anyone out there using the 2802 in a street 455
 

I was planning on trying one in my 1974 455 and wondered about idle, low speed torque,mid range, ect. I have 2.73's and a stock converter.

Compression ratio???

with those gears and convertor, use the 2801.

I have a 2802 in a 400 (6X heads) auto w/ 2.73, stock conv. Seems OK to me. Is it overcammed - I dunno I have nothing to compare it to!

had one in a 73 trans am.455 +.030,73 4X heads 96cc chamber-about 9.2 compression,performer intake stock 73 Qjet,headers 2.5 inch exhaust,aprox 1800 stall,3.08 gears.ran really good,but would have ran better with 3.23-3.42 gears and alittle more converter.idled with a nice lope but not what i call to bad.

i'm with Larry,unless you bump the compression,add more gear and more converter i'd go with the 2801.

I agree with Larry. We were running the 2802 in the 421 (ok, 433 now) with a 2,400 stall converter and 3.08 gears. It pulled against that converter a little - a stock converter wouldn't work well behind that cam. The cam would be happy with a 2600/2800 stall. If you change the converter you could probably live with the gears. The cam itself was great starting in the mid range and pulling up to our self imposed 5,800 RPM redline.

The 2801 will work great with those gears and a stock converter. I would imagine that the 2802 would work ok. I would go with the 2801 if it were me. It will have a smooth idle and will put you in the backseat taking off. Mine likes to shift at around 5,000 or so with the 2801.

I had the 2802 in a 4700 lb wagon with a .060 over 455. It had 3.08 gears and a stock converter. Mind you I think that the steeper 1st gear in the 200r4 helped , but the wagon was great. I loved the torque of the engine at all rpm's. However it did go through fuel at a alarming rate. I took the motor and tranny and put into a 70 GTO with a 3.55 gear and put a grand national converter into the tranny. It works way better in the Goat. Funny that the fuel economy got way better in the GTO. Same carb, steeper gears, and a looser converter, and I still got better gas mileage. I think that I was into the carb less with the lighter vehicle.I love the cam and would highly recommend that you use it. The heads on my 455 are the 6x8 with a simple valve grind and no port work. I have no time slips for either car. I liked the cam so much I bought another and put it on the shelf for another day.

I run the 2802 in my Lemans 'vert. Stock heads, stock intake, Q-jet, log manifolds, approx. 10:1 compression, TH400, 2500 stall converter, 3.08 rear.
My car is pretty heavy, 4100 lb. race weight. It has great low end and mid, idles at 750 rpm in gear, plenty of vacuum for the accessories. Has run 13.1's in the quarter @ 104.

Russell Wells(69*goat) ran the 2802 in his Can Am, 462, 9.1 CR, street ported 6x4's, RPM intake Cliff Q-jet, 2500 convertor and 3.42 rear.
Idled smooth and delivered GOBS of low-end torque. The car was an animal!

In a 400 w 3/08s the 2801 was up on a stock convertor pretty hard. A slightly looser Continental 13" helped alot, still has just a slight lump at idle. In a 455 I'd sure think of a 2802.

Have a 280/288 Ultradyne in a 5C headed 455. Similar specs on the UD cam as the 2801. Actually considering the 2802 for the next driver 400. With 2.93 gears and a L88 style (Th400 high stall) converter, it idled well, pulled hard and didnt push through the brakes. Also ran 13.50s with that setup and 4200lbs race weight. Its still in there, but now it has 3.42 gears and a stock 2004R converter, works pretty good considering.

I wonder how much difference between the 2802 and the UD 280/288... From the experience with this 455 I would put a 2802 in any 400 or 455, but I dont mind a non stock idle.

The 2801 is much smaller than the UD 280/288 which is 223/231 @ 0.050. 2801 is only 214/224. The 2802 is 224/234 so closer but I believe it's on a 114 LS where I'll bet your UD is a 110 so it should even idle a little better.

I pulled the heads apart and did a bowl clean up and port match. the compression is the stock 8.2 and has a performer and 3" duals with ported stock manifolds. Performer, 800 qjet ect..

The first 455 I built had a general kinetecs 230/.480 cam in a 74 formula bird with 3.08's and a stock converter and it was an animal.. the only diff was the heads (6x 4's) and the .030 over bore..

Is the 2802 THAT much more radical then the 230 in my first 455??

Not knowing much about the GK cam, if you didn't have issues with it and that driveline, then the 2802 may work okay.
FWIW.....I have a used UD 280/288 that I no longer have a need for.

Another plus with the 2802 is the tight over lap. I live in an area where we have to have government vehicle emission testing, and the cam is Ok in an 1979 vehicle, without cats, and a 455.
In B.C. all you have to do is pass the sniffer , they don't look at anything.

I run the 2802 in my 455 +.040, RPM, Q-jet,M-20 & 3.23's in my convertible 68 Lemans. Love it, seems tame to me at idle, pulls just like Larry says. Only problem I have is I run the Q-jet dry when I go balls out. I'm assuming stock fuel line is the culprit.

Scott

it's not so much that the cam is that much more radical,but your other parts aren't as good a match.3.08 gears-2.73 gears,6X4 heads about 9.5 compression-8.2 compression,.030 over bore.little things like that can and do add up.not saying you will not like the 2802,but with the smaller combo of parts the 2801 might be better suited.

Hey Goatless! Weren't you in an HPP shootout?? Just read it last night and your combo sounds very familiar!

Didnt the stock SD 455 have less compression or the same with more seat to seat valve timing ?
How bad can the 2802 be in this guys combo?