Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Old School vs New School'.
Found 1 result
-
I am interested in hearing what your thoughts are regarding the #2 compression ring end gap. RETHINKING RING GAPS The old school philosophy (my philosophy until now) of engine building said the end gaps on second compression rings could be tighter because the number two ring is not exposed to as much heat as the top ring. The new school of engine building says it's better to open up the second ring gap a bit so pressure doesn't buildup between the rings and cause the top ring to lose its seal at high rpm. The result is better compression, better piston cooling and reduced oil consumption. Any pressure that builds up between the rings will blow down into the crankcase, keeping oil out from between the rings. Doing some more research, I found the following talking about Perfect Circle Piston Rings in a Clevite catalog: Most of the second ring gap recommendations are larger than the top rings. Recent testing has proven that a larger second ring gap increases the top ring's stability allowing for a better seal. This larger "escape" path prevents inter-ring pressure from building up and lifting the top ring off the piston allowing combustion to get by. Many engine builders have reported lower blow-by and horsepower gains at the upper RPM ranges with the wider second ring gaps. Also, almost every new car made is using this inter-ring pressure reduction method to lower blow-by and emissions and to increase engine output. One last thing, the information above on the piston rings is from articles discussing foreign engine builds. Have any of you folks gone with a larger # 2 end gap compared to the top ring end gap? Do you see any problems with the New School philosophy? Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
