WebFeb 4, 2013 · The 1985 'E5AE' or 1987-1995 'E7TE' heads (which are virtually identical) would be a better choice if you are limited to stock type 5.0L heads. If a choice between the 289 and the 86 5.0L heads I would go the the 289 heads. The E5 heads are different from the E7's. The E5 has 69 CC chambers and very restrictive exhaust ports. WebFeb 22, 2006 · The E6TE 302 heads where the "heart" shaped chambered,shrouded valved EFI castings. These heads are usually replaced with the superior E7TE 302 castings Again, Ford used the E7TE casting numbers for the EFI 302 and the EFI 460. The E7TE 460 heads featured the raised intake and exhaust ports with 1.94 intake valves and 1.65 …
Upgrading Fox Body Cylinder Heads - AmericanMuscle.com
WebFord 300 4.9 C#E7TE Cylinder Head Fuel InjectedPart#: K265CONE (1) Complete New Cylinder Head Year: 1987-1996Models: Aerostar, Explorer, RangerEngine Size: 300 4.9L In Line 6Cast #:E7TE WebJul 27, 2012 · Registered. Joined Aug 6, 2008. 363 Posts. #3 · Jul 25, 2012. The e7te is a newer mustang motor87-95 if I remember right. It is a roller block. The e6ae are the motors from the 86 mustang and had pistons with out valve reliefs in them. The e6ae motors didn't have e7 heads they had e6 heads that are junk. in appreciation free clip art
Porting Ford E7TE part 1 - diyPorting.com
WebMar 16, 2024 · Where the stock E7TE heads relied on a 1.78/1.46-inch valve package, the Edelbrock heads stepped these sizes up to 2.02/1.57-inch combo. Working with the increased valve sizes was a … WebJun 22, 2009 · And my "junk" D80's have bigger valves anyways. So what makes the E7's so much better. Last edited by yobarry; 06-22-2009 at 01:35 AM . Smaller chambers and smaller smog bumps for the E7s ... except that, they are pretty much the same factory "crap". Look closer. The E7T heads do have a smaller chamber. WebDec 27, 2007 · Joined Feb 1, 2007. 31,118 Posts. #3 · Dec 27, 2007. Scroll halfway down this page, the 1995 still used the standard E7TE head. Stan Weiss' - Cylinder Head Flow … in appreciation of vs in appreciation for