Childs & Albert piston rings

-

JGC403

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
1,046
Reaction score
48
Location
Baileyton, TN
I am finally putting together my 383. I have been going through the parts pile getting everything organized and found the piston rings. But I can't remember which one is the top ring and what one is the second ring.

One box: ES- 116x4.285 1/16 Cast Iron RT Taper Face

Other box: BS- 116x4.285 1/16 Ductile Dura-Moly

Help, what one goes where. I'm trying to get the short block all together this weekend.
 
dura moly is the top ring...plain cast iron is second ring
 
A .030 over 383 will have a 4.280" bore. It appears that you have 4.285" rings so they will need to be file fit. Make sure you check the rings in the bore before you put them on the pistons.
 
Alright thanks.


A .030 over 383 will have a 4.280" bore. It appears that you have 4.285" rings so they will need to be file fit. Make sure you check the rings in the bore before you put them on the pistons.


Yes, they are file fit rings. I do remember that much. What is the ring gap supposed to be?
 
Looks like I'm going to go with 0.004" x bore for top and 0.003" x bore for second rings. so 0.018" for top and 0.013" for second.
 
OK. Just making sure they aren't KB hypers. I would add .006 to the 2nd ring gap, otherwise the ".004 per inch of bore" should be fine for top and 2nd rings.
 
OK. Just making sure they aren't KB hypers. I would add .006 to the 2nd ring gap, otherwise the ".004 per inch of bore" should be fine for top and 2nd rings.

I was using .004" for top and .003" for 2nd ring.
 
I was using .004" for top and .003" for 2nd ring.


I understand. I would loosen up that 2nd ring a bit. It's not a compression ring, but too tight of a gap there can force the compression (top) ring to loose ring seal.
 
My understanding was that since the second ring is cooler than the top ring the gap should be less. So that is why I was using a gap of 0.018" for top and 0.013" for 2nd.
 
While that's true, the top ring is exposed directly to heat, it's not how a modern stack of piston rings works:

The top ring seals the chamber, providing compression. It does this by sealing against the lower ring land of the piston, and the cylinder wall. This is why it has a rounded shape where it contacts the wall, and why the top ring is the only one moly coated to seat fast.

The 2nd ring is not a compression ring by design. It's designed to scrape residual oil left by the oil ring stack off the cylinder walls prior to the top ring passing by on the intake stroke. Otherwise you'd be sucking a lot of oil up the walls and into the chamber... It can trap some pressure above it if there's too tight of a gap, or too much oil going past the 3rd ring stack. But it's by design not supposed to, and pressure below the top ring but above the second can push the top ring up off the ring land, losing some compression and allowing for ring flutter and lost power and rpm potential.

The 3rd ring package is actually two oil scraping rings and and expander to kep them pushed against the cylinder wall. It's designed to scrape the oil, and give it a path out and away from the walls - so it's not any type of compression-sealing ring.

You certainly can run the rings at what you specified. It's how the factory 40 years ago did it and it's won't be any worse. But - times change and technology improves.
 
Ross Custom Pistons. I got them made for use with 440 rods and the 1/16, 1/16, 3/16 ring pack.

Nice pistons! I've made quite a few Chrysler pistons when I used to work for Ross like 16 years ago.
 
-
Back
Top