Gapless rings ..good or bad?

Message

wistech · #1 Post by **wistech** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:46 pm

I've ordered several more sets to try out.
So far the bad I've experienced
1 long break in time with oil burning first hour
2 expensive
3 several engines we have taken apart have had the ring end gaps line up negating the whole point of the dual ring system. I have called total seal and the tech insisted that the engines must have been detonating to cause this and the rings continue to rotate as they are run. I am skeptical about this conclusion.
4 Total seal claims they no longer make gapless rings for nikasil sleeves and will have to run at my own risk.

the good
1 Possible increase in power as the last stock engine I used them in made more power than a high compresion 450.
If this is true then I may need to run higher octane even on a stocker.

As of right now we will need to actually do a test which is very difficult as Id have to build two identical engines and run them at the same time to get any real test data. I will try a set in my 470 and compare them to the old hp and torque charts but that will be iffy at best.

Any one else have any experience with gapless?

thedeatons · #2 Post by **thedeatons** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:48 pm

After also talking with Timbo about this same subject I have been of the same curiousity. I don't like the fact that the rings spin, that is silly. I have been reading about rings lately and the car guys are all over Plasma-Moly rings. Is that what Total Seal offers for our pistons?

I think a better way to test would be to use the same engine, and swap the rings/cylinder. An easy method might be to throw Black Widow a few dollars, because they have an engine dyno, so the engine wouldn't have to get reinstalled each time.

Speed 1B · #3 Post by **Speed 1B** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:47 am

Have used them in the dragbike last 2 seasons. Upon both teardowns we found that the gaps were lined up...so they were doing nothing.

Other than that, I had excellent results. No reliability problems but we did have a problem on the dyno with the rings not seating but I'm not sure if that was the rings or not enough break-in time.

But I won't be using gap-less rings in the new motor. Just don't seem like they are worth the money.

wistech · #4 Post by **wistech** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:53 am

Kind of funny that they don't make a device to keep them from spinning.

haydug · #5 Post by **haydug** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 2:54 am

I ran them back in 02, and noticed a seat of the pants difference.

wistech · #6 Post by **wistech** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:28 pm

Here is a chart of power increases from a small block chevy. That should translate into about a half to one horse on our engines. That is like going from a ported open filter bike stack intake to the cyclone. Thats a pretty good increase for the buck. Especially when getting just a tenth of a horse on any engine over 50 seems like a monumental task.

Standard Gapless Difference
RPM TQ HP TQ HP TQ HP
2600 345 171 352 175 +8 +4
2800 362 193 373 199 +11 +6
3000 371 212 384 220 +13 +8
3200 374 228 387 236 +13 +8
3400 374 242 381 247 +7 +5
3600 387 265 389 266 +2 +1
3800 398 288 403 291 +5 +3
4000 396 302 405 309 +9 +7
4200 393 314 407 326 +14 +12
4400 402 337 416 349 +14 +12
4600 415 364 430 376 +15 +12
4800 428 391 440 402 +12 +11
5000 435 414 448 427 +13 +12
5200 440 436 452 448 +12 +12
5400 441 453 453 466 +12 +13
5600 439 468 450 479 +11 +11
5800 433 478 444 490 +11 +12
6000 428 489 435 496 +7 +7
6200 420 496 420 495 0 -1
6400 412 502 407 496 -5 -6
6600 401 504 398 494 -1 -10

Max 441 504 453 497 +15/-5 +13/-10
Avg 404 359 413 366 +9 +7

DM Part 20--Test 35:

timbomoose · #7 Post by **timbomoose** » Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:22 pm

Seems like every motor I've take apart that had them wasn't doing anything. The rings gaps were lined up. All the motors that have taken apart like this had gas ports which I do believe could make the rings more likely to move from the air going behind the rings and trying to find the least path of resistance out. Have never taken apart a non gas ported motor with gapless rings and may be less likely to move. These were all cast iron liners and none showed any signs of detination, so not buying total seals explanation. 2 times was speed1b's motor which was 180deg apart when built and the gap was lined up when disassembled at the end of the season. In my opinion they are a 100% waste of money on a gas ported piston but still may be worth while on a non gas ported one. Anyone ever take apart a motor on a non gas ported piston and know if the gapless rings moved or not?

haydug · #8 Post by **haydug** » Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:50 pm

I was using the stock piston with my rings.

wistech · #9 Post by **wistech** » Tue Apr 01, 2008 5:29 pm

Looks like theories abound. The guy at Total says the more gas ports the better. Then I see some say never use gas ports with gapless.

kdeal · #10 Post by **kdeal** » Tue Apr 01, 2008 10:52 pm

I wish we were all gapless.......

[attachment=6062:arkansas...rd_dogs2.jpg]