FAQ |
Members List |
Social Groups |
Calendar |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#21
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I thought the 2802 is a bigger cam than the 60916 so not sure about the power differences? I’m asking because I’m looking at the 2802 for a 400 build. Thx
__________________
'71 GTO, 406 CID, 60916, 1.65 HS, '69 #46 Heads 230CFM, 800CFM Q-jet, TH400, 12 Bolt 3.55 '72 Lemans, Lucerne Blue, WU2, T41, L78, M22, G80 |
#22
|
||||
|
||||
I think the 2802 would be fine in a 400.The 2801 I have idles smooth at 700rpm
__________________
Skip Fix 1978 Trans Am original owner 10.99 @ 124 pump gas 455 E heads, NO Bird ever! 1981 Black SE Trans Am stockish 6X 400ci, turbo 301 on a stand 1965 GTO 4 barrel 3 speed project 2004 GTO Pulse Red stock motor computer tune 13.43@103.4 1964 Impala SS 409/470ci 600 HP stroker project 1979 Camaro IAII Edelbrock head 500" 695 HP 10.33@132 3595lbs |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
You never really know what is right.We put a ST II where Dave recommends and when we pumped it and was a little high on the dyno,Dave told us to retard it from where we were 3 degrees.Reduced the pumping comp enough and picked up HP.FWIW,Tom
|
#24
|
||||
|
||||
Yes, the 2802 is "mild" in a higher compression 400 build. Smooth idle, at most a "deep/heavy" sound, little if any lope if you have adequate timing and idle fuel. It produces a very "flat" power curve as well and a good choice for a 400 build on pump gas but I wouldn't use it in lower compression builds, the 2801 is a better choice there.....
__________________
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), |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
I agree with Cliff that a 2802 would be a good choice for a RAIII 400 with at least 9.5 compression. I have a 2801 in a 9.94 to 1 406 (0.030" over 400) and it is pretty tame, idles smoothly and has 15" vacuum at idle (800 rpm in neutral). I went with the 2801 since it has the stock log exhaust manifolds on the small valve #16 heads and needed to move the power curve down to work better with them. It runs great with 93 octane fuel and 36 degrees timing in by 3200 rpm and a great cooling system at 180 degrees max. In a RAIII 400 with bigger valves, more head flow, RA manifolds w/ better exhaust, the 2802 would work much better.
The only engine I have with a 2802 cam is an 8.6 to 1 455HO (stock) that idles smoothly with just a hint of a lope at idle, but also makes 15" vacuum at 800 rpm. It's borderline for going to a bigger cam. I have a Bullet cam (same specs as the 90619) in a 461 (4.25" crank in a 0.030" over 400) with 9.5 to 1 compression and it is the perfect cam for that engine. It has a distinct lope at idle, makes 14" vacuum at 800 rpm easily and operates the PDB no problem. Dennis |
The Following User Says Thank You to SD455DJ For This Useful Post: | ||
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
Reply |
|
|