Hit up google for the intermediate shaft. Peerless (member at e30tech) did a write-up I believe.
N/A I put them at .013" top .016" second, boosted .021" top and .023" second. With boost, err on the large side.
I read a HotRod Magazine article a long time ago (remember magazines? lol) where they tested ring gap on an engine dyno for power, oil consumption and leak down. They followed the multiplication rule, ran it, then kept opening the rings, test, open rings, test, until they were stupid large gaps (IIRC 3x the norm). The final test consumed marginally more than the first and the power didn't change much. That was on a solid state dyno and don't recall if they did engine braking to crate extra vacuum etc during the test. I have never personally dyno'd ring gaps, just follow the standard rules based on bore size.
Grumpy went into detail on his page. http://garage.grumpysperformance.com...ing-gaps.2837/
N/A I put them at .013" top .016" second, boosted .021" top and .023" second. With boost, err on the large side.
I read a HotRod Magazine article a long time ago (remember magazines? lol) where they tested ring gap on an engine dyno for power, oil consumption and leak down. They followed the multiplication rule, ran it, then kept opening the rings, test, open rings, test, until they were stupid large gaps (IIRC 3x the norm). The final test consumed marginally more than the first and the power didn't change much. That was on a solid state dyno and don't recall if they did engine braking to crate extra vacuum etc during the test. I have never personally dyno'd ring gaps, just follow the standard rules based on bore size.
Grumpy went into detail on his page. http://garage.grumpysperformance.com...ing-gaps.2837/
Comment