mm oil ring pack significantly thinner than a single oil ring on a 3.0 mm pack, or for that matter are both significantly thinner than single oil ring on a 3/16 pack?

I have heard concerns about oil control with 2.0 mm, and have also heard that the spreaders have reduced tension as they go thinner, but I am having a hard time comprehending how thin the individual oil rings can get and still stay stable. Seems hard to believe that an individual oil ring in a 2.0 mm pack is that much thinner than a 3.0 mm ring pack. At some point you'd have something that would not be easily supported I would think.

Or is the reduced tension because the 2nd ring works better at 1.0mm so it allows less tension with a 2.0 pack versus a 3.0 mm pack?

I may be daring on one build and conservative on the other, still weighing alternatives

Thanks!

I think this is waht you are asking in this post . . . . . The rails are probably the same thickness for either the 2.0mm or 3.0mm oil ring assembly. The expander is primarily responsible for the oil ring's tension and no, a smaller expander such as 2.0mm assembly will not necessarily have less tension than the 3.0mm assembly. Oil ring tension is adjusted by selection of rails and expander. I have seen 3/16" oil ring assemblies with less tension than a 3.0mm or 2.0mm oil rings. It all depends upon how the oil ring assembly is designed.
Bill

Perfect Circle Doctor of Motors certification
SAE Member (30 years)
ASE Master Certified Engine Machinist (+ two otherASE Master Certifications)
AERA Certified Professional Engine Machinist
Keith Morganstein
Guru
Guru
Posts: 5566
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 10:19 am
Location: MA

Re: Thoughts on 1.0/1.0/2.0 mm ring package, pure street 60s engine

Post by Keith Morganstein »

Subaru has the 1.2, 1.5, 2.0 MM ring pack. I used it in a 5.25” stroke engine. I was worried about the 2mm oil ring, but it worked out ok.
Automotive Machining, cylinder head rebuilding, engine building. Can't seem to quit #-o
engineguyBill
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1264
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 11:15 am
Location: Gold Canyon, AZ

Re: Thoughts on 1.0/1.0/2.0 mm ring package, pure street 60s engine

Post by engineguyBill »

Thin oil ring assembly will seal as well as a thicker assembly, as long as everything is "correct" in the cylinder. This means proper skirt to cylinder wall clearance, pistons with correct amount of oval shape and barrel shape - which keeps the piston stable within the cylinder during the engine cycles. Of course cylinder wall preparation is still of upmost importance, i.e. torque plate honing and proper cross-hatch pattern.
Bill

Perfect Circle Doctor of Motors certification
SAE Member (30 years)
ASE Master Certified Engine Machinist (+ two otherASE Master Certifications)
AERA Certified Professional Engine Machinist
555RAT
Member
Member
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 8:38 pm
Location: Redmond,OR

Re: Thoughts on 1.0/1.0/2.0 mm ring package, pure street 60s engine

Post by 555RAT »

"I think this is waht you are asking in this post . . . . . The rails are probably the same thickness for either the 2.0mm or 3.0mm oil ring assembly. The expander is primarily responsible for the oil ring's tension and no, a smaller expander such as 2.0mm assembly will not necessarily have less tension than the 3.0mm assembly. Oil ring tension is adjusted by selection of rails and expander. I have seen 3/16" oil ring assemblies with less tension than a 3.0mm or 2.0mm oil rings. It all depends upon how the oil ring assembly is designed."
[/quote]

I just did a 421 sbc and I spec'd mahle flat tops with the 1.5mm,1.5mm and 3mm package because this is a street engine and didn't think we needed the thin ones and didn't realize until I started to gap the rings that they sent me the 1mm,1mm,2mm package. The oil rails are definitely thinner and less tension on the 2mm oil ring but this is Mahle rings also. So far there is no noticeable excess oil consumption with about 500 miles on it. I still wouldn't purposely use the thinner package on a street engine though.
Keith
PackardV8
Guru
Guru
Posts: 7619
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 2:03 pm
Location: Spokane, WA

Re: Thoughts on 1.0/1.0/2.0 mm ring package, pure street 60s engine

Post by PackardV8 »

As the rings get thinner, the old fumble fingers have to get more dexterous as well. I know guys who've been assembling engines for forty years who have had problems getting them together. It takes a precision ring compressor and the tops of the cylinders can't have much chamfer, or the thin rings can easily snag.

What suggestions do those of you who assemble the 1.0 mm rings regularly have for us who don't?
Jack Vines
Studebaker-Packard V8 Limited
Obsolete Engineering
My427stang
Expert
Expert
Posts: 908
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 11:04 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Re: Thoughts on 1.0/1.0/2.0 mm ring package, pure street 60s engine

Post by My427stang »

So, from what I have dug out of this and some research is that the compression rings are thinner (obviously), but the oil rings aren't much different, only the expander.

So, the question I am trying to still pick away at, is: Is the drag reductions with a 2.0 mm ring set because those rings typically come with a low tension expander? or is it just because of the reduction of thickness and tension of the smaller compression rings?

I will call around to the ring manufacturers, but I can't wrap my head around why a 2.0 set oil ring would have less drag than a 3.0 set. I certainly understand that any oil ring could have an expander with lower tension, but what does the total stack dimension have to do with both oil control and friction if each use a oil ring at .017 inches? And why could a 2.0 mm oil ring stack live with less tension if the rails are the same thickness?
Bullock's Power Service, LLC
Plattsmouth, NE
70 Mustang, 489 FE, TKO-600, Massflo SEFI, 4.11s
71 F100 SB 4x4, 461 FE, 4 speed, port injected EFI, 3.50s
BILL-C
Expert
Expert
Posts: 746
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:57 pm
Location: Oakville, CT
Contact:

Re: Thoughts on 1.0/1.0/2.0 mm ring package, pure street 60s engine

Post by BILL-C »

I have used that Mahle 428 piston set before with the 10 , 1.0 , 2.0mm ring set and didn't have any issues. I'm 90% sure the radial dimension on the oil rails was a little smaller than the typical 3mm version. We shipped job almost a year ago.
Carlquist Competition Engines
Post Reply