If you're running alot of boosted power, generally the exh side is having trouble getting the exh out. That's not hard to imagine. Seems it should open earlier is what it should do, not have "less duration" in general. That seems like an odd generalization, to me at least.
It does make sense to minimize the overlap too and not hang the exh side open past TDC. Overlap in the turbo case just sprays exh into the intake (and reduces fresh air intake), since the exh pressure at full boost is generally much higher than the intake pressure. You can actually see the evidence of this via all the exh soot in the intake ports and manifold.
This is not from a mod motor, but similar physics apply. Here's a WOT cylinder pressure trace out of my own boosted turbo engine (a turbo v6) at about 26 psi boost (I have the pressure measurement gear). This was taken years ago, back in about '99 or so, and the engine was just about 700 hp'ish back then. It shows that in this case, the exh "blowdown" is not even finishing until the exh stroke is halfway completed (lol).
Edit: Work won't allow connection to Photobucket; I'll post the pic later.
As promised. The square wave signal at the bottom is the crank position signal, for position reference. In this case it's 1 pulse per cylinder, 120 deg apart (even fire v6). Rising edge occurs at 10 deg BTDC. 50% duty cycle.
Kinda new to the Mustang world, but of course plan to do pressure traces for the boosted mod motor as well. Have an '06 GT with a Whipple HO kit now. Should be interesting.
TurboTR
PS- I appreciate the effort and all behind that Supra cam comparison. However, they show only a 6 hp difference between the 3 scenarios. That's less than 0.5% difference. To me, that sort of tiny delta kinda falls within the noise band of even just run-run variance. Could the dyno runs repeat within less than 0.5%, even with no engine changes? That might be quite an engineering challenge. So taking note of the results, but not losing sleep over it either.