Need Some Dyno test results for 496
03-01-2016, 02:30 PM
#21
Registered
I am up to no good just kidding. I will let the info out down the road. I am working with 2 other people on something. Sorry I can not say any more at this timeframe.
I can say this for now, I am trying to work on being a problem solver for the marine 496. Just last year I worked on the earlier 496 cam sensors that are no longer available. I had 2 different sensors made for those apps but only 10 produced for now, (actually 11). Those damn things were expensive to get 11 made for testing. If I had 1000 cam sensors made, the price drops hugely but heck I did not want to get stuck with that many at this timeframe. I want to try these in the GM truck apps as well but I do not have the out for that end.
This new project has nothing to do with the cam sensor but I did come up with something else I very found interesting. 2 things that will be holding me back on this, is time and money as usual.
Really just need the stock pulls and equipment used that obtained those dyno numbers. Oh forgot to mention this, was the stock OEM 496 marine exhaust used for the dyno pulls ? Thanks and sorry about the vague posting.
I can say this for now, I am trying to work on being a problem solver for the marine 496. Just last year I worked on the earlier 496 cam sensors that are no longer available. I had 2 different sensors made for those apps but only 10 produced for now, (actually 11). Those damn things were expensive to get 11 made for testing. If I had 1000 cam sensors made, the price drops hugely but heck I did not want to get stuck with that many at this timeframe. I want to try these in the GM truck apps as well but I do not have the out for that end.
This new project has nothing to do with the cam sensor but I did come up with something else I very found interesting. 2 things that will be holding me back on this, is time and money as usual.
Really just need the stock pulls and equipment used that obtained those dyno numbers. Oh forgot to mention this, was the stock OEM 496 marine exhaust used for the dyno pulls ? Thanks and sorry about the vague posting.
03-01-2016, 02:36 PM
#22
Gold Member
Gold Member
I am not sure the Dana did anything while stock. But I extended them to the transom then they helped. They definitely helped the Raylar 600.
Early on I did the CNC ported iron heads and they produced some power but later imploded a piston.
You really need to talk to Bandit. If for nothing else, he has done TONS of dyno testing on Merc 496 and the Volvo labled 496. Knows his stuff and is making a ton of power with the stock intake. Maybe even more then aftermarket intakes.
Early on I did the CNC ported iron heads and they produced some power but later imploded a piston.
You really need to talk to Bandit. If for nothing else, he has done TONS of dyno testing on Merc 496 and the Volvo labled 496. Knows his stuff and is making a ton of power with the stock intake. Maybe even more then aftermarket intakes.
03-01-2016, 02:36 PM
#23
I have the 496 - 2001 and the 2002 / 2003 made - It goes by GM block codes to which sensor is used and it has to be a stock app for the reluctor on the gear thru those years and the crank and its reluctor needs to be stock as well.
I would be willing to come to whomever to do further testing with it and for the 496. And at no cost to the end user.
Last year every stinking 496 I seen and worked on was a 2006 and above. That would figure. Mine own personal 496 Merc is a 2008 as well. Those cam sensors are still available.
I would be willing to come to whomever to do further testing with it and for the 496. And at no cost to the end user.
Last year every stinking 496 I seen and worked on was a 2006 and above. That would figure. Mine own personal 496 Merc is a 2008 as well. Those cam sensors are still available.
03-01-2016, 02:40 PM
#24
Please let me know who has what and we can test these so I can decide to have move volume made. I can come to you anywhere in the USA timeframes would have to be discussed. Thanks
Have to run now any other questions I will look for later on tonight. Thanks again. I am telling you straight up is very wise if you own the early 496 to have a least 2 extra cam sensors. If you need the reasons why, I will tell you and the hardship that you will have to go thru to make work correctly if you do not have these early cam sensor. It is a PITA and a costly one without the correct cam sensors.
Have to run now any other questions I will look for later on tonight. Thanks again. I am telling you straight up is very wise if you own the early 496 to have a least 2 extra cam sensors. If you need the reasons why, I will tell you and the hardship that you will have to go thru to make work correctly if you do not have these early cam sensor. It is a PITA and a costly one without the correct cam sensors.
Last edited by BUP; 03-01-2016 at 02:44 PM.
03-01-2016, 02:49 PM
#25
Registered
So you have the sensors they are just not verified/proven yet? My 496 MAG, manufactured 9/03, serial number OM683216 is bone stock with the exception of the pistons and rods. I don't have the block code. I can't speak for Retter as far as their willingness to set aside time for CPS testing while my engine is being dyno'd. I can ask. I believe I'm slated for the dyno sometime in the next couple weeks.
03-01-2016, 08:54 PM
#26
^^^^ Yes I had these made as from 2 known good cam sensors per app and 2 known BAD cam sensors that were studied.
I posted up here last year about this and anyone who would let me test them on my time and my own dime. I had no responses. With that said I bet this would have taken place if they had a bad cam sensor, The end user surely would be ringing my phone off the wall and paying me for fixing their problem alot cheaper than what is called thru Mercruiser new parts buying and new installs costing min of 2 K especially if the engine has to be pulled.
I would think the same would hold true for the engine builders - trying to find the exact problem and then trying to find their solution to that problem if they had an cam sensor issue, then finding out it is NLA Just saying. It also might be to his benefit as well if in fact he deals with alot of early GM 496 marine and auto engines. Just saying. I have all the scan tools to see how well this plays out.
Thanks
I posted up here last year about this and anyone who would let me test them on my time and my own dime. I had no responses. With that said I bet this would have taken place if they had a bad cam sensor, The end user surely would be ringing my phone off the wall and paying me for fixing their problem alot cheaper than what is called thru Mercruiser new parts buying and new installs costing min of 2 K especially if the engine has to be pulled.
I would think the same would hold true for the engine builders - trying to find the exact problem and then trying to find their solution to that problem if they had an cam sensor issue, then finding out it is NLA Just saying. It also might be to his benefit as well if in fact he deals with alot of early GM 496 marine and auto engines. Just saying. I have all the scan tools to see how well this plays out.
Thanks
03-02-2016, 08:24 AM
#27
Registered
My Advantage is a 2003, so I would imagine my two 496s are late 02, early 03 models. I had Bob change out the cam and had Dustin flash the ECM a couple years ago, but other than that they are bone stock.
