| FAQ |
| Members List |
| Social Groups |
| Calendar |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#13
02-01-2014, 01:25 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Those two cams are actually pretty close in how they behave in these engines. The wider LSA of the 2802 makes it not quite as "aggressive" at idle as the 60243 grind. Both do quite well in 400 engines with small chamber heads managing pump fuel. I've used them and quite a few of our customers use them. I hear horror stories all the time about folks encountering heavy detonation with Pontiac engines. In almost every single case it's from some poor soul who put a small cam with fast ramps and tight LSA into a 455 with 9 to 1 or higher compression.
The 2802 and 60243 seem to be about right for more "aggressive" 400 builds where folks aren't lowering the static compression ratio. Right on the dyno the 60243 cam made 424hp/465tq in a 400 build with unported small chamber heads. Those HP jumped to 450hp with KRE aluminum "D" ports. One the same subject, we get LOADS of complaints from folks who went to the larger RAIV camshaft in similar 400 builds. Always the same thing, poor idle quality, "soggy" at low rpm's, and no real power below about 2800rpms......Cliff
__________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a Veteran! https://cliffshighperformance.com/ 73 Ventura, SOLD 455, 3740lbs, 11.30's at 120mph, 1977 Pontiac Q-jet, HO intake, HEI, 10" converter, 3.42 gears, DOT's, 7.20's at 96mph and still WAY under the roll bar rule. Best ET to date 7.18 at 97MPH (1/8th mile), |
|
|
The PY Online Forums is the largest online gathering of Pontiac enthusiasts anywhere in the world. Founded in 1991, it was also the first online forum for people to gather and talk about their Pontiacs. Since then, it has become the mecca of Pontiac technical data and knowledge that no other place can surpass.
Threaded Mode