Which do you guys prefer and why??
Thakns in advance. :coffeycup
Guess I'm gonna act stupid here--- what are ZGS' zero gap "someting's"
Your not asking for your new motor right?
ZGS is Childs and Alberts' zero gap system. Yes, I'm asking for my motor. Why?? I pretty much know which way I'm going, just like to get other's input that have more experience, or may have run both and found one to be better than the other.
anyone???
From another thread:
"Here's my experience. Ran Speed Pro molys for years. Used nothing else. When I ran blown alcohol in the altered car at around 8200 in the lights the crankcase pressure would blow the push in breathers out and you would get a little oil in the face. So we used to duct tape the breathers on.
Won an event that gave me a coupon for a set of C&A gapless rings. I figured I would try them and put them in. No more blowing off breathers, no more duct tape. Leak downs were a couple % better. Used them on all motors since and never see anything out of the breathers.
They are 0 gap second rings.
And to that I will add I did try total seals when they first came out and ran many tests against several rings. This was in PGF back in the 80's. I never saw any difference on the time slip but the leak gauge showed better.
I just bought a set of C&A gapless seconds direct and they cost me near $260. With speed pro's being 1/2 the price...I am beginning to ponder if the C&A's are worth it.
Scott,
One comment that I have heard is that while a conventional type ring may show more leakage on a compression test than a zero gap type ring; when your engine is at 7000 rpm, things are happening so fast that you don't get the difference in leakage like on the compression test.
Brian
Which brings to light this true story. Food for thought.
A few years back, boat 199 (9 second blown gas hydro) qualified #1 at Phoenix. On the final qualify round..water was spraying out of #4 cylinder. The cylinder head removed it was obvious the cylinder had split from near top to bottom. You could easily stick your fingernail in the crack. That night the block was filled with Quickcrete on that side only (while still in the boat..no hoist available), the water cut off to the block and running to the heads only. With no change in the tune up..the boat ran consistant 9.0's all day and took home the money.
We know the concrete didn't help much and didn't seal much. Guess we outran the leak.
I'm a firm believer in gapless rings. I think every top alcohol motor that we put together at Johnson had them. You almost have to have them in aluminum block if you're looking for every last pony. Most of these engines red lined in the 9000 rpm range, and pushed 3000 hp, with LOTS of boost. A lot of circle track builders use them as well.
That being said, I remember a 470 that leaked down something terrible, but was still running very well. We did a valve job and got the leak down we were looking for, but the thing didn't change .001 on the track. I think at high speeds (rpms) there are certain things that overlap so quickly that a lot of the static information we have on motors begins to have little to do with the dynamic performance. BUT...if one was to take that attitude about building an engine, then one begins not to optimise, but compromise instead. I try and make everything as perfect as I can in a motor, and if you want to take the time, that can be pretty damn good. Never perfect, but pretty good. Gapless rings are one of those things I think should be on any blown motor. I was just mwondering if anyone knew of any huge difference between the two brands. They have both been around a while, and it's probably more about personal preference than anything else.
Thanks guys! :coffeycup
Interesting stuff. So are they both gapless or only the second?
In both cases only one ring is gapless. I've heard of using them in either the top or bottom, but I've always used them in the second ring. I think that's where most guys use them. :coffeycup
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote