#1  
Old 02-01-2014, 01:25 PM
Cliff R's Avatar
Cliff R Cliff R is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Mount Vernon, Ohio 43050
Posts: 18,153
Default

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),
  #2  
Old 02-01-2014, 01:58 PM
67GTO4SPEED's Avatar
67GTO4SPEED 67GTO4SPEED is offline
Chief Ponti-yacker
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 718
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliff R View Post
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
What CR would you recommend for the 60243 in a .030" over 428 with ported #16's that flow 265/208? How much difference in power could you expect with the same engine with 60919 cam?

Sorry to hi-jack, just wondering.

__________________
'67 GTO 400 HO - Ram Air - 4 speed - 3.55 Safe T Track, A/C, PS, red fender liners

'78 Lemans - Drag car project
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:49 PM.

 

About Us

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.

 




Copyright © 2017