View Poll Results: WHat's more durable?? 502's or 496's??
The 502's were more durable engines
36
46.75%
The 496's and 502's are about the same all around
6
7.79%
The 496's especially the HO are better than 502's
35
45.45%
Voters: 77. You may not vote on this poll
502 or 496 HO>>??
01-01-2005 | 09:35 AM
#24
Registered
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 5
From: Virginia Beach
Re: 502 or 496 HO>>??
Can I chime in? I had a 502 Mag EFI in my last boat. Went through three sets of manifolds and risers. Stock Merc stuff was crap. I have run HO's for the past three seasons with no poblems. Knock on wood!! 
Start better, idle better, eccelerate better, run better.......overall better IMHO.
Start better, idle better, eccelerate better, run better.......overall better IMHO.
01-01-2005 | 01:33 PM
#25
Thread Starter
Gold Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 5,762
Likes: 1
Re: 502 or 496 HO>>??
Originally Posted by Fever Mike
Hydro, I do not believe the 35 X (old small single step bottom) will get past 90 with a 525. this same boat with HP500 would only do around 83-84 and it is going to take more HP I believe to get it to 90 on a light load. Anyhow it would be a nice boat but the resale on it will not be a good as the twin step 35. The cockpit room differance and engine room access differance is very much greater with the 35 twin step plus the 35 twin step with 525's will see your goal of 90mph.
I saw a good deal on an Ex with 496's and was thinkin about maybe going for it now in the winter.....adding blowers later..but it seems like that's not the way to go. Durability would eventually become an issue I think.
01-01-2005 | 10:25 PM
#27
Registered
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,682
Likes: 4
From: Boca Raton, FL
Re: 502 or 496 HO>>??
Originally Posted by Macklin
Can I chime in? I had a 502 Mag EFI in my last boat. Went through three sets of manifolds and risers. Stock Merc stuff was crap. I have run HO's for the past three seasons with no poblems. Knock on wood!! Start better, idle better, eccelerate better, run better.......overall better IMHO.
Start better, idle better, eccelerate better, run better.......overall better IMHO.Tommy from Chief Engines always tells me: "There's no replacement for displacement."
He wouldn't even touch a 396 Chevelle engine for me 'cause it was too little! (Elitist little bas####!)
More cubes equal more torque...boats need torque...502 has more cubes.
01-01-2005 | 11:15 PM
#29
Thread Starter
Gold Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 5,762
Likes: 1
Re: 502 or 496 HO>>??
Originally Posted by Edward R. Cozzi
I've heard this before and always figured it was the fresh water cooling that eliminated the 502 Mag corrosion problems.
Tommy from Chief Engines always tells me: "There's no replacement for displacement."
He wouldn't even touch a 396 Chevelle engine for me 'cause it was too little! (Elitist little bas####!)
More cubes equal more torque...boats need torque...502 has more cubes.
Tommy from Chief Engines always tells me: "There's no replacement for displacement."
He wouldn't even touch a 396 Chevelle engine for me 'cause it was too little! (Elitist little bas####!)
More cubes equal more torque...boats need torque...502 has more cubes.
Maybe mortgage the house and get Triple 525's on a 42X
(I think Lake Cumberland has it on hold for me.) Buy this and I can finally get free of being called a knob! 
Last edited by Hydrocruiser; 01-01-2005 at 11:29 PM.
01-04-2005 | 01:59 PM
#30
Registered
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 589
Likes: 0
From: Tampa,Fl
Re: 502 or 496 HO>>??
I too had 502's and replaced them with 496 HO's. I much prefer the HO's. They run so much smoother,no oil useage or corrosion problems. Better fuel economy. Performance is slighlty better than the 502's. It was the best decision I ever made. I learned with the 502's to get a diagnostic tool and it was one of the first things I did after motor installation. Carry it with me on any long trips.
