[Dragncar]

2802 is ity bitty for a 455 with decent heads. Far better off with a RAIV cam and there are better ones than that. Look into the Voodoo series.

[Steve C.]

In the back of Jim Hand's book within the Street/Strip Engine Packages suggested by various well known Pontiac engine builders there are 12 combinations with 455 or more cubic inches, and all but one had a cam listed with at least 230 degrees minimum intake duration. The lone builder with less had a cam with 228 degrees.


.

[Navy Horn 16]

I don't know why you would fool with the exhaust. I'd work from the back forward.. Pick your gears and convertor. Try it out, then see if you need to change your cam.

A nice Q-Jet with a performer RPM will behave really well on the street.

[The Champ]

Originally Posted by Johnny99

The rear has to go below 3:40. Looks like the options are 3.40 , 3.25, or 3.00. I think the 3.25's would be a good selection. I couldn't see me on the highway in excess of 65 in this car. And highway cruising would be limited to maybe once a week. I can always tweak the rpm ration with taller tires I suppose . It's got 235/60 15's on it now. Those are just over 26" . Not sure if a taller 70 will fit I'd imagine a 215/70 might work.

235/60's are pretty short for your '65.

If your rims have decent backspace on them - you can easily run 255/60's on the back (27.1"). Maybe even 275/60's (28").

With an automatic - you could easily run the 3.00 gears. I have a 3.08's in my '64 GTO 4spd car with a 462. I was running 255/60's on the rear until I went to 17's and I've got a 1" wider 12 bolt in the rear.

[Half-Inch Stud]

See Cam below for max-Street durations vs Compr

[ponyakr]

"...The Summit 2802 is a tiny cam ! Besides it won't take advantage of the cylinder head flow here in this application..."

" I’d like to build the car to work in the 1500-5000 rpm range "



So, if a guy is not gonna run his engine past 5000 rpm, why would he wanna run a cam that will make max hp well above 5000, possibly requiring a converter with more stall, to make it more streetable ?

Sounds to me like the OP does not want to make max power, or utilize all the potential flow of his heads.

Consider the SD455. Everybody agrees that the 744 spec cam did not utilize the potential of the round port SD heads. The test cars with the 041 spec cam made more power. But, I'm guessing that some guys were satisfied with the performance of a stock SD455.

I'm not an SD455 expert, by any means. But, I assume that with that small cam the SD cars would run just fine from an idle to 5000 rpm, with only a stock converter. The 2802 specs appear similar to a 744, but with more lift. So, I see no reason why a 2802 would not make a decent street cam for a mild mannered 455, operating under 5000 rpm.

I think everybody here knows by now that bigger cams will make more power, & will pull well past 5000 rpm. But, if you never rev past 5000, & spend most of your driving time under 3000 rpm, what difference does it make how much more power a bigger cam will make, above 5000 rpm ?

[Steve C.]

Cliff Ruggles tested and used a custom hydraulic roller cam with great success in 455 Super Duty with a bit lower compression, down around 8.5 to 8.8 to 1. The intake duration was 230 at .050" on a 112LSA. Nice idle, good idle vacuum, and close to 1hp/CID in that application. I don't recall how much cylinder head work was done to it but I'll suggest it was not race ported or near unported Edelbrock heads.

It made 457.8 hp at 5200 rpm. And over 500 ft.lbs. torque from the start of the dyno pull at 3500 rpm up thru 4700 rpm.



.





.

[Steve C.]

Dragncar stated.... "2802 is ity bitty for a 455 with decent heads. Far better off with a RAIV cam and there are better ones than that. Look into the Voodoo series."

Not Voodoo lobes but a dyno proven example...

.060-over 400 with a 4.250 crank, unported aftermarket aluminium cylinder heads, Performer RPM intake w/ 800 cfm Q-jet carb, Crower 60919 cam with 1.65 rocker arms and headers. A tad over 500 hp at 5200 rpm. Well over 500 ft.lbs. torque from 3600 rpm up thru that 5200 rpm peak power number.




.

[scott70]

Originally Posted by Johnny99

Thanks. The engine currently has solid lifters. Power and I’m not sure of as it sits. I don’t really trust the car as I’m still in the process of doing the suspension and brakes. I don’t feel comfortable going fast in a car that was built by someone I don’t know.

I don’t want to tear into the engine until the weather gets a little worse here. On nice days I can still take it out when I need to. That’s why the cam is still unknown.

The only thing I plan on keeping right now is the short block and heads and th350. The cam, converter and 3” exhaust are going. Unless someone suggests differently the Torker II and QFT will be replaced. I think a QJ would be best. Factory cast manifold or Performer RPM? Not sure on that. Ram air manifolds or 1 7/8 headers, leaning towards the manifolds.

Converter I was thinking 2200-2500 stall.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can make plenty of power with a slightly massaged iron intake, calibrated q -jet and ram air exhaust manifolds.I have to limp my gto out of the hole with crappy old 70 series tires and a tall 4 speed wasting time in the 60 ft and still go 87mph in the 1/8th. Just by putting a auto trans in my car and decent tires Id be at 90 mph no problem and mine is pretty much stock looking.Use a 60919 crower with rhoads,,,idles pretty smooth,,barely a lope. Very streetable.See sig.

[Steve C.]

The original poster has 87cc Edelbrock heads and stated, "My biggest question has to do with the round port heads. How can I work around them?"

Not meant toward him directly but it's statements like this below that is often the way of thinking left over within our community from many years ago. This was posted on another Pontiac website just a few months ago.....

"NO Modern Aluminum Pontiac V8 Heads can duplicate what Pontiac delivered in Cast Iron D- ports 1959- 1979. All Aluminum Heads are geared for HP & Torque....Racing performance."

No, the aftermarket aluminium heads are very capable street use heads !


.

[Sirrotica]

Like saying the cast iron double hump heads for SBC are better for a street engine, than the aluminum Vortec later model heads chevy used in the 90s. The Vortec heads were superior in every way, while they were designed for stock SBC street engines with improved efficiency for power and burn rates for emissions and fuel economy. They also work well as an economy basis for a warmed over street engine.

Sometimes you have to shake your head at statements made the 40-50 YO technology is better for a street engine, than current technology...…………..

[rohrt]

I have two convertibles one with a built up 455 motor and one that is just a stock 326 with 2:56 gears. I enjoy both but the no balls stocker gets the most use. Jump in put the top down and cruise all day.

[Johnny99]

My “how do I workaround the round port heads” question really had todo with the fact that they were designed for high rpm applications and I’d like to build the car for low rpm torque. Typically the two are mutually exclusive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ponyakr]

"...The Summit 2802 cam gives me a nice base to start with. Maybe Maybe with Rhoades. I certainly don't want to go with anything more radical..."


In a 455, you won't need Rhoads lifters with the 2802. The 041 clone with Rhoads lifters has been a very popular 455 combo since back in the 70's. I began using it in my 455 bracket cars in '77. With the Rhoads, we could launch from an 800 rpm idle, with a 13" stock converter. Our 1st '68 Bird with this combo ran 12.40's. It had 3.55 gears & a 100lb driver. That same engine/trans/converter ran a half second slower in my '69 GTO, with me driving. About 500lbs heavier, with 3.73 gears.

"...Can anyone suggest a good stock sized convertor instead of the 9" in there now?..."

Most TH350 trans came with 12" converter. Should work great with a 2802 cam. I ran stock converters in most all our 455 bracket cars. Never broke one or had any converter problems at all. But, if you can't find a good clean one, there are plenty of cheap, low stall 12" aftermarket converters. Most of these guys will recommend a converter that will produce the best ET, but still work for cruising. High quality converters that will do this are not cheap. From what you've posted, I don't think the cost would be worth the price, to you.

"...The rear has to go below 3:40. Looks like the options are 3.40 , 3.25, or 3.00. I think the 3.25's would be a good selection..."

Lots of guys have posted low ET's with 3.08 gears. So, I think the 3.00 gears would produce all the tire smoke you could possibly want, with the small street tires you'll be running. With small hard street tires, I'm guessing that WOT traction would be very limited, in low gear. I once tried a road test on the paved road beside my shop, in my GTO, with some small hard tires. Even from a rolling start, the tires would break loose instantly, and the engine would hit the 5500rpm rev limiter. 500 torque, at very low rpm is hard to hook up & can even be dangerous, with small hard tires.

https://www.summitracing.com/search/...iew=Horizontal

[ta man]

Originally Posted by Johnny99

My “how do I workaround the round port heads” question really had todo with the fact that they were designed for high rpm applications and I’d like to build the car for low rpm torque. Typically the two are mutually exclusive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is not true with the case of most "street" heads unless they are extensively "hogged out". Your cam is going to dictate your rpm range and a good well flowing head will only aid in the rpm range. I get 16mpg plus on the highway with a car that goes 0 to 100 mph in under 7 seconds with heads that likely flow more than your heads. No loss of torque or street manners. My guess would be that your heads are most likely "stock" out of the box heads. Which would actually be a good thing. I'd suggest trying to find out if they are or what was done to them..especially the valve springs.
As others have suggested a rear end ratio swap and a good convertor swap would be the first thing I'd do. I would also leave the carb and intake alone for now. As far as exhaust put on what you want for headers or manifolds..I'd keep the 3 inch if it is good..if its just headpipes and turndowns add a set of 2.5 inch tailpipes to mellow it and /or replace the mufflers with a better sound controlling style.
The biggest decision may be the camshaft..and possible valve spring changes. Check out the history of the heads..hopefully they are stock it will make it a little easier to choose cams.

[Steve C.]

My “how do I workaround the round port heads” question really had to do with the fact that they were designed for high rpm applications and I’d like to build the car for low rpm torque."


I also do not understand that. There are many dyno proven lower rpm combos using Edelbrock cylinder heads, unported and mild ported. And making good torque. My engine builder used a 87cc set that was just cleaned up on a 455 based application that on the dyno made peak power near or just under 5000 rpm. This with a very streetable Crower hydraulic flat tappet cam.

How much port work has been done to your specific cylinder heads ?


.

[Formulajones]

Car sounds good as is for me to drive on the street

Pretty much similar to one I already drive on the street, except mine only idles with 6 inches of vacuum.

[HWYSTR455]

Originally Posted by Johnny99

I’d like to build the car to work in the 1500-5000 rpm range

Well, the problem with this statement is that even though an engine is built that can make power PAST 5000 RPM, doesn't mean it HAS to be driven past 5000 RPM. And in a lot of cases, when you try to limit an engine that can naturally make power above 5000 RPM, you end up with a mis-match pile of parts you're not happy with.

I wish I could count how many times someone says they want a 'street' car, and later, after the build, think it's a POS, and how it doesn't run right.

Blows me away what people's perception is of how by install cam X it automatically becomes unstreetable. They have this mental image of a loud, shaking-at-idle car that you can't drive comfortably, and nothing is further from the truth. And this is with just going like 10 degrees of duration more than what they are recommending.

If you are just cruising, and not doing 'drag racing', then actually, you NEED more power in the cruise range and above, especially if you run a more highway gear. You need it to get rolling fairly quick for situations like, merging on a highway? Passing?

Yeah, you get it all together, spend a bank roll, and you can't even merge from an entrance ramp without a Prius passing you. That sounds 'streetable'.

You don't want to go over 5000 RPM? Put a rev limiter on it then, but build the engine correctly, and by doing so, it's going to be more efficient, and reliable. And inherently, it's going to make power.

Build the 389, to basically stock specs, that will be plenty for what you think you want to do. Sell the parts from the 455, or the whole engine, and offset the cost of the build. Choose a stock/factory combo of displacement/cam/stall/gears, and you will meet your goals with flying colors.

.

[Steve C.]

"The 2802 cam is OK in a 400 build, but not nearly enough cam for a 455. Considering the much larger Crower 60919 only makes peak HP a little past 5000 rpm’s with stock flowing heads. We made 440hp/540tq in a stone stock 455 build with untouched #46 heads (1974 350) and the Crower 60919 cam."

Cliffs High Performance

My comment, not Cliff's.......
I find it amusing when we see someone state my engine will rev to 5600 rpm (or something similar) with a XXX cam, when in reality if dyno tested the engine might make it's peak power at a MUCH lower 5000 or so rpm !



.

[scott70]

Just changing to a good dual plane would probably help low rpm torque and make it snappier on the street at low rpm.Especially with highway gears and less converter.