Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Question about SO 5.0 pistons. (Read 2445 times) previous topic - next topic

Question about SO 5.0 pistons.

Reply #15 –
I have read that the E-7 heads are where thew extra 20 HP came from when the HP rating went from 200 to 220 back in the day.I could feel the difference between the two when I swapped the E-6's for the E-7 heads ....granted,my E-7 heads were ported and had a nice valve job and better springs.
'88 Sport--T-5,MGW shifter,Trick Flow R intake,Ed Curtis cam,Trick Flow heads,Scorpion rockers,75mm Accufab t-body,3G,mini starter,Taurus fan,BBK long tube headers,O/R H-Pipe, Flowamaster Super 44's, deep and deeper Cobra R wheels, Mass Air and 24's,8.8 with 3.73's,140 mph speedo,Mach 1 chin spoiler,SN-95 springs,CHE control arms,aluminum drive shaft and a lot more..

Question about SO 5.0 pistons.

Reply #16 –
Quote from: ThunderbirdSport302;335858
Right, because E6's flow better and make more power than E7's is why Ford switched in 1987 on trucks, Stangs, and Mark VII's. :rolleyes:

Somewhere online is a flow chart of E5, E6, E7 and later 5.0 heads....E6 actually do flow worse than any other 5.0 head made since '69 or so. Proven.
torque will be down (a lot), horsepower will be sucked out of the engine, and it won't make power over 3500-4500 max.

So I will kindly disagree with your machinist, in regards to stock E6 heads being superior to stock E7's.

Ok Normally I dont  do this BUT there are some factual errors here.;)

 1. trucks never used E6 style heads
2. Mark Vii's didnt even use HO engines till very  LATE 87 
3.E5s and E7s are  near identical
4. 86 5.0 was only rated at 15lbft less torque than 87 up (not "a lot") less
5. all 5.0 HO engines are rated max hp @4000 rpm factory.
6. Flow charts  really dont mean squat ..dyno results do (this is just my opinion )
7.t.birdsc was relaying a  certain machinists "opinion" on  a starting point  for head  work and  that said machinist feels he can achieve  better  results with  the high swirl chambers on the E6s

 Now with all those points being made
 here is my "opinion "
E6 and E7 heads are not much more than boat anchors compared to GT40s and the aftermarket selections out there , personally I  could not justify swapping E6 heads for E7 heads because the gains would be so minimal in relation to the effort involved in labor .
 If I am swapping heads it is going to be for WAY more than 15 lbsft and 20 HP :D
Fox-less at the moment

Question about SO 5.0 pistons.

Reply #17 –
I got two sets of e7te heads laying around,roller block,cranks,roller cams,spyders,rollers,dog bones!!! pretty much worth nothing to me!!!!
So pistons ho pistons couple aods. taking up space!!!!!!
1987 T-bird SportCoupe,302,5spd,8.8,3.27s,pbr brakes,spindles,2003 rear,18inch 06 gt rims!!!!:evilgrin:
2006 Gt Mustang,3v,5spd,8.8,3.55s,GT500rims.
1990 T-bird LX,3.8,aod,loaded,stock!!
1999 Trailblazer(wifes rig)

Question about SO 5.0 pistons.

Reply #18 –
I really would not worry too much about either head. If you shooting for power, and RPM, why shoot yourself in the foot with stock heads? I'll be new springs and hardware could make a ton more power if properly matched.
Quote from: jcassity
I honestly dont think you could exceed the cost of a new car buy installing new *stock* parts everywhere in your coug our tbird. Its just plain impossible. You could revamp the entire drivetrain/engine/suspenstion and still come out ahead.
Hooligans! 
1988 Crown Vic wagon. 120K California car. Wifes grocery getter. (junked)
1987 Ford Thunderbird LX. 5.0. s.o., sn-95 t-5 and an f-150 clutch. Driven daily and going strong.
1986 cougar.
lilsammywasapunkrocker@yahoo.com
 

Question about SO 5.0 pistons.

Reply #19 –
well i can tell you this much from experience.. a .540 lift cam does NOT like SO pistons LOL