New 496 aluminum heads
03-08-2004, 03:13 PM
#31
Registered
Raylar can you please confirm that as soon as you install a set of your heads the warranty is then null & void. Was not sure if this was the case, and have seen some conflicting ideas (the engine still thinks its got the stock heads on because you haven't done anything to the ECU). Thanks.
Platinum Member
04-02-2004, 03:46 PM
#33
Registered
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Ottawa Ontario
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Raylar, any more news off the dyno on your torue numbers? Also, did I see somewhere that the difference in weight between the stock and your heads was 100lbs? Thanks.
04-03-2004, 01:08 AM
#34
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 2,777
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
Hey Guys:
Sorry I am tired from all this dyno work. We have been running tests all this week on the dyno and we are only about half done! As for the qustion on weight. Thse stock iron (boat anchor) heads weigh about 92 lbs each complete. Our new head weighs about 46 lbs complete hence the 100 lbs per motor weight savings. We started testing with the motor in stock truck 340HP trim and tested at 348HP @4700 rpms and 460 lbs torque @ 3550 rpms, this was with a stock truck ECM. We converted the Motor to a stock 496Mag version with a Merc ECM and exhaust manifolds and measured 375 HP @ 4800 rpms and torque @ 465@ 3600 rpms. We then added our heads , the 1.8 ratio rockers, tweeked the fuel pressure up about 5 lbs and hit 428hp at 4950 rpms and torque jumped to 523lbs @ 3400rpms. This was all run with no changes to the ECMs We have not yet set the motor up as a 496HO version yet, nor have we added our new intake manifold yet. We should complete this work next week if everything continues trouble free! This is really a lot of work to set these motor combinations up, dial them in at run all the comparison tests and do all the tear down and reassembly and record and verify all the data. As for the new manifold, this thing amazes even us as designers and prototypers how great it has turned out. The new manifold is no larger in any outside dimension than the stock intake (slug) manifold, yet is has cool air gaps under runners that are as long as the stock runners and under the plenum which is huge at a 615 cubic inch volume. I can't wait to get this thing on the motors and run more tests. As soon as we are done with the testing I am going to clean up this prototype manifold and get pictures on our website as well as the complete dyno test numbers and evaluations for everybody to see. The EFI 496 is going to be one hot motor! We are now becoming more confident that with our new cam profiles, marine headers and some more tweeking that the 496 EFI will easily top 600HP and 650FT LB. torque with a great idle and plenty of hours between overhauls. I'll Keep you posted!
Ray @ Raylar
Sorry I am tired from all this dyno work. We have been running tests all this week on the dyno and we are only about half done! As for the qustion on weight. Thse stock iron (boat anchor) heads weigh about 92 lbs each complete. Our new head weighs about 46 lbs complete hence the 100 lbs per motor weight savings. We started testing with the motor in stock truck 340HP trim and tested at 348HP @4700 rpms and 460 lbs torque @ 3550 rpms, this was with a stock truck ECM. We converted the Motor to a stock 496Mag version with a Merc ECM and exhaust manifolds and measured 375 HP @ 4800 rpms and torque @ 465@ 3600 rpms. We then added our heads , the 1.8 ratio rockers, tweeked the fuel pressure up about 5 lbs and hit 428hp at 4950 rpms and torque jumped to 523lbs @ 3400rpms. This was all run with no changes to the ECMs We have not yet set the motor up as a 496HO version yet, nor have we added our new intake manifold yet. We should complete this work next week if everything continues trouble free! This is really a lot of work to set these motor combinations up, dial them in at run all the comparison tests and do all the tear down and reassembly and record and verify all the data. As for the new manifold, this thing amazes even us as designers and prototypers how great it has turned out. The new manifold is no larger in any outside dimension than the stock intake (slug) manifold, yet is has cool air gaps under runners that are as long as the stock runners and under the plenum which is huge at a 615 cubic inch volume. I can't wait to get this thing on the motors and run more tests. As soon as we are done with the testing I am going to clean up this prototype manifold and get pictures on our website as well as the complete dyno test numbers and evaluations for everybody to see. The EFI 496 is going to be one hot motor! We are now becoming more confident that with our new cam profiles, marine headers and some more tweeking that the 496 EFI will easily top 600HP and 650FT LB. torque with a great idle and plenty of hours between overhauls. I'll Keep you posted!
Ray @ Raylar
04-04-2004, 12:53 PM
#36
Registered
Raylar
Tell us more about the heads. What size valves? How much airflow? Did you fix the roof of the intake port? How about the floor? How much intake volume? Exhaust airflow numbers? Do they flow more air than a ported set of stock iron heads? thanks
Tell us more about the heads. What size valves? How much airflow? Did you fix the roof of the intake port? How about the floor? How much intake volume? Exhaust airflow numbers? Do they flow more air than a ported set of stock iron heads? thanks
Last edited by JimV; 04-04-2004 at 12:57 PM.
04-05-2004, 12:21 AM
#37
Guest
Posts: n/a
Here is some info off their web site. It may answer some of your questions.
http://www.raylarengine.com/data.htm
http://www.raylarengine.com/images/specifications.pdf
http://www.raylarengine.com/data.htm
http://www.raylarengine.com/images/specifications.pdf
04-08-2004, 09:32 AM
#38
Registered
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Iowa
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ray,
What do you feel the gains will be with just your heads or your intake and heads? I'm not sure if I would want to go all the way with the cams and headers or will this be necessary to see 500 h.p.? Will this ever be available with a re-programmed ECU that doesn't need alot of screwing with the fuel/air delivery system? I think what a lot of owners will be looking for is a bolt on kit that is reliable and don't take a lot of di<king with to get it to run like it should for the money spent.
What do you feel the gains will be with just your heads or your intake and heads? I'm not sure if I would want to go all the way with the cams and headers or will this be necessary to see 500 h.p.? Will this ever be available with a re-programmed ECU that doesn't need alot of screwing with the fuel/air delivery system? I think what a lot of owners will be looking for is a bolt on kit that is reliable and don't take a lot of di<king with to get it to run like it should for the money spent.
04-17-2004, 02:18 AM
#40
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 2,777
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
Highmark:
Sorry for the late reply. I have been buried with dyno testing and manifold and cam work. Just came here for a short period to clear my head. I am just about deaf from all the dyno pulls! We have now started the 496HO pulls with heads, manifold, cams, injector and fuel pressure changes. With no changes to the ECM and just the heads and manifold we are just over 527HP at 5100 rpms.Damn the 496 is a great torque monster! Everyone needs to quit fretting so much over the ECM changes, the main reason Whipple for example has had to modify the programs so much is because he is selling blower packages where the manifold pressure goes positive under boost. There is no way a 496 with any kind of turbocharger or supercharger will run on the factory ECM using a VE table system that reads a MAP signal for directions. Remember our products are all designed for normally aspirated EFI 496 engines. As long as the air fuel ratios stay within good safe power producing levels with the Mercury programing, making changes to the ECM programing is not overly necessary. Why is this? We believe that Mercury intentionally runs the fuel settings fat or rich at most higher rpm levels. They probably do this to protect the motor for warranty reasons. Rich running motors don't burn valves, pistons or run hot like lean burns do under loads. We are playing with fuel pressures and injector sizes and we have not gotten to pull yet with our new Bigpower 3 cam. I think we will see 550 to 575Hp with the cam change and with the air fuel ratio numbers climbing at WOT we may have to resort to some fuel curve pulse width changes in the ECM. As for ignition timing in the ECM, again we believe the Mercury settings are conservative to eliminate possible detonation problems. With our new heads and manifold the engine is producing power with more efficiency and hence needs less timing to make more power, so again the conservative advance Merc has placed in the ECM at various rpm's seems to be working to our advantage so far. We have seen no detonation to this point and I don't believe we will need more igintion lead to make more power. Only time will tell! I am going to post some pictures of the new manifold next week and when all the dyno run combinations are completed we will compile all the data so we can publish all the specs. and numbers on a PDF doc. on our website so everyone can see the results. Damn, I hope we can pay for all the dyno time!
Thanks for the Postings, we'll keep on testing and tweeking!
Raylar
Sorry for the late reply. I have been buried with dyno testing and manifold and cam work. Just came here for a short period to clear my head. I am just about deaf from all the dyno pulls! We have now started the 496HO pulls with heads, manifold, cams, injector and fuel pressure changes. With no changes to the ECM and just the heads and manifold we are just over 527HP at 5100 rpms.Damn the 496 is a great torque monster! Everyone needs to quit fretting so much over the ECM changes, the main reason Whipple for example has had to modify the programs so much is because he is selling blower packages where the manifold pressure goes positive under boost. There is no way a 496 with any kind of turbocharger or supercharger will run on the factory ECM using a VE table system that reads a MAP signal for directions. Remember our products are all designed for normally aspirated EFI 496 engines. As long as the air fuel ratios stay within good safe power producing levels with the Mercury programing, making changes to the ECM programing is not overly necessary. Why is this? We believe that Mercury intentionally runs the fuel settings fat or rich at most higher rpm levels. They probably do this to protect the motor for warranty reasons. Rich running motors don't burn valves, pistons or run hot like lean burns do under loads. We are playing with fuel pressures and injector sizes and we have not gotten to pull yet with our new Bigpower 3 cam. I think we will see 550 to 575Hp with the cam change and with the air fuel ratio numbers climbing at WOT we may have to resort to some fuel curve pulse width changes in the ECM. As for ignition timing in the ECM, again we believe the Mercury settings are conservative to eliminate possible detonation problems. With our new heads and manifold the engine is producing power with more efficiency and hence needs less timing to make more power, so again the conservative advance Merc has placed in the ECM at various rpm's seems to be working to our advantage so far. We have seen no detonation to this point and I don't believe we will need more igintion lead to make more power. Only time will tell! I am going to post some pictures of the new manifold next week and when all the dyno run combinations are completed we will compile all the data so we can publish all the specs. and numbers on a PDF doc. on our website so everyone can see the results. Damn, I hope we can pay for all the dyno time!
Thanks for the Postings, we'll keep on testing and tweeking!
Raylar
