haha we seem to be in a boat of the same kind only going in differnt directions. I have a 302 HO from an 85 stang. Has the 351 firing order and has great low end even for my 4000 lbs plus 72 f-100 but its the high end I want. I have the 600 cfm edelbrock carb with stock heads and bottom end. I want more horse power lol. It will get up and go hitting 90 miles an hour light to light but wont give me any real power past that lol im sure the air restriction has somthing to do with it but i think its funny. If i can ask whats so special about E7 heads... -Rev
Also forgot to mention the C6 trans upgrade with MR shiftkit and beefer torque converter, stock i dont know what the ***** gears on the back end lol. But it is a Ford 9"er...
Last edited by ReverendMachine : 06-24-2007 at 05:43 AM.
Reason: adding some info
haha we seem to be in a boat of the same kind only going in differnt directions. I have a 302 HO from an 85 stang. Has the 351 firing order and has great low end even for my 4000 lbs plus 72 f-100 but its the high end I want. I have the 600 cfm edelbrock carb with stock heads and bottom end. I want more horse power lol. It will get up and go hitting 90 miles an hour light to light but wont give me any real power past that lol im sure the air restriction has somthing to do with it but i think its funny. If i can ask whats so special about E7 heads... -Rev
Also forgot to mention the C6 trans upgrade with MR shiftkit and beefer torque converter, stock i dont know what the ***** gears on the back end lol. But it is a Ford 9"er...
Several things working against you here. The 302 isn't enough motor to do what you want. Not enough torque at that speed. Not only is the truck's weight a factor but also the wind resistence is in play here. Your truck has the aerodynamics of a brick at that speed. The Edelbrock 600 isn't what a similar sized Holley is or flows. The C-6 drains more power than a C-4 did (but it WILL last longer) There's nothing special about E7's. These were used on the 87-up Stang 5.0 and 99.99% of the 87-97 pickup, van 5.0's and 5.8's (I've heard of a very few of these that got the crappier E6SE heads) The 85 Stang motor obviously didn't have these heads as they weren't in production till late 1986. Two choices for you here-----Supercharge it or swap in a bigger engine.
There's nothing special about E7's. These were used on the 87-up Stang 5.0 and 99.99% of the 87-97 pickup, van 5.0's and 5.8's.
Not unless you port and flow test the hell out of them! Contrary to popular belief, these heads can flow very well (far better than stock) with the proper porting and shaping of the intake side. The exhaust side is easy to maximize.
Find a circle track gear head whose restricted to stock stamped heads, and he'll show you how to get them flowing! And for much cheaper than a used GT40 setup or even the aftermarket aluminum heads.
I apologize for hijacking the thread...not my intent. Just had to stick up for the E7TE.
I wasn't diss'ing E7's only pointing out that they're common as dirt. Seems there are a lot of uninformed people that think they're Hi-po heads just because they were on the Stang's H.O. motor. I have a homeported set on the 5.0 in my 89 Ranger. They're a good bang for the buck if you have a die grinder and a good air compressor.
I wasn't diss'ing E7's only pointing out that they're common as dirt. Seems there are a lot of uninformed people that think they're Hi-po heads just because they were on the Stang's H.O. motor. I have a homeported set on the 5.0 in my 89 Ranger. They're a good bang for the buck if you have a die grinder and a good air compressor.
Roger that! I'm in full agreement there. I was lucky enough to have a buddy with a full circle trap shop and flow bench. We got those clunky iron heads pushing water as well as some of the $1200 aluminum sets.
So what years did the stang comeout with the HO package with the 351 firing order? Yea i knew it was as aerodinamic as a brick lol that grill just says I eat wind. Would a 302 really be such a bad choice? When I bought the engine I was told it was a 351 but upon inspection after having got the engine i realized it is a 302 the deck height is to low to be a 351. So what years did stangs comewith the HO 351 firing oder?
1982-til the end of the 5.0 in the Stang. The pickup/van 5.0 also uses that firing order from 94-97 and was carried on in the 96-2001 Explorer/Mountaineer 5.0. Slightly diffferent cam though, very slight. If you really want your pickup to do what you describe, you need at a minimum a 351 motor. The 302 is a good engine, but it just ain't what you need for what you want. As an example, you could take a 94-97 302 from a pickup/van application and a same year's 351W and the 351 will match the 302 in fuel economy and better it in performance. Both these will have the same E7TE heads and F4TE cams, only difference will be the stroke and rod length. That there tells you the 302 is under more stress to do the same job where the 351W will just be "loafing" along.
Last edited by baddad457 : 06-24-2007 at 04:38 PM.
thanks deffinetly goona start looking for a 351 again lol thats what i really wanted from the get go but kinda got robbed by a junkyard *******. it was only 450$ runing. how much more flexable is a 351 in terms of power/torque? thanks again for the response...-Rev
...The pickup/van 5.0 also uses that firing order from 94-97 and was carried on in the 96-2001 Explorer/Mountaineer 5.0. Slightly diffferent cam though, very slight...
The Explorer cam is the same F4TE cam as the trucks had, there is no difference.
__________________
74/71 maverick grabber EFI HO (under construction)
Join Our Site - Its free, quick and easy!
Contrary to popular belief, these heads can flow very well (far better than stock) with the proper porting and shaping of the intake side. The exhaust side is easy to maximize.
Could be I should have worded it differently. 
