Gas ported piston rings

[BigBlueIron]

Anyone have any first hand knowledge of total seal gas ported rings? Sales pitch seems good, unsure of any negatives. https://www.totalseal.com/rings/gas-ported-rings

[blykins]

No real negative, except for the fact that they are all 1/16, 1/16, 3/16" from what I can find.   If you look at Total Seal's dyno testing, they show about 5-6 hp bump with these.  You can make a bigger bump with a metric ring pack. 

I think these are mainly for guys who have to run a specific ring pack in rules racing, but there again, I don't know why you would choose to run these and not a metric ring pack with a spacer.

[gt350hr]

   Here is a little insight. "IF" you race and "gas ported pistons" are not allowed , you can run them and stay legal. They ARE more powerful than a ring without them and ''marginally" more powerful than a lateral or "side" gas ported piston. ( THREE HP to be exact on the test engine)
  When the ring is grooved , heat absorption is not consistent and the ring "can" deform. the same thing can be said for going to a thinner ring than the 1/16th Brent mentioned. Cylinder pressure alone will cause it to deflect let alone grooving it for gas ports.
      You be the judge.

[pbf777]

     When the ring is grooved , heat absorption is not consistent and the ring "can" deform. the same thing can be said for going to a thinner ring than the 1/16th Brent mentioned. Cylinder pressure alone will cause it to deflect let alone grooving it for gas ports.
      You be the judge.

    +1     

     Don't be in such a big rush to defame the old stand by 1/16" x 1/16" x 3/16" ring stack as it has been proven in the past, and still does work well today; and although "may" provide greater weight and perhaps frictional drag sums, than some of the smaller wimpier metrics, but be careful, as for with having to live with it, often these old beasts have proven better in the long run.     

     Just my opinion, based on observation, for thought.       

     Scott.     

[blykins]

I can't remember the last time I used a 1/16" ring.   All of my stuff has been either 1.5mm or 1mm for years.   There are some bore sizes where the metric stuff isn't available and I remember how much I hate the thicker rings when I try to shove them down my tapered compressor. 

[frnkeore]

1.5mm = .05905
1/16 = .06250

How much HP will the 1.5mm make, being .0035 thinner?

[My427stang]

Some math can tell you it's significant

4.08 bore = circumference of 12.82 inches, multiply that by the two heights to give surface area

12.82 x .06259 = .8020 square inches
12.82 X  .05905 = .7570 square inches


Right off the bat, the surface area difference is 5.6% greater for a single ring, and assuming the same material, finish, and pressure, would alone be significant, but there are two, although the second ring usually has significantly less surface area.  And overall, ring surfaces are not flat so that's a bit of example math more than actual math, but it does make a difference

However, with 5% less area on that ONE ring, never mind 2 compression rings, you need less pressure to provide the same ring seal, so you end up dropping drag in two ways.

Now that being said, nothing wrong with a 1/16 3/16 combo, but 1.5 is better, and 1.0 works even better when you can and 1.0  can be more forgiving than a larger surface area ring as well. 

12.82 X .03937 = .504 sq inches, for a 1.0mm  now we are talking a bunch less

Hard to beat the new stuff since the materials got better. 

All that being said, if you were stuck with a 1/16 ring because of the piston you wanted, and you were willing to pay a premium for those new gas ported rings, I say go for it.  I considered it for an upcoming build I am doing with a specific piston, but decided the gains would likely be better spending the extra 130 bucks elsewhere and use a standard premium ring pack (just good rings)

As far as numbers, I would say as a guess, the 1.5 3.0 combo depending on build is likely worth 5-10 HP more as bore goes bigger, there are some SBC tests out there, and the 1 mm / 2 mm maybe 5-10 additional, again, depending on bore size, not big numbers, but if you can get a quality piston with a 1.5/3.0 and then save 100 bucks on rings, better than going old school ring size and paying your way back to the 5-10 hp that the metric gets you.

Now, let me tell you what they FEEL like, all std tension

1 - old 5/64s, you use a rubber mallet handle or nylon beater to put a piston in a cylinder and get to position
2 - 1/16, same thing but you can use a tapered compressor, it just takes a good shove and then less tap to move after
3 - 1.5/3.0 - you pop pistons in with your thumbs and they easily slide down to the crank journal pushing with your fingers
4 - 1.0/2.0 - they almost go in like no ring, and almost feel like they will fall to the crank journal

It's dramatically different drag

[blykins]

Not to mention the oil ring pack differences.  Big difference between 3/16” and 2-3mm.

The metric packs are also considerably lighter.  Some of the 1/1/2 packs for smaller bore sizes weigh around 25-30g. 

[Barry_R]

Have to interject here.  I am a pretty big proponent of the smaller metric ring packs.  Surface contact area is not really the measurement to fixate upon.  Most rings start out life with point or near point wall contact no matter the thickness.

Instead, look at the reduction in radial wall thickness and ring cross sections.  The newer rings trade the old " force it against the cylinder technology for a far better "follow the cylinder" concept, with enhanced conformability.

While we tend to look hardest at compression and power cycle sealing,  the intake stroke sealing is significantly improved, which can improve overall performance.

[HR427]

I have a set in the .8 variation, have not run them yet.

[Falcon67]

I use a 1/16 top and 2nd with a 3mm oil in the dragster motor, 11 lb tension IIRC.  The drag is significant.  I'd go to a smaller ring specifically tailored to my use in a minute LOL. 

[Gaugster]

Does the final honing finish change with ring thickness/technology? Or is the desired finish based solely on the ring material type? Else?

[gt350hr]

Have to interject here.  I am a pretty big proponent of the smaller metric ring packs.  Surface contact area is not really the measurement to fixate upon.  Most rings start out life with point or near point wall contact no matter the thickness.

Instead, look at the reduction in radial wall thickness and ring cross sections.  The newer rings trade the old " force it against the cylinder technology for a far better "follow the cylinder" concept, with enhanced conformability.

While we tend to look hardest at compression and power cycle sealing,  the intake stroke sealing is significantly improved, which can improve overall performance.

   +1 reduced "radial tension" and enhanced "conformability" allow the thin rings to work. Power gains have been significant. Especially over "dinosaur" rings Like 5/64ths. I still use "some" 1/16th when ( like Brent said) smaller rings simply aren't made. The change to steel as a base material for rings has brought on tremendous improvements in ring technology.
   Randy

[My427stang]

Good info, I will say though that it's not just a steel ring benefit.  The a change from 1.5s to 1/16s, both moly coated ductile iron still benefit from the thinner ring, certainly light years ahead of cast iron, especially from a manufacturer's waste perspective, but even with like materials the thinner ring is a win for us.

Of course, once you get to 1 mm and smaller, the steel ring is not only a big benefit to us, but even more so for the manufacturer.  I really like them, although as a guy who needed glasses at 50,  with a 1mm/2mm combo, be sure to wear them...especially with the oil rails LOL

[Barry_R]

Have to say ductile cast iron is still a darn good ring material.  It's easier on piston grooves than steel, and does not retain a "memory" from the coiling and machining processes, making it dimensionally stable.  But as ring cross sections are reduced, the normal ductile simply does not have the high temperature strength to "hang on" without becoming annealed and losing wall tension.

We originally saw this in high powered nitrous applications in the 1990s, and it led one of our ring engineers (Scott G. - the true Lord of the Rings) to develop the Hellfire series of rings for Speed-Pro.  He adapted a hardened and tempered material used in the heavy duty diesel market for racing use, and called it "HF479".  He literally made up the material name when a marketing lady at F-M said we could not call it HellFire in our literature because it was not "professional" sounding  (eventually a higher up executive over-ruled that decision).  We got a laugh out of it when a key competitor used that material designation in their own literature.

As things continued to develop, even the HF479 is not able to withstand the heat loads - and its nearly impossible to economically machine a cast piece into such thin cross sections as are now common - .08, .06mm, etc.  Steel is the way to go.