This is a thread I copied/pasted here from High Boost Forums. Quinn Whipple from Concept Racing supplied all this information.

You guys can read through it and see an unbiased, factual amount of data from a reliable third party intelligent person.

Much of this information has been "unknown" to the general public and I'm still not sure I wanted it all out there but it is now.

You can also find some information on a now infamous crook in the community listed below.

From Quinn:

"As many of you know I do 4g63 valve train manufacturing and camshaft research and analysis. We have electronic measuring equipment that will measure to 0.00001 of an inch and 1/10th of a degree radially, They do make higher resolution measurement sensors, but I find that 1/100,000th of an inch is enough resolution for my needs.

I do this research mainly to serve my own purposes and product development. I have "no agenda" and no "ax to grind". We look at as many camshafts as we can, and collect as much data as possible because there is great horse power gains when you match the camshaft to the head flow, intake manifold, exhaust header, and displacement.

You can tell allot about the quality of a camshaft when you look at it at 1/100,000th of an inch granularity.

The #1 mis-conception in the camshaft world deals with duration at the valve, vs duration at the camshaft lobe. Most camshaft manufactures are selling you a camshaft based on duration at the valve. There are problems with this and in reality, people can say and advertise whatever they want regarding camshafts specifications. We choose to measure at the lobe, from there the valve motion is mathematical calculation based on the dimensions and engineering of a "perfect" valve train. I find this method to be the most consistent way to have comparable data.

Anytime I see someone advertise a "new" camshaft, or "custom" or "their grind" camshaft we will enlist a secret shopper to anonymously acquire a set of sticks for measurement and analysis.

I have looked at camshafts from every major manufacturer, and most of the major shops. These include camshafts from JUN, Comp Cams, GSC, Crower, Brian Crower, HKS, Crane, Forced Performance, Buschur Racing, and others.

Here is the truth, Assuming that the cylinder head isn't garbage and is working correctly, the more degrees of crankshaft rotation that the valve is open, and the more time the valve spends where the head flows, the more air is going to move though the motor which is then more power. There are always engineering tradeoffs that will cause drop in low end power or choke top end power.

I get excited when I read one company claiming that a camshaft is making more horse power than a different camshaft. When I read on the SoCal Evo list that Reese Tuning "designed" a "new" and "unique" camshaft, we did our S.O.P (Standard Operating Procedure). We had a 3rd party aquire the shafts and we measured them

My favorite camshaft for manufacturing quality is authentic JUN camshafts. I have a set here that I put in the machine the other day to collect some data. With these camshafts they are advertised to be the same lift on the intake and the exhaust. One of the toughest things is to ensure that a camshaft is consistent lobe to lobe and camshaft to camshaft. These camshafts measured consistent between lobes and even between camshafts down to 1/100,000th of an inch. They also had no base circle runout.

Here are a couple of photo's to show you the pureness of the machine work from JUN


These are multiple lobes and even two different camshafts and they measured exact lobe and net valve lift down to 1/100,000th of an inch.

The downside to JUN is their price. Authentic JUN camshafts are of the most expensive in the market, but you get what you pay for.

I mentioned earlier that JUN is my favorite. JUN is also the manufacturing benchmark that I measure all camshafts against. JUN isn't the "biggest" camshaft in the 4G63 Market, but it is the most consistently excellent in manufacturing quality. With a head that is working properly an authentic JUN 272 has been proven time after time to be capable of over 600 wheel horse power.

It can be argued that there is an amount of deviance from "perfect" that is still acceptable.

So here is my rundown of a few camshafts and their "real" data. No marketing "hype" just the real numbers:


Stock Evo 9 camshaft:
Intake Net Valve Lift: .40373"
Intake durration @ .050 lobe lift: 187.7 degrees
Intake Lobe Area: 16.54

Exhaust Net Valve Lift: .37102"
Exhaust duration @ .050 lobe lift: 184.9 degrees
Intake Lobe Area: 15.17


As "small" as the Stock Evo 9 camshaft looks, it is about the same size as the HKS 272's we use to run in 1gen and 2gen DSM motors.


Authentic JUN 272:
Intake Net Valve Lift: .41829
intake duration @ .050 lobe lift: 211.5
Intake duration @ .100 lobe lift: 177.1
Intake lobe area: 19.32

Exhaust Net Valve Lift: .41829
Exhaust duration @ .050 lobe lift: 211.5
Exhaust duration @ .100 lobe lift: 176.8
Exhaust lobe area: 19.29


GSC JUN 272 Copy:
Intake Net Valve Lift: .42002
intake duration @ .050 lobe lift: 208.6
Intake duration @ .100 lobe lift: 174.5
Intake lobe area: 19.08

Exhaust Net Valve Lift: .41950
Exhaust duration @ .050 lobe lift: 201.7
Exhaust duration @ .100 lobe lift: 168.7
Exhaust lobe area: 18.99


Reese Tuning "Shop Custom" "Their Design" part number RT276KK:
Intake Net Valve Lift: .43497
intake duration @ .050 lobe lift: 201.3
Intake duration @ .100 lobe lift: 167.8
Intake lobe area: 19.12

Exhaust Net Valve Lift: .43493
Exhaust duration @ .050 lobe lift: 201.7
Exhaust duration @ .100 lobe lift: 168.7
Exhaust lobe area: 18.96

Notes: This camshaft is a Brian Crower BC0114, Smaller than the JUN (even though has more lift) and will make less power than the JUN. Best guess is that Reese is buying shelf stock Brian Crower BC0114 and writing his part number on the outside of the box. Camshaft had some base circle runout problems as well as some other surface lobe problems.


Buschur Racing Camshaft #1(2010-2011 revision)
Intake Net Valve Lift: .461304
intake duration @ .050 lobe lift: 212
Intake duration @ .100 lobe lift: 178
Intake lobe area: 20.64

Exhaust Net Valve Lift: .46104
Exhaust duration @ .050 lobe lift: 211
Exhaust duration @ .100 lobe lift: 178
Exhaust lobe area: 20.58



Buschur Racing Camshaft #2(2010-2011 revision)
Intake Net Valve Lift: .48133
intake duration @ .050 lobe lift: 219
Intake duration @ .100 lobe lift: -na-
Intake lobe area: 20.64

Exhaust Net Valve Lift: .48134
Exhaust duration @ .050 lobe lift: 221
Exhaust duration @ .100 lobe lift: -na-
Exhaust lobe area: 20.58



NOTES: The exhaust camshaft in this set had a damaged lob and some other issues, but there were not too many available sets of his #2 profile "in the wild" (given out to the general public) so I was happy to get whatever data I could from the shaft knowing that it wasn't a perfect shaft. I suspect Buschur's 2012 grind is similar to to his 2010-2011 #2 profile. Some of the graphed data on this shaft is of different scaling than the other graphs, Don't assume that this shaft has less valve acceleration than his #1 profile listed above. His #2 profile is serious stuff and not for everyone.


Buschur has a new camshaft for 2012 that we haven't measured yet. Some time in the future we will measure it.

How do these shafts compare?

JUN, Highest quality in cam blank, grind, and build quality, also highest price. Run with a quality valve spring kit.

GSC, Base circle runout but within acceptable limit, General above average quality. Run with a quality valve spring kit. Could have spent a little bit more time on the finish grind

Reese, This is a Brian Crower BC0144. Not much valve acceleration which yields not much dwell at high lift. This is an older style lobe. I was surprised to see a pretty low technology lobe. Camshaft had base circle runout that was enough that I wouldn't want to run them. Valve Acceleration and Jerk are soft enough that an upgraded single spring would be sufficient.

Buschur, They are BIG and exactly as advertised. (all they advertise is that they are BIG). Buy quality valve spring set you will need them.


Summary:

Bigger doesn't always mean better. You need to look at the components of the car, how it will be driven, size of turbo, fuel, timing and other aspects to match up the best fit for camshaft.

The Buschur Camshaft has gong though many revisions over the years and we haven't measured his 2012 revision (yet). Every Buschur revision though that I have measured is of the largest shelf stock camshafts generally available to the public without commissioning a true "custom" camshaft.

The Reese left me deflated. I expected more technology from the Reese set.

GSC, very consistently average quality.

JUN, The king of camshaft build quality, but 2-3x more money than others in the American market."

Huge thanks to Quinn for his time, effort and testing.

 

Great information. Wish he had some Cosworth data in there in comparison to JUN for manufacturing tolerance excellence. Would have also liked to see Kelford.

 

Great info. Thanks DB.

 

David - Can you shed some information on the 2012 revision of the BF272 camshats? What areas of the camshafts are being addressed? the overall finish, revisions of the lobes?

Great post with otherwise data that the general public never sees.

 

Thanks Dave, that was a great read.

 

Keep in mind, all I did was re-post the information, thanks goes to Quinn who took the time to do it.

I can ask if he has any Cosworth or keford information.

 

Damn, you don't hear alot about the JUN cams these days. They were in all the big power Evos back in the day

 

Some good info Dave! Thanks for sharing.

 

Thanks for the info DB. Can you ask to see if you can get info on the FP cams as well?

 

Great info for the public, thanks for sharring. I just hope my Tomei 270's can hang with the quality of the jun's .

 

definitely some great info there. thanks for sharing guys.

 

So the best cams out of the test were the Jun followed by gsc's. Good info

 

if i understand it correctly for consistency and quality of material yes. for power he said its all about your combo.



David. is the BR #1 cam the BF272 cam and the #2 cam the new 280 cam or the other cam between the BF272 and the new 280

 

now i need a set of bf272

 

Ask Quinn if he factored in the ever changing rocker arm ratio when determining valve acceleration, gross lift, and actual duration.

It's not the same... it's in a perpetual state of change. Type 2 finger followers always do. It's not a simple multiplication. I figure if he's measuring to .00001" He's going to want to take that into account.

Also ask Quinn if he's done a gage r&r on his machine. I'd like to know how gangster his stuff is.

Thanks for sharing as always.