Ring Gaps - I've got the six in my '56 Champion torn down and am trying to figure out what size rings to order for it. Unfortunatly I don't happen to have one standard and one .020 over ring laying in my dest drawer to check and see what I come up with for end gap. The engine has not been bored and does not need to be. Some light scoring in a few of the holes that will clean up with a hone. The end gap on the old rings is .030 give or take. The book says .007 to .017 on the gap for the new rings. Could the old rings have worn that much with 60,000 miles on them. I really don't want to order standards and have too much slop. How about some ideas on which way to go on this? Hello, Nice to see someone not boring one of these engines for a change! Standard size rings will work fine if you didn't need a ridge reamer to remove the pistons (usually you don't on those wonderful little blocks) if that is the case then use standard size rings. I have rebuilt between 20 to 25 champ engines, and I've never ran across one that needed to be bored out. Those cast iron rings will wear and I have seen clearances run from .015 to .045 and don't use chrome or moly rings, somtimes they will wear the cylinder walls. By the way, if your crankshaft is standard and you haven't had it turned, don't unless it's absolutely necessary! Usually all the crank will need is standard or .001 oversize bearings. Anyway I hope all of this helps. Feel free to email me anytime. I have been rebuilding Stude engines for about 40 years now, and I would be happy to help you with any info you might need. Joey, Have any experience wit rebuilding the older (30's) Big Sixes? In my experience there are no different than any other flat head inline motor. However the rods did have poured big ends. Last time I did one you could still get the replacement rods with pop-in's. Mike, Rings should be ordered based on bore size, not any other factors. Are you using stock sized pistons? if so just order the stock size rings. They will either be file to fit (in which case you probably will need to trial fit them in the bores, and, um, well you can probably guess) or else the "total seal" gapless type and no adjustment will be needed. I'd slap an inside mike on the bores to make sure that the engine doesn't need to be bored... but from what I hear it probably doesn't if the bores look OK, the Stude cast iron is harder than a Chebby or Furd. I would look at the pistons especially the upper ring groove. My bores were good at 65,000 miles but the ring side clearence on the piston was .030 May not be common but was how my engine was. Nate - The Total Seal rings I recently bought for a non-Stude needed to be filed. Their literature indicated they could supply rings either file-to-fit or final sized, but what I actually received were file-to-fit.. I think I told them up front there would be some variation in bore sizes, so they probably erred on the safe side with the idea I'd final size each bore individually. That was fine with me. While were on it, what is the NG's opinion of Total Seal rings? Are they worthwhile? Incidently, the Total Seal installation literature states not to oil the rings on assembly, as oiling will prevent proper seating. They say to assemble dry with a thin film of oil on the bore. I did it that way, but I've only got an hour running time on the engine so far, so can't make any evaluation. Lots of power though. Frank Starr Bob - They were $16 per piston, but it was a very custom application. The engine is a two-cylinder French Panhard, and all three ring dimensions, diameter, width and depth are non-standard. I actually sent them a piston and sleeve so they would get it right. I just checked my Total Seal catalog - they don't list Studebaker as a stock item, but do list Studebaker as an application they have filled in the past. I'd think the price should be less than for my custom job. Note that the Total Seal ring is only used for the No. 2 ring position - all the others remain the stock ring. So either you have to buy a full ring set for the other positions, or Total Seal can supply a full set using conventional rings for the other positions. One thing I like about them is they'll pretty much give you what you want. I'd think the ideal set-up would be cast iron for No. 1, Total-Seal for No. 2 and the accordian type for the oil ring. Ted Harbit, what's your opinion on this? Frank Starr I have only ever used Perfect Circle or Sealed Power (ne' SpeedPro) rings. I have always found that when I have the block bored to whatever size (.030 OS, etc.) that the rings have not needed filing, the gap is 'good to go'. Altho come to think of it, I have used American Hammered in the past also, but that was long enough ago I don't remember if they were usable out of the box. In fact, I don't even own a ring filer, I'd have to use a fine machinists file if I ever ran into some that needed filing. Nevertheless I always check them, each and every one. The problem that I have found with replacement ring sets, (not sealed power), is that the ring gap is always more than what I feel is desirable. Example: On re-ringing a standard bore, the replacement ring gaps for standard sized rings should be no more than .012 on the ridge below piston ring travel but it always ends up by being .020 or more. I think that the ring manufacturers do this on purpose to eliminate litigation just in case an engine seizes up after overhaul... They might do it to compensate for different rates of expansion. Seems to me that the rings, having far less mass than the block or even the piston, will expand much quicker. Better to be safe than sorry, and .008 doesn't seem like too much leeway. Just a hypothesis..... That was Studebaker's manufacturing specs. Most ring manufacturers call for a .010 min end gap for rings that will go into bores of 3-4 inches. But when they manufacturer after market rings that yield a gap of .015 or more, that's the equivalent of many miles of wear.... Mike - Yep - you don't know how the engine has been treated since new. Plus, lubricants 45 years ago weren't what they are today. Without a new ring of known diameter, the only way to know the bore size is with a cylinder mike (i.e. - an inside mike with the proper range). You don't say where you are, but maybe someone would loan you a new ring. Or, you could take a chance and order 0.010 over rings and plan on gapping them to fit each cylinder - actually not a bad idea. Obviously, hone the cylinders first. Frank Starr Rough rule of thumb for most ring types is .003" end gap per inch of cylinder diameter. Measure with the ring square in the bore maybe half way down to split the usual slight taper that occurs in unbored engines. Use a piston to tap the rings down, that'll square 'em. I have not re-ringed as many Champions as Joey, but I agree with him. I have only done about ten myself. I have had problems with excessive ring gap, especially with cheap J.C. Whitney rings. This results in excessive blowby. With standard size bores, I use 0.020" oversize cast iron rings, for fast seating. I use a Dremel tool to carefully hand fit each ring to the bore and keep the end gap at the minimum at the bottom of the stroke. Watch the pistons on the Champ. Excess top ring land wear can be a problem. On the '63-'64 OHV the skirts crack at the radius. I would use '59-'62 pistons in those automatically. The '55-'58 185 factory pistons have a different skirt than the old 169, due to the longer stroke. If using old pistons, also make sure all oil drainback holes are clean behind the oil ring. Worn Valve Lifter bores also are a problem, which results in a loss of oil pressure and too much oil going up the guides. A ragged idle is a sign of loose valve guides. Guides are replaceable and lifters are available in oversize if you shop around. The worst taper I had was 0.006" at 80,000 miles. Most were only half of that. Make sure the bores are super clean after glaze breaking, or you will wipe out the new rings. For sure use a ridge reamer, if it has any miles on it at all. KK That's strange. The best rings that I have used in several motors were the J.C. Whitney chrome rings, (purchased in the 1980's), which provided acceptable ring gap and excellent wear qualities. Unfortunately, I used the last pair in my '63 Lark, (63K on the overhaul and not a hint of blow-by). I don't know about their current selection but it may well be as dismal as the other suppliers. Sadly, JT, J.C. Whitney is hardly even a shadow of what it was about 15 or 20 years ago. All just dress-up crap now. I'm sure you know that tho. I'd like to buy a few more sets of those $40 dollar rod bearings if I could! On the V8 the Stude end gap spec was .008"-.016". As I said earlier, .003" per inch of diameter roughly. And again, I have always found Perfect Circle and Sealed Power rings 'good to go'. Stude used to offer you your choice of these two brands when your ordered rings. Randee Yep, and you can bet that new engines were real close to the .008 end. The latest assortment of after market rings that I have tried all fell well above .016 in end gap. One set was .027...... Well, sure, if you bore the block, then all cylinders are the same known diameter top to bottom, and replacement rings are 'good to go' assuming you are willing to live with the ring manufacturers gap. But the point of this whole thread was that Mike (remember him?) has a block with 60k miles on it which he feels is in good enough condition to reuse without reboring. What he does want to know is what diameter the cylinders are now. In other words, even though the block is in good condition, and that Stude blocks are hard to start with, there is bound to be some wear in the cylinders at this point. The question is what is the cylinder diameter now, what is the taper and how much variation is there from one cylinder to the next. All legitimate questions at this point. I still think it would be most expeditious to order a 0.010 over set of rings and plan on fitting (filing) each ring to its cylinder. That way compensates for variations between cylinders. Mike, when you're sizing the rings in this block, be sure to set the rings down to the bottom point of the ring travel in the cylinder to avoid false readings caused by taper. Frank Starr Tried to buy .010" rings? ??? I wasn't sure when I put that in if such was available. If not, use 0.020 - just a little more filing. Cast iron rings are easy to file. Again, if you go to a custom ring maker, such as Total Seal, you can get anything want (except Alice....). I wasn't sure when I put that in if such was available. If not, use 0.020 - just a little more filing. Cast iron rings are easy to file. Again, if you go to a custom ring maker, such as Total Seal, you can get anything want (except Alice....). Frank Starr Hmm, well actually it turns out that the box of Perfect Circle Stude 3-9/16" bore rings I have on the shelf is marked "std.-.010". I have another box of Perfect Circle Packard 3-1/4" rings and they are only marked "std". My Perfect Circle Service Manual shows: Cylinder Size Ring Size Std. & .010" Std. .020" .020" OS .030" .030" OS .040 & .050" .040" OS .060 & .070" .060" OS .080 & .090" .080" OS It recommends .010" end clearance & .0015" side clearance. BTW the Stude manual suggests .005" max. side clearance. ------------------- If you mean by "side" clearance the ring to piston groove fit, yes. Excessive wear here will result in broken rings and lots of oil consumption. -------------------- And that is my concern as well as I have, (up to this date), only rebored a couple of blocks but have overhauled a couple dozen standard bores. Well, I have no history with Studebaker, so I can't comment on the original spec of .008 - .016 inch. I'm sure Studebaker had a reason. My comments are just based on sound machine shop practice, and experience with a wide variety of engines, American and European. If it makes you feel any better, the specified ring gap in the shop manual for that little French Panhard engine I mentioned earlier is 1.5mm +/- 0.1mm. That works out to 0.055 to 0.063 inch ring gap!!!!! (Bore is 3 3/8 inch) I thought long and hard about it, talked to my machinest and Total Seal about it, and decided to stick with that setting, including the Total Seal ring. I figured there must be a good reason. So far it has good power, but I've only got an hour on the engine. Frank > >Could the old rings have worn that much with 60,000 miles on > them. Mike - Yep - you don't know how the engine has been treated since new. Plus, lubricants 45 years ago weren't what they are today. Without a new ring of known diameter, the only way to know the bore size is with a cylinder mike (i.e. - an inside mike with the proper range). You don't say where you are, but maybe someone would loan you a new ring. Or, you could take a chance and order 0.010 over rings and plan on gapping them to fit each cylinder - actually not a bad idea. Obviously, hone the cylinders first. Frank Starr ------------------- Well double Hmm. I've never seen that before, using a std. ring for a .010" overbore. Since each .001" increase in bore diameter causes a .003" increase in ring gap (actually pi - 3.1416, but you get my drift), it seems to me that a std ring in a .010" overbore would result in a .030" increase in gap over the manufacturer's design gap. If the design gap was,say, .010", that would result in a ring gap of .040". I dug out a Glenn's Manual, which suprisingly has a lot of ring info. Amongst other things, it says: Allow .004" gap/inch cylinder diameter for the top ring, and .003" for the other rings. But then it goes on to say that this is a minimum dimension, and that "ring fitting failures are almost always from fitting the rings too tight rather than too loose". Further, "leakage through the gap, even in a very loosly fitted ring, is negligible" and "leave plenty of gap clearance for expansion rather than fit the ring too close and take the chance of ring butting and breaking in the groove". I notice that Hastings and Perfect Circle are both acknowledged as contributors to the text. Think I'll leave my gaps on the loose side from now on. Frank Starr ----------------------- //////////// The shop manual says the minimum top piston ring gap should be . 012. I getting . 010. The instructions that came with the rings say it should be .003 per inch which works out to be . 0105. Would you worry? Does one just file the ends? Would an engine shop even check them? I'm new to engine building and have lots of questions./////////////// Definitely file the rings to increase the end gap. A couple questions: Is this an R 1 or R 2? If an R 2, I would suggest adding an extra couple thousandths due to supercharger heat. A second question, do you happen to have hypereutectic pistons? If so, they require a minimum (on your engine) of .020" on the top ring as these pistons transfer more heat to the ring. If you have the R 1 and standard cast pistons, then I would try for a minimum of .012'' end gap.