Bottom oil ring or not? Your opinions

[Deleted User]
[Deleted User]
edited November -1 in HUDSON
Let's hear what is better, 3 rings or 4.

Comments

  • Geoff
    Geoff Senior Contributor
    Dave, what type engine are we talking about?
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User]
    Geoff C., N.Z. wrote:
    Dave, what type engine are we talking about?



    A Hudson 308 inline 6.
  • Park_W
    Park_W Senior Contributor
    I would change the second category to "You don't need a bottom ring," i.e., if the ring set is intended to be a 3-ring set, then no problem. But don't just discard one oil ring from a 4-ring set (maybe that's abvious to most anyway!) A former Hastings ring enginerr said the modern oil rings are much more effective, so no need for a second oil ring. My Hornet's been running about 15,000 miles now on a Hastings three-ring set, and all's well. He also recommended using the so-called "barrel-face" rings. They work better if you've got a little wear in the upper end of the cylinders, and they don't wear the cylinder walls as much as traditional designs.
  • Geoff
    Geoff Senior Contributor
    As Park intimates, there is no "black and white" answer, so the poll is a bit pointless. If the piston is designed for three rings, and the rings are of best modern design for oil control, they will work just as well as the orgianla four-ring piston. Howwever, if you leave the fourth ring out of the piston diseigned to be run with four ring,s you may have problems. When I rebuilt my Jet motor 30 years ago, I was advised to leave the bottom ring out, but continually blowing blue smoke indicated that this was a bad move. I waited 1500 miles for the rings to "bed-in", but after stripping down and installing the fourht ring, no more smoke!

    Geoff.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories

In this Discussion