496 Dyno testing and myth busting!
#121
Registered
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: McHenry, Il.
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
i like gil it's a great product for the $ and price is not bad. my last set's lasted 12 yrs. or so. they also provide exel. performance. i have the dry-pipe's with muffler's, sounds great.
#123
Registered
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
See post #1...It goes into comparision of the Dana's but not the new CMI's. I've come to the conclusion on any stock engine the results will be minimal.
"Results are in. I’ve finally completed some comprehensive dyno testing of a 496HO and various exhaust systems. It’s rather lengthy so I published it on our web site. Please check it out. I spent all the time and effort for you guys. Go to www.fullthrottlemarine.com and click on high performance projects.
Bob"
#124
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Spicewood, Texas USA
Posts: 1,382
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
![Default](/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Here is a dyno test I did this summer. It is a prop shaft test on a stock 496 Mag HO and a second test after adding CMI sport tube headers. Disregard the A/F data, the wideband was not connected to the dyno during this test.
Bob
Bob
Last edited by bobl; 12-14-2009 at 10:55 AM.
#125
Gold Member
![](https://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/images/icons/gold_member_star.gif)
![Default](/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
That is pretty impressive. I have to say, I was skeptical but now I am going to order a set...
Thanks BobL for the dyno info. I have been waiting to see some numbers that looked this good.
Thanks BobL for the dyno info. I have been waiting to see some numbers that looked this good.
#126
Registered
![](https://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/images/icons/prop.gif)
![Default](/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Thanks for all the work and knowledge on the 496's!
#127
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Spicewood, Texas USA
Posts: 1,382
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
![Default](/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I would say yes to that. Might be a couple of hp difference but you'd never notice it. So it comes down to cost, fitment and bling. Dana wins in the first 2 cases. But, you can't beat the looks of the CMIs. IMO
#128
Registered
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Middle of the high desert
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Dana recommends increasing fuel pressure on late model HO's to keep from going lean in the midrange when using their exhaust. Does this also apply to CMI's or other true headers?
#129
Registered
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 2,777
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
![Wink](/forums/images/icons/icon12.gif)
Yes, whenever a true set of headers or header manifolds is installed on a 2004 or newer 496 MAG or HO engine the air fuel ratios should be rechecked if possible at full throttle, if not at least increase the fuel pressure about 3-4 lbs to help get the WOT fuel ratios closer in line.
Mercury used a different fuel program in the newer 496's since 2004 that was to help eliminate the "fat" rich condtion that appeared in earlier engines and caused a lot more transom soot and such.
Best Regards,
Ray @ Raylar
Mercury used a different fuel program in the newer 496's since 2004 that was to help eliminate the "fat" rich condtion that appeared in earlier engines and caused a lot more transom soot and such.
Best Regards,
Ray @ Raylar