Date:         Sun, 3 Aug 2003 21:43:12 -0500
Reply-To:     John Rodgers <j_rodgers@CHARTER.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         John Rodgers <j_rodgers@CHARTER.NET>
Subject:      Re: total seal ring end gap on 95mm pistons?
Comments: To: Damon Campbell <damoncampbellvw@YAHOO.COM>
In-Reply-To:  <20030803232324.52911.qmail@web13113.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed

Damon, you didn't mention what engine you are working on - Aircooled or
WBX. Very curious about the use of the 95mm cylinder barrels, and why. I
know that the 101.4 mm is the same as 4 inch ---- meaning Chevy small
block pistons are possible.

Just curious.

Regards,

John Rodgers
88 GL Driver

Damon Campbell wrote:

>Hello list,
>
>I'm currently gapping the rings on the engine i am
>building, and am using the non-traditional combination
>of total seal rings (the second ring is gapless) and
>the 95mm pistons.
>
>First thing i notice is that the ring end gaps
>specified by bently are significantly larger than that
>of total seal:
>
>upper: .035" (bentley)/ .020" (T.S.)
>middle:  .035" (bentley)/ .013" (T.S.)
>oil scraper: .037" (bentley)/ .015 min. (T.S.)
>
>Now so far, the uppers and oil scrapers seem fine per
>T.S. spec, but the middles, without any filing, are
>coming out to about 0.019".  These are the somewhat
>funky gapless ones - how strict is this number (seems
>pretty strict), and what should i do about it?  Also,
>why the difference between bentley and T.S.?
>
>My final question is that i'm having a really hard
>time determining which way the bevel on the top ring
>goes - what is the secret method to doing this?
>
>Thanks for any help,
>-Damon
>
>=====
>'84 Westy (Sparky)
>'65 Kharma Ghia (Dharma)
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
>http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>
>
>