[Cliff R]

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

[67GTO4SPEED]

Originally Posted by Cliff R

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.

[KEN CROCIE]

Crane 283801.. Idle sounds like between an 068 and 744. makes more power than the 744.
The SPC 3 specs out like the 744 BUT is a round nose, conventional profile. It has only 2-3 deg. of dwell over the nose, whereas the orig. 744 (H) has 30-32 deg. of dwell. Maybe Craig can post a picture of the 2 cams , side by side. Craig is right about the dynamics. Almost every virgin RA3 engine H-O disassembled in the 70s had a few lobes ground off.

[Half-Inch Stud]

Ken , Please critique my Cam combos in the Signature; 11.00 & 12.00 ETs were 11:1 compr. 12.24 ET is 9.0:1. All idle well, yet how could I have chosen better? Thanks in advance. HIS

[zeebo]

what about the lunati 60902 cam? anyone have expericence with this? im going to be building a 400 with #13 heads and am looking at cams in this topics range as well.

[track73]

I had a Crane 283801 in my '79 T/A 3.23 4 speed, with RAlll manifold and number 62 heads and 70 cast pistons. (better gas back hen) It ran great and would keep up wit my buddies 69 'vette with a similar cam. I used it with Rhodes lifters. Crane said that it wouldn't work with the Rhodes, but I drove it for 4 years that way and had zero problems. It was the 2nd engine. I now have a 4th engine (don't ask) and it has an Elgin cam with the 2800 specs. I broke the 3.23 with the 462 3rd engine and it now has 3:42 gears. With the 2800 cam it is a kick to drive in town. Let off the clutch
stab it and feel your head snap. The compression is around 7.5 so you can just about pee in the tank if you had a few two many beers.

[War eagle]

Summit has a 2802 cam and lifter kit at a good price. What about valve spring pressure on this set up? Would like to get everything at once along with keepers and retainers. Maybe somebody knows of a complete kit less timing chain/gears?

[Matt Meaney]

it's kind of a pain, but imo you'd be better off in the long run to piece this together with better parts. a summit cam, Johnson lifters, and crower springs would be my suggestion.

[Will]

Ditto Matt. Too many junk Chinese lifters out there these days, which undoubtedly is what you get with the Summit cam.

Crower or Comp for springs. Been too long since I've set up stock heads so don't recall what the stock installed height is but both companies make springs that will install at stock height and support up to .480-.490" lift easily.

[War eagle]

Butler said that Johnson was the only lifter company left and supplies all the lifters if US made. I had nothing but trouble with a Comp Cam "kit" once and a switch to Sealed Power lifters "fixed the bad comp cam lifters." Good idea to be wary of overseas lifters.
I`m considering the Crower 60243. The reason is the larger cube .040 over 421/432ci. Usually in a large cube long stroke engine the idle lope is softened as noted before.

[rtanner]

i like to advance that 2802 4 degrees in my 400s

[455abody]

Originally Posted by Craig Hendrickson

OK, with the above correction, I have one more thing to say. A few years ago for my personal use I restored a 1979 T/A W72 (400CID, 8.2:1 CR, 6X-4 heads) with B-W Super T10 and 3.23:1 rear gear. Because I wanted a driver, I installed a Summit 2801 cam (like a Pontiac 068). In retrospect, it was not enough cam. One barely knew there was a cam in it. A few years later, I sold it on ePay.



This statement is completely wrong.

Hello Craig my name is Brian I know you would be the best to pose this question to.Looking to cam up my 68Gto H.O. I think when the rebuild happened a few years back the owner put in a 066 or 067 cam.Looking for something I don't have to swap out the springs on,I have always used the 068 in most of my Pontiacs great cam-can you recommend something a tad more aggressive.MY combo is 68 400YZ 16 heads automatic trans 355 posi electronic ign. h/o exhaust manifolds. Thanks Craig for all your input over the years. 10.5 stock compression. Brian

[Cliff R]

I suspect that the Crane 283801 camshaft is the same as the Summit 2802 cam.

CMC grinds most of the cams available from the major suppliers. The end users typically "juggle" the specs slightly to make it look like their own grind.

I say this because I used to have a supplier of engine parts that visited CMC once. Did you ever notice that many camshafts purchased had different colored stripes on each end of them? He told me that the color coding was used to get them in the right boxes as they made their way thru the plant, and this helped the companies that purchased them identify them on their end without having to reference any numbers, etc.

Even if they don't in this particular case, those cams are so close that the end user wouldn't be able to notice any difference in them I the final product....IMHO.....Cliff

[Cliff R]

"The Summit line of camshafts, as good as they are, are NOT the same/comparable as/to the Pontiac OEM grinds.
Summit cams got less LSA, more lift, less overlap and less time on the lobes."

Same statement applies to a lot of the aftermarket flat cams currently being marketed for these engines.

Unless you buy into the BS that you can reduce seat timing by 20-30 degrees, pull the lobes together some (tighter LSA), drop the valve quickly then throw them off the seats quickly, and advance the intake centerline (earlier closing intake points), then make MORE power at every rpm advertising that we continue to here in this hobby.

If you move up to a roller camshaft some it is possible to enjoy some of these nice features, as the roller lobes can provide a bigger "window of opportunity" to move air thru the engine with less actual seat timing. So you can enjoy improved vacuum at idle, lower rpm's and still make great upper mid-range and top end power with a similar or smaller camshaft.

If you try to do the same thing with an aftermarket flat cam with "modern" lobe profiles and you pick it comparing .050" numbers, be prepared to be disappointed in the end result.....FWIW......Cliff

PS: here is a link to specs on Pontiac camshafts, something everyone should look at when comparing camshafts for these engines:

http://www.pontiacpower.org/PontiacCams.htm