Hello guys,
I have a problem with the gap of second ring.The gap of the second ring is 0.60mm/0,024 inches.I wrote to Wiseco Customer Service and they told me that gap is ok,but for my tuner is not ok.
Which is your suggestions and What do you think?

Thanks for your reply

 

my friend built a 2.2 recently. when he called wiseco, they told him .027 top and .024-.026 bottom

my 2.3 was .016 top and .019 bottom, but my engine also had massive blow by after the build.

 

On standard bore Wiseco pistons and a ptw clearance of .004, my untouched rings had a gap of .024" on top and .030" on 2nd. I just cleaned up the edges and went with it. Burns some oil and dual SM sealed catch cans take care of the blow-by very well. Better to have the rings loose than tight if you're going to run it hard. I'm also not a fan of a wider gap on the top ring, it lets compression gases sit in between the 2 rings rather than going to the crankcase where it's supposed to go.

 

Its also opposite of what is in the instructions in the Wiseco package.

0.0050 x bore size (in inches) = top ring
0.0055 x bore size = second ring

Normally 0.0019 and 0.0022 depending on power level.

 

Wiseco must be on crack. you always go larger on the bottom. This way you don't get ring flutter.

Mine is set to .022 and .024.

This should vary depending on what you are doing with the car, power level, and boost you plan on running.

 

Wisecos instructions are correct, not sure why they would reverse it when you call them.

 

said he spoke to the guy who actually designed the rings. and give him a long explanation why they run larger gap on top ring.

his engine currently making close to 500 whp with BBK BBB and e85

 

The only way I could see that is if the rings are expanding at different rates when they are hot.

When you do the specs following the wiseco sheet, they come out to larger on the bottom than the top as well. The info from wiseco does not make sense with the calculations they provide.

 

We have never run a motor upside down, doing so isnt going to work correctly.

 

I am the friend honda-guy is referring to. I run manley pistons not wiseco. On the Manley recomendations, they show the top ring gapped larger than the second ring. The top ring recommendation was around 0.018", which is tighter then most of the gaps I saw people recommending on this forum. I also saw many folks recommending the second ring gap larger than the top, so I dug further. I called Manley to discuss my specific setup, and they referred me to Total Seal.

I called Total Seal directly and talked to one of their engineers. The guy was very helpful and even explained why everyone that runs a larger second ring gap was wrong. I do not remember the exact details, but it was based on ring flutter and keeping pressure in the right places. Total Seal recommended for my application a top gap of 0.027" and a second ring gap of 0.024-0.026". I did not go quite that loose, but I kept the top ring 0.001-0.002" larger than the second ring.

 

By the way, my motor makes close to 500whp on a mustang and sees 8500 rpm on a regular basis. It is not babied

 

thanks guys for the answers .My goal is 550cv 2 bar pressure .I I think is a better gap closer .Top .018 bottom .022 I'm afraid of the blow by.Is correct?

With wiseco formula top .017 bottom .019

For example tomei says to keep a gap on second ring .016 because I think there are differences in expansion of the material.

 

"Ring gap too large and only you know. Ring gap too small and everone knows."

 

lol, I like it. Though, once your car turns smokey the bear, it might show.

I had to get rings from total seal that were for bigger piston, because they kept measuring out too wide for us, out of the box

 

My current LR2.4 runs 0.0020 and 0.0025, no smoke and makes more power on a stock turbo on 92 than some do on E85. I havent seen ring gap help or hurt other than when they butt in the piston and crack it that is.