Total Seal Gapless rings
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 786
From: Charlotte, NC
Sounds like a nice band-aid for people who dont know what they're doing 
.
Like I said, looks great on paper, but where are the real world results showing how superior a gapless ring is vs. a properly setup gapped ring & then, is it worth the premium you pay for what's probably a negligible difference? I mean, a leakdown improvement doesnt mean much to me, as the thing isnt actually running. Have you seen anyone monitoring actual running cylinder pressure variances from a swap from gapped to gapless? I havent, but I'd certainly like to. Just curious
Here's a link to an old thread I recalled... The stuff I posted was from Greg, and if you've ever spoken to the man, you'd know why he's one of the top guys in the country.
http://web.camaross.com/forums/showt...threadid=50645
.Like I said, looks great on paper, but where are the real world results showing how superior a gapless ring is vs. a properly setup gapped ring & then, is it worth the premium you pay for what's probably a negligible difference? I mean, a leakdown improvement doesnt mean much to me, as the thing isnt actually running. Have you seen anyone monitoring actual running cylinder pressure variances from a swap from gapped to gapless? I havent, but I'd certainly like to. Just curious
Here's a link to an old thread I recalled... The stuff I posted was from Greg, and if you've ever spoken to the man, you'd know why he's one of the top guys in the country
.http://web.camaross.com/forums/showt...threadid=50645
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,931
From: Upstate NY
Originally posted by arnie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by OldSStroker
Yes, depending on the cylinder material (sleeves may be different from production cast block), and specific ring, they have a detailed procedure which specifies stone numbers (grits and bond), and number of strokes with each stone (two or three steps). This is to achieve the correct average finish (Ra) and the correct total depth of the hone "scratches" (Rz). Ask them.
OldSStroker, am I to interpret this to mean that the wall finish builders are accustomed to, is too coarse for the TS gapless top ring?
Nope, just that it may not be what TS recommends.
Phone conversation with the source informed me the popular/accepted finish is too fine for the TS ring. In lieu of the popular 400 grit finish, TS recommended a 280 finish. Am I to believe/accept the info from TS is not accurate?
On the contrary. I believe the info we received from TS, concerning the so-called "plateau finish" they recommended was ideal. Perhaps I wasn't thorough enough in my short post. I like to use the plowed farmer's field analogy for surface finishes.
If you are interested, here goes:
A farmer's plowed, harrowed, etc. field is about a 100,000 times scale version of the surface of a honed cylinder wall.
Let's assume a D8 CAT grader was used to carve the fairly flat field from the rolling terrain nature left there. The next step, plowing, may leave "scratches" or tool marks 10-12 inches deep. If he were then to use a drag or flat plate loaded down with lots of weight and drag it over the plowed field until all the tops of the furrows were knocked off until the field was smooth enough that you could only see the 3/4 inch scratches made by the drag, we would have one condition. No original plow furrows are visible. For sake of arguement(?) call that field the 400 grit all over finish.
In the next plowed field, a big rake or harrow with say 2 inch wide teeth is dragged once or twice across the field just knocking the top couple inches off the plow-generated furrows. Now you have a plowed field with fairly flat top furrows, but with the original plow grooves still visible. Call that the rough-honed finish.
Now run the flat drag over the field a couple of times. That smooths the tops of the scratches made by the harrow but doesn't really get down into the plow grooves. Effectively you have achieved a field with flat spots or "plateaus" on top of each plow furrow.
Now, back to the cylinder bore: The bored cylinder is the field before any plowing. The rough-honed cylinder is the plowed field. The harrowed field is the rough honed cylinder stroked a few times with the next finer grit stone. The plowed, lightly harrowed, lightly dragged field is the plateau-finished bore which TS recommended to us for gapless tops.
Now assume the sun bakes these fields for a few days so they are quite hard.
OK, now if you were to throw lots of softballs, which represent oil molecules, onto the fully dragged field, they would pretty much stay on top of the very smooth 400 grit all over surface.
If you threw those softballs into the plateau-finished field they would collect in the grooves and extra ones would stick up abbove the surface. Now imagine a big barn-sized flat (or slightly curved) structure being dragged across the fields. It's not heavy enough to scrape off the hard dirt, but it can move the softballs. Obviously (I hope) this is the analogy of the piston ring sliding along the surface. It seals against the plateaus on the top of the furrows, but allows a controlled number of the softballs (oil) to remain on the surface for lubrication. I also suggest that there will be less fricton on the plateau field than the fully smooth field.
Now, if you are still here and have stopped laughing, the only thing left is how to measure the finish of the cylinder wall. The field is easy, the 100,000 times smaller cylinder wall is more challenging to measure...but that's a different story.
My $.02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by OldSStroker
Yes, depending on the cylinder material (sleeves may be different from production cast block), and specific ring, they have a detailed procedure which specifies stone numbers (grits and bond), and number of strokes with each stone (two or three steps). This is to achieve the correct average finish (Ra) and the correct total depth of the hone "scratches" (Rz). Ask them.
OldSStroker, am I to interpret this to mean that the wall finish builders are accustomed to, is too coarse for the TS gapless top ring?
Nope, just that it may not be what TS recommends.
Phone conversation with the source informed me the popular/accepted finish is too fine for the TS ring. In lieu of the popular 400 grit finish, TS recommended a 280 finish. Am I to believe/accept the info from TS is not accurate?
On the contrary. I believe the info we received from TS, concerning the so-called "plateau finish" they recommended was ideal. Perhaps I wasn't thorough enough in my short post. I like to use the plowed farmer's field analogy for surface finishes.
If you are interested, here goes:
A farmer's plowed, harrowed, etc. field is about a 100,000 times scale version of the surface of a honed cylinder wall.
Let's assume a D8 CAT grader was used to carve the fairly flat field from the rolling terrain nature left there. The next step, plowing, may leave "scratches" or tool marks 10-12 inches deep. If he were then to use a drag or flat plate loaded down with lots of weight and drag it over the plowed field until all the tops of the furrows were knocked off until the field was smooth enough that you could only see the 3/4 inch scratches made by the drag, we would have one condition. No original plow furrows are visible. For sake of arguement(?) call that field the 400 grit all over finish.
In the next plowed field, a big rake or harrow with say 2 inch wide teeth is dragged once or twice across the field just knocking the top couple inches off the plow-generated furrows. Now you have a plowed field with fairly flat top furrows, but with the original plow grooves still visible. Call that the rough-honed finish.
Now run the flat drag over the field a couple of times. That smooths the tops of the scratches made by the harrow but doesn't really get down into the plow grooves. Effectively you have achieved a field with flat spots or "plateaus" on top of each plow furrow.
Now, back to the cylinder bore: The bored cylinder is the field before any plowing. The rough-honed cylinder is the plowed field. The harrowed field is the rough honed cylinder stroked a few times with the next finer grit stone. The plowed, lightly harrowed, lightly dragged field is the plateau-finished bore which TS recommended to us for gapless tops.
Now assume the sun bakes these fields for a few days so they are quite hard.
OK, now if you were to throw lots of softballs, which represent oil molecules, onto the fully dragged field, they would pretty much stay on top of the very smooth 400 grit all over surface.
If you threw those softballs into the plateau-finished field they would collect in the grooves and extra ones would stick up abbove the surface. Now imagine a big barn-sized flat (or slightly curved) structure being dragged across the fields. It's not heavy enough to scrape off the hard dirt, but it can move the softballs. Obviously (I hope) this is the analogy of the piston ring sliding along the surface. It seals against the plateaus on the top of the furrows, but allows a controlled number of the softballs (oil) to remain on the surface for lubrication. I also suggest that there will be less fricton on the plateau field than the fully smooth field.
Now, if you are still here and have stopped laughing, the only thing left is how to measure the finish of the cylinder wall. The field is easy, the 100,000 times smaller cylinder wall is more challenging to measure...but that's a different story.
My $.02
Banned
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 6,518
Originally posted by SkarodoM
Sounds like a nice band-aid for people who dont know what they're doing.
Like I said, looks great on paper, but where are the real world results showing how superior a gapless ring is vs. a properly setup gapped ring & then, is it worth the premium you pay for what's probably a negligible difference? I mean, a leakdown improvement doesnt mean much to me, as the thing isnt actually running. Have you seen anyone monitoring actual running cylinder pressure variances from a swap from gapped to gapless? I havent, but I'd certainly like to. Just curious
Here's a link to an old thread I recalled... The stuff I posted was from Greg, and if you've ever spoken to the man, you'd know why he's one of the top guys in the country.
http://web.camaross.com/forums/showt...threadid=50645
Sounds like a nice band-aid for people who dont know what they're doing
.Like I said, looks great on paper, but where are the real world results showing how superior a gapless ring is vs. a properly setup gapped ring & then, is it worth the premium you pay for what's probably a negligible difference? I mean, a leakdown improvement doesnt mean much to me, as the thing isnt actually running. Have you seen anyone monitoring actual running cylinder pressure variances from a swap from gapped to gapless? I havent, but I'd certainly like to. Just curious
Here's a link to an old thread I recalled... The stuff I posted was from Greg, and if you've ever spoken to the man, you'd know why he's one of the top guys in the country
.http://web.camaross.com/forums/showt...threadid=50645
I've talked about those exact things with the ring engineer at TS and what they have found differs from what he says in that post. I really like to listen to Kieth Dorton about that stuff the most since he has worked with Mahle and Total Seal to come up with the best ring/piston packges that work.
Alot of it is good
"I know savvy engine builders that can, through careful inspection and documentation during race engine rebuilds, incrementally reduce the top ring gap a little at a time and eventually get it to its smallest allowable dimension for THAT engine. It is not something that many of them stay with though because it doesn't yeild much power per man hour invested. There are greener pastures to find power in. Why hunt for squirrel when you can get a 6X6 elk for the same effort."
The top gapless rings and the 2nd gapless are different animals. I'm not a fan of the 2nds.
The top geapless is a Band Aid to some point, put the differences in operating temp can sometimes be enough to justify them to me.
I know with enough dyno equipment you can actually measure blowby during a dyno pull. It's takes into account some calculations but it can show you if you make improvements in that area. That's some great **** that I don't have access to but it makes sense to me to have it if there is enough money there.
Bret
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,462
From: smog zone adjacent to a great lake
Originally posted by OldSStroker
On the contrary. I believe the info we received from TS, concerning the so-called "plateau finish" they recommended was ideal. Perhaps I wasn't thorough enough in my short post. I like to use the plowed farmer's field analogy for surface finishes.....Now, if you are still here and have stopped laughing....
On the contrary. I believe the info we received from TS, concerning the so-called "plateau finish" they recommended was ideal. Perhaps I wasn't thorough enough in my short post. I like to use the plowed farmer's field analogy for surface finishes.....Now, if you are still here and have stopped laughing....
Actually, I personally, am familiar with what you presented. Used to looking at 'plowed fields' with material/info received many years ago from Flexhone. Thanks.Well, based on info Bret presented, which reenforces reports read elsewhere, conventinal rings still rule for FI applications. At the risk of trying to fix somethin' that may not be broke, maybe Hellfire rings need a second look.
One other note regarding the referenced link to comments from 'Greg'. Didn't read anyting mentioned about allowing (regarding end gaps) LESS for engines with HIGHER coolant operating temps, due to greater wall expansion, for amount of end gap change.
Last edited by arnie; Sep 26, 2003 at 04:52 PM.
Banned
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,475
Originally posted by SkarodoM
Sounds like a nice band-aid for people who dont know what they're doing.
Like I said, looks great on paper, but where are the real world results showing how superior a gapless ring is vs. a properly setup gapped ring & then, is it worth the premium you pay for what's probably a negligible difference? I mean, a leakdown improvement doesnt mean much to me, as the thing isnt actually running. Have you seen anyone monitoring actual running cylinder pressure variances from a swap from gapped to gapless? I havent, but I'd certainly like to. Just curious
Here's a link to an old thread I recalled... The stuff I posted was from Greg, and if you've ever spoken to the man, you'd know why he's one of the top guys in the country.
http://web.camaross.com/forums/showt...threadid=50645
Sounds like a nice band-aid for people who dont know what they're doing
.Like I said, looks great on paper, but where are the real world results showing how superior a gapless ring is vs. a properly setup gapped ring & then, is it worth the premium you pay for what's probably a negligible difference? I mean, a leakdown improvement doesnt mean much to me, as the thing isnt actually running. Have you seen anyone monitoring actual running cylinder pressure variances from a swap from gapped to gapless? I havent, but I'd certainly like to. Just curious
Here's a link to an old thread I recalled... The stuff I posted was from Greg, and if you've ever spoken to the man, you'd know why he's one of the top guys in the country
.http://web.camaross.com/forums/showt...threadid=50645
I AGREE!!those gapless rings are junk.. there's a reason why nascar guy's are still using gapped rings
Registered User
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 884
From: I reached back like a pimp and smacked that LS1....
Here's a question for you.
You're doing a leakdown test with 100 psi. If you have 90 psi on the second gauge, you have 10 percent leakdown.
But what is 100 psi to an engine really?
I have a hard time believing that that same cylinder pressurized with a 1000 psi, would only read 900 psi on the second gauge (still 10 percent). Or maybe I'm wrong?
The more pressure in the cylinder, the better the rings will seal.
Has anyone used one of those blowby gauges that measure cfm out of the crankcase? Being a dynamic test, it seems that would be more useful information.
You're doing a leakdown test with 100 psi. If you have 90 psi on the second gauge, you have 10 percent leakdown.
But what is 100 psi to an engine really?
I have a hard time believing that that same cylinder pressurized with a 1000 psi, would only read 900 psi on the second gauge (still 10 percent). Or maybe I'm wrong?
The more pressure in the cylinder, the better the rings will seal.
Has anyone used one of those blowby gauges that measure cfm out of the crankcase? Being a dynamic test, it seems that would be more useful information.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 727
From: Wolverine Lake, MI
Originally posted by INTMD8
Has anyone used one of those blowby gauges that measure cfm out of the crankcase? Being a dynamic test, it seems that would be more useful information.
Has anyone used one of those blowby gauges that measure cfm out of the crankcase? Being a dynamic test, it seems that would be more useful information.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 406
From: New Berlin, WI USA
Originally posted by Kory 88 Iroc Lt-1
Matt
Dennis is running total seal rings in the beast. He is having problems too. He might have a fix ask him about it.
Kory
Matt
Dennis is running total seal rings in the beast. He is having problems too. He might have a fix ask him about it.
Kory
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post