In anticipation of tear down to reduce oil consumption, I have been researching rings. The Total Seal web site would have me using nothing but their gapless rings. What do you engine builders think?
My block is an early Mopar Performance siameased bore.
Thanks for your experience.

I used many sets. Evidently, some people say they have oil control issues with them. I've never seen that.

If you have an oil burner, it's usually not the rings fault.

Not worth the money.

Not a fan

I use the gapless top ring with a napier 2nd ring and a low tension oil ring, my experiance and research this is about the best ring combo you can install in an engine. I would never run a gapless second ring, had bad results doin that. It unseats the top ring under hard acceleration.

Gapless rings were invented to go in dirt track engines so after 3 races they would still have some compression and put off the re-build by a couple weeks--They make a leak down test look Perfect! That part of the advertisement is 100% true--On the dyno they will not make 1 mor HP in the engines I have done--I used to do the circle track 345-360 HP two barrel limited engines Gapless rings were tested again and again--they NEVER made one more HP They leak checked like amazing though

Have true round no taper cylinder bores by using a TQ plate and many other details --use the cheapest rings on the planet and you will have good ring seal use good rings and it can be less resistance and more HP

I do use gapless second rings in my alky / nitro dragster engine because they do keep oil contamination on that fuel eater ( runs gallons through in seconds) to a minimum but they DO NOT make more power or are any better than conventional ring packs on a drag engine for any other reason

This is from observation not reading about it

On your deal I would use a standard tension oil ring set with a good moly top ring and a good second ring gapped about .002 bigger than the recommended minimums

Thanks for the replies. Very interesting responses.

I used gapless total seal rings when they first came out. The 340 used a quart of oil every 500 miles. A circle track guy told me to use them! Removed them and fixed the oil consumption. Do what Cab says.

Gapless--lol. Complete scam. Have used them a few times-all had oil consumption issues. Never use them or recommend them again. J.Rob

Well, I used C&A "gapless" 2nd rings two builds ago (similar to the original Total Seal "gapless 2nd), and Total Seal "gapless" top rings w/ traditional 2nd ring and standard-tension oil rings on the build after that. I can't quantify any benefits from either approach, to be blunt.

With my latest (re)build, I returned to conventional top rings and Napier 2nd rings gapped at .020" & .024" respectively. I also went with slightly lighter-tension oil rings (18# vs 21#), but will be keeping an eye on potential oil consumption issues.

"In theory", I like the "gapless" top ring... but you really pay a premium for them. I'd have to see more independent testing from sources I can put 100% faith in before I'd consider trying them again. Since I haven't, my backup short-block parts collection already includes the same ring pack as what I just put into my latest build.

I use gapless rings to my advantage. Because they leak so little, they allow me to use a sealed pcv system to draw a vacuum in the crankcase, which in-turn allows me to get away with 12lb oil rings to pick up a little power/mileage. My setup draws 15"Hg crankcase down the hiway, without help from a vacuum pump. I do have an electric pump for backup when I spray, but it's not needed even for the occasional WOT NA blast on a backroad.

Don't you know...gapless top rings don't deal. They are all oil burners. That means they are junk.

















Now that we dispensed with that, I've use probably a hundred sets of gapless top rings. In everything from street cars, to street/strip junk, bracket engines and some heads up stuff.

Not one of them has ever had a oil using issue. Not one. The shop I was at when we tested them still uses them. Every day. He still has had an oil user come back.

I use the Mahle pistons with 1.5, 1.5, 3.0mm file-fit rings and my engine never burns a drop of oil between changes.

I've blown it apart twice since the initial build: once for a bad cam and another for a bearing issue (my fault). Honed it, slammed it back together and zero issues. Set top and 2nd ring gap initially at .024.

What cylinder finish has been successful with the TS "gapless" top rings?

So how do you like the Napier 2d ring? I read that they are good for oil control.

I am interested in that also. There IS some recommendations on the TS website. It makes sense because it changes with different hardness of different block/liner.

^^^^^^The rings that come in their PowerPak piston sets are excellent. They have now gone with a 1.0/1.0/2.0mm ring pack across their lineup and those work excellent as well. J.Rob

If a cylinder finish exists , I haven't found it. I have spent some time on the phone with Keith Jones and have followed his recommendations to a tee even down to the break in oils to stay away from, since he wouldn't outright say which oil to use. J.Rob

I would think if the benefits such as increased mileage/power/emissions even in a minute amount existed with just a gapless ring design, you would find them in every OEM application around the globe. J.Rob

I have no experience with them, but thinking about using them in a NHRA stocker I am building. Here is an article showing significant gains...
https://www.hotrod.com/articles/ccrp-0301-dyno-performance-piston-ring-test/

I guess i'm lucky but I don't have any real ring issues with whatever I've used, BUT I don't use any gimmick rings or low tension oil rings. my oil problems are always some place besides the rings.

I know David Vizard is a big proponent of them, but the debate on SpeedTalk has never been resolved to anyone's satisfaction.

Some folks say they see small power gains.

Others say there's no power benefit, but the engines "stay fresh" longer.

And others, like RAMM, have reported oiling issues; he's NOT the only one to have raised this issue, for anyone who thinks he's an outlier on this subject.

I don't have an R&D budget to prove/disprove their benefits to myself. Since my own limited findings have been inconclusive, I'm using a more traditional ring pack now.

To the person who asked if I liked Napier 2nd rings, I don't have any miles (only dyno time) on the engine to see how the oil consumption is. What I do know is that GM switched from the old 2nd ring design to Napier 2nds as part of their "fix" (or mitigation?) of high oil consumption with certain LS engines.

I don't think there is a true big gain with the standard 5/64 or 1/16th gapless rings - I have used them on engines that have a little extra clearance from re-honing multiple times - they seemed to seal pretty good and lasted as long as a conventional ring. The new ring technology is the steel top and ductile second .9mm .9mm with a 2mm oil ring - How these new thin rings are manufactured is an interesting read and there is a measurable power gain with the thin ring packs

I noticed less blow by at idle, I've never had an issue with oil consumption in any engine I built except one that was washing down the bores because the carb was so rich and that one was fine after putting the long block in an EFI rig.

My last hot rod I built for myself I tried 1/16 rings, low tension top and oil rings with a napier 2nd and it uses zero oil and no blow by holding my hands over the cap and breather holes when hot, just a tiny bit cold and that engine turns over very easy, I can grab the crank snout with my bare hands and turn the whole short block over with no valve train. I did atempt to keep some of the oil drain back from the heads off the crank by draining some of it to the timing chain, I ran a std oil pimp, crank scraper and tighter than normal bearing clearances with highly polished crank journals.

I used to be afraid of low tension skinny rings but all the manufactures are doing it and you hardly see any issues with them burning oil. My 2011 5.7 had 300,000 miles with 1mm rings and didn't burn a drop, just had a flat cam from a roller tht stopped rolling. They use good oil control combined with the thin rings to help efficency and combine that without carbs dumping excess fuel bore wear is almost gone.

Like I've said, I've personally used so many sets of these rings and not had a single issue that I find it hard to believe everyone can't get them to seal. It's a freaking ring. It doesn't know it's gapless.

I finish all my bores with a 400 finish and hit it with a brush for 8 strokes. Without having the honing book in front of me I can't give you the exact values of the finish but IMO it's not that hard to achieve.

I also know other builders using them and I called one yesterday and he says he's not having issues either. BTW and FWIW I developed my honing procedure way back in 1995 through several phone calls with Earl Garte and several more with Smokey Yunik, since I read an article in Circle Track magazine where Smokey worked with Peterson Machine Tool (IIRC) to develop soft hone brushes.

I've used that finish on everything from tool steel to plain cast iron that were new old stock from 1954 and never had any issues with ring seal.

I also spent many hours on the dyno with the first 3-4 engines that I personally used them in to measure actual blow by under load. The rings every single time showed a massive improvement in blow by reduction.

The first engine was a 400 Chevy done by another shop. It was an oil burner. You knew it had no ring seal because you couldn't keep oil in the engine. It would build crankcase pressure and blow oil out wherever it could. When it was sealed up, it would blow the dipstick out.

It was .060 and the owner wanted a new block. I talked him into letting me use gapless top rings to test them and if it didn't work he didn't have to pay for it.

I ran into him earlier this year. It's still going. Doesn't use oil. Runs as good now as the day it came off the dyno.

The moral of the story is if you can't get a ring to seal that's on you. Most rings are pre-seated before they even go into the box. Cheap rings used to be belt lapped and the better rings were barrel lapped, although there may be a better method now.

There is no excuse for bad ring seal in this day and age. No excuse. To blame the rings is like a machinist blaming his tools for piss poor work.

I never base how I build engines on what OEM's do.

Boy is this thread getting convoluted fast. OP asked about the gapless tops in an effort to reduce oil consumption. So they reduce blowby--BFD. I've seen engines with a lot of blowby make very good power--I've also seen the same engine freshened up to near zero blowby with conventional rings--Near ZERO power change. Again if using a leakdown test number as a badge of honour or a few more cranking PSI is your thing--have at it. My recommendation is to NOT use them. I don't care who uses them--I won't. J.Rob

J.Rob

As you have pointed out HRD--VERY hard to beat a quality modern thin ring pack featuring a Napier second. In fact I have used Mahle's 1mm/1mm/2mm in an oil burning LS7 7.0L and while I was worried at first--that engine ceased all oil consumption issues and picked up power at the tires. Also worth noting is the recommended piston clearances from Mahle Motorsports .0025-.0035" -Love those piston kits. J.Rob

Dude, we get it. You can't get rings to seal. Move along. I posted those two names because that's how I learned to do it. I didn't just make the [censored] up. Maybe, just maybe, the issue is with YOU. My junk [censored] doesn't use oil. Why can't you say that?

..

Been running back cut top and second napier rings for about 8 years and all's well mostly street and several passes down the track..........No vacuum pump just a good ol pcv valve mid 9's and 6.15 in the 1/8 so far and my plugs look great as well...........12.1.1 comp 170 cranking if it matters...........

Yes I read that article to, what to believe?

Ok so 215/4 = 54 miles give or take. Not enough mileage to really be able to tell. I have customers that put on 500-600 kms in a day road racing and driving to and from the track. You know what? They are down over a quart in that time period. J.Rob

At this point I seriously doubt you have even held a set of gapless tops in your hand. After honing hundreds if not thousands of cylinders in my 24 years in this trade I have never once had a set of rings NOT seat and consume oil UNTIL I used TotalSeal Gapless Tops which has been exactly three (3) times.

All three engines consume oil at a rate that is well above normal. All three engines crank 195-210 psi and leakdown around 2-4%.BFD So what is a guy to conclude when the data stacks up like this?

A piece of advice Madscientist aka YellowRose--When the data doesn't support the theory you change the theory. Not the other way around.
Then again analyzing data properly is probably a challenge to a "Madscientist" . J.Rob

p.s. Again I ask to anyone--Why aren't these miracle rings in every OEM piston powered ICE on earth?

Easy--Changing dyno room conditions favouring a higher CF or there is an agenda we don't know about. Everyone selling something has an agenda in case you were wondering. J.Rob

With all this being said, thee best rings in TotalSeal's lineup are their AP -Advanced Profile in a .043"/.043" 3mm with a Napier second. All time favourite when I can't use a Mahle piston/ring kit. J.Rob

They do not make more HP--they do not do a thing except make leak down test look great OK they do keep alky engines that just get the bores "slobbered" with excess fuel from diluting the oil so bad but on a normal engine you are crazy to spend all that extra money for nothing!!! Plain Crazy to do so
WHY?? I build hundreds of engines as fast as I can bolt them together --have for decades--and when I was near a dyno every day those rings proved NOTHING or we would be using them----Ok Mahle has a new 1.0mm, 1.0mm, 2.0 mm ring package that makes more HP --OK......That is IF you guys can get those rings in the bore without ruining a set then having to order another set at great cost and the so what?? You gain a few HP??? Who cares??? Use an old 1/6th. 3/16th package and it will run for decades and is easy to install and cheap and if you need 3-7HP that bad you have built the wrong combo to start with

The Mahle rings are very difficult to install correctly even for us that do it every day you have to PAY ATTENTION and a tapered ring funnel is a MUST the you have to watch the oil film up and down the bore to make sure you have not screwed one up--"sometimes" engine builders do not need that kind of obstacle at home so the Mahle package is not a positive IMO for average Joe at home It gives them a selling point OK? It gives the once in a while builder a Headache

Gapless rings are sold with BS Hype--that is mostly not true and you wind up paying $275 for a set of rings where a std set at $55 will do just fine

You run an alky drag engine say with a Hilborn or blower well then they help you save your oil for two or three more rounds --I run one I know that is a big plus but that is the best thing these rings do

Gapless rings make a leak down test look like a winner but at 8200 RPM they don't make one more HP IMO and based on dyno runs I saw for years in week after week testing

Snap out of it

Guys
There ARE applications for gapless rings but I would say that 98% of folka on Moparts that are building a few engines for muscle cars driven on the street or being raced do NOT need them at all and will fall to the sales hype BS and buy some at great expense only to be fooled and get nothing in return vs $$ spent--TRUST your engine builder--if he wants them then by all means trust him but if you go in and ask for them then poor you paying all that $$ for nothing
We build some really fast engines for ourselves and friends on the CHEAP by using "cracked cranks" and scuffed pistons and used cams, valve springs, even used rings ( I know crazy right?) etc even used oil pumps--because even though I could have the best of the best I can run fast with "junk" and do it to prove a point and...because after you start one up it is all used parts

Now you are exposing your ignorance. I've used way more than you have.

You can't get a ring to seal and that's the rings fault? Ok.

Something to think about, no more, no less...esp. on a moderate street/strip build.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-29IWc-zrv8

I was running a Super Stock spec gapless ring package with 12lb oil rings in a street/strip engine that got a lot of street miles. The engine was built to use nitrous, so I went gapless to seal up the wide nitrous ring gaps during casual driving. The car did not have overdrive, so down the hiway it spun about 2500-2800 and went thru a qt of 5w20 in about 50 miles. I added an electric vac pump to the crankcase which helped a lot with oil consumption by drawing 4-5"Hg, but at full voltage it also drew a lot of power and I had one fail under continuous duty due to overheating an internal connection. I added a voltage dropping resistor to help, but the electric pump's vacuum dropped to about 2"Hg.

Then I got the idea to use a pcv valve to help the electric pump. The pcv drew 15"Hg down the highway, so after a while I just started leaving the electric pump off and relying on the pcv alone for vacuum. Crankcase vacuum basically tracks manifold vacuum, as it trends downward under load conditions like going up a hill, upward under lite load like going down a hill. The car currently has a Racepak logger with a crankcase vacuum sensor to monitor the system, it's made many backroad 1/8mi passes with the electric pump turned off and has never went into a positive crankcase pressure situation yet with the gapless rings.

Another point of interest when using the sealed pcv system is that since crankcase vacuum reflects manifold vacuum drawn thru an orifice, any loss of seal is easy to spot and a lower than normal crankcase vacuum reading will draw your attention. The first engine I did this to was running hyper pistons on 87 octane pump gas that also got sprayed. I was able to catch several different cases of a cracked hyper before they came apart because I noticed a drop in crankcase vacuum. It's not often you get to see a cracked hyper before it explodes, but the sealed pcv setup is pretty good at catching them...









Using the hypers in that build was just my personal insanity, seeing how far I could go using pistons that I could buy for less than $100/set off ebay. Nothing quite like putting $700 worth of rings/spacers/filler/etc on a $100 set of pistons! I eventually got et down to 5.73 (357cid/2525lbs) in the 1/8th on 87 octane, still got 20mpg driving it to the track.

Grant

That is very interesting! To do all that on 87 octane! Also interesting to see that the ring seal was good enough that a PVC would create manifold vacume

I have a set of the advance profile
in my turbo small block.5 years
and absolutely no blow by.
best $400. ever spent on rings.