Speed-Talk is running on www.Speed-Talk.com

IMPORTANT: Update your bookmarks to https://www.speed-talk.com/forum/
(Right-click the URL and select "Bookmark this link")

camel hump vs vortec

General engine tech -- Drag Racing to Circle Track

Moderator: Team

Kambroziak
New Member
New Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2020 10:14 am
Location:

camel hump vs vortec

Post by Kambroziak »

What would be a better combination?
Engine must be under 10:1 compression, max .500 lift cam . Flat top pistons 350 max .060 over. Holley 4412 carb and 1.375 restrictor plate. And production exh manifold. And any gm head except bowtie.
I have a set of camel hump heads with under cover porting from brezezinski and would have to run edelbrock torker ll intake #5001. Or I could run vortec heads with edelbrock performer EPS #2716. This will be in a 4000lb off road truck
ProPower engines
Guru
Guru
Posts: 8088
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 1:16 pm
Location: Victoria BC Canada

Re: camel hump vs vortec

Post by ProPower engines »

No comparison.
The vortec heads are better in every way unless you have free double bump heads and have to pay for the vortec's

If you flow the early GM heads and flow the vortec heads and compare the numbers.
The big difference is in the chamber shape.
Real Race Cars Don't Have Doors
1980RS
Member
Member
Posts: 186
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 10:03 am
Location:

Re: camel hump vs vortec

Post by 1980RS »

The Vortec's blow the camel humps away. I ran 11.50's with a 906 stock set and 10.90's @120 mph with a mild modified set of 062's that still use the 1.94 and 1.5 valves.
falcongeorge
Expert
Expert
Posts: 952
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 2:17 pm
Location: Surrey, BC

Re: camel hump vs vortec

Post by falcongeorge »

Kambroziak wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 2:06 pm What would be a better combination?
Engine must be under 10:1 compression, max .500 lift cam . Flat top pistons 350 max .060 over. Holley 4412 carb and 1.375 restrictor plate. And production exh manifold. And any gm head except bowtie.
I have a set of camel hump heads with under cover porting from brezezinski and would have to run edelbrock torker ll intake #5001. Or I could run vortec heads with edelbrock performer EPS #2716. This will be in a 4000lb off road truck
https://www.castheads.com/cylinder-head ... ump-heads/
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=21448
Hmmm. so 228@.500 "blows away" 220-230@.500. Must be the new math... :roll: Oh yea, flow bench numbers "don't matter". Post Modernism runs amuck...
peejay
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1930
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 9:16 pm
Location:

Re: camel hump vs vortec

Post by peejay »

Flow is flow but velocity matters too, and the Vortec chambers are waaay better, they burn faster so you need less ignition timing.
rebelyell
Pro
Pro
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2018 8:46 am
Location: SOUTH CAROLINA

Re: camel hump vs vortec

Post by rebelyell »

3 top techs w/ 3 same benches in same shop on same day will rarely record identical numbers.
+/- ten cfm is rather insignificant; and velocity is just as important.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery
Humps are good but if they were all that, GM would have never introduced vortec aka fastburn and none of their clones either.
JMO
falcongeorge
Expert
Expert
Posts: 952
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 2:17 pm
Location: Surrey, BC

Re: camel hump vs vortec

Post by falcongeorge »

peejay wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 7:01 pm Flow is flow but velocity matters too, and the Vortec chambers are waaay better, they burn faster so you need less ignition timing.
rebelyell wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 10:25 pm 3 top techs w/ 3 same benches in same shop on same day will rarely record identical numbers.
+/- ten cfm is rather insignificant; and velocity is just as important.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery
Humps are good but if they were all that, GM would have never introduced vortec aka fastburn and none of their clones either.
JMO
Excuses. As the flow numbers prove, here isn't a hill of beans of difference, zero, zip, nada, nil, between this guys ported camel bumps and a pair of vortecs, and thats a FACT. And the camel bumps you guys are telling this guy he NEEDS to replace with a pair of vortecs are a SOLID 15 cfm better on the exhaust side. And yes, I have run AND PORTED both vortecs and camel bumps in the past. Normally, I could care less what kind of hogwash guys want to blather on about on internet forums (and that has escalated massively on here, lately, I have to check the header to make sure I haven't accidentally wandered on the HAMB), I just hate to see this guy being told he's going to see ANY gain if he runs out and buys some vortecs to replace these heads. Because he's not, and thats a fact, standard forum groupthink bullsh*t notwithstanding. :^o
So OP, buyer beware. Groupthink is flattering to the ego of the speaker, and its totally free from behind the keyboard, but it gets expensive when you are buying the parts.
rebelyell
Pro
Pro
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2018 8:46 am
Location: SOUTH CAROLINA

Re: camel hump vs vortec

Post by rebelyell »

Valium was good; nowadays prozac
houser45
Pro
Pro
Posts: 233
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:05 pm
Location:

Re: camel hump vs vortec

Post by houser45 »

falcongeorge wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 11:17 pm
peejay wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 7:01 pm Flow is flow but velocity matters too, and the Vortec chambers are waaay better, they burn faster so you need less ignition timing.
rebelyell wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 10:25 pm 3 top techs w/ 3 same benches in same shop on same day will rarely record identical numbers.
+/- ten cfm is rather insignificant; and velocity is just as important.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery
Humps are good but if they were all that, GM would have never introduced vortec aka fastburn and none of their clones either.
JMO
Excuses. As the flow numbers prove, here isn't a hill of beans of difference, zero, zip, nada, nil, between this guys ported camel bumps and a pair of vortecs, and thats a FACT. And the camel bumps you guys are telling this guy he NEEDS to replace with a pair of vortecs are a SOLID 15 cfm better on the exhaust side. And yes, I have run AND PORTED both vortecs and camel bumps in the past. Normally, I could care less what kind of hogwash guys want to blather on about on internet forums (and that has escalated massively on here, lately, I have to check the header to make sure I haven't accidentally wandered on the HAMB), I just hate to see this guy being told he's going to see ANY gain if he runs out and buys some vortecs to replace these heads. Because he's not, and thats a fact, standard forum groupthink bullsh*t notwithstanding. :^o
So OP, buyer beware. Groupthink is flattering to the ego of the speaker, and its totally free from behind the keyboard, but it gets expensive when you are buying the parts.
Sorry, but you are wrong on this one, unless the double humps received epoxy/brazing work with major reshaping of the intake port the vortec head beats it. Even at even flow numbers. Which are not the whole story here. Chamber shape, spark plug placement and port velocity. More compression can be ran with the vortec head on pump fuel, just the fact that vortec will make as much power on 34 degrees of total timing on pump fuel should clue you in a little bit...
mag2555
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3106
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 11:31 am
Location:

Re: camel hump vs vortec

Post by mag2555 »

Even if the double hump heads with there under cover porting flowed as much as the Vortecs. ( which they do not!) the Vortecs would still hold onto peak hp longer without nosing over due to there greater port volume and lesser redundant port area.

You then factor in the better burn of the chamber shape and its no contest at all as to which head is better!
vortecpro
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1251
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 11:10 pm
Location:

Re: camel hump vs vortec

Post by vortecpro »

Typically what I've seen the best 062/906 with zero shift can flow 240 @ around .500 lift unported and thats rare. Ported with a 1.940 valve I get around 260 CFM @ .550 lift. A 291/462 fuelie flows generally in the high 190s stock round .500 lift. Ported with a 2.02 valve still thick enough to use I get around 262 CFM but @ .650 lift. On the exhaust I get around 210 CFM, which I don't think I've seen on the Vortec head. With the fuelie I can run any piston I want. On welded fuelies (comp eliminator) I've seen much more flow. Super Stock 1.940 Fuelies flow 270 CFM with a 1.940 valve.


Some pictures of the last set of Vortecs I did.



28 inches, sealed 4.030 bore 1.940 valve.

.300 193
.400 234
.500 259

Exhaust was 180 @ .500
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Racing a NA NHRA stocker should be mandatory before any posting.
novadude
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1403
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 3:24 pm
Location: Shippensburg, PA

Re: camel hump vs vortec

Post by novadude »

Typically what I've seen the best 062/906 with zero shift can flow 240 @ around .500 lift unported and thats rare.
Mark... what is 'typical' for a set of unported 062s? Had mine on a bench with a 1205 radius plate and here's what we measured:

.300 189.8
.350 210.0
.400 227.2
.450 230.6
.500 227.8

Curious if this is inline with what you commonly find.
vortecpro
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1251
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 11:10 pm
Location:

Re: camel hump vs vortec

Post by vortecpro »

novadude wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 8:11 am
Typically what I've seen the best 062/906 with zero shift can flow 240 @ around .500 lift unported and thats rare.
Mark... what is 'typical' for a set of unported 062s? Had mine on a bench with a 1205 radius plate and here's what we measured:

.300 189.8
.350 210.0
.400 227.2
.450 230.6
.500 227.8

Curious if this is inline with what you commonly find.
That looks familiar, BUT if theres core shift the port next to it could be down 15 CFM :shock:
Racing a NA NHRA stocker should be mandatory before any posting.
falcongeorge
Expert
Expert
Posts: 952
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 2:17 pm
Location: Surrey, BC

Re: camel hump vs vortec

Post by falcongeorge »

vortecpro wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 7:46 am Typically what I've seen the best 062/906 with zero shift can flow 240 @ around .500 lift unported and thats rare. Ported with a 1.940 valve I get around 260 CFM @ .550 lift. A 291/462 fuelie flows generally in the high 190s stock round .500 lift. Ported with a 2.02 valve still thick enough to use I get around 262 CFM but @ .650 lift. On the exhaust I get around 210 CFM, which I don't think I've seen on the Vortec head. With the fuelie I can run any piston I want. On welded fuelies (comp eliminator) I've seen much more flow. Super Stock 1.940 Fuelies flow 270 CFM with a 1.940 valve.


Some pictures of the last set of Vortecs I did.



28 inches, sealed 4.030 bore 1.940 valve.

.300 193
.400 234
.500 259

Exhaust was 180 @ .500
At last, someone else posting some hard data instead of mindlessly reguritating crap he read on other forums. And these guys are telling him he should replace his professionally cnc ported camel bumps with BONE STOCK vortecs, not based on the data, which says otherwise, but because "the internet says so".
So sad to see mindless groupthink taking over here, there used to be a preponderance of thinkers here, this place used to be an island in a sea of internet ****, but I have noticed the erosion more and more. Has the real conversation gone over to the Hotpass boards exclusively?
As far as the chambers, angle mill the bumps and run the piston/head tighter, if you are really that worried about it. Tell you what, lets see one of these guys telling the OP that he has to chuck his ported bumps and start over donate the OP some dyno time, stock vortecs and eps against the Brzenenzski camel bumps and torker, optimise timing and jetting, for both combos and have at it. I don't even like the torker II that much, my guess is, it'll be a bloodbath, the vastly superior bump exhaust port will make the EP's torque advantage a wash, and the torker and bumps will walk all over the vortecs and EPS on top. FWIW, I usually see 255/260 from max effort (sleeved head bolt holes,no weld/epoxy) bumps myself, and I only consider myself a decent amateur porter.
Sure, IF you don't have a clue as to how to port heads, bolting on a pair of vortecs will gain over a pair of stock camel bumps. So what? I've ported them both, and I'd take a pair of ported bumps and a single plane over a set of stock Vortecs and an EPS any day of the week. Honestly this isn't even worth arguing about, its stupid to even be discussing this. I feel like I have wandered into the Steves nova forum or the HAMB. WTH has happened to this place?
OP, the stuff these guys are selling is cheaper by the truckload. You have a good set of heads there, and taking into account the two intake choices you presented (which I assume are dictated by the rules you run under?), they are the superior head. This stuff is expensive enough without wasting money on stuff that isn't going to do squat for you. I'm done here, there will be five more pages of bus jumpers spouting "vortecs is better, cause it says so on every forum" crap before this thread dies, thats how the internet works. Save your money and spend it somewhere where it will actually do you some good.
Kambroziak
New Member
New Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2020 10:14 am
Location:

Re: camel hump vs vortec

Post by Kambroziak »

Yes the eps intake is what has to be ran with the vortec heads. And torker ll with any other gm head. Both must run the 1.375 restrictor plate. And holley 4412 carb. Once I figure out what heads will be used I can look for a cam.
Post Reply