Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: Ring Wear Question

  1. #11
    Team Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    30
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fastjeff57 View Post
    They are .015 oversize cut to fit a standard bore. Genuine Merc rings. All 6 rings wore the same (actually 5--one of them broke on me). I assume the rings wore, not the bore, but I'll re-measure.

    So, this is NOT normal after such minor running? It happened twice with the engine (early Merc triple).

    Jeff

    PS: Thanks for the inputs.
    Hi
    Others may disagree but I would say that as you are using 0.015 oversize rings and filing the ring gap that the wear is due to the fact that not all of the outer surface of the rings are touching the bore which would result in the rings wearing excessively where they touch and slight wear where they do not touch. You are trying to fit a large radius into a smaller radius which leaves a gap where they don not touch. I would suggest that you measure the ring depth all the way around and I would bet that it is not uniform but would be consistent with the other rings. I would try to get the standard rings. If you have a spare 0.015 oversize ring I would suggest that you drop it into the bore and run a feller gauge around the circumference to see if there is any gap.

  2. #12
    Team Member zul8tr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Orlando, Fla
    Posts
    509
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Lots of people (usually racers, engine builders) used over sized rings in cylinders to custom fit the gap for top performance. Proper cylinder truing and break in will get a perfect fit. Your suggestion to check the ring depth is a good one and should be done just to eliminate that possibility. The idea to check for a gap around the ring circumference in the bore with a feeler gage is interesting but I doubt if any standard feeler gage would be that thin (thinking if there is a gap it is less than 0.0002", best feeler I have is 0.001"). There is something else going on. Perhaps a very accurate cylinder mic test with a 3 point bore gage (accurate to 0.0002" or there about) would reveal some issues of out of round, taper etc.?

    Jerry we are still waiting.
    " Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead" Ben Franklin
    " ------- well Doctor what have we got a Republic or Monarchy? A Republic he replies if you can keep it"
    Benjamin Franklin, 1787 Constitutional Convention, as recorded by signer James McHenry's in his diary at the Library of Congress

    Location: SW Orlando, Fl

  3. #13
    Team Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Eastern PA
    Posts
    661
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I did a test with a bright LED light shining through the plug hole and a cardboard disk blocking out the light. Was able to spot light at the gap, but no where else. Tied it with both a standard and .015 oversize ring and couldn't see any light 'leaking' through.

    Put the motor together and trailer tested it yesterday. Ran very well and has 130 to 140 compression. Have to wait until Spring to see what she'll do on a boat. Damn Winter!

    Thanks for the advice.

    Jeff

    PS: It's amazing how much easier it is to tune a motor this way vs. on a floating boat! It was able to spin that 17 pitch prop at least 6,000 rpm standing still which is a good sign. Plugs came out way too dark--another good sign.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    "We live at the bottom of an ocean of air." - General Marvage Slatington

  4. #14
    Jerry Wienandt
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Stockbridge, WI
    Posts
    19
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zul8tr View Post
    Lots of people (usually racers, engine builders) used over sized rings in cylinders to custom fit the gap for top performance. Proper cylinder truing and break in will get a perfect fit. Your suggestion to check the ring depth is a good one and should be done just to eliminate that possibility. The idea to check for a gap around the ring circumference in the bore with a feeler gage is interesting but I doubt if any standard feeler gage would be that thin (thinking if there is a gap it is less than 0.0002", best feeler I have is 0.001"). There is something else going on. Perhaps a very accurate cylinder mic test with a 3 point bore gage (accurate to 0.0002" or there about) would reveal some issues of out of round, taper etc.?

    Jerry we are still waiting.
    And I've been resisting the urge to start a urinating contest. As for a gap, you won't see one... but you will create areas of differing surface pressure on the bore.

    See below:

    Ring Gaps: Mercury 44, 40 and 30 cu. in. fours.

    I absolutely do not agree with oversize rings with the gap filed to fit… Yes, I know that was Harry’s mantra but I'll say it again, I absolutely do not agree with oversize rings with the gap filed to fit.

    With oversized rings, I feel that in an effort to solve one problem, you create another…

    First off, rule of thumb is gap should be 2 ½ times bore dimension, in thousandths. Then, remember our Mercury pistons with their heavy section deflectors hold a lot of heat, so these pistons may need more ring gap clearance than other designs... I think .004” that some recommend is too tight under heat… I’d love .008”. No less than .007”

    And an oversize ring squooshed (technical term) into a tighter bore distorts, putting three pressure points on the distorted ring and creates two areas of lesser ring tension pressure on the bore. You are smart enough to figure out where those light and tight spots are, I’m betting. Any reason you’d prefer less sealing at the port areas?

    Mercury stock rings are approx. .012” gap. That’s looser than I’d like, so I pick the tightest for top rings. And for the ‘leakdown’, I don’t worry about it, as I get 140 # at roping speed which is what, 3 rpm?

    What’s the leakdown at 7200 rpm?

    Lets do a thought experiment here…

    That too big ring gap sticks out what, say .007” piston clearance (cold), so say 3 ½ thou on a side, so the 'extra' gap is 3 ½ X 4 thou (.012” - .008” that I’d like). That’s a tiny, tiny gap. At 7200 rpm, we fool ourselves using RPM, should be RPS to be more relevant, that’s 120 times UP AND DOWN per second, and only roughly half the travel up and down is under compression or combustion pressure, when ports are closed. And that tiny, tiny leak has a second and third line of defense, the #2 ring and #3 ring… How much leakdown can that be? A gnat fart?

    And that gap is smaller yet under heat, running, and with lots of oil (I run 8 : 1, BTW)

    I’d rather have a round perfect ring fit to the bore, than .004” less gap with ring distortion. And, with possible ring gap binding from being too tight... I do see a lot of guys running really tight ring gaps trashing pistons regularly...

    Never had that in my motors.

    All my UIM record motors and National Championship motors ran 3 Mercury OEM correct bore size rings. The one thing I did, early on, was bevel the bottom only of the bottom ring(s). Then I quit doing that. Now I select the tightest rings for the top and install all 12 right out of the box. On 44’s with 2 Keystone rings, I take ‘em right out of the box and make sure to put them right side up.

    Hope this helps.

    Jerry

  5. #15
    Team Member zul8tr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Orlando, Fla
    Posts
    509
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trident View Post
    And I've been resisting the urge to start a urinating contest. As for a gap, you won't see one... but you will create areas of differing surface pressure on the bore.

    See below:

    Ring Gaps: Mercury 44, 40 and 30 cu. in. fours.

    I absolutely do not agree with oversize rings with the gap filed to fit… Yes, I know that was Harry’s mantra but I'll say it again, I absolutely do not agree with oversize rings with the gap filed to fit.

    With oversized rings, I feel that in an effort to solve one problem, you create another…

    First off, rule of thumb is gap should be 2 ½ times bore dimension, in thousandths. Then, remember our Mercury pistons with their heavy section deflectors hold a lot of heat, so these pistons may need more ring gap clearance than other designs... I think .004” that some recommend is too tight under heat… I’d love .008”. No less than .007”

    And an oversize ring squooshed (technical term) into a tighter bore distorts, putting three pressure points on the distorted ring and creates two areas of lesser ring tension pressure on the bore. You are smart enough to figure out where those light and tight spots are, I’m betting. Any reason you’d prefer less sealing at the port areas?

    Mercury stock rings are approx. .012” gap. That’s looser than I’d like, so I pick the tightest for top rings. And for the ‘leakdown’, I don’t worry about it, as I get 140 # at roping speed which is what, 3 rpm?

    What’s the leakdown at 7200 rpm?

    Lets do a thought experiment here…

    That too big ring gap sticks out what, say .007” piston clearance (cold), so say 3 ½ thou on a side, so the 'extra' gap is 3 ½ X 4 thou (.012” - .008” that I’d like). That’s a tiny, tiny gap. At 7200 rpm, we fool ourselves using RPM, should be RPS to be more relevant, that’s 120 times UP AND DOWN per second, and only roughly half the travel up and down is under compression or combustion pressure, when ports are closed. And that tiny, tiny leak has a second and third line of defense, the #2 ring and #3 ring… How much leakdown can that be? A gnat fart?

    And that gap is smaller yet under heat, running, and with lots of oil (I run 8 : 1, BTW)

    I’d rather have a round perfect ring fit to the bore, than .004” less gap with ring distortion. And, with possible ring gap binding from being too tight... I do see a lot of guys running really tight ring gaps trashing pistons regularly...

    Never had that in my motors.

    All my UIM record motors and National Championship motors ran 3 Mercury OEM correct bore size rings. The one thing I did, early on, was bevel the bottom only of the bottom ring(s). Then I quit doing that. Now I select the tightest rings for the top and install all 12 right out of the box. On 44’s with 2 Keystone rings, I take ‘em right out of the box and make sure to put them right side up.

    Hope this helps.

    Jerry
    That should sum it up.
    So Brinkman didn't always have the answers.
    Per your rule, on 22 ci Mercs and also the 44's the 2.5 x bore = ring gap in thousands is on the low side for your .007 min., but .008 preferred.

    Thanks for the info
    " Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead" Ben Franklin
    " ------- well Doctor what have we got a Republic or Monarchy? A Republic he replies if you can keep it"
    Benjamin Franklin, 1787 Constitutional Convention, as recorded by signer James McHenry's in his diary at the Library of Congress

    Location: SW Orlando, Fl

  6. #16
    Jerry Wienandt
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Stockbridge, WI
    Posts
    19
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Harry had an answer. Maybe right, maybe not, but the beauty of Mod is there can be more than one right answer. On this point, I disagree with him.

    But also realize that's a theoretical rule of thumb, the 2 1/2 times bore thing... Note, I also said these heavy section deflector pistons may really need more gap because of heat build up. I didn't have a way to get a tighter gap without using an oversize ring, so I don't really know what is the 'perfect' gap.

    In winning motors, no failures is perfect in my book. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

    I'm fine with stock Mercury rings. I still say any extra leakdown is insignificant, at temperature, at speed. Those clearances are far different than what we measure, cold, on the bench.

    Jerry

  7. #17
    Tim Weber
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    71
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I have to agree with Jerry.

    Another famous builder of mod and pro engines felt the same way. Lon Stevens told me not to worry all that about ring gap. He told me that the piston is going up and down so fast, how are you going to measure the difference. He was more concerned in sticking the motor and broken rings.

    Tim

  8. #18
    Team Member daveswaves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ontario, shores of Lake Erie
    Posts
    20
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Thanks Guys, this engine has been a problem for Jeff.

  9. #19
    Team Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Eastern PA
    Posts
    661
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    But only at low speed. It goes like stink above 5,000 rpm. Heck; I can live with that.

    Jeff
    "We live at the bottom of an ocean of air." - General Marvage Slatington

  10. #20
    Administrator Ron Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Tustin, California
    Posts
    3,407
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default My Dad, Russ Hill, Sr. Always Respected Mercury Motors and Their Parts

    Quote Originally Posted by Trident View Post
    Harry had an answer. Maybe right, maybe not, but the beauty of Mod is there can be more than one right answer. On this point, I disagree with him.

    But also realize that's a theoretical rule of thumb, the 2 1/2 times bore thing... Note, I also said these heavy section deflector pistons may really need more gap because of heat build up. I didn't have a way to get a tighter gap without using an oversize ring, so I don't really know what is the 'perfect' gap.

    In winning motors, no failures is perfect in my book. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

    I'm fine with stock Mercury rings. I still say any extra leakdown is insignificant, at temperature, at speed. Those clearances are far different than what we measure, cold, on the bench.

    Jerry
    I don't wish to High Jack this thread, but I have a few questions and thoughts. Harry Brinkman and I may have never met fact to face, but he sold 55-H "dead" rings that my dad liked. Over the years, my dad probably machined 200 pistons from castings. It seemed he was always careful to not make the ring grove too deep (Whispered a "Back Gap" in the old days). He also had some a theory for every inch of bore, so many thousandths of ring gap.

    I do know my dad was a fanatic about cylinder bore being exactly to MERCURY specs, and once the bore was over like .002, he'd change my blocks.

    Once the rule in APBA Stock was changed to any ring, my dad made aluminum rings for the bottom two rings. These rings were the depth of the ring grove and they just butted to the piston pin.

    Trident, did you ever run aluminum rings on the bottom two? If you did what was your results?

    So, the 44's now have "L" rings???? Shows how long it has been since I took a motor apart. Notice I said, "Take apart" as my dad always put them together.

    How much break in time????
    Last edited by Ron Hill; 11-11-2015 at 03:25 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Ring of Fire
    By Mark40H in forum Outboard Racing History
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-06-2008, 09:13 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •