Piston Rings....

[RockDoc]

I need to get some new rings, anyone have any input on sources or brands? They'll go on standard sized pistons, should I get standard sized rings or one step oversize and file down to a proper gap?

Some options I've found:

Federal Mogul from Northern Auto $82 US
Deves?? from SOR $109 US
4WheelAuto in Edmonton ??? (need to stop by and check)
I&M Import Parts (in Edmonton) US made $175 Cdn
MAF Deves $100 US
MAF OEM $187 US (or $40 US for oversize???? is this price per piston?) (perhaps NPR?)
Deves – direct order $140 US cars parts
4WheelAuto in Edmonton ??? (need to drop in and check)
Total seal gapless second ring S2645 conventional second ring C2645 (think I’ve heard mixed thoughts on gapless)
anyone know a source for NPR?

I remember from Marshal's Big Gay build that the Deves he got were kind of s***e, so that doesn't sound good....

 

[FJ40Jim]

Hastings

Hastings makes rings. That's pretty much all they do, and they are pretty good at it. I've had no problems w/ any of their product.

And yes, if the engine is punched .50mm O/S, then order a set of .75mm rings and file to fit. It will take time, but the end gaps can be set right at the min spec. If you recall the first "how to build power" book by Vizard, he observed marked decreases in power as ring gaps were increased on a test engine.

 

[RockDoc]

Off to look for Hastings stuff.

I'll have to take a peak at the Vizard book again..... I had a look through that and Monroe's books re: ring material, but will have to see what they show/say on gap.

 

[RockDoc]

Hastings must make the total seal rings... The part numbers are inverse (5462 and 2645)

 

[RockDoc]

Hastings from PerfectEngine.com - $77+$19 shipping (and UPS brokerage fee rape for crossing the border) http://www.perfectengine.com/Toyota_Piston_Rings_s/130.htm

Is the difference between the part numbers the thickness of the ring? Guess I better get out the micrometer and check the ones that came out....

First oversize is .50mm, which would mean about 1.5mm would need to be removed from the end of each ring.

 

[RockDoc]

For future reference, the stock compression ring I pulled to check ('82 or '83 2F) specs out at 0.0781" or 1.985mm, and the second ring specs at 0.0977" or 2.482mm, so the thicknesses listed with the perfect engine site refer to top and 2nd ring sizes, not oversize options or something like that. Just need to figure out what the difference between the 5462, 2M5462 and 2S5462 are.... Iron, Moly and Chrome?

 

[ntsqd]

I am leery of buying oversize and filing the gap to fit. The will result in quite a bit of ring tension. Might not be good for the ring or the bore, to say nothing about what it would do to rotational friction. Is there a jillion miles of experience in doing this? Are file to fit rings for the intended bore size not available?

 

[RockDoc]

I am leery of buying oversize and filing the gap to fit. The will result in quite a bit of ring tension. Might not be good for the ring or the bore, to say nothing about what it would do to rotational friction. Is there a jillion miles of experience in doing this? Are file to fit rings for the intended bore size not available?

I'm thinking I'll nix this idea, since (for the Hastings at least) I'd have to remove about 1.5mm for each of 24 rings.

 

[cruiserbrett]

why would you have to remove 1.5mm of ring? its more like 0.8mm minus whatever the excess gap(measured gap minus min gap specified) in the correct sized ring would have been... Guessing it will be closer to .65mm.

94.5mm * pi = 296.88mm circumference

94.75mm * pi = 297.66mm circ.

difference of 0.78mm which if you are accounting for the already large default ring gap means you can get away with removing less than that to get to the min gap for the 94.75mm bore.

Also, you are not going to need to size the oil control rings more that likely. they have a usually large gap that has no specified gap that I know of.

 

[RockDoc]

Because Jim's hypothetical example isn't the same as my reality. I've got standard pistons, first oversize is 0.50mm over for the Hastings and Federal Mogul.

 

[baxter650]

I am leery of buying oversize and filing the gap to fit. The will result in quite a bit of ring tension. Might not be good for the ring or the bore, to say nothing about what it would do to rotational friction. Is there a jillion miles of experience in doing this? Are file to fit rings for the intended bore size not available?

File-fit rings are custom sets that are slightly larger than the normal jobber rings and are meant to be file fitted.
Normal jobber rings go in and are a no brainer ( checking end gaps not required )in order to do this the end gaps are overly large.

If you are going to do the file fit rings take the time and bolt down the filer, and get some gloves with thick fingers, they will get sore squeezing the rings.
Don't know if it has been mentioned but you will need some fine whet stones as well.
It is not that bad once you get going and it does make for a nice cleaner running engine.

 

[RockDoc]

I've got standard pistons, first oversize is 0.50mm over for the Hastings and Federal Mogul.

Deves has 0.25mm over rings, which would work well for a file-fit..... I don't like the design of their oil ring spacer, but perhaps the stock spacer would work in its place.

 

[me_tu05]

I used deaves when I re-ringed my 62, they looked like a good quality, came from Switzerland too.

 

[grant5127]

Deves' oil expander way better than most, ITM worst on the planet, very easy for ends to overlap........

 

[ntsqd]

File-fit rings are custom sets that are slightly larger than the normal jobber rings and are meant to be file fitted.

Exactly. They are not for a .25mm or .50mm larger bore ID. Just enough larger in the expected bore to have little to no gap as supplied. Ring tension has been worked out to be what is required with such a set.

 

[RockDoc]

Decided to go with std-sized (jobber) rings from Hastings. With perfectengine.com it was easy to go with USPS shipping, so that helped clinch it.

 

[RockDoc]

Hastings standard iron rings: