.484 purple shaft grind info.

Some information is good, more is always better, but until the entire picture is seen, it's hard to make a solid comparison. The key to knowing a lobe shape is to profile it. You can't take data points on a curved shape and infer much.
If we simplify the cam lobe to a trapazoid (think a triangle or pyramid with the top point cut flat) and then plot similar lobes, like the MP 284/.484 lobe and the Comp PP284 lobe, and the Comp XE284H you can see they are similar in the specs as published. All 3 of them. Yet, the Comp advertises more area under the curve for the XE. Under the curve means the time the valve is open and the port is flowing. So how is that happening if the specs given show the same distance and duration? Well, two ways:
1. In that trapazoid, as both are hydraulic cams, the basic dimension of the top of the trapazoid will be the same. there has to be roughly the same area because of the lifter engineering. So that stays the same for both. However the total lift for these two are not the same.
The XE "pyramid" is taller. That means the rate of lift has to be faster to reach the same duration points while lifting the valve to an overall taller figure. This also means that the portion of the lobe above the .200" mark are longer duration.
2. That longer duration at higher than .200 means more duration so it will make more power provided the port can support it.

What is missing from the MP lobe info, and what makes that Victory statement about "85% for MP cams" vs "77% for stock type cams" is the lift and duration after .200" of lift. The final .100 or so forces the valve open longer, at the point in the flow curve where the port has almost reached maximum velocity. Interestingly, you'll almost never see the duration figures published for higher than .200 unless it's a custom cam. #2 is also why Lunati's VooDoo cams are bascially bigger for the same given advertised durstions, and why they make more power. There's not much difference in Comp and Lunati, but by leaving out the proprietary durations and lifts, they can say they are the more powerful and better when comapring the "268" cams.

My issues with MP is the quality control, which flat out sucks, and then the lobe designs, which are very dated. When you start to talk about rates of lift and valvetrain stability the MP cams are realy, really oldschool. Not bad, and certainly not bad on heads manufactured and designed in the same era, but I'd rather have modern that's tweaked where it counts.

Sorry. I had to edit after I re-read it...