496 Flame Arrestor
#11
Registered
Joined: Oct 2022
Posts: 283
Likes: 89
From: WI
I was never a fan of the clamp on style, but that looks pretty thin, seems like the wrong corner to cut when the worst case scenario is igniting your engine bay
Lots of better flowing aftermarket parts for $100-200 without introducing additional risk
Lots of better flowing aftermarket parts for $100-200 without introducing additional risk
#13
Registered


Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 274
Likes: 153
From: texas
Xlint,


Little late for that. Besides…. Without a dyno specifically set up for closed cooling (consumed water), it’s nearly impossible to do a dyno pull. We could potentially just do a with/without empirical test. But, I can tell you, without a doubt, without some sort of bellmouth, the “without” flow will be worse than with the FA.
Thanks. Brad.


Little late for that. Besides…. Without a dyno specifically set up for closed cooling (consumed water), it’s nearly impossible to do a dyno pull. We could potentially just do a with/without empirical test. But, I can tell you, without a doubt, without some sort of bellmouth, the “without” flow will be worse than with the FA.
Thanks. Brad.
#14
Thread Starter
VIP Member

Joined: Jun 2021
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 2,136
From: SW Ohio
That's an OEM Merc 496 FA.
As I stated in the starting post, I have serious doubts a flame front is going to be able to travel that far, plus through the intercooler and the ProCharger.
Thanks. Brad.
#15
Thread Starter
VIP Member

Joined: Jun 2021
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 2,136
From: SW Ohio
I've been told the K&N flows worse than the OEM 496 breather. Or, at least, they offered one at one point in time that did. Do you have any data on that one?
Thanks. Brad.
#17
Registered

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,822
Likes: 376
From: IL
I guess different people have different experience, back when I replaced my stock flame arresters on my fountain with twin 502’s and added it KN I noticed the difference in a positive way, that was just me
#18
Registered

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,822
Likes: 376
From: IL
no, I don’t have any data. I don’t get that consumed with a filter, you can remove that filter and drive your boat and I guarantee you’re not gonna see any difference so a filter is not going to help you, all I can tell you is the stock 496 flame arrestor is not providing any filtration, all the belt dust goes right through that stock filter and into your engine, I like the K&N because simply it filters better it sounds better and does not affect in a negative way and no more belt dust in my throttle body
#19
Registered

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,822
Likes: 376
From: IL
and I will tell you one more thing, and I know a lot of people are gonna disagree with me because I am full of crap, and I don’t know what I’m talking about, but in the unlikely event you ever have any kind of fire in your boat and it ends up being from a backfire and there is an investigation by the insurance or anybody else and see the flame arrestor has been modified you’re gonna have explaining to do,
let’s think about this if mercruiser could get more performance out of those engines and did not have to add the mash to their flame arrestor why would they?
let’s think about this if mercruiser could get more performance out of those engines and did not have to add the mash to their flame arrestor why would they?
#20
I don't think it's really "cleaning" any air. It's typically not dusty out on the water, nor in a boat bilge.





