Cam/Lifter uh-oh Part II

Kahuna said:
Where do you guys get that the cylinder friction is of no value when working to reduce friction? HUH?
All you have to do is compare a std set of rings to the newer stuff. ANY change is beneficial!!
And, good luck with a vacuum pump. Sheesh
Click to expand...

Thank you "Kahuna", this is simply an excellent statement, pretty much sums up a good portion of what "chasing HP" is all about!

If there are any doubters I would say "you'd need to feel the difference between the amount of effort required to make 1 turn of a short block with (8) 3 or 4-ring pistons having cast rings installed and one using (8) pistons having a 1.5, 1.5, 3.0, "moly-metric" ring pack"? It's really a "night & day" issue!

I say there's more than a 20 HP gain directly related to these super-light-weight/lower-tension ring packs, but I'll leave it at 20 for now!

I know it isn't relevant here to the Flatheads, but for instance, when we change from a flat-tappet platform (hydraulic or solid lifter) over to a hyd-roller on a SBC or BBC we gain 30+ HP, this we definitely HAVE confirmed on our dyno testing. It also explains why a very high percentage of mfrs went over to the OEM roller platform. Gas mileage (among other things) played a huge part in their decision.

Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

P.S. I would pass on installing on any vacuum pumps on these units however, but do believe the pump would be more of a "positive" for add'l HP than a "negative". We run our G.M. race builds around 12" vacuum when the pump is in the program!
 
Well i for one can vouch that a flathead running the narrow metric ring pack is considerably easier to turn over than one with 'conventional rings'. Effortless in fact. And that's a fresh build; once run in it'd have to spin even easier. This MUST mean 'free horsepower'!
 
Gary, my comment was directed at things like efforts reduce friction too far. If you take that ring pack with the correct bore finish and compare the pull to a bore with a finer more polished wall it will move easier in the bore but the rings won't seat. Friction reduction in ring packs is a delicate balancel. If you base everything on friction you may miss some other vital points in the ring packs duties.
 
My last comment on this issue:
You are wrong re rings seating on a very smooth bore.
Correct machine work is essential, of course, but many
race engines large & small & street stuff work very well
with good ring seal & light ring pressure.
Jim
 
Reading all these post makes me wonder. Back when I was building engines I always turned them over with a torque wrench looking for some max number, which I have forgotten. However. I always broke the engines in on my Dyno. I would load the engine up at 2000 RPM with about 50 lbs of torque for about 1/2 hr untill I got allot of temp in the engine. Next day I'd re-torque the engine and noticed there was very Little friction on the rings any more. Guess they ware in some. Noe about the 20 hP, this might be true in a 350 SBC turning 6500 but I doubt very much in a flathead turning 2k in cruise. With this said, I do believe the Metric rings are a vast improvement in ring design and a benefit to our Hobby.
 
O'Ron is making some proper statements. Using the latest ring width technology not only gives improvements in power performance but also, and just as importantly, provides utilization of the newest materials.

But, let us get serious here. According to some of the well-meaning posts on this thread, taking a typical 8BA engine and adding multi or 4 barrel carb systems, PLUS milling the heads to maximum levels, PLUS adding a Isky Max-1 camshaft, all in combination, would be necessary upgrades to match the power improvement realized with a simple piston and ring change???!!!!

I leave it to objective thinkers to draw their own conclusions.
 
My main reason for using 1.5, 1.5, 3.0 metric ring packs and for using TotalSeal rings is to take advantage of the newer ring materials and to have the best sealing possible.

We use TotalSeal rings on our blown alcohol race flathead (Cadillac in this case) at Bonneville - as we do get a lot less oil dilution due to the 'gapless' rings.

My latest 284 cube Merc engine is the first time I've used this ring package on a street flathead - will be interesting to see if I can tell any difference over time. I've not yet done a leakdown test on it - but will get to that this Spring.

The reason I mentioned the torque wrench reading for the Merc engine is that I like to do that and record the number - as it can be a good thing to check if you suspect an issue with the engine later on. If that number goes up, then I can suspect a bearing issue (which I also check by cutting apart my oil filter elements).

I don't have a dyno to test my street flatheads on . . . the only place I use a dyno is for tuning our Bonneville Flathead Cadillac engine. I wish I had one at home like JWL - but not until I move to a new place out West. I do like to hear what others are doing/thinking - always gives me ideas.

Here is what 650 horsepower looks like on our Flathead Cadillac engine - on the dyno - with TotalSeal rings. LOL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c12HEMcP4ls

Enjoy!
 
revkev6 said:
Gary, my comment was directed at things like efforts reduce friction too far. If you take that ring pack with the correct bore finish and compare the pull to a bore with a finer more polished wall it will move easier in the bore but the rings won't seat. Friction reduction in ring packs is a delicate balancel. If you base everything on friction you may miss some other vital points in the ring packs duties.
Click to expand...

Hi Kev, I really got what you said, and we have the ring combos AND the honing combos pretty much down to a science now. Been working in this area for good 50 years or so.

JWL said:
O'Ron is making some proper statements. Using the latest ring width technology not only gives improvements in power performance but also, and just as importantly, provides utilization of the newest materials.
Click to expand...

Hi John, couldn't agree more with this. Technology aside for a minute, I strongly believe every Flathead should have a "plate" bolted to the deck surface when "finish-honing", I believe it's even more important today specifically due to the changes in ring technology. We now hone EVERY build with the block-plate in place! It's why I spent the time fairly recently fabricating the plate for the Flathead.

Let me just expand a bit on the "technology" part of it and how I believe it to be the most single important advancement with contributing to the increased HP numbers, specifically due to the pistons and rings available today.

Back in the late '80's, early '90's, I had one customer "devoted" to Flatheads only. Can't recall ever doing any builds other than a Flathead. He used to tell me it was his "calling in life" to work with these engines only.

Working very closely with him, and doing only his machining, never being involved in assembling any, for a few years straight we averaged between 10 and 15 builds per year together!

I'll keep this based on sort of the "bolt-together" builds here, where you take some good parts, check everything over, and bolt it together. Back then it would have been really difficult (for us as a team at least) to hit anywhere near 150/160 HP on any type "budget". It never happened, 125/130 was the more realistic numbers.

Now, in order for him to get up to the higher numbers (near 150) back then he would get into some decent porting, larger valves, upstrokes, etc. It was a very expensive proposition even back then when prices were more reasonable than today. Remember, you weren't able to by stroker kits like today's with the type pistons/ring packs already in the kits!

(Add) I'm also still wondering if anyone picked up on the "contradiction" back in those photos I posted??

Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

P.S. "Fast-forward" today, anyone at all can bolt-together a 140/150 HP Flathead without even "aiming" for those numbers, it's actually relatively simple with the parts you have today? We definitely feel it's in very large part due exclusively to the advancement in "technology". Over time, the basic components (cams, heads, etc.) really hasn't changed all that much.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top