RAMM
Well-Known Member
I guess ordering from the US is not an option for you...
It is , its just a slow and expensive option. J.Rob
Cheepy Three-Sixty build
- Thread starter RAMM
- Start date
-
It is , its just a slow and expensive option. J.Rob
RAMM
Well-Known Member
Absolutely not just plain Jane Hastings 139's. J.Rob
IIRC, not only is the American dollar stronger than yours but between the shipping and what Canada charges for incoming merchandise is crazy ain't it?
67autocross
A new iron curtain drawn across the 49th parallel
My friend just did a refresh on a 588 and it was on the Dyno yesterday... made 915hp last time and 940 hp with the gapless rings this year.
The ring package was around $600 Canadian by the time it got here... aaahhh!
Prez. Donald J wants better/fairer deals for us, Geebuz!!, what about You Guys!!!! That's obscene, guess it's funding some program, yikes....................................
RAMM
Well-Known Member
I know I already answered this but--Would a set of $500-$600 rings really fit with the title and theme of this thread? J.Rob
Awwww! Come on RAMM!
That kind of cash is growing on trees! Just ask half the net there opinion!
LMFAO/ROFL!!!!
That kind of cash is growing on trees! Just ask half the net there opinion!
LMFAO/ROFL!!!!
67autocross
A new iron curtain drawn across the 49th parallel
Well if it's anything like most cheap builds in Canada it will still end up costing $6000 ...so whats a few hundred more for rings.
stixx
Well-Known Member
Only a few dozen million engines have been built with "standard" rings (and all production engines to this day, to my knowledge), and doing fine. And so will this cheepy Three-Sixty.
the overall price of the standard rings is cheaper but for 350 more that is a cheap 20 to 25 hp over the life of the engine . I agree with RAMM but this is just another way to look at it .
RAMM
Well-Known Member
You're right it is a great R.O.I. but I feel that expensive rings are outside the budget of this build and a 5/64's ring is not likely to produce the same gain. I have a couple of other "tricks" up my sleeve--not really tricks just executing some known quantity's. J.Rob
I think in a standard compression eng, (7.5 to 9.4) factory eng, has no place for gap-less ring. aka waste of money.
When you start turning past 6000 rpm......(.actually probably more like 7000 rpm)and have to use racing fuel/Methanol.....(because you have compression!!!!) This is were gap-less ring could shine!
I realize these/this, are builds on the "cheepy"
RAMM, just how much HP can you expect on a factory build? Because most of these kinda builds will have stock to less then stock(318/w 360 head for an example) compression.
My guess would be 5Hp at 5500 rpm........................ I know the "selling" point of these ring are like 25 Hp but i don't think it was was a figure that can from ANY eng in stock form.
An i wrong?
When you start turning past 6000 rpm......(.actually probably more like 7000 rpm)and have to use racing fuel/Methanol.....(because you have compression!!!!) This is were gap-less ring could shine!
I realize these/this, are builds on the "cheepy"
RAMM, just how much HP can you expect on a factory build? Because most of these kinda builds will have stock to less then stock(318/w 360 head for an example) compression.
My guess would be 5Hp at 5500 rpm........................ I know the "selling" point of these ring are like 25 Hp but i don't think it was was a figure that can from ANY eng in stock form.
An i wrong?
RAMM
Well-Known Member
Some progress after crank was balanced. Rods going on the pistons and the balance sheet. 118 grams off one end and 80 grams off the other. Bobweight isn't too bad. J.Rob
RAMM
Well-Known Member
Installed the crank and thrust check showed .004"-.005" fore and aft. Then I was able to install #1 rod/piston assembly and check deck height. It actually came in -.010" below deck. I attribute this to the comp height actually measuring 1.634" instead of Sealed Power's spec of 1.637" and I'm sure the stroke is not exactly 3.580" after being ground 20/20. This is a pretty good example how tolerance stack adds up fast. After this weekend the short block
RAMM
Well-Known Member
1
RAMM
Well-Known Member
MOPAROFFICIAL
Oogliboogli
I thought I would see the notch towards the back trick, but oh well ;)
RAMM
Well-Known Member
I thought about it but I saw this trick done in a Chev 383 stroker and it sounded like a Jetta diesel. That I do not want--don't care about the supposed miniscule HP advantage even if there really is one. J.Rob
MOPAROFFICIAL
Oogliboogli
It's torque.
Maybe they had too much skirt clearance once that Chevy bore went out of round upon warm up.Lol SBC have thin cyl walls, a lot of them pin holed at .030-.040...
In a sbm set up to stock skirt clearance the pistons flipped around would free up about 8 or so lbs of torque and make no more noise 'cold' than something set up at .004.
Did it a lot back in the day...I use a better piston nowadays.
Last edited:
RAMM
Well-Known Member
A cast piston @ .004" is going to sound like the aforementioned Jetta diesel. Skirt to cylinder on these is .0017" . I highly doubt 8 lbs of torque is what it's worth. Not chancing it. J.Rob
MOPAROFFICIAL
Oogliboogli
RAMM
Well-Known Member
So you actually had an engine on the dyno and A-B-A tested and swapped rods/pistons bank to bank and you saw 8 ft/lbs difference? Peak? Avg? I agree though to each his own. J.Rob
MOPAROFFICIAL
Oogliboogli
2 engines, built the same, ,same parts, same month even, one with swaped around pistons. Average.
RAMM
Well-Known Member
Some crude baffling in the oil pan made from an 6.0 LS windage tray. J.Rob
-
