To Raylar or not to Raylar?

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

02-13-2022 | 11:57 AM

#11

DrFeelgood

Registered

Joined: Aug 2007

Posts: 1,422

Likes: 1,062

From: Orlando, FL

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith Atlanta

Before you read this, I say this, ya'll know I am a 496/8.1 cheerleader.

The 496 in stock form is a really reliable platform. ........

No argument from me there. I like the 496 a lot. I have one in my truck, plus longtubes, raylar intake manifold mod, and a tune, and it's awesome.

02-13-2022 | 03:50 PM

#12

Michaeloh59

Thread Starter

Registered

Joined: Jul 2013

Posts: 76

Likes: 9

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith Atlanta

I have a similar HO600 setup. Its reliable. If they made it to 130 hours they will make it 500 more. The only issue is getting the fuel pressure right, obviously, its right or they wouldnt have made it this long. Ryan00JT is 100% correct, all the weak points were replaced. The Raylar heads are really nice equipment. Its a reliable setup. I would go as far to say its more reliable than a stock HO because they replaced the cast pistons and stock valve springs - the stock valve springs scared the chit out of me...

Your opinion then is it is likely these kits were properly installed else issues would have arisen. Of course perhaps they did and were dealt with

02-14-2022 | 08:18 AM

#13

TomZ

Platinum Member

Joined: Feb 2001

Posts: 4,303

Likes: 1,459

From: Virginia Beach

I don't think I'd look at these as "kits" being applied to a 496. These were essentially new engines with exception of the block and crank. I wouldn't give one thought about going back to the factory set-up.

02-14-2022 | 09:45 AM

#14

87MirageIntruder

Registered

Joined: Dec 2016

Posts: 587

Likes: 366

From: Portland OR

My experience with the Raylar stuff has been good. I believe the quality of the installation is key to reliability. Mine has been reliable so far, and I'm building one now for a friend.