598 Engine Build
08-09-2011, 04:12 AM
#11
Registered
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: sint maarten
Posts: 1,491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is very slick Bob. I have been wanting to do something along those lines for some time. I just never seem to find the time. I'm sure you know what I mean. I had quite a different plan but that seemed to work very good. Placing the throttle bodies directly over the intake runners is obviously the way to go. Congrats. Very nice.
Eddie
Eddie
08-09-2011, 10:30 AM
#16
Registered
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: sint maarten
Posts: 1,491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
am curious in an intellectual and engineering framework...
i mean... it never occured to me to do it because... well... it never occured to me... but on box stock 502 mag mpi's like i had, if you had dumped the manifold that everyone hates and replaced it with the kinsler piece and adapted the factory mpi to it , do you think that would be a net gain , loss or a waste of time ?
Last edited by stevesxm; 08-09-2011 at 10:33 AM.
08-09-2011, 11:11 AM
#17
Registered
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 2,777
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
Nice Part!
Hey Bob, nice work and a great result.
As we all seem to say now, when it comes to naturally aspirated in a marine engine,"THERE AIN'T NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT!"
We did a lot of development on the 598-600 cubic inch versions of the 8.1L 496 Gen 7 engine as you know and we developed two different intakes that would support 750HP on the big cubes and higher flowing CNC'd heads. One was a redo of our existing 496 manifold that was reasonably priced using two 1200 cfm throttle bodies. The long runners and big plenum developed huge torque like you are seeing in your great creation and the other is our stack in line fuel injection system we built for the HO750 engine. The later obviously has the wow factor but the cost of this type keeps most guys wallets in their pockets!
I am curious what you think your beautiful system would sell for?
You also qualify as an "Official Rocket Scientist" for that amazing throttle linkage set-up- NICE WORK! The design and CNC work on the throttle bodies is really nice and obviously the system works very well as the dyno sheets show.
Congratulations on some nice development work!
Best Regards,
Ray @ Raylar
As we all seem to say now, when it comes to naturally aspirated in a marine engine,"THERE AIN'T NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT!"
We did a lot of development on the 598-600 cubic inch versions of the 8.1L 496 Gen 7 engine as you know and we developed two different intakes that would support 750HP on the big cubes and higher flowing CNC'd heads. One was a redo of our existing 496 manifold that was reasonably priced using two 1200 cfm throttle bodies. The long runners and big plenum developed huge torque like you are seeing in your great creation and the other is our stack in line fuel injection system we built for the HO750 engine. The later obviously has the wow factor but the cost of this type keeps most guys wallets in their pockets!
I am curious what you think your beautiful system would sell for?
You also qualify as an "Official Rocket Scientist" for that amazing throttle linkage set-up- NICE WORK! The design and CNC work on the throttle bodies is really nice and obviously the system works very well as the dyno sheets show.
Congratulations on some nice development work!
Best Regards,
Ray @ Raylar
08-09-2011, 11:21 AM
#19
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Spicewood, Texas USA
Posts: 1,382
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
Cost was the first driver on my decision. Kinsler could make pretty much anything I wanted, but ended up pretty pricey. I wasn't even sure how well it would work with the intake. Since Dave was able to build them(as a prototype), the rest became moot.
You would definitely gain some HP potential with the Kinsler setup. But, with the really small cam and low RPM limit of a stock 502 you may have never seen it and would have lost a lot of low end torque. Years ago I built a 540 with the mpi intake. It made tons of torque but layed down hard around 4900 rpm. Swapped out to a single plane intake and carb and it lost a lot of low end but gained about 300 rpm on top. I didn't have a dyno at the time, so no good data. The 500efi intake also has much better runners than the 502 MPI intake.
You would definitely gain some HP potential with the Kinsler setup. But, with the really small cam and low RPM limit of a stock 502 you may have never seen it and would have lost a lot of low end torque. Years ago I built a 540 with the mpi intake. It made tons of torque but layed down hard around 4900 rpm. Swapped out to a single plane intake and carb and it lost a lot of low end but gained about 300 rpm on top. I didn't have a dyno at the time, so no good data. The 500efi intake also has much better runners than the 502 MPI intake.
tell me about that , please. my experience with their stuff were the factory race motors that came to me to run from chevy and buick and ford... so while i certainly had my hands all over it, it wasn't my design or specification or anything like that... but the stuff was very well executed and simple and worked really well. for the sake of discussion and no other reason, what did you like/ not like achieve/ couldn't achieve ?
am curious in an intellectual and engineering framework...
i mean... it never occured to me to do it because... well... it never occured to me... but on box stock 502 mag mpi's like i had, if you had dumped the manifold that everyone hates and replaced it with the kinsler piece and adapted the factory mpi to it , do you think that would be a net gain , loss or a waste of time ?
am curious in an intellectual and engineering framework...
i mean... it never occured to me to do it because... well... it never occured to me... but on box stock 502 mag mpi's like i had, if you had dumped the manifold that everyone hates and replaced it with the kinsler piece and adapted the factory mpi to it , do you think that would be a net gain , loss or a waste of time ?
08-09-2011, 11:42 AM
#20
Registered
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: sint maarten
Posts: 1,491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cost was the first driver on my decision. Kinsler could make pretty much anything I wanted, but ended up pretty pricey. I wasn't even sure how well it would work with the intake. Since Dave was able to build them(as a prototype), the rest became moot.
You would definitely gain some HP potential with the Kinsler setup. But, with the really small cam and low RPM limit of a stock 502 you may have never seen it and would have lost a lot of low end torque. Years ago I built a 540 with the mpi intake. It made tons of torque but layed down hard around 4900 rpm. Swapped out to a single plane intake and carb and it lost a lot of low end but gained about 300 rpm on top. I didn't have a dyno at the time, so no good data. The 500efi intake also has much better runners than the 502 MPI intake.
You would definitely gain some HP potential with the Kinsler setup. But, with the really small cam and low RPM limit of a stock 502 you may have never seen it and would have lost a lot of low end torque. Years ago I built a 540 with the mpi intake. It made tons of torque but layed down hard around 4900 rpm. Swapped out to a single plane intake and carb and it lost a lot of low end but gained about 300 rpm on top. I didn't have a dyno at the time, so no good data. The 500efi intake also has much better runners than the 502 MPI intake.
