Total Seal Rings
- Thread starter Kansas T
- Start date
mayosmechanic
Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2003
I have run the second ring.On leak downs I would run about 78/80.That is awesome.I won't build a motor without them.
Wanting some info on the rings,I called total seal and they told me to get the top set only for the turbo,nos,supercharger set up.Lookin @ the first two responses here it looks like the 2nd set is what you all are runing why the 2nd and not the top ringset?
John
John
Intercooler
New Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2001
The top ring setup if real new. I suspect they built when it wasn't available or price difference. It is worth 15 HP more than the second ring setup. I have the tops and they run $220.00 vs. the $135.00 I paid for the seconds in my 4.1. HTH's.
Lee Thompson
New Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2001
total seal
Top ring total seal is the current hot setup. They do work great!!!
Beware and check EACH and EVERY ring for correct end gap. I bought a set recently (.005 over sized so I could file to fit ) I questioned Total Seal on the big end gap on all the oil rings. I told their tech guy that the end gap I was getting, even without having to file them, was to big. He assured me they would be OK. NOT!!! Turns out they were packaged wrong.
Top ring total seal is the current hot setup. They do work great!!!
Beware and check EACH and EVERY ring for correct end gap. I bought a set recently (.005 over sized so I could file to fit ) I questioned Total Seal on the big end gap on all the oil rings. I told their tech guy that the end gap I was getting, even without having to file them, was to big. He assured me they would be OK. NOT!!! Turns out they were packaged wrong.
musclecar neal,
From what I understand it's just the opposite. It's the pressure that gets caught between the first and second ring that causes ring flutter. Your first ring where most of the seal is. If you get pressure between the two, your top ring will resist a good seal.
The above is the main reason your seeing a trend of increasing the end gap on the second ring. This actually causes better dynamic sealing.
Lastly, as musclecar neal stated, flutter and dynamic sealing are what's important. Leak down tests don't really mean anything. It's really crankcase pressure under load that counts (or lack of). You can get a set of rings that look great under leak down but blow by like sives under load.
My .02
From what I understand it's just the opposite. It's the pressure that gets caught between the first and second ring that causes ring flutter. Your first ring where most of the seal is. If you get pressure between the two, your top ring will resist a good seal.
The above is the main reason your seeing a trend of increasing the end gap on the second ring. This actually causes better dynamic sealing.
Lastly, as musclecar neal stated, flutter and dynamic sealing are what's important. Leak down tests don't really mean anything. It's really crankcase pressure under load that counts (or lack of). You can get a set of rings that look great under leak down but blow by like sives under load.
My .02
musclecar neal,
From what I understand it's just the opposite. It's the pressure that gets caught between the first and second ring that causes ring flutter. Your first ring is where most of the seal is. If you get pressure between the two, your top ring will resist a good seal.
The above is the main reason your seeing a trend of increasing the end gap on the second ring. This actually causes better dynamic sealing. Gapless or not.
Lastly, as musclecar neal stated, flutter and dynamic sealing are what's important. Leak down tests don't really mean anything. It's really crankcase pressure under load that counts (or lack of). You can get a set of rings that look great under leak down but blow by like sives under load.
In short, the gapless top ring is the way to go.
My .02
From what I understand it's just the opposite. It's the pressure that gets caught between the first and second ring that causes ring flutter. Your first ring is where most of the seal is. If you get pressure between the two, your top ring will resist a good seal.
The above is the main reason your seeing a trend of increasing the end gap on the second ring. This actually causes better dynamic sealing. Gapless or not.
Lastly, as musclecar neal stated, flutter and dynamic sealing are what's important. Leak down tests don't really mean anything. It's really crankcase pressure under load that counts (or lack of). You can get a set of rings that look great under leak down but blow by like sives under load.
In short, the gapless top ring is the way to go.
My .02
Intercooler
New Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2001
Jeff,
You stated it pretty well. When I bought my tops supposedly they were just made available for the 3.8 but the bottoms were around for a while. If you keep the second ring gap the same or larger it should deal with the flutter. This is what I did. Their is a reason the tops are so much more expensive.
You stated it pretty well. When I bought my tops supposedly they were just made available for the 3.8 but the bottoms were around for a while. If you keep the second ring gap the same or larger it should deal with the flutter. This is what I did. Their is a reason the tops are so much more expensive.
REDS HOT AIR
Buick Tweaker
- Joined
- May 24, 2001
I'm still using second ring gapless.
I've had the motor apart several times now and just keep putting them back in and they still work good
they did have top ring gapless out about probly 10 years ago and went away from it... guess they figured out the problem
my thinking is the second ring gapless will last longer since the top ring gets hotter and my thinking is that little ring that makes them gapless will probly be pretty easy to heat up and loose its tension
I've had the motor apart several times now and just keep putting them back in and they still work good
they did have top ring gapless out about probly 10 years ago and went away from it... guess they figured out the problem
my thinking is the second ring gapless will last longer since the top ring gets hotter and my thinking is that little ring that makes them gapless will probly be pretty easy to heat up and loose its tension
mayosmechanic
Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2003
I couldn't have said it any better.If you want answers,these guys provide them.I have talked with their techs many times and have always found them to be a knowledgable bunch.I run the second rings in everything.This is not old technology.I build Buicks.Fords,Chryslers,2 strokes,Turbines....you name it.A true motorhead!You won't go wrong with Total Seal or the second ring setup.
mayosmechanic,
I don't think the question is Total Seal or not Total Seal. I think most agree they are as good as anyones ring sets. It's gapless top or second that's the question. Neal seems to have a pretty vast personal experience with both. I can't agrue with that.
It seems from the statements below, ring flutter is not solely a function of primary ring gases stuck between the ring set, but is more a function off RPM.
I had asked several sources (including my engine builder that has done testing with Hastings on this very subject) and came to my own conclusion that the Gapless top seal was the best of all worlds. Looks like I may need to rethink that.
With all this........I may just go back to the standard ring set that was in the motor before. Don't know now.
Neal,
When was your testing with Ford, and what conclusions did they come to? Do they use gapless on any applications? I have thought they went to a standard ring set with low tension oil rings. It was cylinder finish that the OEMs perfected to get good ring seal....not a special gapless ring set. Is an OEM application a good comparison to our high boost applicaton? I don't really know the answer to any of these. Interesting topic for sure.
Thanks,
I don't think the question is Total Seal or not Total Seal. I think most agree they are as good as anyones ring sets. It's gapless top or second that's the question. Neal seems to have a pretty vast personal experience with both. I can't agrue with that.
It seems from the statements below, ring flutter is not solely a function of primary ring gases stuck between the ring set, but is more a function off RPM.
I had asked several sources (including my engine builder that has done testing with Hastings on this very subject) and came to my own conclusion that the Gapless top seal was the best of all worlds. Looks like I may need to rethink that.
With all this........I may just go back to the standard ring set that was in the motor before. Don't know now.
Neal,
When was your testing with Ford, and what conclusions did they come to? Do they use gapless on any applications? I have thought they went to a standard ring set with low tension oil rings. It was cylinder finish that the OEMs perfected to get good ring seal....not a special gapless ring set. Is an OEM application a good comparison to our high boost applicaton? I don't really know the answer to any of these. Interesting topic for sure.
Thanks,
They recommended the Gapless top ring, but said both will work great. The advantage is the gapless top ring will produce more power, torque, and vacum. The gapless seconds are about $50 cheaper. We didnt get into ring flutter, because I wont be turning past 6200rpm. With the info here and some of the local racers I've talked to, I think I'll go with the gapless seconds. Thanks for the great responces.
REDS HOT AIR
Buick Tweaker
- Joined
- May 24, 2001
from actuall engine dyno testing our testing have showed that total seals started to flutter around 7500 rpm and got worse as it went up.
I have used them in some of my old high rpm sb chevy motors turning them well over 8000 and could not notice a problem but on the dyno it was different
any performance motor I build now that wont see over 7500 rpm gets total seal second gapless rings unless the engine owner prefers something else.
I have used them in some of my old high rpm sb chevy motors turning them well over 8000 and could not notice a problem but on the dyno it was different
any performance motor I build now that wont see over 7500 rpm gets total seal second gapless rings unless the engine owner prefers something else.
Intercooler
New Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2001
I for sure wouldn't use a normal set of rings over Total-Seals. Just the fact you don't get any oil out of the breathers makes them worth it The tops may make more power because they keep more heat in the combustion chamber, maybe? Their Techs told me the top ring set too but in a 4.1 they don't have it so I split on both sets. Down the road I can let you know which one I like better but I think it is entirely up to you and both will work well. Get the Total-Seal powder too if you go that route.
The tops may make more power because they keep more heat in the combustion chamber, maybe? Their Techs told me the top ring set too but in a 4.1 they don't have it so I split on both sets. Down the road I can let you know which one I like better but I think it is entirely up to you and both will work well. Get the Total-Seal powder too if you go that route.mayosmechanic
Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2003
Jeff,
I have run seconds in many engines,most currently a Yates Headed SVO s/b Feerrddd.It sees alot of abuse.It is an IMCA motor.I have run seconds in motors such as this one all the way down to mild street cars.I personally have had no problems with ring flutter.I also had many conversations with Jim Ruggles on this topic,I feel the second is the way to go,for the fact you can not trap pressure with a gapped top ring.The second sees far less abuse being out of the flame front.As for leak downs, they speak for themselves.78 over 80 is as good as you can ask for.Someone made the comment that it will leak down good static but leak like a sive under power.If that where the case you would see unusually high mineral content on a spectro analysis.I have have never received any such results from my tests.As far as going back to stock rings...I would not.There is too much to be gained from gapless rings.These of course are just my opinions and experience.Take it for what it is.I'm not trying to step on toes,just passing along some school of hard knocks lessons.Give Total Seal a call,they will be more than willing to answer your questions.Besides that they have a cool New England accent.
I have run seconds in many engines,most currently a Yates Headed SVO s/b Feerrddd.It sees alot of abuse.It is an IMCA motor.I have run seconds in motors such as this one all the way down to mild street cars.I personally have had no problems with ring flutter.I also had many conversations with Jim Ruggles on this topic,I feel the second is the way to go,for the fact you can not trap pressure with a gapped top ring.The second sees far less abuse being out of the flame front.As for leak downs, they speak for themselves.78 over 80 is as good as you can ask for.Someone made the comment that it will leak down good static but leak like a sive under power.If that where the case you would see unusually high mineral content on a spectro analysis.I have have never received any such results from my tests.As far as going back to stock rings...I would not.There is too much to be gained from gapless rings.These of course are just my opinions and experience.Take it for what it is.I'm not trying to step on toes,just passing along some school of hard knocks lessons.Give Total Seal a call,they will be more than willing to answer your questions.Besides that they have a cool New England accent.
mayosmechanic,
Thank you for the opinions. I appreciate them to be sure.
It was me that made the comment on load leakage verses leakdown. This was the first hand experence my engine builder had with the Hastings version of the gapless second rings. Leak down would be great, but when under load on the dyno the crankcase pressure was higher then a properly gapped standard ring set (plasma moly I would assume).
Again, I took that info and still had decided to go gapless top rings. That is what is on order now, and I think I will keep them on order. I can see your point about the top ring getting hammered, but Total Seal seems to think it's their latest and geatest technology. Guess I'll give it a shot. As long as it's better then a set of gapped first and second plasmas I'll be happy.
The only thing that concerns me in this whole thread is the fact that OEM's never decided to go with the gapless technology. Too much drag maybe? Don't know. Guess I shouldn't care about that too much. Apples to oranges comparison I guess.
Thx,
Thank you for the opinions. I appreciate them to be sure.
It was me that made the comment on load leakage verses leakdown. This was the first hand experence my engine builder had with the Hastings version of the gapless second rings. Leak down would be great, but when under load on the dyno the crankcase pressure was higher then a properly gapped standard ring set (plasma moly I would assume).
Again, I took that info and still had decided to go gapless top rings. That is what is on order now, and I think I will keep them on order. I can see your point about the top ring getting hammered, but Total Seal seems to think it's their latest and geatest technology. Guess I'll give it a shot. As long as it's better then a set of gapped first and second plasmas I'll be happy.
The only thing that concerns me in this whole thread is the fact that OEM's never decided to go with the gapless technology. Too much drag maybe? Don't know. Guess I shouldn't care about that too much. Apples to oranges comparison I guess.
Thx,
mayosmechanic
Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2003
I think it is more economics than anything.Keep us posted,i'm will be curious as to how you like this combo.My dad always said,if you can save GM a dollar on every car they would make you Vice President.
Well, one of the companies advocating a larger second ring gap is GM, at least according to an article 1-2 years ago in GMHTP about the development of the LS1 motor. They claimed to be quoting GM when they said that blow-by from the top ring trapped on top of the second ring would cause the top ring to lose it's seal earlier in the expansion (power) stroke than if they increased the gap in the second ring to vent that little bit of pressure. They claimed more power and I think also better oil control but it's been a while since I read that. They weren't worried about flutter from high rpm but about the dynamic seal on the power stroke. Yes, one of the piston/ring manufacturers had an ad on the next page touting their new increased second ring gap product .
.Similar threads
