I wouldn’t necessarily say you shouldn’t do it, but I would have different expectations than what the program shows. It likely would not work out as well as retarding a 066 grind in a 400, mostly because the 2802 will scavenge more in a 455 than a 066 does in a 400. I think retarding the timing on a D port 6* to a 115 ICL with the 2802 will start to send some extra heat into the intake charge during overlap, and scavenge quite a bit less than it would if it were advanced. It would certainly run ok at 115 in a 455, headers would help, but you won’t see gains like the simulator is showing. It would not keep up with a RA4 grind for power. It won’t be able the scavenge near as well as the bigger cam that has more overlap.
This is a guess, but I think max power in that combo would be with the ICL installed at 112 or 113 in a 9.5 SCR 455, not 115 or more. The 2802 set on 115 in a 455 would likely show some pumping loss benefits at part throttle, but it would be a very narrow RPM range were there would be a benefit.
I have that program. Or rather the similar program that has some extra tool on it. That programs sees all cams as symmetrical. If the cam is Assymetric it shows bias for retarding the cam timing compared to real life. More or less the actual results won’t be as good as what the program shows. I often call the summit 2802 a symmetrical cam, but it has some slight assymetric’s in it’s design on the closing side. How the cam is actually ground would be like retarding it another 2 or 3 degrees in real life.
I don’t know what you set the program for, .050” or seat to seat. You might flip it back and forth and see how it changes the results. I would put 282 intake and 292 exhaust in on the seat values, (instead of 298 and 308), it will give a more accurate reflection of the cam. I think they usually run about 285 intake and 295 exh at .006” tappet. You have SAE at the valve numbers in the seat rating right now.
|