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