Dyno Tested: Are Thinner Piston Rings Worth Horsepower?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 พ.ค. 2017
- Read the full story at the link: www.hotrod.com/articles/dyno-t...
Are thin piston rings worth horsepower? We put them to the test on the engine dyno to find out once and for all what sort of power is gained when moving from 5/64in rings to 1.2mm rings in a street engine. - ยานยนต์และพาหนะ
![Behind the Scenes of Gapless Piston Rings And Ring Flutter [#TECHTALK]](/img/n.gif)
I clicked for Steve Brule!
likable guy.
He's in it for your health!
Same! Imagine how many dyno pulls he's done...
I know right! At least 12. Maybe even 15!
dä gjorde ja mä
Steve is so laid back. Sounds so humble and friendly. If he's one of the bosses around there, those guys must love working for him.
STEVE BRULE is the Wizard from "Alice and the MotorLand"....... The man can tell you how much HP your making.... all the way up to a tenth of the fraction.
Steve's the man. But I'm also excited to see the new direction Evan is taking things since he took over the mag. He's quiet likeable and fairly switched on too. He knows what the people want to see. Well, he knows what I want to see anyway. Can't speak for others
just by listening to it
sometimes it's all the little things that do make the big difference. 8hp here, 15 over there, 5 here, 2 there.. next minute you've got 30hp over the competition.
Exactly. Freeing up 2-5 HP here and there adds up. How much HP does a mechanical fan and water pump sap away? Not enough to notice in your grocery getter, but its enough to put you in last place on race day.
Engine Masters did an episode on the fans... 30hp to run the clunky stocker on their engine. Just make an electric setup
Tekvicious well its not "just run electric fan" necessarily, as the amps drawn will use hp through the alternator
yeah, like 1hp.
T1000AX yes. Keep thinking the competition is stupid. While you're making 30hp over your stock 5hp engine, others are making3 and 4000hp
One of the best comparison videos I've ever seen. You take the EXACT same engine and make ONE change to see what the results are. AWESOME VIDEO!!!
Not only a few HP, but it allows a more compact ring package and lets you move the wrist pin up farther so a longer connecting rod can be used.
That parks the piston at TDC a little longer as well. All small performance gains, but they add up.
You guys are killing it with these sick back to back comparisons. It’s great to see proof on what all these little tricks actually gain! Thank uou
Smokey Yunick says smaller rings were better back in the 50's.
Smokey was right. But it wasn't until much later that metallurgical advancements allowed thinner rings to last in passenger car applications.
Please do more videos like this and the eBay turbo kit test!
That's the plan. Thanks for watching!
YES, +1
GO to motor trend and check out former Editor in Chief from Hotrod, Steve, and Dulcich the Mopar man. They do this all the time!
Nathan Stephenson Already paying for motertrend on demand bud👍
eXViLs because I drive a diesel that needs a bigger turbo
I enjoyed engine masters, but when it went its own way, I'm glad someone stepped up and kept the TH-cam videos coming. It's amazing how dynamics have changed over the years. I always told people that the info, in the magazines was the gospel. keep up the great work!!! Thanks
Great test, this is good info for us folks that had to use a set of pistons for a build that we could only find with a 5/64 ring pack instead of the thinner rings, even 1/16 set, that we really wanted to use. There is indeed some difference but it does seem slight and for many engines would not make a difference, especially in a typical street engine like the one used here. Hats off to you guys for doing the hard work and giving us really useful stuff. Things like this help us out. We also know this was a fair test done by competent people that we know and trust like Steve Brule.
Excellent test, thanks for doing the work it took to make it happen!
I like the editing / parts credits on this. Looks good. I'd actually like to see that in Roadkill Garage / Roadkill / HRG, too. Dig the experiment, too!
This is a great video. Steve's years of experience and some crazy questions. It's awesome to see an apples to apples comparison. I put thin rings in my 66 C10 on a whim and damn I'm happy I did. Thanks guys!
Yeah, I did on my big boost turbo engine too. I'm pretty happy with the result as well
8hp and better MPG with thin rings.
Jeremey Allen and less wear and stress on the engine over the long haul...
Jeremey Allen mazda did their side seals thinner on 13 b rotary and achieved better results.same with the apex seals
I also noticed that some rotaries had inner and outer side seals and others had just the one per face per side. I'm wondering what that was about?
FFS, why did I scroll down and let you spoil the result for me?
not to mention, easier revs
nice work guys thanks for the effort you guys put in
Big effort for such a little thing, appreciate the video
GREAT episode. Love the single-parameter shootout.
I think we people were hoping 20 plus so they got a reason to tear open the block. I was.
Good information for the next build!
Great test. Well done, guys!
have had two pan failures with Milodon . Glad you are using Moroso. good informative video, got my engine torn down now. good timing.
Brule has probably forgotten more than most of us will ever know... But I did notice quite a bit of blow-by when Steve was running the thin rings. It's predictable that there was some cylinder surface discontinuity due to ring wear-in from the thicker rings. I would like to see this test with both ring packs on identically prepared, freshly honed cylinders.
I figured 8 horsepower, exactly like he said. Been around this for over 50 years. Still fun to watch and see what is going on. Most of the time I am correct in my assumptions, however I still get "surprised". Which is what I like. That way I am still learning something new.
You're worth your weight in gold fellas - a single variable test, averaged across three runs - with an enormous amount of work to accomplish it, and a definitive result
I salute you
I got a test that's up this alley. Test a big block with a big "high capacity" 7qt pan, then swap in a wind age tray, crank scraper, stock oil pan and run it with just 4qts of oil (1qt low).
Brutal session... Only thing worse than a piston swap is fixing one that didn't quite blow up, but got real sick on a dyno.
Nice job. Helpful info.
please do a test comparing total seal gapless rings with normal piston rings
When racers measure their performance in tenths of a second in quarter mile ET 7 to 8 HP is the world. Case Closed GJ guys.
Not only that, but with increases in bore, stroke, and RPM, the gain should be more because those are more ring surface, more ring travel per crank revolution, and more ring dragging cycles in less time, respectively. That number of 20 is quite likely in Pro Stock.
i like seeing the odd stuff tested good on you thanks.
Mr. Brulé, How well do those thin rings hold up to power adders and high levels of boost or nitrous?
Spin test with the torque wrench was testing static friction. Found roughly 20ft-ls of difference between the two... Given the average kinetic friction of anything is usually about 3/4 to a 1/2 of the static friction max, and small blocks have similar tq and hp readings in na form, an 8hp difference seem about right!
Cool test! Interesting to know the little things do add up!
Nice test, I was guessing 5 hp. so 7 to 8 was a little more than I thought. But 25 to 30 I didn't even think twice on that one.
New motortrend series with more Steve Brule would be nice, I could listen to him talk about engines all day.
did I hear good for 200,00 miles?
also, what did you do to break in the 1.2 rings?
Cool! I just helped a nephew put together his 360 Chrysler short block and he has the 1.5/3.0mm ring pack. We checked the rotating torque and came up with 19 #s. I'm guessing part of that is due to the gooey assembly lube on the bearings (motor oil on the cylinders). Still, I could tell it felt lighter than what I'm used to. Great video, more please!
Was the oil control equal between sets? Low tension oil rings have been tried before but can be tricky to get oil out of combustion.
Great video! Do you think it would have been a greater increase if the cylinder bores were refinished between ring sets? Just to aid in cylinder sealing in the bore? just curious.
Thanks again
I would like to see total seal gapless rings Vs moly ring shootout with HP numbers
What is the RPM "stepping" I can hear in the tests? I haven't noticed that in other Engine Masters videos, what is it due to? Just idle curiosity on my part. Love the videos!
great video and great information!!!!
My guess was 5 hp improvement. Pretty close but one of those things I never really thought about before. Well done!
Brule has become one of my favorites of the whole Hot Rod video series family.
Well done Steve, I liked the fact that you mentioned averaging three runs!
Any kind of scientific test needs to be repeatable.
And those of us that have done scientific engine testing understand thermal saturation can be involved in small testing error
Steve, you are the man!
are the new rings seating in the same? what was leak down after brake in on both engine set ups? Are A.F. Ratio's and timing optimized
for both engine set ups? Exh. temps. etc.?
I'm really impressed it made that big of a difference (1.8%). I thought the thinner rings were only for the ring float engines get at high rpm (2 cycle engines particularly since they are not limited by valve speeds). I had no idea a ring could have that much extra friction (aka wear).
was there a break-in cycle or straight to the pulls? did the first set of pistons go into a freshly honed block? Some variables I'd consider were not addressed. This is a hard test set though. nothing easy about the change over especially having to remove the spiral locks an deconstruct the engine.
maybe I missed it, but do you get as much mileage out of the thin rings as the original?
Interesting video. Did you hone the cylinders before installing the thin-ring pistons?
Stupid question, but how broken in were the fist set of rings compared to the second set? Dont the rings perform better after break in?
Steve Brule is the god of dynos, testing, and IC. Big fan for a long time.
I'd be interested to see what the part throttle BSFC #'s were between the two ring sets, I have a suspicion the thin rings would show better fuel efficiency in regular street driving.
Did you guys get enough data to make that type of comparison?
Good video either way. (And yes I agree...that was a lot of work) :-)
which ring will stick to the piston quicker or loose its tension or be stable heat transfer .
I would like to know if the ring gap is different for thinner rings do they close up more under nitrous loads
That's pretty good increases . How reliable would they be in a boosted application ?
In the future, maybe a couple different tests relating to the valve train. One test with roller needle bearings replacing the standard camshaft bearings. Another test to check the gains in rocker arm changes. Maybe roller bearings over bronze bearings or a 1.7:1 ratio vs. a 1.8:1 ratio rocker arm. Another cool test that relates to blow-by is the before and after change from a vacuum pump. Then, you can check the benefits at 12, 18, and 24 lbs. of vacuum.
I wonder if you lost compression and how long can you get out of the mm rings I would think they would ware faster
would there be much difference if the engine was boosted. like would the thick rings be about to hold more boost. or nos for the matter?
Are the new rings actually broken in and seated to the walls? What was the change in blowby?
Awesome video
Have been thinking about this for week, found some great advice here Mr. Brule knows his sh-t use to like his articles on CHP Thanks Steve
great video. would love to see this test done with gasported pistons. maybe the thinner rings would seal better with som held from the backpressure and then give a few more hp?
12:12:1 (gas engine) and you add like a intake and exhaust then the ratio goes down to 14:14:1. What do you change in the computer to get it back to a healthy air to fuel?
Engine polygraph , nice.
Did you guys give the block a fresh hone when you changed the pistons?
This is my first time watching one of your videos, why's there a shopping list at the start of the video?
Yep, but the oil consumption may come higher. But the engine was popping a lot @ last run ... what's that?
But will the thicker ring pack help seal better when you add FI?
great test
Checrolet went to the 1.5, 1.5, 3.0mm rings long before the LS engine series. Pull apart a '96+ Vortec 350 and You will find Hypereutectic pistons ( Made by Mahle ) with that exact ring pack on them..
Sadly, the aftermarket ( at least in budget parts..) keeps selling pistons with the lame 5/64" or the marginally better 1/16" compression rings...
1.5mm = .059
1/16" = .0625
If 1/16 is only marginally better, than 1.5mm are as well . . . the difference there is almost non-existent.
If the pistons are identical how did you account for ring land gaps?
Just out of curiosity, when you do tests that require the heads to be pulled, do you use new head gaskets each time or do you reuse them to keep cost down?
It depends on the gasket type. For a coated gasket such as we used in this test, we will change them. However, certain MLS gaskets are able to be reused.
Thanks for the reply. Looking forward to more product tests on the dyno.
good question i was just ask the same thing lol
great advice guys...thanks
We knew about thin rings back in the 1970's. Problem with them was they did not last as long as we thought they should have. Now they do last. We ran the Total seal gapless rings starting in the mid to late 1970's. They worked well, and they continue to improve them. I like them in turbo applications, as they keep the blowby issues down. Knowing this, I agreed with apx. a 8 HP gain, would be seen here...
Was the fuel flow less for a given rpm engine 1 vs engine 2?
would love to see how much effect there is with 2 different weights of pistons.
I wonder if it creates more blow-by? If so, would excavating the block more efficiently increase the numbers?
I would love to see a loose, within spec engine VS a tight within spec engine.
How do the thinner rings hold up under and extreme heat?
8 HP is a great gain. Enough for me to use thin rings next build. I was expecting 4-5 HP.
I didn't think was gonna make any difference lol
@@bigbothoee8617 LOL just started next build but decision is already made for me. Went with a crate motor this time.
Seems more informative and clinical than Engine Masters, less comic relief. I like this better. I will still watch both as long as both are being made though, so carry on gents.
I noticed there is no drive belt. What turns the oil pump?
One thing to remember is that thicker rings carry more heat away from the pistons and into the cylinder walls. That's better for boosted motors particularly and helps with longevity of the pistons. Racers want power now, street cars generally want to run lots of miles.
Oil squirters to cool the pistons might make up the difference so if I'm putting thin rings in a boosted motor I'll be using oil squirters for sure.
Frictional force depends on the nature of the surface in contact. The rougher the surface, the greater the friction involved. Frictional force is proportional to the pressing force, which is the weight of the body. It is independent of the area of contact.
Taken from a textbook on Tribology.
What about Ring strength... flutter expansion raids all the different things that rings have issues with their problems with does that make one better than the other or worth the small gain?
ERROR ERROR....what about break in, no leak down test? How perfect were the cylinders honed? comparable ring tension?
Do a head gasket vid on LS motors go over how thinner is better vs detonation risk ect
At a basic level, friction is related to normal forces (the force of the ring pushing on the cylinder wall), not the surface area.
What about Total Seal/Gapless rings? Just a fad or are they worth using in certain situations?
Steve likes this kid, he is not like the others.
old school rotary guys will remember going from a 2mm apex seal to a 3mm to run more boost and noticed a drop in performance. now days you can get a pretty strong 2mm seal. you never see n/a engines with 3mm seals. its shit. on an engine with very little friction and no valve springs to compress you can imagine the difference it makes.
Hi All the low friction benefit is at part loads typically 2.0 Bar BMEP which is the recognized industry and OEM test point, if you had run part load as well as full load you should have seen a bigger difference but a gain at rated is worth it
I wonder how much it would be for something like a 434sbc with a bigger bore and stroke combination.
This is a great test.
However, it would be interesting to see blow-by numbers from the 5/16 inch rings vs 1.2mm rings. Maybe the performance doesn't entirely come from lower friction, the narrow rings might also be improving power by reducing blow-by through a better seal.
We didn't measure blow by but we did check leak down, which came in at 4% for both ring sets.
Excellent. That helps explain the results of using the narrow piston rings.
try testing NIS WS2 nanolub engine oil additive on the dyno! IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO SEE!
Questions one may also consider are- will the rings hold up as well? Will the rings last as long? Will the new thinner rings have more blow by? Are they more apt to break?
Is the difference just from different ring tension?
About 2% thats worth doing on a new or rebuild. I enjoyed this as it answers the question.
Really need to address cast iron 5.2 durability in older mopars and a mild cam with 340 heads, 10:1 compression and peak rpm.