Is This 496 Dyno Pull Legit?
10-15-2011, 05:37 PM
#1
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is This 496 Dyno Pull Legit?
I previously posted this thread on another “performance boat” forum. Not going to mention the name. Unfortunately, I picked one that is a little slow moving and it seems they prefer talking about anything but boats.
Well here is the original post:
My buddy saw this in a youtube video, think its legitimate?
I’m looking to upgrade, do you think this is a good system?
Anybody recognize this guy, or the company?
What about the exhaust, any good?
Click on it and see what you think.
Well, so far, from the “other” forum, I’ve learned the guy is Ray Brodie the owner of Raylar, he is quit respected in the marine industry and his company makes the performance “Raylar” engine kits. Also, got a response from the actual producer of the video claiming it is in fact legit and the dyno facility doing the testing at the time was called HP Dyno.
What I would really like to know is: Have any of you actually installed a Raylar kit, and are you happy with the results? How about this exhaust system, any of you have experience with Danas?
Well here is the original post:
My buddy saw this in a youtube video, think its legitimate?
I’m looking to upgrade, do you think this is a good system?
Anybody recognize this guy, or the company?
What about the exhaust, any good?
Click on it and see what you think.
Well, so far, from the “other” forum, I’ve learned the guy is Ray Brodie the owner of Raylar, he is quit respected in the marine industry and his company makes the performance “Raylar” engine kits. Also, got a response from the actual producer of the video claiming it is in fact legit and the dyno facility doing the testing at the time was called HP Dyno.
What I would really like to know is: Have any of you actually installed a Raylar kit, and are you happy with the results? How about this exhaust system, any of you have experience with Danas?
10-15-2011, 05:58 PM
#2
21 and 42 footers
Platinum Member
Contact Ray. He is a regular here and will likely respond. While I have no experience with a 496 or Raylar everything I've seen here over the years suggests he's straight forward and hitting what he claims.
10-15-2011, 05:59 PM
#3
Registered
iTrader: (-1)
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Cowichan Station BC
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You probably should have done a "Raylar" search before posting, the company is well know and respected for this sort of upgrade.
I am sure others will speak up about the 496.....IMHO it is an engine that has/had a lot of issues....
I am sure others will speak up about the 496.....IMHO it is an engine that has/had a lot of issues....
10-15-2011, 06:50 PM
#6
Registered
iTrader: (-1)
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Cowichan Station BC
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Search here for 496, seems to me there are more "issues" with these engines then other BBC.....the Guardian system, I believe that is the term, gives many owners headaches, on top of that, again, IMHO, Raylar is in business because the engines "need" upgrades.....bottom line, I have heard of more bad opinions about the engines then good......they were a "one off".....and I don't believe will be made again.
10-16-2011, 08:13 AM
#8
Registered
iTrader: (4)
Search here for 496, seems to me there are more "issues" with these engines then other BBC.....the Guardian system, I believe that is the term, gives many owners headaches, on top of that, again, IMHO, Raylar is in business because the engines "need" upgrades.....bottom line, I have heard of more bad opinions about the engines then good......they were a "one off".....and I don't believe will be made again.
Raylar is in business because he can make 550hp with just naturally asperated bolt on parts. Can you do that with a 454MPI or 502MPI? Saying these engines "need" anything is just b/s.
The engine is no longer with us because GM did not see a need for it in their trucks going forward. The new EPA requirements are not BB friendly. They boosted the HP of the current small block, and now they offer that and a duramax.
As a company going forward (Merc) with a need to now produce a BBC on their own they found it more cost effective to use a design that has been around since the late 60's, the classic BBC. If GM was still mass producing the 496, the 496 would be the current engine for cost reasons.
There are a lot of 496MAG and HO engines out there. These engine were used in a broader range of boats than any other BBC in Mercruiser history. Do you think that had anything to do with Raylar focusing in on the 496?
Just curious Foducker, what personal experience do you have with the 496?
10-16-2011, 09:51 AM
#10
Registered
iTrader: (-1)
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Cowichan Station BC
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did we have a worldwide internet to talk about problems when the 454MPI and 502MPI were main stream? Would you like to name all the known issues with that platform?
Raylar is in business because he can make 550hp with just naturally asperated bolt on parts. Can you do that with a 454MPI or 502MPI? Saying these engines "need" anything is just b/s.
The engine is no longer with us because GM did not see a need for it in their trucks going forward. The new EPA requirements are not BB friendly. They boosted the HP of the current small block, and now they offer that and a duramax.
As a company going forward (Merc) with a need to now produce a BBC on their own they found it more cost effective to use a design that has been around since the late 60's, the classic BBC. If GM was still mass producing the 496, the 496 would be the current engine for cost reasons.
There are a lot of 496MAG and HO engines out there. These engine were used in a broader range of boats than any other BBC in Mercruiser history. Do you think that had anything to do with Raylar focusing in on the 496?
Just curious Foducker, what personal experience do you have with the 496?
Raylar is in business because he can make 550hp with just naturally asperated bolt on parts. Can you do that with a 454MPI or 502MPI? Saying these engines "need" anything is just b/s.
The engine is no longer with us because GM did not see a need for it in their trucks going forward. The new EPA requirements are not BB friendly. They boosted the HP of the current small block, and now they offer that and a duramax.
As a company going forward (Merc) with a need to now produce a BBC on their own they found it more cost effective to use a design that has been around since the late 60's, the classic BBC. If GM was still mass producing the 496, the 496 would be the current engine for cost reasons.
There are a lot of 496MAG and HO engines out there. These engine were used in a broader range of boats than any other BBC in Mercruiser history. Do you think that had anything to do with Raylar focusing in on the 496?
Just curious Foducker, what personal experience do you have with the 496?
I think this thread by Raylar sums up what I was refering to....
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/g...erc-496-a.html
The 496 was never intended to be a hp marine motor.....
