gsc s2 or kelford 272????
No company has ever came out with the best product first. You are right but it is more likely due to the learning curve of the IXs still to date. Companies don't always hold back for PR reasons, you just can't know everything the first month a car is released, however the market (you and I) demand more hp so companies have to start somewhere. When comparing the VIIIs to the IXs there are so many different MIVEC changes and timing sweeps that can be changed that couldn't be in the VIIIs. This is the reason why you don't see VIII cams changing much because the car has not changed. If you are trying to bad talk Greg you should probably stop now!
Robert has been in DSMs for 12+ years and do you think when the EVO came out he know he could design a Black based off his prior DSM knowledge... Ya probably... Will he come out and say it no. But I will tell you that Chad nor Robert would ever come out with the best turbo first. They lose a lot of money that way. It also looks like Robert has two more turbos coming out soon so keep in touch with the FP side
Mikey
Robert has been in DSMs for 12+ years and do you think when the EVO came out he know he could design a Black based off his prior DSM knowledge... Ya probably... Will he come out and say it no. But I will tell you that Chad nor Robert would ever come out with the best turbo first. They lose a lot of money that way. It also looks like Robert has two more turbos coming out soon so keep in touch with the FP side
Mikey
2) as some people mentioned, him toward cams is like robert toward turbos, they have plenty of experience in those two fields, and if ur trying to tell me that its not a marketing thing that he releases new cams once a year and its more for R&D then iam not buying it simply because cam designs have been around since the 1200's, the technology is old, nothing new.
2) as some people mentioned, him toward cams is like robert toward turbos, they have plenty of experience in those two fields, and if ur trying to tell me that its not a marketing thing that he releases new cams once a year and its more for R&D then iam not buying it simply because cam designs have been around since the 1200's, the technology is old, nothing new.
When it comes to cams Kelford uses two different evo 9 billets. one is a manufacture who makes the cores that are used by comp / FP, Tomei, Trust, and JUN. The other is the same foundry we use along with Cosworth, BC, and kelford. While the foundry we both use makes the simi finished billets the cores might look similar if you get up close you will find that they are actually different. The GSC core is actually thicker threw the entire length of the shaft yet smaller on the unfinished lobes done to retain lobe hardness after grinding, the radii are also different along with drilling depths and sizes in regards to mivec passages.
As far as profile differences there are a few. the main thing we have that kelford doesn't is 5" wheels on our machine. These allow us to get really aggressive on the flank and that is where quite a bit of power is found for us. The other is the actual spec of the profile. while we don't always agree on durations i often find that both kelford and GSC get very close on lift curves. this could be do to the same design software or just the general rules we use when designing cam profiles in relationship to the port size and air volume.
in short i feel that we do infact make a supiorur product, however i won't say a negative thing about the competition. What i can say is that the people have benifited the most by our competition in the camshaft production segment. If neither of us had someone biting at our heals as far as performance than the profiles wouldnt have improved to this level. If there wasnt a kelford we would have been happy blowing the doors off of HKS and BC and would never have revisited the profiles time and time again. If AMS hadnt done the Evo 8 cam test showing the world how the cams stacked up i wouldnt have spent months working on revising all 11 of our cam profiles for the Evo 1-10. I can with out a doubt say that if that test was done again (which it probably wont do to the time spent doing it) i am confident that the out come would be much different as respect to the top of the charts.
Evolving Member
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 387
Likes: 0
From: s.c.
i have yours gsc s2 cams greg, sound awesome and make great power over my old bc cams, but too bad my engine blow up, and cant enjoy it, car for sell now. I will definitely get another s2 in the future.
1) I am not talking Greg down for multiple reasons, i dont know him, i havent dealt with him, and in fact i have a set of his cams.
2) as some people mentioned, him toward cams is like robert toward turbos, they have plenty of experience in those two fields, and if ur trying to tell me that its not a marketing thing that he releases new cams once a year and its more for R&D then iam not buying it simply because cam designs have been around since the 1200's, the technology is old, nothing new.
2) as some people mentioned, him toward cams is like robert toward turbos, they have plenty of experience in those two fields, and if ur trying to tell me that its not a marketing thing that he releases new cams once a year and its more for R&D then iam not buying it simply because cam designs have been around since the 1200's, the technology is old, nothing new.
As far as the reason our designs change are do to yes R&D demand and customer feedback. The ever changing world of high performance and technology demand the changes so we have to keep up. People want to go faster and faster and everyone in the industry works hard to keep up. We added a $15k design software package about a year ago that has helped us dramatically in cutting costs and designing profiles in simulation vs in the "real world". a couple of things always help us make changes is our customers feedback. With new turbo's coming out every few months, new technologies in valve springs have both played a roll in the last years changes significantly. The beehive springs alone allow for more valve control with a lower seat pressure. what does this mean to cam profile changes well A+B+C=HP means more fun on the weekends for the consumer.
Please tell me i am reading this incorrect. you feel that cam design technology hasn't changed sense it was invented to control a water control valve in the 1200s...
As far as the reason our designs change are do to yes R&D demand and customer feedback. The ever changing world of high performance and technology demand the changes so we have to keep up. People want to go faster and faster and everyone in the industry works hard to keep up. We added a $15k design software package about a year ago that has helped us dramatically in cutting costs and designing profiles in simulation vs in the "real world". a couple of things always help us make changes is our customers feedback. With new turbo's coming out every few months, new technologies in valve springs have both played a roll in the last years changes significantly. The beehive springs alone allow for more valve control with a lower seat pressure. what does this mean to cam profile changes well A+B+C=HP means more fun on the weekends for the consumer.
As far as the reason our designs change are do to yes R&D demand and customer feedback. The ever changing world of high performance and technology demand the changes so we have to keep up. People want to go faster and faster and everyone in the industry works hard to keep up. We added a $15k design software package about a year ago that has helped us dramatically in cutting costs and designing profiles in simulation vs in the "real world". a couple of things always help us make changes is our customers feedback. With new turbo's coming out every few months, new technologies in valve springs have both played a roll in the last years changes significantly. The beehive springs alone allow for more valve control with a lower seat pressure. what does this mean to cam profile changes well A+B+C=HP means more fun on the weekends for the consumer.
Like I said it b4 Greg, I am not talking u guys down or anything, simply because I think this is the first time we ever have spoken directly to each other, but all what I am doing is educating some of the members on here that some companies do these revisions for marketing purposes and not for the "oh we redid the wheel, now it can spin backward" sorta deal.
ps. I own a set of ur mivec S1's, if u wanna trade me for some S2's then I am all up for it
I work with Greg alot on cams as he is my main cam supplier and for the Evos the only cam supplier I use. I dont have the same software that Greg uses because frankly I do the cam sims as a hobby not a profession. With that said I get a good feel for whats going to work with given combos.
A 2.0L has different needs than a 2.4L, a Rally motor vs a Drag motor. Things change or stagnate. It might seem like marketing but in fact I would really call this R&D and product development.
A 2.0L has different needs than a 2.4L, a Rally motor vs a Drag motor. Things change or stagnate. It might seem like marketing but in fact I would really call this R&D and product development.
Greg, thank you for chiming in. I think it is great for the evom community to hear from well respected people like yourself. It helps eliminate all the rumors that go around from the "haters". Keep up the great work and keep pushing out above par cams 
Mikey
Mikey
Evolved Member
iTrader: (79)
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 1
From: Maryland,N.Carolina, New York
I guess I will have to buy cams directly from GSC... I was buying GSC cams advertised as S2's but when I asked for the specs twice I was told 274 and 272..
I thought S2's were 274 and 274 ?!?
I thought S2's were 274 and 274 ?!?
Yes we do share a common manufacture for valve springs but so does ferrea, Comp, Kent and quite a few others. Your stament is far from true.
When it comes to cams Kelford uses two different evo 9 billets. one is a manufacture who makes the cores that are used by comp / FP, Tomei, Trust, and JUN. The other is the same foundry we use along with Cosworth, BC, and kelford. While the foundry we both use makes the simi finished billets the cores might look similar if you get up close you will find that they are actually different. The GSC core is actually thicker threw the entire length of the shaft yet smaller on the unfinished lobes done to retain lobe hardness after grinding, the radii are also different along with drilling depths and sizes in regards to mivec passages.
As far as profile differences there are a few. the main thing we have that kelford doesn't is 5" wheels on our machine. These allow us to get really aggressive on the flank and that is where quite a bit of power is found for us. The other is the actual spec of the profile. while we don't always agree on durations i often find that both kelford and GSC get very close on lift curves. this could be do to the same design software or just the general rules we use when designing cam profiles in relationship to the port size and air volume.
in short i feel that we do infact make a supiorur product, however i won't say a negative thing about the competition. What i can say is that the people have benifited the most by our competition in the camshaft production segment. If neither of us had someone biting at our heals as far as performance than the profiles wouldnt have improved to this level. If there wasnt a kelford we would have been happy blowing the doors off of HKS and BC and would never have revisited the profiles time and time again. If AMS hadnt done the Evo 8 cam test showing the world how the cams stacked up i wouldnt have spent months working on revising all 11 of our cam profiles for the Evo 1-10. I can with out a doubt say that if that test was done again (which it probably wont do to the time spent doing it) i am confident that the out come would be much different as respect to the top of the charts.
When it comes to cams Kelford uses two different evo 9 billets. one is a manufacture who makes the cores that are used by comp / FP, Tomei, Trust, and JUN. The other is the same foundry we use along with Cosworth, BC, and kelford. While the foundry we both use makes the simi finished billets the cores might look similar if you get up close you will find that they are actually different. The GSC core is actually thicker threw the entire length of the shaft yet smaller on the unfinished lobes done to retain lobe hardness after grinding, the radii are also different along with drilling depths and sizes in regards to mivec passages.
As far as profile differences there are a few. the main thing we have that kelford doesn't is 5" wheels on our machine. These allow us to get really aggressive on the flank and that is where quite a bit of power is found for us. The other is the actual spec of the profile. while we don't always agree on durations i often find that both kelford and GSC get very close on lift curves. this could be do to the same design software or just the general rules we use when designing cam profiles in relationship to the port size and air volume.
in short i feel that we do infact make a supiorur product, however i won't say a negative thing about the competition. What i can say is that the people have benifited the most by our competition in the camshaft production segment. If neither of us had someone biting at our heals as far as performance than the profiles wouldnt have improved to this level. If there wasnt a kelford we would have been happy blowing the doors off of HKS and BC and would never have revisited the profiles time and time again. If AMS hadnt done the Evo 8 cam test showing the world how the cams stacked up i wouldnt have spent months working on revising all 11 of our cam profiles for the Evo 1-10. I can with out a doubt say that if that test was done again (which it probably wont do to the time spent doing it) i am confident that the out come would be much different as respect to the top of the charts.
Please tell me i am reading this incorrect. you feel that cam design technology hasn't changed sense it was invented to control a water control valve in the 1200s...
As far as the reason our designs change are do to yes R&D demand and customer feedback. The ever changing world of high performance and technology demand the changes so we have to keep up. People want to go faster and faster and everyone in the industry works hard to keep up. We added a $15k design software package about a year ago that has helped us dramatically in cutting costs and designing profiles in simulation vs in the "real world". a couple of things always help us make changes is our customers feedback. With new turbo's coming out every few months, new technologies in valve springs have both played a roll in the last years changes significantly. The beehive springs alone allow for more valve control with a lower seat pressure. what does this mean to cam profile changes well A+B+C=HP means more fun on the weekends for the consumer.
As far as the reason our designs change are do to yes R&D demand and customer feedback. The ever changing world of high performance and technology demand the changes so we have to keep up. People want to go faster and faster and everyone in the industry works hard to keep up. We added a $15k design software package about a year ago that has helped us dramatically in cutting costs and designing profiles in simulation vs in the "real world". a couple of things always help us make changes is our customers feedback. With new turbo's coming out every few months, new technologies in valve springs have both played a roll in the last years changes significantly. The beehive springs alone allow for more valve control with a lower seat pressure. what does this mean to cam profile changes well A+B+C=HP means more fun on the weekends for the consumer.
A lot of shops still have the older profiles floating around. You need to make sure you are getting the newest design
Mikey
Last edited by BLKCarbonEVO; May 6, 2010 at 06:58 PM. Reason: Edited cause I can't do two things at once!