vintage-race
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: New, improved (?) "ring(s) around the piston"

To: "Scott W. Paisley" <paisley@boulder.nist.gov>
Subject: Re: New, improved (?) "ring(s) around the piston"
From: Andrew Mace <amace@unix2.nysed.gov>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 16:09:37 -0900 (PDT)
On Fri, 4 Aug 1995, Scott W. Paisley wrote:

> Chris Kantarjiev apparently wrote:
> 
>  > > TotalSeal is a company that makes gapless piston rings. As I understand
>  > > it, they will take a set from you and "convert" them - rather than 
>  > > having a gap, they are half thickness or so at the ends, and overlap. 
>  > > The theory is that you get something like 2% blowby, and it stays 
>  > > there for the life of the rings.
> 
> This seems like a good idea!  I assume that 2% blowby is with normal
> rings...  What kind a performance (any blowby at all?)  do you get
> with the gapless piston rings?  Furthermore, is it recommended to use
> two or one piston ring?  What are the tradeoffs?  Are the gapless
> rings less dependable?  Do any production cars use this idea?
> 
> -Scotty "more questions than answers" Paisley

Scotty, et. al.: The 2% number is what the Total Seal folks quoted me 
over the phone (as well as what Chris told me) for their ring. They do 
only the second compression ring; one assumes you'd continue to use the 
top ring as provided by the ring manufacturer. As for benefits/
tradeoffs, I didn't ask. (Guess I shoulda, huh?)

  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
  * Andrew Mace                         e-mail: amace@unix2.nysed.gov *
  * NYS Library                         phone: (518) 474-8541 (voice) *         
                      
  * 10D36 CEC, Albany, NY 12230                  (518) 486-2152 (fax) *
  *                                                                   *
  *                                                                   *
  *  "I was wonderin' why we live so much longer'n our imaginations!" *
  *     -- Broom Hilda                                                *
  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>