The only reason to have any gap at all is to make sure the rings does
not bund if it expands more than the cylinder, (they do). Experienced
machinist typically use the rule of ~.004" per inch of cylinder
diameter. In other words, what is the Bently thinking? Typo? I have used
the Total Seals and they work great. I am surprised how rarely they are
mentioned on the list. They almost eliminate blow-by. That inside bevel
on the top ring faces toward the crankcase unless there is also a step
on the outside. If so, the step usually faces down.

Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM] On Behalf
Of Damon Campbell
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 7:23 PM
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Subject: total seal ring end gap on 95mm pistons?

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