Summit just posted this article on facebook earlier today and I just read it. It was a small article about thin piston rings that are being used in modern production engines and if its worth using them on this one guys 302 rebuild he is doing.


Ask Away! with Jeff Smith: Piston Ring Thickness and Why Thin is In! - OnAllCylinders


I want to ask what everyone else thinks about this?


I haven't started on my 332 stroker build for my truck yet, going to be a winter project after I move but I did plan on running gapless piston rings by total seal and now I saw that they are leading the way in thinner rings.


Does anyone think the thinner rings would really be worth it on a 332 stroker street build that would see use on the roads daily?


My build was going to revolve around a late model fox body era 302 roller block and was going to mainly be bolt on upgrades.


In any case just curious what others think I will be asking our engine builder after lunch if he think its worth the extra cost and if it really would seal the cylinders better and result in better fuel economy.

 

Total Seal seems to be the company that is leading the way with an entire line of thin ring packages with top ring offerings in their Ultra-Thin Advanced Profile series with 0.9mm top and second rings with a 2mm oil ring. This 0.9mm equate to 0.035-inch thick top and second rings with the 2mm oil ring at 0.078-inch. According to Total Seal, replacing a typical 1/16/1/16/3/16-inch ring package with this Ultra-Thin 0.9/0.9/2mm combination would reduce ring friction by 90 percent!


I think it's nothing but benefit to use a thinner ring package. I had a talk with my engine builder and he swears by at least using the 1.5,1.5,3 mm ring package which seems to be fairly commonplace nowadays. I talked with him about changing my setup, mid build. We would be moving from the 5/64,5/64,3/16 ring package to a 1.5/1.5/4 mm package. He said they've seen as much as 10 horsepower on an engine dyno with just that change. Not to mention heat due to the friction.


Trouble is with these even thinner rings, there isn't a piston that will use them which means you would have to use the expensive spacer package on an existing piston.

 

Part of the change over to thinner rings if driven by the lower friction and better bore conformability of the thinner rings. That means better MPG's and lower emissions for the OEMs. Also thick rings go back to when carbs were used on all engines and it was common for an engine to become an oil burner in as little as 50-60K miles. Today with FI it's not uncommon for any engine to hit 150K and higher even with less then good maintenance.

 

Hmm interesting. I wonder if running a carbed system with these newer rings would pose a problem.


My build would be pretty much stock street build just a 332 stroker using a Scat rotating assembly 9.5:1 to 10:1compression with edelbrock aluminum heads and edelbrock performer aluminum intake with a 4bbl carb. Havent decided on size just yet.


I wouldn't mind paying the extra money if it results in a better engine efficiency wise, power wise, and durability.

 

You sound like me; thinking outside the box in a mad scientist kind of way! Compliment there!


But here's the catch: according to the article, you would have to use a piston that originally used a 5/64 ring package. If I'm understanding it correctly. That means using a piston that is more than likely heavier. For example, I mentioned switching my pistons (that I already have bought, balanced and assembled) to some with a thinner ring package. The pistons are the L2482 Speed Pro's. Most everyone said there's nothing really wrong with except they're HEAVY.


I think at this point, you might be better off in using a piston with the 1.5, 3mm package since they are readily available. Until pistons that use these thinner packages become more available.

 

Of course. This is a daily driver for me at the moment and I would like to increase the performance but I also don't want to change the plug and play capability. I also don't want to do like the '82 at work I am building with a 2012 5.0 Coyote engine. that truck has parts from so many different years to make it function it will be hard to remember what to ask at the parts store for if you need a part.


that's why I planned on having Scat build a stroker rotating assembly for me and balancing it for use with the oem '82 302 flexplate and the 50oz imbalance balancer used in '82.


I did plan on running total seal as I have seen enough said that they retain seal better than conventional rings and will result in a good 5 to 10 hp increase over conventional rings they I have been told claimed a 25 HP increase over conventional gapped rings.


I just thought it was interesting on the thinner rings as if that is the way to go I would go that way seeing as I do not have anything purchased yet I can plan my build now for utilizing the thinner rings.


My main goal in the end is kind of insane, 332 stroker 9.5:1 to 10:1 compression with a cam rated at idle to 5000 rpm power band. If I can get the engine to make 250 to 300 hp and run good and get better than 10 mpg city like I am getting now out of this smog 302 I am currently running. I know the 2.75:1 axle ratio with a 31x10.5-15 tires and a C6 transmission is not helping the economy.

 

That level of horsepower should be easy. Something else I just thought about, if you are getting a kit, substituting parts may have some catches as well. A 4.030 x 3.25 stroke with a 5.4 rod is really commonplace though.

It looks like the Scat kits come with Mahle pistons anyway. They have the really good metric ring package. Plus a nice coating on them.

I wouldn't count out Perfect Circle for rings though. But they may not make the thinner package.

Do you have any of the other parts? A correctly chosen cam based on timing events for the motors need for your usage will definitely get you the desired results.

 

I had one piced out I cant remember what it is, I cant find the paperwork I wrote it down on and Cranes website I just checked but I remember finding it under the 85 and up 302 engine with a carb being used.


I will continue looking and post the specs of the one I found that I was thinking of running.

 

For Crane this is the one I like.


HR-216/325-2S-12 Hydraulic Roller Camshaft for Ford 1985-1995 V-8, 5.0L


Down side its a retro fit roller not a OE roller, I looked at their OE rollers and everything was high rpm cams which a truck with a 302 and a C6 and 2.75 gears with a 31x10.5-15 tire is not something I need for a daily driver. I need low and mid range power as I will be between idle and 3000 rpm driving around normally. I went and re-read it multiple times looks like this one is not a retrofit, just that you need link bar lifters if you are using it as a retrofit. If that is correct then this is the Crane one I was talking about that I decided to use.


For Comp Cams the following is what I like.


35-420-8 - Magnum? O.E. Roller, Hydraulic Roller Camshafts, For engines originally equipped with hydraulic roller cams 1985-95 CARBURETOR ONLY


or


http://www.compcams.com/Company/CC/c...csid=1043&sb=2


I am just not too crazy about the 1800 to 5000 rpm range. That means driving around town I will be out of the rpm power band cause I will be around 1500 rpm. But Comp I don't think makes a OE roller cam that has rpm range that starts off lower than 1800.


I just will have to check work see if I got the specs of the cam I actually found cause I cant find the exact one.

 

So basically this is what I know I have.


Scat balanced rotating assembly : 1-94060BE or 1-94055BE


The first one with 60cc heads I would believe would be right around 10:1 compression, while the second one with 60cc heads would be around 9.5:1 roughly.


Edelbrock Performer heads : 60329


These are 60cc chambered aluminum heads with 170cc intake 60cc exhaust port runners with 1.90/1.60 inch valves. I was advised by our engine builder at work that I believe he said there are 140 or 150 cc Edelbrock heads and those would provide a lot better throttle response and better low/mid range torque on a 302 especially one at 331 cubic inches. I haven't looked but I am leaning on these heads right here.


Intake would be just a simple edelbrock performer dual plane manifold.


Carb I have not decided on I thought Edelbrock but think I might get a earlier Ford style holley 4bbl that would allow me to retain my original vent bowl solenoid (not even sure if it works or how it works without a computer) for a OEM look. Was looking between 500 and 600 CFM though for improved low and mid range throttle response.


I was also thinking of if it was at all even possible which I am told its not, I thought of running some 1.7 roller rockers but since my goal is to make the engine appear stock to pass a visual state inspection, I think I would have to get rid of my oem valve covers which I really don't want to do.


But with the above with the crane cam with 1.7 rockers over 1.6 rockers, I plugged it into DD2000 and it claims I will make peak torque 420 @ 3500 rpm and peak horsepower 351 @ 5000 rpm. I highly doubt that so to be more realistic I would probably say with shorty mustang headers and dual exhaust I think probably around 300 ft lbs of torque and probably around 275 hp to be realistic. Would be better than the oem smog engine that barely made 100 hp.

 

You do have the Edelbrock bought or just picked out? If you haven't bought them, I would go with the Twisted Wedge or AFR. Edelbrock is generally more expensive with fewer features. They are decent heads though, if you have them I wouldn't change them. A 332 will need more intake runner than what your mechanic listed. Of those two Edelbrock heads, I would use the 170.


However, I would not use that Crane cam or any Magnum cam. Anything Crane can do, Comp can do better. The 35-420-8 isn't a bad grind per se, but it is probably a little more radical than your looking for with the RPM range you want to run. The 35-410-8 is probably more in line of what your looking for with the aspect of drivability and sounding stock for inspections.


But, both of these cams are based on older ramp rate technology for hydraulic roller cams, not to mention they are both single pattern durations. The 35-512-8 or 35-510-8 cams would be good upgrades for stock replacements. If it were me, of those, I would lean more toward the 35-510-8 since it has the 112° lobe separation angle. But I would NOT use any cam that would be a retro-fit cam. In other words, made for a non-roller block. Use a cam made for a roller block but with the retro-fit lifters. Morel SBF Link Bar Hydraulic Roller - FlowTech Induction This will let you run a cam with a full base circle lobe on it instead of reduced base circle. Here again, allowing you to run a lobe with the ramp rates that you need.


The throttle response has a lot to do with runner cross section and the cams ramp rate, but especially the timing events of the cam. I don't think a 600 cfm would be too large for what you're doing. Ford did use a 600cfm Holley on several vehicles. I think that would be pretty trick to use one of those like you said.


I don't think you would need to run the 1.7 ratio rockers on there. But if you decided you wanted to, they will fit under the stock valve covers with some grinding on places where they interfere. The baffle where oil pours in tends to get in the way mostly. Another option would be to find stock valve covers off of a '93, '94, '95 Mustang Cobra as they used 1.7 rockers from the factory. I think any nice roller rocker will have clearance issue if I remember correctly.

 

Don't discount the Ford OEM cams. The 1993 Cobra cam with 1.7 RR's will make over 300 HP and 330 Ft Lb of torque in a 5.0L. In a 330 cid engine it will make more but at a lower rpm and that seems what you're looking for.

 

I personally haven't bought anything yet. Im still deep in the planning stages so I don't end up buying parts that I will replace with something else.


I am not a fan of the magnum cams, I hear a lot of thing about the energy cam but the only options under OE roller with carb is the magnum cam, nitrous, or blower. I know one can use EFI cams with carb but they don't provide strong enough signal for the carb and can be not a responsive on the throttle is what I have heard.


As far as the roller goes, I plan on getting a roller block so I can use the oem factory spider and dog legs and oem style lifters.


I would be interested in running the Xtreme energy but I didn't look a the EFI ones as I am a little iffy on how a EFI cam would perform on a carb set up. I know I have heard it done but I have also heard throttle response is not as crisp as if it was a carbed cam. But then again I have also been told the cam doesn't know if its EFI or carbed.



I remember that cam, I have the specs for it at work. I think my original plan was to go with that cam but give the specs to some place like Crane or Comp and tell them if they can build this cam for me but adjust the lift to mimic the use of 1.7 rockers while using the stock 1.6 rockers.


Then I noticed that comp seemed to have similar spec cams. Then I started just looking at aftermarket.


I don't know I might just go with oem stock roller long as it will make power up 5,000 rpm as the shift pattern might change some with this build and might go up to 5,000 rpm vs the 4,000 - 4,500 rpm it shifts at now.






Well looking at AFR heads these are the only real ones I could find with 1.90/1.60 valves.


http://www.summitracing.com/parts/af...view/make/ford


They are 165cc ports and 58cc chambers. I don't like the idea of using 2.02" valves on such a low rpm engine as it would slow the air velocity down at slower speeds.

 

If you are thinking about going aftermarket then there is no point in getting one ground to OEM specs unless you're running a class for racing or something. You can use any of those cams listed, it doesn't have to be for a carb. The Extreme Energy have the best ramp rates available (for Comp) in a milder build for an off the shelf cam, BUT if you have access to Comp's Master Lobe catalog, they have some even more modern lobes in there to choose from. Like the XFI lobe for instance. As far as the shelf cams, when we chose a cam for my dad's '75 302 F100, we picked the 35-514-8 but had it ground on a 110° lobe separation angle. I think the builder did that to get back some of the response.


If you wanted to use an OEM cam, the regular 5.0L with 1.7 rockers will actually make more power than the Cobra cam. The Cobra cam has less duration than the 5.0 cam. We're talking 210° or 211° ish compared to the Cobra's 208° for the intake lobe. I've heard that some of the '86-87 speed density cams were up to 215° duration on the intake. But they are hard to find.

 

Actually, if your thinking about getting a cam ground anyway, give this guy a call. Buddy Rawls - Cross Section Engineering. (256) 830 4864. He's a mechanical engineer that specializes in custom cams. For a small fee, he will get all of your info and pick your cam specs out based on timing events to get it do EXACTLY what you want it to do.


He can also help with the selection of other parts. Like the heads and intake/carb.