05-08-2018, 01:06 AM
Provided light cannot be seen past the rings what distinguishes poor quality pistons and rings, other than actual performance?
“Skill”, or established tricks, can make a difference with worn parts but for reasonably unworn or new, provided rings are not broken, what scope is there for skill to make a difference? Especially with iron rings which bed.
Austin seemed to battle with oil consumption, but the now conventional one piece grooved and drilled iron oil ring was late to appear. I am not sure when honing became standard. (Cyls were commonly finished with an orbiting grinder) As illustrated in the parts book, for a while about 1933 the 2nd ring had drillings behind so the car functioned with effectively one compression ring!
Is anyone still running the original wide compression rings? Used with one conventional grooved and drilled iron oil ring these could give near nil oil use.
Prior to Colin above I wondered if the baffles were somehow supposed to work with the drillings in conrod, which must flow oil both in and out.
It seems odd that baffles were fitted to pressure fed engines. Perhaps it was less confusing for the production line.
From experience with other makes oil consumption can be a puzzle. For many mechanics, customer cars disappear out the door and, except for cock ups, they seldom learn the accurate long term outcome.
I found with new rings in several moderately worn Javelin engines oil consumption on trips seldom below 1 pint per 400 miles. Yet a 170,000 mile Hillman, with shells so corroded they rattled, and most original top rings broken, barely reached this figure.
“Skill”, or established tricks, can make a difference with worn parts but for reasonably unworn or new, provided rings are not broken, what scope is there for skill to make a difference? Especially with iron rings which bed.
Austin seemed to battle with oil consumption, but the now conventional one piece grooved and drilled iron oil ring was late to appear. I am not sure when honing became standard. (Cyls were commonly finished with an orbiting grinder) As illustrated in the parts book, for a while about 1933 the 2nd ring had drillings behind so the car functioned with effectively one compression ring!
Is anyone still running the original wide compression rings? Used with one conventional grooved and drilled iron oil ring these could give near nil oil use.
Prior to Colin above I wondered if the baffles were somehow supposed to work with the drillings in conrod, which must flow oil both in and out.
It seems odd that baffles were fitted to pressure fed engines. Perhaps it was less confusing for the production line.
From experience with other makes oil consumption can be a puzzle. For many mechanics, customer cars disappear out the door and, except for cock ups, they seldom learn the accurate long term outcome.
I found with new rings in several moderately worn Javelin engines oil consumption on trips seldom below 1 pint per 400 miles. Yet a 170,000 mile Hillman, with shells so corroded they rattled, and most original top rings broken, barely reached this figure.