what size chamber do these heads have? I cant find any thing on them? I what to figure out my compression ratio with my new heads, edelbrock 6037. pistons ap273-40 sealed power.
86 ford f150 302

 

60-63 cc nominal.

If you are open to suggestions, don't use the e5 castings. They are horribly exhaust restrictive with large smog bumps in the exhaust ports. I'd look for a set of e7 castings. The bumps are much smaller, and the heads flow better. There are also a set of e6 castings (e6se) but apparently they have an unusual combustion chamber, and are difficult to work with.

I'm installing e7 heads myself. I spent too much time trying to remove the smog bumps on e5 heads.

Dan Q

 

E7TE and E5TE castings are the same. Some 1987 model year Mustang 5.0's shipped with E5TE castings, and had a running switch over to E7TE castings. The only real difference is the casting number.

-Matthew

 

Not to disagree with you, but I own a set of each, sitting on shelves with the better of the two sets to be installed on my 351. What I have observed, and I can send you pics of is the exhaust ports are different. The thermactor bumps are MUCH more intrusive on the E5TE heads, and I have read in several places that the combustion chambers are different sizes (the E7TE are smaller, yielding more compression).

You can also follow this thread from another board where some folks discuss the same things.

While I agree that the E5TE probably were offered during the same production year as the E7TE castings, I disagree that they are the same. Otherwise I wouldn't have bought two sets of heads.

Dan Q

 

Actually the book "How to build max performance ford v-8's on a budget" states that the E5 and E7 that came out in 1987 are the same. If you pay close attention it points out that they both have improved coolant passages and they do not have "high swirl/ fast burn chambers". Also states that they will provide 25-30 hp over other stock designs gt's excluded. So if the thermactor bump is larger that only means you will grind longer to get rid of it, and if the combustion chamber happens to be larger then get less cc pistons. Other than that they are probably the same general design.

Side note do you know that there have been cases where the thermactor bump was removed and the actual hp tq increase was minimal. ONe might suspect a decent gain but aparantly that is not always the case. Should you decide to keep the E5's or E7's there have been dyno tests in MM&ff that state they got 350hp and 400 lbfttq the torque cam within 5-10 of its peak at 3000 rpm so not bad just need to be a little lower for a truck. Keep in mind that was bone stock. Lets say their numbers are 20 lb ft off for whatever reason that is still decent for the alleged crappy heads. So get someone who knows what they are doing break out the grinder and make those suckers perform. Got to give me some hope I have an 87 and just happened today to see E5TE on my exhaust manifolds so I am certain they are E5TE heads and I will feel better when I have them ported, not gonna stop me though I will probably have them ported no matter what, it is a truck and they will be able to handle any low end flow requirments I need, for torque. Later


DanQ
I have a request, could you compare the combustin chamber shape of the E7's to the E5's? How do they compare? Appreciate it

 

I did a quick search and seems other than the thermactor bump the E7TE have around 62cc combustion chambers and the E5TE have 69cc. So mill or higher comp pistons should fix that. Later

 

I don't doubt that they are similar in design, but from what I can see in side by side, they aren't the same. Enough to the point that after working on the thermactor bumps alone, and seeing a set of E7s, I bought the E7s.

For a truck, I don't think either set is bad. When I punched in increased exhaust flow on either set in DD 2000, it moved the HP up in RPM, as well as the torque. So I'm not too interested in opening up the exhaust too much more than the thermactor bumps. Either set should do well in a truck motor with a good cam, and a well planned exhaust.

JW - I'd be more than happy to take some pics tomorrow when it's light out, of both castings. I can e-mail them, or post them and post a link here. Mind you, my E5 set has been milled .008 and my E7 set has been milled .030. Later on this week, the E7s are of for a valve job, cleaning, and 1.54 or 1.60 exhaust valves. Seems like Windsor motors respond pretty well to larger exhaust valves. Once done, all my goodies I've been collecting go into the 351, and I should have some REAL fun off road

Take care....

Dan Q

 

Dan Q:

I would be very interested in seeing your pictures comparing the E5TE to E7TE castings. Perhaps you could post them here. My statement was based on information found in Al Kirschenbaum's excellent book "Mustang 5.0 Technical Reference & Performance Handbook". For reference, here is some of what Al says in his book:

"Initially, the 1987 H.O. motors were fitted with E5TE cylinder heads first used on 1985 truck engines. These same cylinder head castings were also produced for 1987-93 H.O. V8's carrying the cast-in E7TE part number prefix." p69

It should be noted that the E5AE heads are different from the E5TE heads, most notably featuring a larger combustion chamber. I assume that your E5 castings are E5TE castings not E5AE castings.

-Matthew

 

You can e-mail the pix to me or post a link here either way I am interested. Would like a shot of the exh ports as well a the combustion chambers, just for good measure could you take a pic of the intake ports? I appreciate your time.

 

i have the e5 heads, 2 sets actually, i am running a ported set now, and the e5's are another run of the mill 69 cc head used on 302/351 for ages, the e7 were first seen on mustangs and from what i understand the popularity resides in chamber size bumping compression, not sure about the valve or port sizing though,
i am also in interested in this info to set me right

 

The E5AE heads are definitely 69 cc chambers, however the E5TE heads are supposed to be the same as the E7TE with a chamber size between 60.6 and 63.6 cc.

-Matthew

 

Well I e-mailed some one who does port work to the E7's specifically and this is what he replied, well most of it, he starts off answering a question I had he claimed 320 hp from a 302 with ported heads I wanted to know what cam he used etc because a MM&FF mag said they got 350 from stock heads but in all fairness they were using a larger cam and his was stock so that sounds about right. His price was 595 including 5 angle valve job and stronger springs plus shipping. I can get mine done with larger valves and ported for $400 locally so I don't know which but should I get $400 I am going local. He gets a little defensive, all I asked was what was done and how did it compare. And what is FWHP? haha. Oh well, Check it out


.................................................. .................................................. ...

I HAVE to be conservative on numbers!! 320 is with bolt ons, stock cam and performance exhaust... the mags have all the advantage of "creditability" cool? Their word is the truth?? and so is their results?? right?? Most of the time the REASON something makes the mags.. is because it is NOT the norm!! don't you think?? also they can "tweak" the engine to acquire those results... I have pulled over 400 HP with my ported heads... but I am not you... My knowledge isn't yours... so who knows what you can pull... that is why I say conservatively 320 !!( 320 FWHP is a 12 sec pass in a fox) I hope that makes sense.. there are more than a few articles out there with ported heads making over 400 HP.

The heads you have are the same as the E7s with the ONLY exception being the CCs!! they are the bigger 69 !! cool?? all the rest is the same!! I have done a few for the forced air guys... who wanted lower compression.. !! Cool?

 

He also sent this as a comparison of his work, if any of you ever look at www.corral.net then you know who I e-mailed. Here is the attachment he sent. Still $595 for a decent head flowing better than gt-40 p and world products Sr. (world sr heads with 2.02 intake valves) with new springs and 5 angle stock valves that isn't too bad. Any responses, opinions?


Flow Numbers for Thumper Heads


1.78 intake.... 1.46 exhaust Valve size (stock size)

Flow @ 28"

.100 lift 73.4 54
.200 lift 121.3 103.8
.300 lift 177.7 134.6
.400 lift 196.7 150.5
.500 lift 218.9 154.7 *
.600 lift 219.8 160.0


Stock E7TE @ .500 155/106
GT40 192/128
GT40P 196/139
WP Sr. (2.02) 218/150
GT40X 220/155

Thumper Ported E7s are 10% less weight than the GT40s (iron)

Of the listed heads, THUMPER Ported Heads have better " Low Lift" numbers. The small valve means Higher Velocity ( Better low end Torque and crisp throttle responce) and less Piston to valve interface issues, and yet flow numbers to make power till YOU lift!!

Thumper Performance of Orange Park

 

OK... let's try this again, since IE had to crap out on my last attempt.

Good came out of all of this talk about heads. I no longer have any loose heads at my house. The E5s were a donation to the machine shop, and the E7s are getting cleaned, drilled, valve jobs, and possible larger exhaust valves.

I did take some pictures. These are the E5 intake , and these are the E5 exhaust (notice large thermactor bump I was talking about). These are the E7 intake , and these are the E7 exhaust (notice the smaller themactor bumps).

Other than the thermactor bumps, the heads look very similar, and my books show that they have similar specs (although I don't have flow numbers, nor do I really want them... it's a truck).

Hopefully this clarifies what I was talking about.

Dan Q

 

Appreciate it DanQ. There is definitely a big difference in the two. I can remember now when I put the motor in that I looked at the exhaust port and it did have a huge thermactor bump. What were they thinking if you look in the exhaust manifolds there are two more bumps in each port as well. Crazy. Again appreciate it. Let me know what your end combo ends up being and how your truck performs, Later