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

[My427stang]

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.

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)

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

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.

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 world

[rickseeman]

In reality I believe any ring stack you decide on is going to work perfectly. As the title says, pure street 60's engine. You are doing your due diligence. It's going to be fine. I'm just amazed at how nice these small ring packages are. The way they turn over so easy and last so long. It's pretty neat.

[BILL-C]

If you get a chance, grabb a Total Seal ring catalog and check out all of the really interesting rings they sell. I've had more oil controll issues with the antique high tension 5/64 and 1/16 compression and 3/16 oil rings than any of the new "thin" ring packages.

[grant6395]

For what it’s worth. I’ve assembled similar engines using the 1.0 mm/ 2 mm oil. They definitely have less blow by on the meter on our dyno. Usually about 1.5 cfm at wot. The thicker rings seem to hover around the 2.5 -3 cfm on fresh builds. Just my experience.

[My427stang]

If you get a chance, grabb a Total Seal ring catalog and check out all of the really interesting rings they sell. I've had more oil controll issues with the antique high tension 5/64 and 1/16 compression and 3/16 oil rings than any of the new "thin" ring packages.

Been there already, that's really why I am diving in. Seems like I could take bore size and oil rail width and mathematically determine which oil spreader I need and where I was assuming risk if I went lighter. There is low, standard, gold, etc, and I am trying to make sense of what I want to use and the benefit, or difference, across brands as well.

I do appreciate the reference back to the old ones though, so this may be a big research project about nothing LOL Just trying to free up some friction without wishing I didn't afterwards LOL

For what it’s worth. I’ve assembled similar engines using the 1.0 mm/ 2 mm oil. They definitely have less blow by on the meter on our dyno. Usually about 1.5 cfm at wot. The thicker rings seem to hover around the 2.5 -3 cfm on fresh builds. Just my experience.

Thanks, I am sold on the 1.0 compression and second ring. Were any of your 2.0 oil ring packs over 4.00 bore?

[BILL-C]

Yes, many 2mm oil rings over 4.00 bore. Never a problem.

[My427stang]

Yes, many 2mm oil rings over 4.00 bore. Never a problem.

Thanks, I appreciate your help through this entire thread. Waiting to hear back on choices from Total Seal, Mahle makes a set as referenced earlier too

[RAMM]

Love Mahle Motorsports' 1/1/2mm ring package. My first experience was daunting to say the least so I understand where the OP is coming from.

I had a chassis dyno shop (that I do work for) call me up 4-5 years ago I guess, they had a problem with an LS7 Corvette and oil consumption. They suspected the heads since the short block had been machined (by another shop) and assembled with new forged pistons (not mentioning the MFG) . Long story short I found nothing with the heads but did correct them and install good valves etc... Engine still burned copious amounts of oil. Dyno/tune shop sends the long block back to original builder and he claims the rings didn't seat so re-hones and re-assembles. Engine still burns oil. Understanding that the dyno/tune shop is located 4.5-5 hrs from me is why they shipped the heads only the first time as it is easier and much cheaper than shipping a long block. Also this shop has very high end clientele (bankers,lawyers, doctors, criminals-its all interchangeable isn't it?) so Vette owner tells them to ship it wherever in order to make it right.

Now I get the 7.0L in and can see the bores/pistons are thrashed-big skirt clearance on the pistons like .007"-.008" so I go to my favourite piston catalog (MM) and see what the latest offerings are. MM makes a nice PowerPak kit for the 7.0L but I notice the ring pack is 1/1/2 and the skirt clearance is something like .0025-.0033" all of which makes me nervous. So I call the techline and we discuss. I ordered the piston kit even though I wasn't convinced. Pistons come in and honing commences. I set the cylinders @ .003" skirt clearance, filed the rings , assembled and out the door it went.

Long story longer--I get a phone call from the dyno shop and they report the engine doesn't use any oil at all and it picked up something crazy like 25-30 rwhp. From time to time I still get updates that the engine is still in the same state.

I think the smaller ring sections conform better and when used with a stable piston that doesn't rock around its nothing but win. My .02c . J.Rob

[engineguyBill]

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 world

Many high performance piston manufacturers still catalog their shelf-stock pistons with 5/64", 5/64", 3/16" or 1/16", 1/16", 3/16" ring packages, as they have done for several decades. However more and more hp pistons are being produced with metric axial width dimensions and soon that will the the standard for measuring ring packages, due to the fact that most, if not all, OEM manufacturers have adopted the metric ring sizes for their production engines.

[My427stang]

So I have two going on the pump at the same time, Both blocks done the same way

I'll do one with the Mahle 1.0/1.0/2.0 and the other with 1.5/1.5/3.0 and report back on what I think about assembly and performance.

Thanks for sharing your experience

[steve316]

that would be great info for a street build; as for performance build the thin ring have already shown to have a performance gain.

[My427stang]

that would be great info for a street build; as for performance build the thin ring have already shown to have a performance gain.

The two are quite a bit different, so not sure how I can attribute performance to the thinner of the two thin sets, but in the unlikely event, the milder motor, with the thinner rings, makes more power that would be something