thin ring grooves

[Bill Bogues]

With all the talk about allowing this or that in stock.I've wondered about letting thin ring grooves to be allowed in Pistons. Most all the late model cars have thin rings, and a lot of older combinations are using thin rings with spacers in their engines.Keep the ring grooves in stock location and have pistons cut for thin rings. Ring costs are bad enough as it is without throwing all these spacers into the mix. Just my thoughts.

[Barry Polley]

Out of all the wishes and wants for stock eliminator, this one makes the most $ense. I’ve sent a few emails to Pat on the subject..


Happy Holidays

[GUMP]

How about just making Stockers run the stock size ring?

[melvin wellman]

Originally Posted by GUMP

How about just making Stockers run the stock size ring?

This seems to make the most sense to try and keep the stock in stock eliminator. Maybe a headache to enforce though.

With custom grooves in stock pistons, I can almost imagine nhra allowing a super stock type piston in stock, and allowing any compression ratio in super stock.

[J.R. Haddad]

Gump usually has good ideas, and this is one. My fear, is that the more
aggressive Ring producers will continue to innovate and will
produce a step down, Diamond Coated, Titanium sided, Stainless Steel,
dipped in gold ring, that at the end of the day, with R&D will cost a lot
more than we now pay.

J.R.

[mnmaxwedge]

That's ok if you want to make the old cars run old technology like wide rings. If you want to make things equal you should ban the late model Challengers/Mustangs/Camaros that run traditional stock classes from taking advantage of the older driveline parts they use. In other words, they must run the rear ends they came with. I think the deepest gear in the Challenger rear end is a 3.70. Also require them to run the OE 8 speed automatics. This would be even easier to police than ring size. All you have to do is look under the car. Also the late model cars should be required to run OE type suspension with bolt on parts like the older cars. No weld up link bars and that type of thing. Also no crossbreeding parts, a Camaro has to run a Chev rear end and transmission.

[Mark Yacavone]

Oh, you mean like JR.Stock in 1971?
I'm surprised we're not already back there...and where would you like the ring groove to be placed?

[Rich Biebel]

1967-1968 we cut ring new grooves in stock pistons higher up on our 283/220.....John Hoffman did the pistons...
Was worth a couple tenths

1970 Stocker pistons had narrower rings cut higher up
Forged trues I think they were....

Makes no sense to me to require stock grooves 50 years later and have to use various spacers and still use thin rings

[GUMP]

Originally Posted by mnmaxwedge

That's ok if you want to make the old cars run old technology like wide rings. If you want to make things equal you should ban the late model Challengers/Mustangs/Camaros that run traditional stock classes from taking advantage of the older driveline parts they use. In other words, they must run the rear ends they came with. I think the deepest gear in the Challenger rear end is a 3.70. Also require them to run the OE 8 speed automatics. This would be even easier to police than ring size. All you have to do is look under the car. Also the late model cars should be required to run OE type suspension with bolt on parts like the older cars. No weld up link bars and that type of thing. Also no crossbreeding parts, a Camaro has to run a Chev rear end and transmission.

OK, I'll bite. How about we do away with all of the "enhancements" for all makes, years, and models?

A couple of years ago, I got a to build a couple of Camaros to test all of the factory drag parts. I'm not afraid of your proposal at all. That's as long as it applies to you too....

[Billy Nees]

Originally Posted by GUMP

OK, I'll bite. How about we do away with all of the "enhancements" for all makes, years, and models?

Cooooool! What a concept man.